Consideration of Some Basic Sociological Truths

In times long past, occasions arose when the food supply, drastically insufficient to maintain a group of people, the well-being of one or some individuals had to be obtained to the detriment of others, and scramble and conflict naturally arose. Thus the origin of organized predatory coercive power grew out of ancient situations of scarcity. Hence the central evil of all historic civilizations is the misuse of the principle of property, or the exclusive exploitative control of persons, things and/or actions. First, slavery; then appropriation of land, then appropriative control of exchange. The result is what may be called social parasitism, originally as with a God-King; later as a king appointed by God; and still later with more secular overtones—each with appropriate hangers-on and beneficiaries, all supported by a military caste. This organized predation became known as the State.

The State is the institutionalization of robbery and concomitant murder, using coercion and violence as a modus operandi for the control of societies. Once implanted as the controlling agency over circumscribed areas, and the inhabitants thereof, the eradication of such aggressive power establishments appears to be virtually impossible. The reason is because, according to the line of least resistance, it is easier to follow precedent than to think; and current thinking and impulse is always done in terms of precedent. The master-slave relationship becomes entrenched as a ‘‘way of life” in all so-called ‘nations,’ and the consequences of this inevitably and fatefully proceed toward the gradual degradation of all the humans involved. Whatever may be the trappings with which any regime may clothe itself, the fundamental design remains the same—any differences between the governments are mostly semantic and formal,

In modern times by allowing the people to choose the criminals[1] who are to rule over them, the overt reality of naked force and violence has been disguised, and the fiction of ‘liberty’ disseminated—a procedure which has been called “democracy,” which is then considered by its victims to be highly advanced and just about the last word in social organization. So deeply ingrained is this superstition that the supposedly foremost aspirations for human betterment, which go under the name of democratic socialism, are labeled ‘scientific,’ ‘cooperative,’ ‘management, ‘peoples’ democracy,’ ‘one world,’ ‘brotherhood of mankind,’ and indeed ‘God’s Kingdom Come, and other euphemisms which appeal to well-meaning persons who happen to be long on good intentions and short on brains.

Modern military men—generals and admirals—are a continuation of the old-time bandits and pirates, except that they now are mere mercenaries working and killing for pay and glory, while the sharper ones at home gather in the real loot in the shape of territory and taxable slaves, called ‘citizens.’ Home populations need to be kept under ‘law and order’ by internal police and spy systems. The priesthood and ideologists continue to be necessary to rationalize or sanctify the entire procedure, and to torture and crucify those who become recalcitrant, And so-called ‘educational institutions in the hands of both the State and Church are intended to maintain the ignorance and superstition of the multitudes. Politicians are the professional bamboozlers. And so the old-time game of robbery and murder goes on, with the beneficiaries considered the cream of society. The whole congeries of imbecilities and crimes constitute more or less workable regimes, each with their particular “way of life.” The most necessary, and paradoxically, the biggest robbers in these respective schemes of things, are those who have managed to monopolize the means by which substantially all modern cooperation is consummated, namely, the bankers, who perhaps hold the real power.

Inherent in the dynamics of nationalism is the ultimate clash of economic and military forces, the organs of predation and power. Those who aspire to achieve a modus vivendi between States are fatuously attempting the impossible. This is not understood simply because, at the present time, there are probably only a few thousand people, among the millions alive today, who think in other than a herd frame of reference, and who do not accept the master-slave relationship as some sort of natural order of things.

Inherent in the drives of what is known as “capitalism’ is imperialistic expansion. The two main factors of this drive are an interest-bearing money system and the consequent accumulations of investment capital which search for natural wealth in the earth, wherever it is located, as elements to exploit, and unlimited holdings of land as private property. Economic power begins to transcend the welfare of humans as a subconscious force which invokes many rationalizations not the least of which are protestations of moral respectability.

It is commonly known that State Socialism and Communism not only require semi-military operations for their inauguration, but are inherently military and predatory societies, or what is called totalitarian, based on the ideas of duty and obedience.

It is from the stresses arising from the resultant built-in conflict of interest derived from the master-slave relationships of Statism that myriads of evils are affected, for the alleviation of which various groups of specialists form themselves into professions which presume to cure. These groups or professions thereafter have an entrenched interest in the very existence of the evils the treating of which forms the source of their incomes, and which thus appear to be necessary and tantamount to their very survival. Thus becomes inaugurated a self-aggravating system within the coercively-maintained social body the self-alleviating features of which become increasingly atrophied. Repression and psycho-neurotic drives arise and become accentuated. The inexorable end of this process is the increasing tendency to resort to the theory that the State is responsible for the health, education, and welfare of its subjects or victims—a theory which is far advanced and which is just as prevalent today among degenerates in so-called democracies as in totalitarian regimes. Sell-styled social engineers, now being duped by the smoke screen of over-population, are presuming to meddle with the procreative process, through world-governmental means, and it may reasonably be assumed that they will decide upon standards of ‘superiority’ by which to permit conception, and these standards will no doubt favor similar sorts of human culls which these degenerates themselves happen to be.

This comprehensive situation and process may progress beyond the point of no return, simply because of the static influences of Statism and the consequent diminishment of liberty with its ameliorative tendencies, Societies paradoxically seem to thrive on the very evils under which they suffer. We see today governments, controlled by imbeciles who, while presuming to care for the health, education, and welfare of their victims, are at the same time preparing for a holocaust that threatens to decimate the human race; and this astounding contradiction is being accepted by millions of manufactured idiots the world over, completely oblivious of the inherently criminal nature of these very governments.

Politicians, preachers, physicians, psycho-therapists, lawyers, professors, pill manufacturers, social workers of every description, and of course the military, and indeed the industrial complexes under which this combined lunacy operates—all these whose raison d’etre are the ills under which man suffers, most of which are manufactured and are effects of governmentalism, appear to have an immediate stake in the existence of these evils, as opposed to their eradication—are actually busily engaged in the degenerative process. And indeed we may continue the list down to the last inhabitant, all of whom to some degree or other constitute a working system, such as it is. There is an inherent contradiction in the very nature of things, and all the people involved are more or less victims. This is an enigma the nature of the extrication from which there is not space enough to expound upon here. Suffice it to say that there is hardly a single individual, as far as I can see, who has the remotest comprehension of the nature of the philosophical problem which is involved in social living.

That the process implied in the above leads to more and more prevalent, dangerous, and catastrophic so-called ‘brinks,’ and eventually war, is becoming increasingly obvious. And since this process involves a trend toward totalitarianism as the need for more concentrated and of preservation the for necessary be to appears power coordinated is objective inevitable and inexorable the groupings, power respective the consolidation of power units, until they boil down into two opposing groups. Then it requires but a spark to set off actual conflict.

Heretofore the denouement of such conflicts has been the victory of one side over the other. The blind drive which enlists science into the services of power has, in this stage of historical development, invented the atomic bomb as an instrument of war and destruction. This invention has relegated to the garbage heap perhaps 90% of the rationalizations of so-called sociological theory or ‘knowledge” being taught by the brainwashed and terrorized so-called educators in the respective regimes in which they happen to reside. There is only one social philosophy which has emerged unscathed and actually vindicated by this development, and this is Anarchism, a social philosophy hardly over a century old.

The evils of antagonistic interests are attempted to be eradicated by recourse to communism, which inherently and even by definition makes every individual slave of a hypothetical construct conceived as the collectivity, This recourse is almost as prevalent in so-called ‘private-enterprise’ economies as in overtly collectivistic countries. The practical application of this doctrine requires the submission of each and every individual to the coercively implemented decisions made by a centralized power group. This is an utterly vicious doctrine notwithstanding whatever good intentions may he held by its practitioners. It arose mainly, and maintains its virility, because of its analogy with the emphatic love-and-concern relationship which exists between parents and children—because, indeed, of the fact that were it not for the operation of communistic principles, like ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” the human race couldn’t survive. It is this principle which exists between parents and unweaned and incompetent infants and children, but an adult who is emotionally addicted to this as a societary principle is obviously dominated by infantile urges.

The natural relation between adults is not the parasitism implied in communistic principles, nor whatever authority as may be required between parents and children, but is rather in the increasing application of the principles of liberty and reciprocity. It is here that merit, as distinguished from need, receives its appropriate reward and becomes the predominating and necessary relationship if the human is to emerge from incompetency to competency. To do anything for anyone, especially a child, when that person is able or willing to attempt to do it for himself, is to hamper and stunt his development, to retard his education, and to condemn him to immaturity. And if the practice be generalized, as with communism (or as it has been progressively in America under the degenerating aegis of the Roosevelt and subsequent regimes), it is to contribute to the regression of the human race. The apparently increasingly need to take care of the ‘health, education, and welfare” of the victims of an exploiting society, in order to preserve the system of exploitation, is undeniable evidence of social disintegration.

The natural evolutionary progress of societies, as of individuals, should be out of the incompetency of infancy toward the competence which finds expression only in liberty and reciprocity. That this progress an and has been contravened is one of the major features of history. In capitalistic countries it has been some owners of capital—bankers, industrialists, and commercial enterprises—who have been protected by privilege from competition, and who have fatuously deemed their successes in amassing wealth to be solely attributable to their competence, and who now so vociferously prate about ‘free enterprise,’ through subsidized agents and self-styled ‘freedom schools,’ educational foundations, and the like, meaning of course thereby that they do not want their privileges disturbed by any attempts by government to heal the ravages which their privileged and monopolistic prerogatives have been responsible for. It is somewhat like a misunderstanding or falling out among thieves.

Dangerously aggravating the societary habit of recourse to power and coercion as a modus operandi for the conduct of societies is the theory of the culpability of man, which is the central doctrine of most religious faiths. For if man is guilty he is blameable and punishable and subject to elimination. And so, if it is possible to imbue a person with feelings of guilt, which is fear of impending doom for something which he has been taught to be an infraction of God’s will, and if the teachers of this doctrine can convince someone that they have the sponge, so to speak, by which the alleged ‘sin’ may be erased, then they have this poor victim in their clutches and are able to manipulate him to their advantage. Religions are debilitating in other ways, usually by promising pie in the sky, for a stipend offered here and now. It is astonishing how easily a human can be duped, especially when caught early enough. But it is with these viewpoints involving guilt and the herd or gregarious instinct that governments and religions have looked upon what they consider refractory individuals, and which has caused them to use indoctrination, intimidation, torture and murder, in the name of morality and law and order,” in order to maintain themselves as institutions. And it is with this mutual viewpoint that peoples, under the aegis of religions and governments ruling over them, face each other today. The political, military, and religious coterie speak in a gangster frame of reference, and with a gangster psychology—it is ‘we’ against “‘them—and to expect that such characters, or the institutions they man, are going to change the course of events, is the utmost in credulity and imbecility. For it is precisely within this frame of reference that the prevailing threatening confrontation finds its reason for existence. And yet in the name of humanism’ are these very institutions being relied upon somehow to change things for the better.

Elsewhere I have made note that no individual who ever lived asked to be born, and had no say whatever who his parents were to be, nor what combination of genes and chromosomes he was to be endowed with, nor what them or circumstance he was to be placed into, nor indeed whether he was to be fish, fowl, or other fauna—that he was to be cudgeled by the institutionalized imbecilities of his ancestors because of the habit and conservativeness of man who in his terrors is so fearful of liberty and change—and to call these individuals guilty in the ordinary sense of this term can only be the work of theologians who foolishly or by design, and with the pretense of infallibility, invent bugaboo and sin, impart their fears and feelings of guilt to others and virtually erect into a dogma the vicious theory that man is the enemy of man (the good guy-bad guy theory).

The truth is quite otherwise. Man merely wants to live, and if in his ignorance he allowed to be established Church and State to be the authorities ruling over him by bamboozlement and violence, he is unfortunately the victim of his own stupidity, but not of his malice. Why man does not now get rid of these thoroughly vicious institutions that are crucifying him can only be laid to the force of habit, and to the fact that now these institutions have him in almost inextricable thralldom. That billions of individuals do not comprehend the criminal nature of these institutions; but actually believe them to be beneficient, does not make it true; nor is it less veritable if only 1 say that it is not true.

As stated before, practically all of our prevailing imbecilities arose out of long past conditions of absolute scarcity; and that now, like a snowball rolling down hill gathers mass and momentum, governments have reached the stage of being soulless monsters, blindly following their inherent dynamics, with no hesitation whatever of mowing down anyone who presumes to dispute their validity—all in the name of some abstraction called the public good. It is not because of the nature of the persons manning them—even a saint should never be given coercive power over others—but because of the nature of the institutions themselves.

These cancerous criminal organizations have spread their influences throughout the whole social body, with the result that perhaps 75% of all human activity is downright nonsensical, with everyone stupidly playing the role into which he inadvertently has been cast, with very few in this benighted world having the wit to sense what it is all about. Practically all of the busybodies and self-believed reformers and revolutionists are attempting to treat effects, or to manufacture new systems embodying the same imbecilities under which they now suffer. Individual liberty is being crucified and annihilated by professional and amateur meddlers, not the least of whom are the subsidized and prostituted nincompoops who, while trying to preserve the old chains or forge new ones, label the new manacles ‘libertarian.’ We thus see the supreme paradox of professional ‘libertarians’ quite naturally thriving on the absence of liberty, like vultures living on a decaying corpse. These worthies are all over the place and are doing their share in propelling mankind toward oblivion.

[1] The objection has been made that I have used the word ‘criminal’ loosely here, I define crime as the use of coercion and force against the peaceable individual, Since coercion and violence constitute the basic recourse of the State for enforcing its will, it necessarily fits onto the category of ‘criminal’ by this definition. It is naive to allow a criminal organization to define what ‘crime’ is, when it is a foregone conclusion that it will absolve itself. The person who accepts the good faith of those who would coerce and rob him, and confuses statute law with rational ethic, is indeed a slave indoctrinated to a superstition, Incidentally, I have indicated that those who aspire to be a ‘cooperative commonwealth’ and similarly conceived systems of combination which obliterate independent and competitive activity are also dominated by the same superstition. To clarify this matter, it will be well to say, perhaps, that the superstition in favor of governmentalism is well-nigh universal. In fact, no other idea existed up until slightly over a century ago.