Unachievable Results

By: Jonathan Seidel

Hostility or envious of the rich: the middle class conundrum with emerging freedom (Fromm, 95) 

The middle class dislikes the poor but they hate the rich. The rich are everything they have fallen short of. Everything they cannot have. Modernity provided the outlet to finally reach the pinnacle. Freedom to attain the riches. The American dream in sight but failing to prevail. Envy sprouting from the incapability. Having to work harder and yet unable to make it. Freedom has exposed a major liability. Here is the offer. Good luck.

Middle class-men were at a clear disadvantage from the rich. They had to start from scratch. The rich were given everything. Generational wealth as well as foundational land to work upon. Resources not privy to the newly freed man. Impassioned and inspired, the freed man searches for excellence. He works extra hard but is unable to compete. Without the proper tools he falls short quickly. He ventures to the the rich to borrow resources. A free man now enslaved to the rich. A debt he cannot easily pay. He has his own field but can only work his field with the rich’s tools. Thus a portion of the produce is allocated to the rich. The rich didn’t work the land but he provided the tools to be able to work it. Owning the means to produce allots him a substantial profit. Where would the free man be without his tools. The free man is part of a larger social group who can only receive tools from the rich who possess the monopoly. Naive and new to the game he is submerged in a quasi-slave mentality. 

He works and works. There is no break and no foundation to stand on. If he cannot attain his share he will lose his land. His land must be profitable to be maintained by him. A disastrous pickle. His hard work may not pay off. His fated failure may be sooner than he thinks. It is work or forever be under the thumb of the rich. Enslaved to his land or enslaved to a master. Both leave him without any control. Deprived of the sweet freedom he once aspired for. The hope for salvation was a vile satanic dream to make his life more miserable. Responsible for his own land has made him quite neurotic. He has no one to fall back on. No welfare to compensate his lost. He is alone figuring the world for himself. He comes from nothing and may return to nothing. It is all on his head. The yoke bears heavy on his aching shoulders. The difficult winter months only strengthen the yoke burdening his shoulders further. Part of him wishes to return to slavery. Return to the automatic compensation. Freedom is painful and jarringly isolating. 

His social circle has collapsed. Yet there is no turning back. There is no return to the salvaged slave life. He is now a struggling free man. He works and works to keep his land afloat. At times he loses his land to the rich. Paying a debt to win it back at some point. Maybe a surplus will bring in the necessary profit to win back his lost reward. The promise of hope in the capital inspires him to find a new role. Farming is much, maybe the industrial advances will be a better fit. Maybe a new trade is in order. The land has been in the hands for generations but every good thing must come to an end. Making his way to the big city is foreign but a start on the way to a new path. Poor and unsheltered he seeks employment. He picks up a newspaper from the ground and finds the available jobs. He makes his way to an interview astoundingly is accepted. With left over money he has from his hometown, he finds a small apartment to rent. His freedom hangs in the balance. The hope is to work hard enough to climb the ladder. Freedom is at the top of the hierarchy. He must pay fees but it is all in hopes of finally achieving his own space. 

As he succeeds, technological advancements make commuting easier. The city has been his home for a decades but the architecture out in suburbia is tempting. A house of his own then commute on the transit to his office. He can finally have something of his own. No more debt to the landlord, he is purchasing his own home. He has moved up in the company but is still an employee, yet there is time till he can be the VP right under the CEO’s son. Life in the suburbs is more flexible. Luscious green grass covers his backyard. Two stories with a playroom for a basement. He has qualified. He matches his house with the magazines. The American dream a mini-Rockefeller. The magazines do not lie. Look at those happy faces and styled attire. At his coronation to VP he exchanges his polo for a dazzled suit. Invited to the CEO’s house he marvels at its expanse. Wowed at the extravagance. Despite cleaning up he realises he is still below the bar. He is outmatched by his superior.  Arduous labour and he is yet to meet the CEO’s level of prestige and projection. 

With a seat at the table he attempts to meet their standard. He cannot. Their hats a fortune, their watches too expensive. He is neatly dressed but feels underdressed. He feels poor amongst his peers. He has attained so much and yet feels inferior materialistically. He is always one step behind. He has moved into a beautiful house, bought a nice car and wears designer clothing. It pales in comparison. Turning over to the president, he mirrors the CEO. Dressed in the CEO’s hand-me-downs passed the torch to keep the machine running. Feeling left out of the surplus chain, he invests his money for a larger return. He plans on upscaling to fit in. On one trip he realises the difference. He sat business while his boss sat first class. The first trip they took he could only afford economy while his boss leisured in business. Now he was in business class but his boss was in first class. He was just playing catch up. There was a clear financial divide. He was able to acquire the new thing by the time the next new thing came out. He was behind but trying to reach the pinnacle of wealth. For him, he was rising a little at a time but couldn’t seem to outmatch his boss as long as his boss was in the chair. His highest run was VP as an outsider.

A role model to his children. They grew up financially stable. Able to acquire much of which they sought. Yet there was always a limit. Money was not unloading by the second. It was paced excess. His children didn’t experience the poverty and the struggles he endured during his adolescence but they acted spoiled. Desiring that which others had. His boss’ children received top-notch toys while his children waited until they dropped in price. They were secondhand after the rich ignored them. His children complained about the rich kids but at times more about the other suburban kids. Other parents went out of their way to buy expensive gifts. Demonstrating to their children that they could afford the price. Pride clouded their financial capabilities. Desiring to look well off when in reality was one step away from reduced poverty. Investments acted as an emergency fund but they were insufficient to compensate the collateral had disaster stricken. Accepting the eternity of the middle class does not mean richness was not strived for in other areas. Articulating rich jargon was a ploy in many regards. Whether it be schooling or simply dressing. The children of the middle class try to manage themselves as financially stable but they do not know the truth. 

Envy forms in his mind. He has worked so hard but he is a part of a company that could whither. Entrepreneurial routes have caught his eye but he is old and set in his ways. Stubborn and naive he persists in his ways. His children are ignorant to the detrimental truth. He will never reach the pinnacle of wealth. He has strived but has fallen short. Succeeded but there is a higher rung. Capitalism offers that possibility. It is plausible and yet he does not make it. A good life but one that can topple in minutes. A scary reality. His children live in their hopeful positivity. All is swell at home. His freedom has enabled him to climb but has also resisted his ability to claim the title he so deeply seeks. Despite his loneliness, he pushed forth. A lion ruthless and impassioned. A proud member of the middle class with aspirations for more. Tied to a social class with lacking social ties. He lives by business. Raised a family and provides for their future. It is a dog eat dog world and he will ensure his family is satiated.

Workaholics in the Office

By: Jonathan Seidel

Modern workaholics and medieval lazy nobles: work is love work is life (Fromm, 93)

Statistics show that people work more now than they did in the Middle Ages. With United States at one of the highest. While peasant life was harsher, there is an increasing amount of time labouring that did not occur in the olden days.

Before entering into a false equivalency, peasant work was mega tough. Sitting at an office desk for ten hours pales in comparison to half the time farming. Unlike contemporary farming, peasants were not privy to the technological advancements that have eased farming and farming can still be considered more difficult than an office job. Debatable but it also depends where on the totem pull and which branch. Nonetheless, the medieval lackadaisical workday was not bumming around but recovering. Farming was intense and work was exhausting. Days off was to regain strength to return to work with full strength. A few days off for holidays and recovery went a long way for peasant approval. A good way to avoid uprisings was to provide laxity to those labouring in the hot sun. A good way of maintaining the peace. Less work time but more effort in many cases.

What is relevant is not necessarily what is better. Reddit threads debate which life is better. Pro-peasantry blame modern industrialised urbanisation and anti-peasantry accost feudal hierarchical servitude. Both sides miss the mark. Namely, that pro-peasantry look at farming as an alternative to corporate jobs but forget the social and technologically inferior society. The anti-peasantry side forgets the communal foundation and religious concern to ensure peasants were happy. It wasn’t perfect and was disease ridden but there were positive elements that have been lost to time. Still, the focus is not of preference but of a historical shift. Why work more with greater technology and greater comfort? If modernity has reduced poverty and brought individuality, why are people working more? Is this all just a ruse? Technological advancements, do not mean comfort is easy to attain. 

The start of the extended work week was a personal choice. Autonomically, people ventured to work more to make more. The renaissance was the first to deal with this. With people gaining their own land, they had to work it to reap the benefits. Without servants to provide the additional labour to reach the sufficient agricultural periods, they worked overtime to reach those marks. To make a profit, working more than necessary was intended to attain the mark they needed. There was no societal program that demanded a rule book. It was their land and they could farm it as they saw fit. They decided that working more meant making more. This idea still looms today. Working hard will help you make more. Most people believe that getting rich is from hard work. Hard work means you put in more effort than average. Going above and beyond would supply the surplus so desperately sought. A newfound freedom that eclipsed the original peasant life. Owning land was not their responsibility. The former peasant could now take initiative and control of the situation. 

Overtime was a mainstay of early modern Europe. The renaissance was the forewarning for the demise of feudalism. The onset of the reformation spoiled the feudalistic framework. In a similar vein to the renaissance though with different political status, the citizenry were freed of their lordships. They no longer were tied in mass quantities to aristocratic supremacy. Royalty was a major factor but for many nations, the average Joe was empowered to find his own way. Peasant rebellions spawned in Germany and spread wide. Luther’s call was an alarm bell shouting divine right for peasant might. Social reforms were instituted over religious charities. Welfare became built into the system in many protestant nations. Secularism spread wide despite Luther’s intent. Though the removal of the institutional authority did pose a threat to religious sanctioning. Social systems like hospitals and mills were built around free man working for the state instead of a lord. Royalty maintained its authority though for some time. It was akin to the state only to be marshalled out with democratic revolutions. 

The Black Death contributed to the demise of feudalism with so much land for survivors to cultivate. Though only as a parcel of the full equation. Extended trade and evolving social laws had been in affect since the early Middle Ages but hit its apex with the reformation. With the age of exploration in full order, mercantilism capitalised by producing exports more than importing. Leading to colonial expansion in Africa, Asia and the Americas. For many, this was a fresh start away from religious and economic persecution. Yet prioritising trade also was good for citizens back home. Merchant trade already in the Middle Ages was tough due to lordship taxes thus befriending the monarch was to go over their heads, all the while the giving more power to the crown. Symbolically, exploration was leaving the feudal repression for surplus abroad. Protestantism with catholicism following along preached hard work and honest earning in light of religion. Combining pious enrichment with religious notations. Empowering people to establish themselves in a new age.

By quantity the highest hours worked were in the mid eighteenth century. The Industrial Revolution coincided with a strong laissez faire approach to economics. On the back of modern individualism, capitalist thinking placed the employer and employee in a sacred encounter. The state was to stay out of citizen affairs and allow the market to enable prosperity (ironically this was poised by liberals, how things have changed). There was a hint of social darwinist thinking but that didn’t take away from philanthropic donations from the wealthiest. Yet it was lack of state regulation that permitted employers to deal with their employees more or less however they wished. Didn’t work a full day didn’t get paid, was sick one day the next fired. The centricity on production and profit hurt many workers compelling the first union. Unions united workers against their scamming employers. While one worker could be swapped, thousands could not. At least not quickly enough for profitability. 

Prior to union forming, there was little intervention and seventy hour work weeks. Dangerous conditions and deathly hours forced a free citizenry back into the lion’s den. It was a neo-peasantry. Employers acted like noblemen and without a social backdrop to protect them, employees were at the mercy of their employers. It was hell and deadly. With the rise of machines many classic craft jobs were taken over by the inventors. Generational craftsmen were forced to find work elsewhere namely amongst their friends in the factory. It was a cloudy time but they had a way out. Unlike the peasantry before them, they could fight back. Noblemen weren’t superior no more. They only had economic power but with worker unification, the employer could do nothing. If the state wouldn’t intervene for the employee it wouldn’t intervene for the employer. In the democratic system it was a double-edged sword with no status protections for the employer. Unions banded and then resorted to get the government to intervene. The reforms of the early twentieth century demonstrated this shift in worker lives.

Spain is the originator of the eight hour work day but its more modern form came during the unions in the late 1800s. By the time the depression rolled around work hours had been confined to a five day work week. After WWI, the federal government only furthered its support for unions. Unemployment soured with the high death toll from the war along with the Spanish Flu. Not all jobs were eight hour days but more federal legislations through the twenties bettered conditions for all workers. Famously the roaring twenties was a time of post-war trauma, pleasure seeking and new outlooks of looking at the world. Immigrants seem to have largely aided in reducing the work week to five days at the beckoning of the recession. With Jews being fired regularly for religious reasons, unions fought back and a five hour week was granted. Ironically, the anti-semitic Ford also pushed for a five hour week though with more productive hope than worker sympathy. Yet the 30s brought a sinister moment when the established work week was met with lay offs. 

Post-WWII saw workers seeking more hours. Federal law attempted to cement a specific amount of time but workers wanted more hours for more compensation. Already in the pre-war era consumerism was accorded with advertising tangible items. Material excess as a reward for hard labour met its match with meaning seeking roaring twenties. It only evolved further after the war. Barnay’s propaganda shifted from radio to television. While the message was the same, the visual was ever more powerful. Desiring more hours to buy these rewards as well as enjoying family vacations brokered workers to add hours. Apparently men said that consumerism was an escape from their wives nagging them about work. The problem grew that less time meant less money. While many fought for higher wages, it didn’t always translate. As federal legislation commissioned the shorter work weeks it was easier to push for higher wages with the progressing consumer culture. Hours radically declined as technology and intervention made work simpler. Growing prices through the second half of the century assisting in endearing the middle class with more leisure and pleasure.

Overall into the twenty-first century hours have dropped. There is a noticeable rise since 2020 but it may be more to do with corona than an actual trend. This will simply be a blimp in more hours to compensate for the lost time. There has been an increase in working from home that may raise hours by permitting leisure of home but still in work mode. This trajectory is too soon to tell. It may be an overcompensation or it may be a new trend. Only time will tell. Nevertheless, the theory that today people work more than the past is not true. Up until the pandemic hours were falling globally. There has been a consistent descent after the unionisation in the mid nineteenth century. The mid 1800s was the peak of labour. People working ridiculous hours. Extorted to work under gruelling conditions with severe implications. Modernity met its first crisis and the citizenry banded together. Bringing back some medieval social unity against the noble-like control. The state swooped in and gradually reduced the imprint of workforce presence. 

So what is the deal? Why do we think we work more now than before? To some extent the eight hour work week is built into contracts or is estimated. Many people work more hours. Yet this change may also represent older generations too. There is a perceptional illusion that we work much more than our parents. Our parents are older and work less. Especially younger workers who stay late out of some customary hazing or to please a senior manager. It depends on the situation. Though in many cases, not all those hours are devoted to actual work. Beyond the necessary breaks is the lounging and fiddling with your phone. Still the office hours add up. Whether or not work was done throughout the day, staying in the office for the entire time feels trapped. Adding in the travel and it becomes burdensome. There is a feeling of working intensely when in reality much time is waiting for something to happen. This is not the case in every job. Some people work multiple shifts to make ends meet. It depends on the position and the dire need for compensation. There is a growing exhaustion with the long hours at the office. Not because the hours are so high but there is less to do. Doing four hours of work in an eight hour work day is tedious. It’s all just contextual. 

There are people who work seventy hour weeks. Whether that be multiple gigs or a corporate owner who is running around endlessly. Though that is not the norm nor for the average individual. There are a lot of complaints with the forty hour week. There isn’t much work flowing but caged in the office. Since you’re stuck at the office you might as well find something to do. In the end boredom causes more distress than the actual quantity of hours worked. It is the quality that is ruining one’s sanity. Work also has grown to include consumerist aspects. Going to the mall or buying groceries are attached to work. On the way home from work an errand needs to be run is linked to the excessive workload. Not all errands are necessary but the consumerist mind of the past half century says it is required. Then again the inclusion of work-at-home days has only enchanted employers to have employees add more hours. At the same time, actual work is sporadic and the quality of work is more comforting as the hours swing by. 

Given the statistics, the workaholic fascination isn’t as strong. Oates coined the term in the seventies despite the decreasing hour load. A third of the population is affected by this buzzword of immense devotion to work. My grandfather worked till he passed on and my father’s devotion to work may also infect him till his end. Thought it could be curtailed by an enjoyable hobby. My grandfather was a workaholic but he also was poor so not only did it get him out of the house, he also then made money to pay. More seniors were working one hundred years ago than they are working today. Seniors retire and enjoy their funds in elderly communities. Some still work. Yet the consistency and hourly rate falls. My grandmother still works as a librarian but in the past decade she has reduced her time from two and half to two to one day a week. While perceptional conclusions will seek to describe longer arduous hours it is all relative to experience. It was way longer before while today voluntary choice adds more time with better conditions.

The perceptual issue is also hypnotised by the visual markers on television. Advertisements display pictorials and slogans that indicate harsher work. It is portrayed as a tougher time when in reality it has only gotten better. DeGrasse Tyson once remarked that people always say that life is so hard yet do not realise the good that they have in technology and medicine. Yes the current era brings its own challenges but some of those obstacles are better difficulties than the disease ridden past. Humanity gets so caught up in ego trips and self-victimisation. Voiding responsibility and trying to find the easy way out. Most of the responses on Quora concerning eight hour work weeks were negative. Complaining how difficult the long week was. Saying how ridiculous it was. These are our burdens. That we can spend four hours doing work and the other relaxing. What a time we live in. A good way to deal with the elongated day is to bring a book or find a hobby to do whether that be writing or playing solitaire. The difficulty is boredom and that can be overcome with a little initiative. 

Workaholism exists. Some people need to work. There is a psychological phenomenon to it as well as social expectation accompanying it. Yet statistically hours are less than they were two centuries ago. While they may be more than the peasantry they are no doubt easier than them. There are issues in the employment area but forced to work for a noble with little labour laws was treacherous. There were few if any rights. Adding the lacking medicine and privileges, it was a toxic life. There is an advertised work-for-life model. The upcoming generation struggling to pay off debts and purchase shelter. The future is up in the air but nevertheless, the freedom employed but the democratic apparatus does supply leeway to make the most of work and to even find ways out of the burnout eventuality. 

Poor Souls

By: Jonathan Seidel

Jealousy of the impoverished cohesiveness: revolutionaries and democratic antagonism of the poor (Fromm, 82)

The working class has gradually turned conservative. Voting for right wingers in the elections. For many this seems anachronistic. If liberals are pushing for more welfare, why vote against material interests? The answer is simple antagonism to urban liberals. 

The middle class has notoriously despised the poor. Seeing themselves as either harder workers or god-given talent. The poor are those who are bringing this country down. The homeless are scorned and shouted at for requesting a donation. Even liberal jargonists will shove them aside to get to their esteem profession. The middle class sees the capitalist nation as a land of opportunity, thus anyone who doesn’t make it, it is on them. The middle class demands the poor be assisted by the rich. They should have to do nothing. The poor are not their problem. The rich have enough so they can deal with it. The middle class desires the rich be pulled down a rung. So they can feel like the rich. The poor make them a weird middleman between the rich and the poor. Liberals may believe that poverty is beyond someone’s control but that doesn’t mean they wish to associate or assist them. On the conservative side the lack of hard work dooms you and any correlation between the two.    

There is a good Game of Thrones line that sums it up quite well. To paraphrase, the middle class are the poor without their American apparel. If not for the extra few bucks the middle class wouldn’t be able to adorn itself. It would look poor. The difference between the poor and the middle class is shorter to rich. More so emotionally than practically. More so intellectually than economically. To be of the middle class is to be on the cusp of poverty. Perpetual income does pay the bills but without would sink to the depths of homelessness. Middle class individuals know that they can be poor with a slight misstep. The rich have trust funds and investments. The bare minimum of the million will provide. Annoyed at the seeming close quarters, the middle class rages against the vulnerable. Those they wish to separate from. To disassociate from. The middle class has money recognise that, they are not poor they should be in the streets for validation.

Someone commented that right wing propaganda inciting racist rhetoric is the rationale for voting against best interests. Yet, such a comment fails to explain what these interests are. It was white people who were redirected to undeserving minorities. While some of this may be genuine there are numerous other factors. It wasn’t as if left wing candidates were supplying the aid to the working class. Their racial programs and minority preoccupation left them in the dust. For most middle classmen, poverty is beyond circumstances but that is for certain people. Not all poor are created equal. Minority poor are subject to circumstances beyond their control. Immigration and discrimination. Yet the native white folk who are poor are just screw ups. They had their chance and let it slip. The middle class sympathises with sectors of the poor. So helping out Detroit but not Kansas. It is a matter of focus and interpretation. The overt concentration on other material interests over recognising the working classes’ difficulties pushed them right.

Originally, they were on the bandwagon for more welfare. Seeking opportunity to attain more money and protections. Yet in the seventies society shifted. Civil rights and the sexual revolution opened the door for other stragglers to be compensated. Blacks and gays who had been traditionally alienated were to be marshalled into better areas. Those who fell through would be paid for by the government. The government was taking on a lifetime’s guilty conscience to repent for past mistakes. A good idea but this left people angry. This being the case, rhetoric easily shifted to discriminatory conclusions. The government was placing more disadvantaged folk according to their position over native folk. Writing a wrong ignored others struggling in the midwest. The working class were left to fend for themselves. It is no shock that with Reagan the numbers began climbing. Through the years they have yet to understand only calling them racists. Obama and Hillary both lambasted the working poor as bitter, gun hungry and deplorable. 

The liberal argument is that these people are just racist people without considering the context. They created the racism and animosity toward minorities if that is even a factual claim. More so, they lost their vote not due to culture but to abandonment. They dug their own hole and have been shifting propaganda against them. It is the liberals who are two-faced. It is them who have attempted to dehumanise and deceive the public about a particular group. They gave rise to their right wing populism. Since the populists listened to them. Heard their cries and prophesied aid. No wonder Trump won many of their votes. Democrats also did the same with latinos. They mocked any minority who voted conservative with socialistic ideals which latinos despise given their history. Are many racists? Potentially. Yet what is the cause of their racism? Is it entrenched in history or a recent reaction to liberal prioritisation. 

Modern democrats vile fit for the working poor is not a new phenomenon. Locke and Marx both hated the poor. Neither the renaissance nor the revolutions assisted the poor. If anything they only furthered the issue. Beginning with the renaissance, the incumbent revolutions were middle class driven. They were for the sake of the middle class’ growth. Even after assisting the middle class to power they were left in the dust. Marx’s ideas came true and the poor were left in the dust. To some extent the American revolution differs in its nationalist agenda but the idea that when the proletariat takes hold he will undo the shackles of class formation is quite idealistic and throughout the past half century has yet to happen. Even in Napoleons’ tyranny the middle class became a beacon of hierarchical power. Ironically, the Russian revolution caused the same grief to the poor who had land but didn’t have resources that the government then owned similar to the Renaissance capitalist who quasi-occupied the poor’s own land. 

Seemingly the poor are always screwed. No wonder populists find a crevasse to exploit. Think about it this way, the middle class overtly wishes to move to green house gasses for a better tomorrow. Since none of their jobs weigh on such aspects they are likely to approve on the other hand working class who bank on fossil fuel in mining or truck driving are at a lost. The problem with the middle class is less the good intentions and more the lacking awareness of affecting others. The working class matter but most of government fails to represent them. The focus on diversity hires is progress but these candidates come from fortunate households. While they can attest to their respective communities, this leaves out and heavily deserts the white working class. This is not solely an American issue. One that occupies many multicultural western democracies. It is the middle class rhetoric that shields them from actually endorsing working class life. To see them as worthy countrymen to assist.

There is faint jealousy that exists. The working class is a group to their own. For many the homeless in Manhattan and dilapidated house in Kansas are the same. At times, the latter is worse. He is part of a cult. A group of fanatic racists. While there are some racial issues, they also are strongly religious and collectivists. They may live in rural areas miles from one another but they all know one another. They all shop at the same Walmart and eat at the same diner. Middle class personnel live in suburbs or urban cities and have never spoken to their neighbour once. Have different beliefs and background. It is a place of change and development. Vibrant discontinuity in the hopes of diversification. The poor have always banded together. Using culture and religion to tie them together. There are many working class who are generational miners. It is a legacy. In their fated religiosity they find comfort in their will. Farmers pass on their estates to their children. Country boys sing lullabies of their energetic youth. While not entirely perfect it is quite cohesive. 

The renaissance emboldened individuality. People sought to exit the poverty life. Newly secularists or devolving religiosities attempted to grab at the new life. Democracy provided new possibilities. Many took the plunge. Others weren’t as lucky or stuck to what they were good at. Industrialisation was promising but also leaving the familial tent. Heritage is strong and many stayed true to their family’s lifestyle. Content with their methods and gift. Whether this was particularly religiosity motivated is beyond but there is a cohesive and calming feeling of a small town. The urban life wasn’t one that was necessary. Many small towns had important professions. Skilled workers to develop the country. Prior to the social changes in the post-WWII era many were voting for better economic aid. Prior to their apparent racialising they were still the same exclusivist inclusive small town. The middle class doesn’t understand this. They have lost connections rarely speak to their parents and live amongst millions of people who they couldn’t single out ten. It is a different world.

Shameless also showed this to a degree. South Side Chicago is dangerous and deplorable. Yet they all banded together like a community no matter which skin colour. They were all poor and assisted one another with Kev for the poor or with Liam for the racism. It was the middle class woman who demonstrated a superiority complex. She was in the wrong. She looked down on them as hoodlums. Shameless is a television show but there is a certain attitude to the poor that the poor do not have for one another. Though that doesn’t mean the poor aren’t at fault. The poor have camaraderie as a familial framework that is not correlated in middle class areas (except cultural areas like Jews, Koreans, Lebanese). There is a disdain for the isolated nuance that compels angst against the poor. The middle class seemingly made it out but could easily return to the hole they dug out of. They are wannabe rich and for the time being antagonise those they agonise over.

The west has consistently pushed to help the downtrodden. Yet many of the peasantry have been left behind. Each revolution. Many peasants didn’t participate in the revolutions and for those who did assist were not compensated post-victory.  The oppressed class that being the egotistical middle class took power for themselves at the expense of the peasants. The poor remained poor through years. Industrialisation provided an outlet for many peasants but those who were generational workers or family tied stayed to their models. With the democratic disregard for the lower class, many siphoned their connections to the apparent helper for the charismatic populists. Especially with the growing focus on diversity, many natives/whites were overlooked and even ridiculed for existing. It was the abuse they endured that switched their vote. This only furthered united their social bond. Rural groups became even more centralised. Finding more commonality than progressive division hoped. Now liberals are looking back wondering where did it all go wrong. Maybe mockery and jealousy weren’t worthwhile appeals. 

Lazy Defence

By: Jonathan Seidel

Nietzsche’s civilised assault: aristocratic power and anarchy-liberation

Humans tend to see animals as less. They are wild beasts with no moral compass. This what makes humans superior. Nietzsche argued that the masterful nature is in line with the beast-like mentality. It is the weak who create civilised protection to cultivate goodness for themselves. Yet animal are not all that unethical. It is man who for his own prosperity creates society for his own superiority 

Nietzsche portrays the jungle as a place of genuine cruelty but one with inevitable consequences. The strong rule in the wild. That is a fact. It is society that embraces the feeble sensitivity. Animals prey on one another to survive. It is a scarcely protective space for defence. The feudal lords promised protection for labour. Out in the wild, the weak would die. No one would defend them. The birds of prey would annihilate the helpless lambs. Nature is cruel but fatalistic. It is only with the aid of the master that the slave survives. The master fends off the prey with his strong ax. An enlightened sheep whacking at the hungry bird. Escaping, the novice sheep is in debt to the enlightened sheep. Fulfilling his every need as penance for his help. The enlightened sheep promises protection if the novice rubs his feet every evening. Such a deal is struck. They work together. Even if the bird of prey attacks periodically, the novice needs the enlightened’s aid. Rubbing his feet every evening on the possibility that the bird may come back. A master emerges as a special kind of person. One with ambition and strength to protect the weak.

One day, the novice sheep tells the enlightened that he doesn’t want to rub his feet any longer. They are safe away from the birds of prey. A bird hasn’t attacked in decades. They must be somewhere away. The enlightened shoots back with no I have kept them away. You are happy here because my efforts have prevailed. Trust me. The novice believes him and continues. Growing annoyed at the possibility of lying, the novice raises his voice. This is pointless. I rub your feet and yet need no defending. The enlightened laughs of course you need protecting. No I do not the novice says, I have god. God will protect me. God will provide for me. The master laughs and shews him away. The novice continues to rally his voice about a protector deity. One who aids the novice. The novice doesn’t need his master because his new master is greater than the mortal incompetent. Slowly, the master is tied into this bind. Coercively believing that the novice is telling the truth. To rid this novice of his lunacy, the enlightened puts him on trial. How dare someone speak out of line. I am the master not some metaphysical uncertainty. Not some invisible nonsense cooped up by a false saint. The novice is found guilty and murdered.

While the master thought that with the novice gone the ideas would cease, he failed to take into account the twitter backlash effect. Attempting to quash the novice’s ideals instead bolstered them with his demise. He is a martyr for other servants. The enlightened had accumulated a group of novices that needed protection. Under the band of his salvation he had them do other chores. Laundry and farming. Over time the protection seemed more of an excuse than a profession. Lounging around in his luxury all day, waiting for the day of defence. A soldier off duty until the enemy arrives. It never did. The inverted boy who cried wolf. The wolf never came but the townspeople kept believing it was possible. Yet growing weary of the ruse they look inward. Questioning the legitimacy of a soldier who never defends. The contract is void if he is not protecting. He is using us. The rebellion marches forward based in the ideals of the now martyred saint. Rebelling against the master. Massacring his estate and establishing a new ideal based on metaphysical notions. Based in spirituality. The novices are now in charge with spiritual expertise. Claiming their own majesty. An intriguing model that elevates all the novices while demoting all enlightened. Protectors are needed with a deity’s shield. 

Focusing on the spiritual the novices take charge. Spiritual primacy is the hallmark of perfection. In time, the new enlightened take centerstage under the auspices of the novices. The novices continue to control the enlightened. Noble efforts cannot overtake the novices. The old masterful ideology has vanished with novice philosophy controlling all. The cracks of the novice ideology soon begin to whither. Enlightened folks attempt to topple the novice ideology. Attempting to rid it from the frame. Folded in the ideological mark must compromise. The enlightened are dubiously enlightened. They reckon with even more novice thought. The Neo-novice character seeks to liberate the excluded from the novice ideology. The novice ideology imperfect in its might could not stop the enlightened to reach the pinnacle of success. Coming to an agreement so both can maintain power. Even utilise for their own superiority. The novice ideology so pervasive clouds the enlightened’s judgement seeing themselves as partially novices but using to their advantage. Yet the Neo-novice ideology strips the novice ideology with renewed slavish rhetoric. The novice ideology was compromised so a further novice ideology is necessary. Spiralling all enlightened ideals into disarray. With little hope for the enlightened ideology to regain its powerful rightful place as the leadership of humanity. 

A coup dismantled the rightful and most just system for a crippled means of pleasing everybody. The novice is scrawny. Endangered in the wild. It is the muscular who shields him. As humanity develops the scrawny shifts to ignoramus. While the ancient sapiens were based in physical strength the later were in intellectual strength. The danger of the wild has yet to change but the muscular sheep used his brain to develop a weapon to fend off the bird of prey. He can rise above due to his knowledge. The weapon acts as a deterrent. His deterrent protects the flock. The sheep can defeat the bird with his strength. The ignoramuses have nothing to fear. Authority is vested in the protective capability. Yet the deal must hold up. Why rebel. Ungrateful servants. Seeking paradise beyond the contractual agreement. The novice lends little reliance on the enlightened’s model. The less wars, the more time the novice can see the cracks in the system. The enlightened isn’t worthy of servitude if there is no protective cause. His authority is bested by criminal behaviour. His authority rests on a false promise. War though seeks to unify the group. Standing tall against the enemy. His power and strategic genius will lead to victory. He has the resources. The novice need his masterful instruction. 

Man is a beast without proper direction. He is a lost cause without the power of an enlightened mentor. He will be harassed in the forest. The birds of prey will capture him and kill him. He must lend his submission to the enlightened for his salvation. Life is better than death. Only do a few simple things for the enlightened and he will grant your wish of living a long life. The jungle is everyone for themselves, a dangerous area. The enlightened sees an opportunity to establish a defence. It is his brains that construct the walls of Jericho. An impenetrable fortress. Since he is the most powerful he also must be protected. He is placed in the centre with extra safeguarding. He is protected by the novice guards. Living lavishly until war breaks out. He stays in bed until he is called to act out. Since he is the military leader he may as well be the supreme political authority. His brilliance of military excellence translates fluidly to political order. A legal format whereby he legislates for his own success. He binds the public into a wider contractual agreement. His brilliance is second to none and can lead the people successfully into battle. Yet while the battle is not being waged the people do what they can to help him grow. Protection equals the ethical fixing of subjugation for his self interest.

Is the novice so endangered in the jungle? Is submission the sole way of survival? Answering in the negative is a political ploy to maintain the slave mentality. Enslavement works on dehumanising the capability of rising up. The masterful mindset demonstrates its power once for infinite compliance. Promising protection for enslavement. Dehumanise instead of reaching the pinnacle individually. At its worst some may perish alone in the jungle. It is a scary place and missteps will lead to doom. Others fated to suffer will not make it through natural selection. The master attempts to curve this darwinian fatalism with protection. Yet at the same time subjugates those who could’ve become masters themselves. Ensuring his own reign with no opposition. Creating a system on a lie for his own prestige. At its best there are some individuals but the jungle is never a solo journey. The novice is surrounded by caring characters. In the darwinian theme, the family may be killed off but working together can properly defend against the birds of prey. It is only when the individual runs off that vulnerability is exposed. Unfortunate cases and the enlightened sees that such children do not go missing since they are inside the walls. Preserved from any accidental escaping.

The dog-eat-dog world is divided by species. Species themselves for the most part only devour other species. Thus in the case of prey, defending in a familial pack has a stronger way of surviving. Adapting to the prey growing smarts to avoid the attacks. Even countering with their own slew of traps. Natural selection only works with unadaptable species. The brawn can exercise and the brains can educate. Yet the latter more than the former requires a guide. Still, for both to reach the pinnacle of adaptability a mentor is necessary. In the Niezschean theme there may have been an original man who figured the complexities of nature and overcome the issues. Promising to protect for service. For the first generation Nietzsche is correct but the generational hold makes little sense. The tactics only kept to a specific family is no longer a personal endeavour but spite. Whether by fate or destiny one figured out the truth. Why not share it with everyone? Why subjugate for personal domination? This wisdom is preyed over the heads of everyone else. Telling all others this is the only way to live. All defectors are exiled and considered heretics. The master fears losing his power. Paranoid, he voids all those who have the power to diminish his rule. 

In the jungle it is live or do. Forced to adapt to survive. Thriving off quick thinking. Some genetics provide success while others lead to death. Those who survive gain new insights. Able to attain the knowledge had the master never enclosed the knowledge to his offspring. Erecting walls in defence, he deprives the novice the possibility of figuring it out himself. Near death experience provides that wisdom. Those who simply live in fear passive in their approach are fragile figures. Those who need protection. There are always scaredy cates who wish to submit to void the dangerous encounter. Traumatised from rumours swirling around the neighbourhood. Not wishing to experience the potential horror they submit to the instructor to preserve their sanity and body. Even if the first generation is truly an alpha, his descendants act alpha but are truly beta bums. It is the sin of ancestors that the slavish contact continues. Novice descendants could overcome the trauma. A deceptive lie to ring in phobic idiots. Unaware that they can overcome the enemy. Whether well-intentioned by the enlightened or not, his descendants do so with ill-will. Holding the instructions over the public’s head, playing off of generational trauma only seeks to derail the individual to realise himself and stand up. 

The superman is the novice who breaks through the nonsense. Whether that be religious or political institutionalism, whether he be a secularist or a commoner. Whether a plebeian or a Jew. The courage to escape to the woods and survive there is the answer to overcoming the enlightened. Learning their methods they hold so secretive. Passed down generationally. The enlightened with a knowledge they never experienced. The only one to do so was potentially a kind-hearted protector. A father who fended off a lion. Hearing of his exploits others came to him. He trained a few to protect the many. A leader with the ability to protect the herd. In time this group gathered many more. Training was much and in need of building tools and walls, other men were designated to do harsh labour but necessary for survival. The tribe eventually grew and by the third generation whether through conquest or non-warriors, certain warrior families became the nobility and all else the commoners. The warrior ancestors who were no longer warriors possessed a right to their supremacy. A once good will became bad faith by entitled children. Lied to by those who wish to retain their power. Narratives told with the nobility as the liberators. A right their ancestor and they themselves provide until this day. Heed their word, their lineage is glorious while yours is tainted with novice blood. 

The chaotic jungle is not a one-on-one duel. Species live in packs to perceive their kind. While not always nice to others they are to each other. There may be a hierarchy but one that is familial instead of regal. The enlightened’s wisdom does not come to protect the novice but to use him for his agenda. Society is a theatre for his own paranoia. It is survivable in the jungle together. No need to be seduced in absolute perfection but a liar. The promise of salvation buys their descendants’ lives for eons. The revolt by these descendants acknowledges that the enlightened is not that much more enlightened. Symbolised with a greater deity but if anything rebuilding the normative ethic. Hierarchy is fine but not in despair. Not in a devilish tale to hold the gullible imprisoned by their ignorance. The promise leads to an established ontological legacy that fails to match the one of old. Only with knowledge can they try to outmatch the novices. Novices can work together. They can overcome the enemy. The master is only impenetrable if the descendants all work together. Keeping the public at bay. Playing on their fears and subduing their will. They are only protected if they listen. Brainwashed into generational bogus based on good will for protection by one experiencer. One survivor of an enemy assault giving him advantage leads to a superiority complex amongst his descendants. Pure chance is the origin of unequal reflection. 

Enlightened tell of the wild’s dangers. The rumours are circulated for generations. It is the enlightened who protect. Only they can provide the salvation. Unable to escape the simulation. Stooped in the theatrical, the novices do not think otherwise. Even if angered they do not possess the access to overhaul the enlightened. Fearing for their families. They are at an obvious disadvantage. It is the heroics of a privileged individual. An enlightened defector who brings the novices a new voice. While this can be perceived as an attempt to establish his own superiority, such ideals are antagonistic to the masters. He already possesses his wealth, he is really gambling his death for opposing the current regime. For the sake of becoming a king he puts up with a novice bunch. Such a superiority complex is tested with those who are completely induced in a profound matrix. His empathy bursts for the from the outside. Seeing the simulation as a stunt for control. He speaks of a higher purpose. Overcoming the current regime with a higher power. If anything religion is a careful ruse to dismantle the simulated presence. The clutches of the enlightened can only be undermined by a greater power, by a greater enlightenment. Searching for the spirit has a more enamouring pull than the meek existence they live. A way of hoarding energy for the cause. 

The privileged revolutionary like the first protector is attempting to help people. It is their descendants who corrupt the entire ordeal. The good will is established. The novices appeal to him and orchestrate a new motto. Shedding the yoke of the enlightened. Rebelling with their new model of living. The revolutionary’s line becomes the slogan to follow. His name rings true in the ears of the public. The mythos of his greatness pass on. Yet his descendants may not be as charitable as he was. The vicious cycle continues. At times new establishments provide more liberty but the authority remains identical through the generations. One saint followed by devilish children. Entitled fools who prey on those protected. A revolutionary emerges and the public is tested how will they respond. What is in their interest? Will this be better for them? Rebellion is easier when the novices are suffering. Yet if everything is okay or only relatively problematic then the prophet will be ignored for the regime’s kindness. It takes guts but also ambition for the public novices to rise up. Having to counter their own routines for an unknown future. The jungle is scary, the walls protect. It seems better to struggle under an exploitive leader than oust him and leave with nothing. As unruly as the ruler is he has the knowledge the public desires to adequately survive. Without the antidote the revolution is a death trap. 

The chaotic jungle is solely a simulated lie to stimulate fear. It is dangerous but possible if the secrets are provided. Experimentation enables children to learn from mistakes and survive. Yet the deception of the enlightened is the generational debt. A debt that seemingly can never be paid off. Your life only exists because of my ancestor. Thus my elevated status is something that is slavish for eternity. A seeming coincidence that permits eternal domination. Yet further is the inability for others to elevate. Refusing their growth. Experimentation can only be executed by those with means. Those with access to experiment. If all are subjugated, focused on their labour, the enlightened are free to experiment. Until the enemy arrives at the gate, they have the luxury of learning. Exclusively maintaining all their discoveries for themselves. With the erected walls, the novices work continues but the enlightened gain knowledge in other fields. The novices work when the enlightened read. Their wealth even more amassed. Fated to be superior. The simulation is the routine of deranged habit. There is no thought for entertainment elsewhere. Once the cycle leads to more liberation, with thoughts possible, their vision to execute is deluded with the inaccessibility and routine slavish mentality. Habituated to stay down with no where to go. 

Unlike the servant, the mystic sees outside the ruse. He is not a typical revolutionary. He does not emerge from the enlightened. He is a novice. A novice who escapes the clutches. Confident and scared he runs to the forest. He learns in the forest and emerges capable. He is strong but not enlightened. He will always be a novice. He cannot escape his familial descent. His blood is novice blood. He can never be one of the masters. A slave for eternity. Even if he knows the truths learned all those years ago in the forest. This was by no coincidence. He bursts to the forest to overcome the myth of old. Yet his revolutionary mindset is a more passive version. He sees the eternal damnation of the slave. Without any access to overcome the masterful brawn, he gains a following that looks elsewhere for strength. A philosophy of fated servitude is one that even eschatologically runs its course. The mystic must awaken the slavish mind. Readying for a new life, one that possesses nuance and confidence. The mystic is the hope for change. The change must come with praise and elevation lest he be crucified for his insolence. Will his martyrdom lead to any fulfilling development down the road. His model tailored to the current framework. Rebellion is a fool’s errand. There is no where to go. A death wish for those suffering now but dead afterwards. 

There is no hope overcoming the masters. The enlightened have transformed a civilised life with their influence. Running away is a danger to all. Only the bold desert and fewer return. Leaving everyone for their own sanity. Yet those who return cannot overtake the herd mentality. Faced with eternal penance there is no way out. Stooped in an eternal cycle of slavery. There is no possibility. The mystic provides vision with no access but the revolutionary has access. Capable of garnering protection, he shoots back. Physical triumph is possible and with his knowledge and means can cultivate a serene society. He is insightful with knowledge. The educated can only do so much with words. Means are out of his hands. His blood prevents him from accessing the means necessary for a revolt. Means necessary to convince the public to push back. His deeds fall on deaf ears. The revolutionary has the means and can push back. Working together they rally the people. They overtake the criminal masters. Establishing a new era. Yet in time that era turns violent. Turns disastrous and unequal so soon afterward.