Ancient Universalism?

By: Jonathan Seidel

Sixth century naturalistic transformation   

In the span of a single century some of the most important and influential ideologies emerged at different areas of the globe. In Western Europe was presocratic philosophers, in Eastern Europe was Zoroastrianism, In Western Asia was Confuciusion, Legalism Maoism and Taoism and in Eastern Asia was Buddhism and Jainism. While the Persian Empire conquered much of this vast era, Cyrus’ share began after Thales and didn’t reach India nor China. So what is up with this shift?

An interesting fact to note is with the exception of Zoroastrianism none of these were traditionally religious. Even Zoroastrianism has its own religious quibble. Though the religion may be millennium older. What is frequented is its official appearance in writing in the sixth century. While there is no denying that these movement could all emerge at the same time in different locations, it is interesting that they all occurred in the same century. There are other variables to consider namely their own sociopolitical makeup yet the similarities between the ideologies does seem to have an underlying connection that seems to be remiss. What is the patten that holds these ideologies closely wound? Each holds a more naturalist flow to life. Absent mythology and incoming philosophy. Some even cling to some metaphysical or spiritual aspect to keep with the old instead of denying it outright. There is a clear transition and it occurs almost simultaneously. It could be a coincidence or it could be fate. What is the secret? Where is the pattern?

Mythology was slowly losing its edge in Phoenicia and Egypt by the tenth century. Phoenicia had scholarly works that profited in the ninth century. Dedicating works to astronomy and philosophy that preempted the greek thinkers. Many greek thinkers borrowed Phoenician manuscripts to dial in their own thinking. Using it as a springboard for their own ideas. Phoenicia was a prosperous shift in thinking. Egypt may have preceded it. The holistic thought process in the eleventh century. They had reduced their paganism to more naturalistic deities. The decline of polytheism was not with Roman Christianisation. The latter ended much of paganism though Germanic paganism endured. Monotheism like Judaism or Zoroastrianism in its more ancient state shifted the balance to a single deity. The intrusion of external cultures and imperial influence reshaped the perception of religion. Paganism had a slow decline in specific areas. Those tainted by cross-cultural inspiration. Germanic tribes survived away from intruding monotheists, the same can be said of the American natives. Hinduism survived given its less theistic perspective and the non-dogmatic compulsion of eastern empires. The flux of such tendencies has a western imprint.

The gradual decline of paganism in the Middle East is no shock that the Abrahamic religions all emerge from that area as well as western philosophy. Grappling with multiple cultures at the same time only furthered the perplexity of the world. Phoenicia began its philosophical enterprise in the ninth century which made its way to the presocratics in Ionia. The late empires from Assyria to Babylon and Persia all centred around the same area. Egypt may have been at a lower stage than its previous glory but it was still a stronghold with influence. The entire Middle East from Turkey to India with areas of North Africa in the mix. There is an obvious mix and matching that allowed for the progress of history. The similarities between the cultures is baffling. Cross-references are nested in the mythological lore. There is always a creation and a flood story. While this may play into a diffused situation which classifies all various religions, the specificity that relates the middle-eastern groups is from a history of discussion and conversion. Controlling areas crossing with one another on the battlefield and trading. The Middle East was a crossroads of debate and harvest.

Which leads to the inquiry of India and China. Neither of them were part of any Middle Eastern conflict nor under their imperial rule. Unlike the europeans, they did reduce their lore. There must be a connection. Though Europe didn’t operate in the same regard. The similarities between the European tribes and American tribes may demonstrate a linkage. Both remained polytheistic for a long time. Both remained villagers for a long time. There is seemingly a lack of urbanisation and centralisation. China and India were both imperial and urban. The flow of information and trade was strong towards the east instead of the west. Though merchants did link Europe with India. There is archaeological evidence even if the depth is quite blurred. There is a theory that the Scythian empire was the catalyst for uniting the Celts with India but also the backbone of philosophy. Since the Scythians were in charge of this vast arena it wouldn’t be shocking to see that they lectured the public on the nuances of philosophy. There is some reservations namely the lacking impact in Europe, the seemingly anonymous impact on Greece and where China fits in. The Scythian impact may have been incredible but sufficient to overturn centuries of belief is quite difficult. While Christianity spread through a single empire, this theory suggests the Scythians toppled several different empires.

To be frank it is not all that crazy if the goal is simply to trade resources and ideas. Scythia was powerful. The empire ran much of eastern Europe. They spread far and wide. The array of cultural and religious notices in other cultures is quite thin though. The influence of a single civilisation on so many others is plausible but needs more evidence. Even if it is the civilisation itself, what is the initiative? Word of mouth? Secularising beliefs is a big shift beyond shifting religiosity. Meaning the potential influence on monotheism is interesting but to deconstruct mythology without leaving much of an imprint themselves is gruelling. It is more probable that it is more than a single civilisation and a blend of culture. In the same breath, Scythia despite its closer roots to Celts than Phoenicia did not alter their beliefs. Whether the Celts and other tribes were ignored can be mustered in the face of the classical fertile crescent. There was trade but apparently the ideas didn’t manifest in the same way. Scythia binds all these groups together but their own culture was polytheistic. Their religious details are found in Roman authors but the level of secularism doesn’t seem to have the same effort. Naturalisation seems to be foreign to their animal deities. Their impact on the religious naturalism seems negligible even if they made their way to the far reaches of Eurasia.

An alternative proposal is the breath of textualisation that rapidly spread through  the Middle East. The era of classical inequity beginning in the eighth century saw a decline in mythology with the advance of literacy. Literacy was most common under imperial rule. Imperial rule centralised economies as well as pushed for urbanisation. People moved to cities for better economic avenues. With the cities being the centre livelihood and growth more were exposed to the development of man. Mythology was mainly oral. Passed down from person to person like a game of telephone. Stories embellished with fantastical aspects. Some were carved into stone or painted with cave art. For the most part this was designated to those in the scribal seats. Those of regal or aristocratic heritage. Urbanisation brought people to the centre and offered everyone the possibility of partaking in the art of writing. Human capability was furthered by the people themselves no longer needing to rely on priests for divine blessings. Literacy was a form of reformation. The rapid development of trade aided those who previously in the lower social classes to ascend. As people ascended they recognised the diabolical rituals they wished to desist from. No more human sacrifices as one example. The expansion of trade and prosperity made people question their beliefs. Scythia’s long trading range may have assisted in this but they were not the only traders. Phoenicia was among the innovators. 

Instead of the caste system shoving the lower class aside to the countryside they now were all bottled up in the city centre. The economic growth led to these social inquiries and reformers seeking to take advantage of it. Many of these religious ideas were institutionalised and many sought to overthrow them for a new current of thought. The naturalism that is so prevalent sought an equality of sorts to underlie much of the institutional discrimination. With literacy rates rising and trade expanding, the caste system was seemingly obsolete. The old peasantry were now strong middle class-men. It seems more plausible that it wasn’t Scythia that brought ideas but that their linkage of both continents brought forth the conversation. It brought forth the prosperity that had people rethinking their lifestyle and philosophy. A fast-paced consumerist upheaval was gnawing at the static repression of old. Liberation was at its peak and trade being the key theme cemented its value in realistic portrayals. It was the mythology that subjugated people and nature that liberated them. An ironic ploy to the classical tenants of divine morality. If anything, it was the new non-theistic groups that began pondering the genuine aspects of life. Philosophising about the correct way of living. All of this discussion was in the Middle East to Western Asia. From Ionia to China. Areas all under urban growth and trade expansion. 

Italy was further east than Greece and did not rid its paganism until Christianity wreaked havoc in the late stages of the empire. In the early days of the empire, pagans were fighting pagans. The roman gods battled the germanic gods. A war of polytheistic might. Whose gods were stronger, whose culture better. Christianity ended up corrupting and crumbling Rome as its imperial might lost its way. Yet the Hellenistic prowess did venture into Rome prior to its destruction. There were thinkers in Rome during the pagan era though by that time the state had become the centre. The empire housed the old lore but didn’t hold to its beliefs as tightly as it once did. Christianity was a triumph not over paganism but over imperialism. It was one universalist ideology over another. Nordic tribes kept to their lore until the Middle Ages. Christianity under their English powerhouse sought to erase their foolish paganism. Vikings still held tight to their oral messaging. The Danes has even conquered England but more exposure to the Christian West made them more susceptible to give up their religiosity. It wasn’t always to become Christian but to the lavish “modernity” of the Middle Ages. For others, literacy was a transition to Christianity. Christianity was superior because it was technologically superior. Danes were oral and ancient. Archaic and wrong. Christianity was mechanistic and strong. Books on Christianity overpowered the strong norse heritage. 

The outgrowth of naturalism in the sixth century leading to various new ideologies finds some similarity to the rise of secularism in the age of exploration. The downfall of feudalism which had to do with more monarchical power and the death toll of the black plague brought people freedom they never had. Peasants were able to capitalise on the available open land and monarchs could retain more structure for trade than nobles. The renaissance revived the Ancient Greek teachings and spawned humanism and capitalist liberty. Leading ultimately to the reformation and secularist thinking. The enlightenment was the final straw that brought in democracy to the forefront. Urbanisation following the fall of feudalism with the spirit of the Renaissance fuelled naturalistic thinking. Galileo and Newton followed through to Bacon and Locke. A tumultuous time for rethinking in an age of transition. An age of rising literacy amongst peasantry and the peasantry making their way up the ladder. Urbanisation didn’t become entrenched until the nineteenth century with the industrial revolution doubling in size. Moving up and feeling more liberated was a process. The reformation prodded itself on equality amongst men and everyday biblical guides. Splintering much of Judaism as well into more modern focus. The Renaissance didn’t have the same degree of diverse impact nor as far reaching but it was spawned by exploration and commerce.

Trade breeds ideas. The fact that in both eras naturalism was sought indicates a common historical theme. Whether that be in ethical lifestyles or in humanistic thinking. It was commerce that united the trend with a few more variables to topple the repressive institutions preventing innovation. The static leaning rulers who wished not to break with their traditions. With more people enlightened they were able to fend for themselves. Yet they needed somewhere to look. They needed a guide. They were newly liberated. Prisoners for so long and absent direction. The binding ideological elements of humanism and protestantism paved a way for surviving in an economically successful area. To be among everyone else more free and more dignified. Away from the abuse of old to the serenity of new. Ironically they both occurred in the first century of the millennium. There is a coincidence though history does tend to repeat itself and renaissance thinkers did look to their greek ancestors for some insight before charting down an unknown future. Commerce and urbanisation cultivated new ideas. Raising the downtrodden enlightened to a new idea. A new way of life of naturalistic focus and human empowerment. 

Democratic Dynamics

By: Jonathan Seidel

Foucault argued that our hierarchical oppressive conception of power is rooted in hellenistic legalism. Tracing this ideology to Sophocles. 

Historically, the advent of liturgy proffered new hierarchical dilemmas. The progressive agenda fostered new technological advancements in the new order. The city-states waning from imperial might now were intrinsically motivated. A special peculiarity given their geographical and anthropological location. In order to accommodate the masses the classist system was put into place. Organised labour  in a communal sense overpowered the rule of one. Communal harmony was necessary to maintain structure and order. Political discussions became the basis of daily life. Choices were in the hands of the people not a sovereign. Law was this unifying program.  

Statutory law replaced the customary past models of legal tradition. The greeks didn’t invent law but they did introduce the constitutional element. Lower classes empowered in the communal unit were disgruntled with the aristocratic archaic customary induction. The law needed to cease being wielded for bureaucratic   means. Imperial conquests were a means of advancing civilisation. Only through an abundance of material resources allocated to the ruling class by the “generous” subjected localities. This power was to maintain and prosper. The ruler had the power to bring change and if he did not then change did not come. A perfect biblical example is Josiah’s revolution. Finding the scroll and spreading the message nationwide returning the Israelites to God but is cut short by KIA. Influence is top-down but is also not. Josiah could not eradicate the problem of idol worship, a custom so entrenched in Israelite society. 

Territorial expansion seeks cohesion through logistical union over underlying customs. Cyrus’ religious tolerance was logistical not ethical. To ensure imperial harmony order was bureaucratic and stable. Once a city-state shared common elements, the only difference was between peoples which angered countrymen. In a homogenous society where is the ontological supremacy, the us-them paradigm. In ancient Israel, David’s kingdom was chosen as the sole kingship on merit but was positivistically logistical. The king was not absolute and followed ethical stringencies. Monarchies maintains classist order by divine digression, the same did not exist in Ancient Greece. Law became a method tying the rich with the poor. Class would persist but it gave the poor a fighting chance, a measure of relevance and appropriate grievance. 

Ironically, it was not democracy that funnelled the rule of law but the empire. The empires expansion made its conquered colonists—citizens of the empire. The aristocratic senatorial families constructed a united constitutional order. A talented dynastic elite providing the citizenry liberties. Yet its perpetuated expansion forced bureaucratic primacy which decayed the rule of law as a central factor. The loss of legal centricity and bureaucratic necessity invoked imperial resurgence with no respect for law and less regard for custom and ethics. The codified law rested as the statement of roman life but failed to live up to its temperament with the ongoing logistical issues. Administrative requirements conflated the legal power. A switch in focus did not ally well with the public’s action and their disillusionment rose with little connection to the political centre.

The christian preoccupation with order brought about a church infused empire. The Holy Roman Empire was filled with churchman. Models of continuity and ensuring christian universality promoted religious class differences over monetary ones. The church’s power as the spiritual salvation for the people provided it immense political power to improve legalism while at the same time giving itself unlimited power. Feudalism emerged from decentralisation of the empire to uphold order and custom. A contractural agreement between christians or rather aristocratic christians laid the basis for modern capitalist legalism.     

The legalistic model infers a model to rectify the classist model. Law’s job is to bring freedom. The communal cohesion of Ancient Greece decried one powerful ruler and placed representatives as those in power. This though in the republican era became dynastic and tyrannical to an extent. Reps may be subservient to the law but the law still maintains a classist model. It possesses the maturity of realistic phenomena. Liberty was the excuse dominating Ancient Greek thinking. Yet with the legal instrument of law as an elitist tool to oppress the lower poor. Plato among others decided to reprove law as secondary to the ethical universality. If ethics takes primacy then law can be tied together properly.   

According to Foucault this is the demise of power. Hierarchical power is ironically a well-intentioned fluke. An attempt to reconcile the societal ills becomes a tool for inequality and greater division. The purpose of law is to mitigate that division via a central democratic governing body. A body that provides safety and economic distribution. Law though ultimately classifies man against man. Even in its attempt to liberate man it divides him simultaneously. 

Law is an embedded reality. A social construction representing the chaotic social picture. A solution to anarchy, a Hobbesian salvation. Though today this may be true this was not always nor needed to be the core model. Ethical primacy of the east did not meet the sophist legalism. Our society grew into a legalistic centre of stability. Order functioned through fearful institutionalism. Law meant walk the fine line. Do not stray from the uniform practical measures of societal uniformity. Power emerged as the difference between the classes. The ability of the upper class over the lower class. Law unified the people but it simultaneously offered greater strength for elite exploitation. The imbalance formulated in society stood as the static relation in society. One’s place in society afforded privileges disallowed to others. Internally it constructed us-them paradigms amidst the intentioned cohesion. All citizens but varying by familial heritage 

The written word stapled law as a core and statement offence. The codification was the law for all with less judicial discretion. Law was the primary motive for persisted disparity. The rhetorical strategies profited amongst the rich. The law was not as malleable, limited in its interpretative ability. Law thought to be ethically revolutionary stimulated legal deficiency. Law was applied to different classes by different measures. A mixed guidance of law muddled with ethical obscurity praised execution by valued means. Unfairness existed in an attempting fair system. The present difficulties in courts for minorities and advantages for the rich is a power dynamic. A classist oppressor. Law becomes defective by agenda driven aspirations. The freedom provided profiteers the dialectical insufficiency. The gap is not bridged and instead spreads. Libertarianism thus becomes a dangerous agenda with further classist animosity. Though it’s less the freedom and more the lacking moral principles that enable the discrimination to persist. It is less the money and more the legalistic outlook that is problematic.

It places reality in a box. It creates binary fictions. Immanent power is misconstrued and misused as might instead of attractive connection. In the primitive legal societies, there is room for a solution. The ethical primacy promotes otherness. The moral sensitivity breeches the legal canonicity. Law is ossified in its frame. The frame categorises the experience in a box by its restrictive rules and personas. The rules societally decided compel man to uphold certain emotive values. The frame constructs a power dynamic. That can only be superseded by moral superiority. The other must be seen as an extension of the self not a demonic creation. Motivational morality powers the alterations. A mode of justice. Resisting the frame and providing unison in ethical discourse. The primary motive detail is pushing back. Justice is generally perceived internally. It must fuel through the system. A corrupted system cannot be fixed if the ethic is aligned. Passion is a necessary corollary to determine magnitude of change. 

Law is important but not in the statuary version. The common law development differs heavily. Fluid legality promotes shifting patterns and organic development. Judicial discretion is more attuned. The goal was to supply a foundational structure but that need not be written nor encoded. It was a customary system that reflected the tribal rituals of the ancient peoples. Legal systems were prevalent and integral to societal survival but its style and composition were novelly divergent. Common law is quite relativistic. The law develops with society. There is no fixed measure. The edifice of common law is its latitude and frequency. It was a regional model. Most civilisations had very similar legal codexes but subtle variance is historical and valuational. The similarities across the board demonstrate a significant universality that persisted. A common thread throughout the region. A universalist-particularism that embodies a prevailing wisdom. A sense of naturalistic understanding with theological discrepancies.  

Oral methods denote the casual relationship between the rule and the community. Its oral consensus is pictorial in the mind of the tribal member. An image magnifies in its recognition of the normative situation. The common knowledge is identified throughout the community. Orality is not fixed but affixed. It is the fluid consciousness of the tribal orientation. It embodies a living experience. It is not just words own a paper but a way of life. A customised mentality linearly encompassing all life. The trajectory of oral development is gradually evolutionary. Alterations are shifted in time. Society little by little adopts new rules and regulations in an appropriate manner. Oral societies educate law through narration in illustrative poetry. Logical sequence is quite foreign to the oral compilation. Instead the narration notes many casuistic laws (if…then) in the storytelling flow. The codex is anthological as a reference guide than a code. The oral illustration is a legal experience focusing on tribal education over a legal compendium. 

Common law relates to the customisation of the internal tribal lingo. The custom is widespread and does not divide the people. It is an oral constitutional order. The law is above all but is more a spirit than a codex. Power is in the shared internal knowledge. There is a us-them paradigm but by value not law. The regional law propagated a sort of universalistic trend. Each lived in their own insular tribes and even fought one another but their legal rights were connected. Personal heritage did affect legal fortitude as values altered legal details. The stories empower the legal will into a film adaptation. The entire community is a beholden to the same language and experience. Orality is a shared identity. It is not simply restrictions and order but a lifestyle. Thus in the conquests, except for logistical overhaul, there is not too much difference. Religious tolerance persisted to some degree. With the exception of Egypt, the Israelites under Assyria  Babylon and Persia allowed the Israelites to continue to act in their rituals as long as they paid tribute. The goal of military conquest was to control more not to change people’s minds. 

Religiously, the ancient cultures shared mythology. Their unique values differed in their conceptualisation of the deities but everyone has a creation flood and redemption story. All in their own way but the narration speaks valuational volumes than literal history. Power was logistical and expansive. It was to rule not subdue. Hierarchies existed but were more organic than revolutionary. The dynastic monarchies over antiquity were not like the medieval churches. A role played in society instead of a phobic discrimination. The exodus is an interesting example but given the historical record of the Hyksos conquest, the fear was grave. Yet we read the narrative in binary terms. There is the oppressor and the oppressed. Rooting for the underdog. Yet this oppressed is not ideological but historical and logistical. The western reading of the text is racial liberation but socio-historically this was not the case. It was a militaristic and imperialistic outlook. Slaves were a central economic factor and the Israelites were part of the social chain. 

Ancient societies provide a nuanced perception that curtails the ideological motivation emerging in Ancient Greece. The rule of law became a beacon of hope but also a danger to classist discrimination. It shifted the mentality from logistical to classist, from economic to ideological. The innovative mentality startled the recognition of selfhood. Marxist critique are greek disasters. The canonisation was a standardisation. The insular model individualistic and profit based. Once the individual corporation grew it became its own power used against fellow citizens. With the freedom to participate in society all are vying for control. Those with resources will do whatever they can to maintain their hegemony while the lower classes will fight to attain those resources. The power of one group holds superior over others. Once the ideological turn became ever apparent it swept through the Middle Ages and till today. Liberty to express woes is prefaced ideologically as the victimised and the oppressed. 

The capitalistic grind in antiquity prompted individuals to profit from their business. An apprentice works for a master and works his way up. Experience advances his abilities. In Rome, over time classist laws dividing the classes were nullified. Yet the inefficiency at the expense of civil rights crippled the republic and transformed it into an empire. In a sense individualisation caused rupture as did the designated families. The horizontal symmetry did not amount to utopian surpluses. The beautiful republic of immense advancement. Passing the the achievements of the Greeks a few centuries earlier. Democratic elections for a governing body and an aura for liberty. An age of reason and intellectual rigour. Yet the wealthy monopolised screwing the local farmers with cheaper slave labour. This badly hurt the agricultural system and with the declining conquests funds was failing. Wealthy citizens compiled their own armies establishing denominations throughout the republic. The Leviathan had returned to its chaotic origin. Without senatorial power, a leader a tyrant stood up to regain power and thus began the Empire. 

Rome’s first fall was an inevitable consequences of the hierarchical dynamics. The patricians killed Tiberius for running a second term for the plebeians. Cato blocked legislation he disagreed with for years. A system must adapt but as long as hierarchal power is in the purview tensions will run high and something will go terribly wrong. The empire was a reaction to the failed democratic system. Even more it was a reaction to flawed power model. It continued to see inferiority. It never placed all on one horizontal plane. The marxist vision is problematic on the oppressors side as well. Praying on others is not cool. It only becomes realistic in a society with preconceived notions of classist identity. It is not an organic community. There is only an oppressor and an oppressed when the possibility is presented. Law is not the solution, value is. Law is part of the solution but not the whole solution. An ethical shift toward the other precedes the legal system. Its not a social contract but an ethical invitation. Once the law was not followed there was nothing left. Ethics may not be followed either in the case of the prophets but that issue was highly theological more often than not. There are examples of stealing and murder which is the moral polemic of the prophets. 

If the Roman republic was doomed was the Israelite monarchy? Not necessarily. It is also clear that internal corruption was more problematic in the second temple era with the denominational obscurity. In the hellenised world rich and poor became opponents on the battlefield. This dynamic did not exist earlier. Since both fell then both suffer from inadequacies but the messages gained in the latter are life living instead of orderly restrictive. Bringing us to today’s issue. Backsliding democracies are on the rise. The pinnacle of liberty, the US, acts similar to Cato. Some saw Trump as Caesar. The empire did last many generations. It did hit a few road bumps one being christianity but it succeeded for a few centuries. The current democratic realty is not democratic not libertarian. We are living on the edge of the roman republic. The lack of a regal history and the constitutional order gives the US a leg up but there is enough corruption to go around. The elites continue to oppress the people. Corporations prey on the weak and the government is not helping in any positive way. The January 6th riots were seen as an attack democracy but not the citizenry burning down cities. Both are terrible. Yet the advent of elite corruption has stirred the hearts toward a single saviour. People scared of another Caesar voted for Biden yet voted their esteemed corrupt politicians back into office.                      

Hegel was not correct. Western civilisation is moving in the wrong direction. It is missing the valuational side. The rational mind logically promotes new sequential structures to provide the greatest future but it is built on strict order. On fear. Religion for example is built on love. Ancient societies were tribal units with their own heritage and destiny. The social justice warriors are correct in their grievances but they’re going about it incorrectly. The western mind perceives a mindless duality. Power is misconceived as it continues to liberate and tower. If the other is devoid then there is no remedy. The democratic scheme at least in Hobbesian philosophy is a selfish effort. Order and stability aid the the lower classes rise. Motivated by greater elevation. Modern democracies can be seen as an extension of feudalism. Different political model but similar economic model with a few more “aristocrats”. Though with a few differences. Many people grow from nothing into something. Bezos is one of those individuals as well as contemporary YouTube influencers. Though these latter individuals may have found a way to eclipse the system. Similar to athletes, their influence is aiding diversity to the upper class. 

Talent is a privilege and an acquired skill. Even with oscillation toward new heights others are falling. Even with this growth certain demographics remain muddled in cyclical failure. Where there is rich there is poor. The poor are always the scorn of the wealthy, blamed for the failings of market crash among other dubious nonsense. Politics is a perpetual us-them. One side must prevail over the other lest evil enter the mainframe. Tyrannical rule has monolithic politics. Both sides fight for their ideological component. No longer is politics upper and lower class. The US is run on power dynamics about who should do what. The gravest despair is the discussion itself. It is no longer embedded rights but continuous conversation on power affiliation. Who shall wield and how shall they. Both sides wish to be in power so they can forward their agenda over the others. It is a race against time. Who can have more members in congress, who can fit more bills and who can stall longer. A bloodbath of debate and deliberation. Presidential debates have become verbal boxing matches like two kids out in the playground fighting over the cute girl’s affection. Toying in the most unsavoury ill-wrenching way. 

Independence wars fought on the same lines. Brothers in arms but politics divides. Hamilton and Burr both defended against the invading British tyranny. Upheld the same ideals. Yet, Burr killed Hamilton in political rage. Four presidential assassinations foiled bright futures with ideological immaturity. Obama was a terrorist and Trump a white supremacist. Both exaggerations but motivated polemics. There is debate and then there is war. People do not have friends of the opposite political belief. Living in their own echo-chambers. Disagreement has morphed into disassociation. Argue with the others but do not dehumanise nor devalue their point. Do not be so arrogant as to believe that you are entirely correct. Corona proved that people are too extreme. The mass hysteria was all too beholden to a reoccurring Karen episode. There is a disconnect between the citizenry. Adversarial haste is laced with deep distaste. While political banter is placed under wraps due to this divisive nature, when the conversation breaks, guns fully loaded are swept from under the rug.  

Liberty fosters individualistic thought but those incapable are lower on the totem pole. Society captures the whole and salvages those who would befall to natural selection. The role is no longer servitude for protection. Ironically, the communist movement is a quasi-antiquity model. The government is the regal machine equalising the people under a logistical format. Its failure is due to the western fascination with class order. The governmental machine becomes tyrannical and an oppressor. It becomes an ideological tennant then a logistical one. While antiquity ruled with tolerance, communism was a monolithic philosophy. The ethical perspective enables a shifting means. It is not legalistic but moral. Much of the social justice arguments are legal. While their points have merit, there must be a value shift in what a society needs more than the individual. Ethical mindset is a motivational effort to realise change prior to legislation. It is not moral legislation but morally legislating.