The Freedom Fight
Hegel's treatment of the master and slave dialectic is highly complex and abstract, but we will attempt to communicate the gist of his argument in a way that non-specialists can follow. The starting point is the concept of self-consciousness.
Self-consciousness is, by definition, a consciousness that is able to reflect upon itself. While all non-human animals on earth display various levels of consciousness, none of them are self-conscious. Hegel asserts that self-consciousness cannot exist on its own. It needs something else with which to contrast itself. To know what it is, self-consciousness must be aware of what it is not. (In a later article, we will show how Hegel's idea has astonishing implications for the nature of God, and is the key to why evil exists.)
A self-consciousness needs otherness, but as soon it encounters otherness it also experiences, for the first time, fear. Otherness is foreign, a potential threat, something that stands in opposition. The self-consciousness wishes to exert its will to power over the other thing. It wants to possess it, discover its secrets, absorb it, subordinate it, but, crucially, not to destroy it. If the self-consciousness takes ownership of the other thing, it will no longer find it foreign, hostile and threatening. But if it destroys the other thing, the self-consciousness will no longer have anything with which to contrast itself and will start to unravel. It cannot exist without the presence of otherness, yet as soon as it takes possession of otherness, otherness is no longer truly other. How can self-consciousness overcome this dilemma? Hegel came up with a profound and dramatic answer - by otherness arriving in the shape of a second self-consciousness.
Self-consciousness, in order to become true self-consciousness, needs not just any external object - any otherness - but another self-consciousness. By observing this other self-consciousness, by learning what it does and how it behaves, the first self-consciousness starts to understand itself. It learns what it means to be a self-consciousness.
Imagine a human child growing up on a desert island without the presence of another human or even an animal. Would the child develop language, would it become self-conscious, would it even become human in any true sense? The harsh but unavoidable truth is that it wouldn't. We become human by growing up amongst other humans, by being taught and guided by adult humans, by socialising with humans, by developing relationships, good and bad, with other humans. We immerse ourselves in the pool of humanity and thereby become human. If we are unable to do that because we have extreme autism, or severe Down's Syndrome, or any other debilitating condition that makes proper social interaction impossible, then we will never be truly human but more like an animal.
Think of the God of Christianity, Islam and Judaism existing in complete isolation before he allegedly created the world. How would this God develop as a self-consciousness without anything or anyone else with which to contrast himself? To a Christian, Muslim or Jew that question is not only absurd but also blasphemous and heretical. But their conception of God is ridiculous and incredible beyond words. Their God is one that could never exist. They believe in a fantasy. No intelligent person could subscribe to their religious beliefs. We said in an earlier section that our religion is one that even an atheist could contemplate accepting. That is because it is consistent with science and philosophy, and does not rely on the absurdity of faith. If you are prepared to believe in a 15-yr-old virgin giving birth to the omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, timeless Son of God in a stable in the Middle East 2,000 years ago, you are prepared to believe in anything. You are far beyond the reach of rational debate. Atheists will, rightly, instantly reject everything you have to say.
Hegel was fascinated by what would happen when a self-consciousness first encountered a second self-consciousness. The first self-consciousness would certainly now have another object with which to contrast itself, but this would be no simple object that could be straightforwardly owned and negated as all the previous objects had been. In fact, this other self-consciousness might be a serious threat. Also, the first self-consciousness is plunged into an identity crisis. It is no longer unique. Not only that, perhaps, the first self-consciousness worries, the other self-consciousness might want to try to own and negate it as if it were just another object.
Imagine two humans who have been raised in perfect isolation suddenly coming into contact with one another. What will they do? How will they behave? Hegel says that each requires recognition from the other: recognition that they are independent self-consciousnesses that are not mere objects to be owned and negated. What if the other refuses to provide that recognition?
If another self-consciousness does not acknowledge that I am also a self-consciousness, my whole identity is at stake. I am thrust into an existential crisis. Who am I? What am I? What will become of me? Does my existence have meaning?
When prisoners of war are being broken, one of the main tactics used is to dehumanise them, depersonalise them, refuse to acknowledge their humanity, their existence as anything other than objects. Many people have gone insane when subjected to this treatment. If you travelled the globe and were never once acknowledged as a human being by anyone you met, if you were ignored at every turn, if you were treated as invisible, you would soon no longer be human in any functioning sense. Quite simply, we cannot be human without acknowledgement of our humanity by other humans. Most people take their identity for granted, but it is astonishingly fragile, as many prisoners of war discover to their cost. The Jews in Nazi death camps were stripped of all of their humanity. They were turned, metaphorically, and even literally in some cases, into objects. One survivor, the great writer Primo Levi once dared to ask a guard, "Why?" regarding some incident. The response he got was infinitely chilling: "Here, there is no 'why'."
Recognition is not just important, it is a matter of life and death. Our whole existence hinges on it. Without it, we are objects. We are not human. We might as well be dead.
Hegel says that in the first encounter between two self-consciousnesses, the outcome is so critical, so much is riding on it, that in effect it becomes a fight to the death. Yet death must not happen. If either is killed, the other is denied the possibility of recognition and loses the chance to be a proper self-consciousness. (Remember that Hegel says that a self-consciousness cannot exist in the absence of another self-consciousness. Self-consciousness is social and plural, never singular.)
So, while each person fights as if to the death, the struggle does not actually end in death because that would be the end for both self-consciousnesses, both the victor and vanquished. The only way for the situation to be resolved is for one self-consciousness to, finally, submit to the other i.e. for one to prove to be more cowardly and weak than the other, less able to put everything on the line in order to win, less willing to risk death itself.
So, both have survived and both can now acknowledge the other, but a terrible and infinitely fateful asymmetry has entered the equation. The struggle has ended with the complete victory of one over the other. The victor is the master and the vanquished his slave. The victor was prepared to fight to the death; the vanquished wasn't. He gave up. The victor is courageous and the vanquished a coward. The victor is strong and the vanquished weak. The master controls and the slave is controlled. The master is the ruler and the slave is the ruled.
This struggle has, symbolically, been going on since the dawn of humanity. We have all participated in the struggle and we are now all either masters or slaves. It's easy to know which. If you work for another person, you are a slave. If you can be fired, you are a slave. If others control your life, you are a slave. If you are fearful of what others might do, you are a slave. If you have to await the decisions of others, you are a slave. The freer and the more independent you are, the more you resemble a master.
Although it seems that everything is perfectly set up for the master, Hegel says that this is not the case. Certainly, the master can put the slave to work and live excellently off the slave's hard toil. He can indulge in play all day long if he wishes. While the slave labours from dusk until dawn, the master lives a life of leisure and ease. Yet he is dissatisfied. He was hoping for acknowledgement from another self-consciousness, another person, but now he finds it hard to see the slave as anything other than an object. The asymmetry in their relationship means that there is no equality in the recognition for which they fought. The slave hates being viewed as a thing, and the master can barely tolerate being looked at by the slave.
But a new and amazing dialectic takes over. The master, living off the labour of the slaves, does no work himself. But the slave's work, bit by bit, begins to change the environment. Fields are cultivated, buildings constructed, goods manufactured. In all of this work, something of the slave is turning into physical form. His consciousness is becoming externally objectified. He realises he has a mind of his own, that he's capable of creation, and of ordering his environment. He becomes proud of his achievements. His self-assurance steadily builds. He no longer feels so wretched and worthless in comparison with the master.
When the slave and master survey the world, the slave sees the fruit of his own work, while the master sees the outcome of another's work. The slave finds that his consciousness is appearing all around him in the shape of the work he has performed. He is finding a way to attain recognition and deeper understanding of his own consciousness other than solely through the approval of another self-consciousness. He grows as a person. He pours himself into his work. He learns things and becomes increasingly skilled. The master, on the other hand, is becoming lazy and inept, with none of his own work to show for his time.
As the dialectic unfolds, the slave, theoretically, should become more and more powerful until he is the equal of the master. At that point the master will no longer be able to treat him as anything other than a free man. Each side has achieved what it wants. The slave is no longer deemed less than human, and the master at last gets the recognition he craves from an equal. The master-slave dialectic has culminated in an outcome that preserves the two most valuable features of the dialectic: the master's freedom, and the slave's skilful work. Now the slave can enjoy the master's freedom, and the master can acquire the skills of the slave.
At least, that's what's supposed to happen. But what if a group exists - the Old World Order - that wishes to ensure that the masters always remain on the top, and the slaves remain permanently less than human? Whether we are brave enough to acknowledge it or not, that's the world we live in today. Police and soldiers are there to enforce the masters' will.
Our way of life is inherently based on masters and slaves. We bow to assorted Gods, like slaves bowing to masters. We bow to monarchs and presidents, to the rich, to celebrities. We never tire of bowing to others and getting on our knees. We are controlled at every turn. Isn't it time to unshackle us, to stand up straight for once?
The Illuminati are meritocrats. Only meritocracy, not democracy, can deliver a world where there are neither masters nor slaves. Masters are those who are able to control vastly more resources than others. Therefore, meritocracy advocates preventing anyone from acquiring excessive resources. When the richest person in a nation is, say, just ten to twenty times wealthier than the poorest can the circumstances exist for masters and slaves to vanish from society. In a capitalist democracy, the system devised by the Old World Order to allow them to hold the people in their tyrannical grasp, the richest person can be worth a million times more than the poorest. In such a system, the winners take all. The winners are the Old World Order, and the rest of us are losers, suckers, cowards and slaves. But we can change the system at any time. After all, there are vastly more of us. What's stopping us? Do we have no dignity, no self-respect, no courage?
Why has capitalist democracy proved so apparently successful, to the extent that virtually no one dares to challenge it? No debate in the media ever takes place about the replacement of capitalist democracy. Even during the current financial meltdown, no rivals to capitalist democracy have been proposed. Why not? Because the masters won't allow the system that has brought them such spectacular wealth and power to be toppled. Sure, you can change your President or Prime Minister, but you can't change the system, and it is the system that is the problem, not the identity of the figurehead.
Capitalist democracy is, however, doomed because it is dialectically unstable. Capitalism is an ideology based on extreme inequality. It is an economic system designed by and for masters. It revolves around a tiny number of people - the rich masters with vast amounts of capital - using the labour of slaves (us, the work drones) to generate enormous profits.
Karl Marx predicted that this system would implode and be replaced by communism - the common ownership of all of a nation's assets by the people - and he would have been proved right had the masters not seen the danger. They produced a brilliant dialectical response - they harnessed democracy to capitalism.
Democracy is an ideology based on equality: one man one vote; every vote has equal weight to every other vote. The masters massively extended the vote to groups that had previously been denied voting rights. In a country like the USA, the ordinary people - the slaves - were allowed the illusion that every four years they could decide who was in charge of their nation. This illusion was all that was needed to persuade the slaves that they were in control of their own destiny, that they were free.
Yet look at an American election such as the one in 2004 - Bush versus Kerry: two extremely wealthy men, both members of Yale's notorious Skull and Bones Masonic secret society. The genius of using democracy, from the Old World Order's viewpoint, is that it doesn't matter for whom the people vote for as long as they - the Old World Order - choose the candidates. If Kerry had won the election, the Old World Order would still have had their man in the White House. It doesn't matter who wins or loses the election: the Old World Order always stays in charge.
The President is either a member of the Old World Order, or meets with their full approval. Someone like Obama, even though an outsider, is nevertheless someone who will never threaten the Old World Order's hegemony. He wouldn't have been allowed to set foot in the White House if the Old World Order thought he would damage their interests. They viewed Obama as a means of re-establishing the credibility of capitalist democracy after the disastrous Bush years.
Obama's job is to act as a PR man and cheerleader for capitalist democracy. Even his most enthusiastic fans must already see that nothing significant will change under his presidency. The Old World Order's power will be as strong as ever. There is nothing any President can do to change things. The entire American political and economic system is designed to prevent any serious challenge to capitalism, the bedrock of the Old World Order's power and riches.
To reiterate, the Old World Order's power is based on disguising their commitment to inequality (capitalism) by harnessing it to democracy, an ideology of equality. The democratic element is sufficient to deceive the slaves while the masters go about their business of greedily serving their own interests. The excesses of the Wall Street Gang in the years leading up to the current financial disaster are amongst the most egregious in history, yet this was taking place within a so-called democracy.
Did a single democrat have any say whatsoever in what was going on in Wall Street? Yet who's picking up the tab now? "No taxation without representation" was the great slogan of the American Revolution, yet in the last year the American people have picked up a vast tax bill to bail out the bankers. Did the people have any representation in the boardrooms of Wall Street? None at all. Did they have any say in the enormous salaries, bonuses, pensions, stock options, perks? Don't you get it? Capitalism is all about the masters while democracy is all about pretending to the slaves that they can change things. They can't.
The other measure the masters took to protect their position was the introduction of welfare provisions. The great revolutions in France and Russia (in 1789 and 1917) took place because the people were literally starving to death and had to fight for their lives. If the rulers of France and Russia had provided a welfare state, no revolutions would have occurred.
The masters now ensure that the slaves have a reasonable degree of comfort. And the slaves are no longer mere workers. They are consumers now, and via consumption they bring more wealth to the masters. By giving us democracy, a standard of living that maintains most of us in reasonable comfort, and the opportunity for us to consume a huge variety of things, the masters create the illusion that we are free rather than slaves. And we fall for it. Yet behind the curtain, the masters control everything. We have traded our self-respect and our souls for the baubles they throw at us, for the scraps they toss at us from their high tables. How grateful we are for our petty lives as consumers of the junk they sell us.
Most of us are "respectable" slaves, but there is also an underclass of those who are not judged respectable. Marx referred to the underclass as the "lumpenproletariat": the "refuse of all classes," including "swindlers, confidence tricksters, brothel-keepers, rag-and-bone merchants, beggars, and other flotsam of society." They are dispossessed and powerless. Trotsky believed that the underclass were reactionary and counter-revolutionary, and generally highly supportive of the upper classes.
This is classic slave behaviour: admiring the very people who oppress you. Many of the supporters of the right wing American Republican Party - the main party of the Old World Order - are members of the underclass. They are frequently fundamentalist Christians (a slave morality), and advocates of capitalism (even though they themselves have no capital) and have dead-end jobs or no jobs at all. When people vote for the masters who have made them slaves, they have lost all self-respect. They are perfectly brainwashed.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest ink. If our society is regarded as a chain then it is falling apart. Weak links are everywhere, and most visibly in the underclass. The underclass is left to rot. They have few or no prospects of bettering themselves. They are a drain on the rest of society, a source of criminality. A large criminal justice system is required to deal with them. Police, prisons, welfare organisations, community centres, social workers, government agencies are needed in abundance. It costs a fortune to supply all of this (and even then it's not nearly enough), but to achieve what? Simply to prevent these people going on the rampage.
Is it healthy for society to have a large and growing underclass? But don't forget why the underclass exists - they have been deliberately starved of resources in order to ensure that the masters - the Old World Order - can enjoy an excess of resources. Imagine that there is set amount of wealth in the world. Everyone who gets more than the average, more than his fair share, is, in effect, depriving others. Is that moral? The Old World Order impoverish the underclass in order to enrich themselves, and the rest of society acts as a buffer between the masters and the lowest slaves.
Under a meritocracy, the absurd inequality that appears under capitalism would be abolished, but so would the sterile and false equality that characterises a system such as communism. Both capitalism and communism are LCD - lowest common denominator - ideologies. In communism, the laziest, most stupid person is guaranteed the same rewards as the hardest-working, most talented person, and hence the talented hard-worker loses any motivation and the system rapidly degenerates. The talented lose all incentive to make optimal use of their skills.
Under capitalism, the production of goods is based on the popularity of those goods, which in turn reflects the quality of the people. A nation full of stupid, untalented people has stupid, untalented tastes. They love popcorn movies, reality TV, game shows, chat shows, sitcoms, hospital, legal and crime dramas and all the rest of the dross that is shown 24/7. A nation of slaves has slave tastes. Everywhere, quality is sacrificed for cheap, gaudy goods with instant appeal. The system is based on short-term gratification and cheap thrills. Everything is disposable. Nothing lasts. In a short time, quality vanishes from capitalism since it simply isn't profitable enough: there are too few people of quality.
Communism and capitalism are both catastrophic. Marx's dialectical analysis was wrong. Communism is not the inevitable victor over capitalism. Communism is the equal and opposite pole of capitalism, and just as bad. Extremes of equality and inequality are equally damaging.
Another point must me made about communism. It is nothing but a secularized form of Christianity. Jesus Christ's "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", is simply a different way of saying Marx's "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." The two systems are morally identical. They both revile masters and promote complete equality. Communism is Christianity without Christ, which is why it is so feared by the leaders of the Christian world. It renders them redundant.
Christianity, unlike communism, has historically found favour with the masters, with emperors, kings and dictators. Why? Because it allows them to exploit the slaves as much as they like. "Render unto Caesar," says Christ. That means obey your masters. The communists on the other hand say resist your masters. "Turn the other cheek," says Christ. The communists say, "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees." Christ says that his people will gain their reward in the afterlife. Communists say that there is no afterlife and the reward must come here and now. "Love your enemies," says Christ. The communists say overthrow them, with violent revolution if necessary. Christ tells us to respect private property (the masters' property!) while for the communists all property is theft. At its core, Christianity is ambiguous, a chameleon. Communism is far more honest. No master could ever embrace communism, yet many of the worst masters in history have proudly proclaimed themselves Christian. The Old World Order loves Christianity, one of their greatest instruments of tyranny - as it was always intended to be by its founder, Christ the Deceiver.
The masters spent long decades demonising communism, the ultimate slave ideology. You never heard them breathing a word against capitalism, the most successful master ideology. Instead they demanded, and got, freer and freer markets - less and less regulation and supervision. Cui bono? They didn't want anyone looking over their shoulders to see what they were up to. Their most profitable deals, the ones that carve up the world between them, must be carried out in the greatest of secrecy with no outside scrutiny.
And look what happened? The world was plunged into the greatest celebration of greed and excess in world history. The triumph of the masters seemed complete. They even called themselves the "Master of the Universe." But then came the credit crunch - one of the most calamitous financial disasters of all time. And who paid for the wreckage of the economy? The masters? Don't be absurd. The slaves footed the bill, as they always do.
The dialectic that propels history has already destroyed communism, the slave ideology. Now it will turn its attention to the disaster of capitalism, the master ideology. Slaves will become their own masters and masters their own slaves, and thereby all distinctions between master and slave will be negated.
Meritocracy is the higher synthesis of capitalism (the thesis) and communism (the antithesis). It strips them of their weaknesses and magnifies their strengths. It brings and end to the dark age of master and slave politics and economics. It is the culmination of the dialectic. It marks the overthrow of the Old World Order. It is not just desirable, it is inevitable. It is the End of History in terms of economic and political evolution. There is no stage beyond.
Meritocracy is acephalous - without heads, rulers, leaders, masters. They are redundant in a world of talented people where one person is as skilled as another.
Meritocracy is an HCF - "highest common factor" - philosophy. It is not a race for the bottom, but an ascent to the top. In a meritocracy, there are no masters, no slaves, no lowest common denominator, no low quality goods and services, no pandering to the vulgar and cheap to make a fast buck.
Meritocracy advocates collaborative groups of talented individuals, each with valuable expertise. In a world of skilled people there would be no bosses and no workers. If, for some reason, a figurehead was required, that person would be appointed under the principle of primus inter pares - first amongst equals. Those who achieve great things get greater rewards than others, but not to the extent where they can markedly disadvantage others.
Do you think Obama will save you? Think again. Do you think elections every four years will save you? Think again. A revolution is needed, one that replaces both the industrial revolution of capitalism ("dark, Satanic mills") and the communist revolutions of Marxism. We need a meritocratic revolution that will bring an end to the Old World Order, and the religions of Satan.
Do not forget: any religion or ideology that requires you to bow, kneel, pray, salute, wear special uniforms, adopt submissive postures, roll out a red carpet, adore and worship Gods or heroes is trying to control you. The Satanic world is full of levers of control and brainwashing. Once you are under the control of others you are alienated from yourself. You will never realise your own potential.
Meritocracy is about freeing everyone from control. In a liberated world, capitalism would vanish since it is a master and slave ideology but there would be no more masters and slaves for it to operate upon. Slave religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam would disappear. Above all, the Old World Order would be abolished. Isn't a world without masters and slaves worth fighting for? Isn't it time to reject capitalist democracy and the slave religions? Isn't it time for meritocracy and Illumination?
What are we waiting for?
Embrace the Light.
No more masters and no more slaves.
A world made up of dynamic communities of talented individuals.
The meritocratic world is the platform for humanity to take the next step of its evolution upwards - towards God.