In an ideal world everyone would be slaves. This is not merely a truism echoing the willowing philosopher’s trite sentiment on what it is to be Godly. It is a serious state of being that encapsulates ordered society. Everyone is a master or a slave. There are no neutrals. However, and this is a big however, can there be willing slaves? Is a slave representative of hierarchical process or one of spiritual status? This is a serious question and perhaps more serious than glib society would feel comfortable in measuring. You see if the boss spends twice as long suffering and bowing to turmoil of his new created empire, is he not twice the slave than those who bear his burden? Does the accumulation of monetary security trump the lack of it? The average worker these days is not categorised as a slave. Government bureaucrats of the first world brandish statistics synthesising fairness in their loaded world. They talk of freedoms and safety nets. They talk of choice and opportunity. But most of all they talk of a system that works. Has the system become proselytised by its own collapse?
We need to look back at the bad old days before governments were formed and what led to their formation. How was it back then, when technology was reduced to the imagination of wizards and sages? Sir Isaac Newton has been heralded as the father of science. Records state he was born on Christmas day 1642. On 30th January 1649 Charles I of England was executed for “treason” to make way for the first government not appointed by a sovereign. The idea of a republic was nothing new, but Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector in December 1653 also unappointed by God. By January 1655 he ruled without parliament. August that year saw England under military rule and Cromwell had succeeded more power than the King deposed and executed for wielding too much power. The Protectorate concept eventually collapsed and in 1660 Charles I’s son Charles II was invited to restore the monarchy from exile in France. Through the mists of intrigue there were two waves of revolt running simultaneously. First was the merchant (banker) who had previously operated heeding the mercy of the Royal aristocracy. Second was the science atheist who sought to break the stranglehold of God’s code so fiercely protected. The product was surely science-capitalism?
If there was such a thing as science-capitalism, what on earth would it look like? Might it resemble the fearsome double (headed) eagle found on priceless classical coins? The first thing the impartial observer would expect to witness would be a shift of Royal rule to figurehead. This was more of a lateral evolution than the historically described Machiavellian shift, as the Roman aristocracy determined it was much safer to be black. With this hindsight the researcher might validly argue their Empire did not so much collapse as peter out. Indeed, constructively, a number of the old black aristocrats were behind the new burgeoning merchants. This collapse of royalty was a trend that began with the end of Roman imperialism. Let us not forget the Great British Empire was created by puppet Royal Queen Victoria in 1850’s and grew to become the largest empire in known history by 1922. Nevertheless the true imperial coordination of independent merchants began in 1688 with the formation of Lloyds of London. Science has made extraordinary progress since the death of Galileo in 1642 from whence he achieved cult status from pseudo atheist elites wishing to capitalise on new forged freedoms. The church inquisition movement found him guilty of heresy in 1634, but their findings eventually broke their own movement. Maybe Maria Van Monjou’s death in 1552 had not been in vain.
There are a number of less than welcome reductions of science, however. Most famously was Tesla’s free energy solution that was rejected by the banker J.P. Morgan in favour of Edison’s wired electricity. Royal Raymond Rife’s cine-micrography device that reached such high acclaim in 1938 was stolen and destroyed by the then pharmaceutical cartel that rejected alternatives to the drugged butchery they called healthcare. Though explanatory versions of what Rife had achieved varies, it is a black mark against capitalist-science considering the machine would have fitted very well into our modern systems of fiscal accountability. Whether Rife’s machine was the all-purpose cure or if simply a start in the right direction, the tyranny was not permitting its course. This has reflected badly on capitalism and the essence of mankind. If there was a single definition of science-capitalism it would be broken into two parts. The positive would be the progression of any solution that enhanced the “greater good”. The negative would be the destruction and slander of anything that threatened the planned direction of capitalist utopia. In summary science can only be measured by what it does and not by what it says. The heart of capitalist-science is strong but the mouth is ever so fickle. In the same way global governments which represent the descendants of the merchant bankers who conquered royalty to enable a renaissance of science prefer fabrication to fact. Sure, most of what they say when confined to the insular introspective makes sense. When moved far away from the big picture plausible denial reigns.
With fixed government and fixed science it seems but a small step to fixed capital. The manipulators have been clever. Being clever is not necessarily being sensible, productive or fair. A better word might be cunning. How did they ensure they fairly won the leadership of capitalism whilst always protecting their ever increasing status? First they ensured all positions of responsibility are supported by credentials marked to their standards and mechanisms. These credentials are supplied at great cost to talented students. Talented students are invariably those ear marked for the credentials and only after a prior bad experience might an “outsider” be considered for grooming. The burgeoning global population has largely ensured there is sufficient talent to be supplied by the in-group. All work not requiring credentials is paid the bare minimum rate or less. There might be some mild gradation to encourage false hope that the fixed system is fair. But no, those without credentials can do little more than earn to survive. There still remains the problem of a large and “useless” middle class – those who neither rule nor work. This is remedied by ensuring there are always plenty of cheaper courses churning worthless qualifications. This remedies the middle class gap in two ways. Firstly it demonstrates talent is common. When there is too much supply for no demand wages are driven down to the bare minimum. They are trying to create an impotent and ineffective middle class whose self-esteem parries with their work to survive, survive or die labour counterparts. The battle is between those who refuse to be processed by a system loaded against them and those that whose task it is to uphold unfairness dressed as fair.
The improved concept of communism was an egalitarian foundation defining a cooperation of social interest working to a common goal. There were no rules and writers such as Louisa S. Bevington have inspired many. Her essay Anarchism and Violence (1896) admirably sums up capitalist interest versus human nature and is current today. Karl Marx’s 1848 Communist Manifesto, whilst partially admirable, provides a sufficient ghost framework to ensure decisions makers are all-powerful under their State authority. The evidence seen in the workings of the old communist Soviet Republics demonstrated that governors and their political emissaries owned status. Even their puppet meritocracy was completely subordinate. Red China has not changed colour or philosophy. It is still communist but hosts two (yes two) stock exchanges (Shanghai and Shenzhen) plus the Honk Kong exchange which reverted to Chinese rule upon expiration of its lease to Great Britain. Innuendo exclaiming President Obama is turning America into a Marxist State should surprise no one. Marxist communism is capitalism’s final step.