Erich Fromm And The Rise Of Fascism (Part 1)

There are a lot of people warning about Donald Trump’s presidency as mirroring Hitler’s rise to power. They point to the next elections as do or die for defeating this new Nazi scourge: if we don’t roll with the blue wave, all hope is lost.

 

Accompanying such talk are loose references to the Weimar Republic and hyper-inflation, but I haven’t heard anything that sounded like it came from an in-depth understanding of why the fascists came to power when and where they did. In the interest of better understanding what actually brought the Nazis to power and how to avoid such a thing in the present, I thought it a good idea to re-read Escape From Freedom by Erich Fromm.

I do believe Erich Fromm had a unique position from which to comment on the rise of the Nazis in Germany. Born in Frankfurt Germany in 1900, he was young enough to witness the effects of the First World War to his country, although too young to serve. He was there to experience post-war Germany and the slow rise of the Nazi party until, as a Jew, he found it prudent to take a position in the United States in 1933. As someone who earned his doctorate in sociology and later became a practicing psychologist, I can think of nobody more qualified to diagnose the disease that is fascism and warn us of how we might prevent its occurrence elsewhere and in the future.

This is precisely what he did in 1941, when he wrote Escape From Freedom. He writes from the position of not only a sociologist, but as a psychologist, a German, and a member of the group most hated by the Nazis. This is why I strongly recommend reading this book if you are truly concerned about fascism rising here and now in our country. The most important thing you can do is educate yourself on the past if you do not wish to see its atrocities duplicated in the past.

But hey, I know a lot of you are really that interested in stopping a fascist takeover our country. I mean, you’ll get off your couch and go to vote. Which is better than what half of us will do. You’ll get on social media and express your opinions, of which you are quite certain. More importantly, you’ll call out anyone who disagrees with you as either active participants in or useful idiots for fascism. But when it comes to reading an old book that’s over 300 pages long of in-depth analysis of socio-economic trends and the psychological underpinnings of the appeal of authoritarian governments, well…you’ll let the people you vote for take care of that sort of thing. That’s what they’re paid for, right? You have a daytime job, and yoga classes, and luncheon appointments…

No worries, I’ve got you covered. I’ve read the whole book and highlighted the parts that appear to be relevant to the present time. While cliff notes are not the same as reading the actual text of Hamlet, there is yet something to be gained by them. Similarly, reading segments from Erich Fromm's book isn't going to be as good as immersing yourself in it, nonetheless, I feel it has value. Below I present you with excerpts from Escape From Freedom.

--At this crucial moment, however, a modicum of increased insight—objectivity—can make the difference between life and death for the human race. For this reason the development of a scientific and dynamic social psychology is of vital importance. Progress in social psychology is necessary to counteract the dangers which arise from the progress in physics and medicine.

--If we want to fight Fascism we must understand it. Wishful thinking will not help us. And reciting optimistic formulae will prove to be as inadequate and useless as the ritual of an Indian rain dance.”

--(Quote from John Dewey) “The serious threat to our democracy is not the existence of foreign totalitarian states. It is the existence within our own personal attitudes and within our own institutions of conditions which have given a victory to external authority. Discipline, uniformity, and dependence upon The Leader in foreign countries. The battlefield is also accordingly here—within ourselves and our institutions.”

--’Freedom from’ is not identical with positive freedom, with ‘freedom to’. The emergence of man from nature is a long-drawn-out process: to a large extent he remains tied to the world from which he emerged; he remains part of nature—the soil he lives on, the sun and moon and stars, the trees and flowers, the animals, and the group of people with whom he is connected by the ties of blood.

--…if the economic, social and political conditions on which the whole process of human individuation depends, do not offer a basis for the realization of individuality …while at the same time people have lost those ties which gave them security, this lag makes freedom an unbearable burden. It then becomes identical with doubt, with a kind of life which lacks meaning and direction. Powerful tendencies arise to escape from this kind of freedom into submission or some kind of relationship to man and the world which promises relief from uncertainty, even if it deprives the individual of his freedom.”

--…the negative side of freedom, the burden which it puts upon man, is difficult to realize, especially for those whose heart is with the cause of freedom. Because in the fight for freedom in modern history the attention was focused upon combating old forms of authority and restraint, it was natural that one should feel that the more these traditional restraints were eliminated, the more freedom one had gained. We fail sufficiently to recognize, however, that although man has rid himself from old enemies of freedom, new enemies of a different nature have arisen: enemies which are not essentially external. We believe…that freedom of speech is the last step in the march of victory of freedom. We forget that, although freedom of speech constitutes and important victory in the battle against old restraints, modern man is in a position where much of what ‘he’ thinks and says are the things that everybody else thinks and says; that he has not acquired the ability to think originally—that is, for himself—which alone gives meaning to his claim that nobody can interfere with the expression of his thoughts. Again, we are proud that in his conduct of life man has become free from external authorities, which tell him what to do and what not to do. We neglect the role of the anonymous authorities like public opinion and ‘common sense’, which are so powerful because of our profound readiness to conform to the expectations everybody has about ourselves and our equally profound fear of being different.

--We therefore are prone to think that the problem of freedom is exclusively that of gaining still more freedom of the kind we have gained in the course of modern history, and to believe that the defense of freedom against such powers that deny such freedom is all that is necessary. We forget that, although each of the liberties which have been won must be defended with utmost vigor, the problem of freedom is not only a quantitative one, but a qualitative one; that we do not only have to preserve and increase the traditional freedoms, but that we have to gain a new kind of freedom, one which enables us to realize our own individual self, to have faith in this self and in life.

--Once man was ready to become nothing but the means for the glory of a God who represented neither justice nor love, he was sufficiently prepared to accept the role of a servant to the economic machine—and eventually a “Fuhrer”.

--In any society the spirit of the whole culture is determined by the spirit of those groups that are most powerful in that society. This is so partly because these groups have the power to control the educational system, schools, church, press, theater, and thereby to imbue the whole population with their own ideas; furthermore, these powerful groups carry so much prestige that the lower classes are more than ready to accept and imitate their values and to identify themselves psychologically.

--While modern man seems to be characterized by utmost assertion of the self, actually his self has been weakened and reduced to a segment of the total self—intellect and will—to the exclusion of all other parts of the total personality.

--But although man has reached a remarkable degree of mastery of nature, society is not in control of the very forces it has created. The rationality of the system of production, in its technical aspects, is accompanied by the irrationality of our system of production in its social aspects. Economic crises, unemployment war, govern man’s fate. Man has built his world; he has built factories and houses, he produces cars and clothes, he grows grain and fruit. But he has become estranged from the product of his own hands, he is not really the master any more of the world he has built; on the contrary, this man-made world has become his master, before whom he bows down whom he tries to placate or to manipulate as best he can. The work of his own hands has become his God. He seems to be driven by self-interest, but in reality his total self with all its concrete potentialities has become an instrument for the purposes of the very machine his hands have built. He keeps up the illusion of being the center of the world, and yet he is pervaded by an intense sense of insignificance and powerlessness which his ancestors once consciously felt toward God.

--The concrete relationship of one individual to another has lost its direct and human character and has assumed a spirit of manipulation and instrumentality. In all social and personal relations the laws of the market are the rule.

--The word “employer” contains the whole story: the owner of capital employs another human being as he “employs” a machine. They both use each other for the pursuit of their economic interests. It is not a relationship of two human beings who have any interest in the other outside of this mutual usefulness.

--For those who struggle on, especially for a large part of the middle class, the fight assumes the character of a battle against such odds that the feeling of confidence in personal initiative and courage is replaced by a feeling of powerlessness and hopelessness. An enormous though secret power over the whole of society is exercise by a small group, on the decisions of which depends the fate of a large part of society. The inflation in Germany in 1923, or the American crash, increased the feeling of insecurity and shattered for many the hope of getting ahead by one’s own efforts and the traditional belief in the unlimited possibilities of success.

--The insignificance of the individual in our era concerns not only his role as a businessman, employee, or manual laborer, but also his role as a customer…As an abstract customer he is important, as a concrete customer he is utterly unimportant. There is nobody who is glad about his coming, nobody who is particularly concerned about his wishes. The act of buying has become similar to going to the post office and buying stamps.

--(regarding advertising) it does not appeal to reason but to emotion; like any other kind of hypnoid suggestion, it tries to impress its objects emotionally and then make them submit intellectually. This type of advertising impresses the customer by all sorts of means: by repetition of the same formula again and again; by the influence of an authoritative image, like that of a society lady or a famous boxer, who smokes a certain brand of cigarette; by attracting the customer and at the same time weakening his critical abilities by the sex appeal of a pretty girl; by terrorizing him with the threat of “b.o.” or “halitosis; or yet again by stimulating daydreams about a sudden change in one’s whole course of life brought about by buying a certain shirt or soap. All these methods are essentially irrational; they have nothing to do with the qualities of the merchandise, and they smother and kill the critical capacities of the customer like an opiate or outright hypnosis. They give him a certain satisfaction by their daydreaming qualities just as the movies do, but at the same time they increase his feeling of smallness and powerlessness.

--As a matter of fact, these methods of dulling the capacity for critical thinking are more dangerous to our democracy than many of the open attacks against it, and more immoral—in terms of human integrity—than the indecent literature, publication of which we punish.

Like the effect of advertising upon the customer, the methods of political propaganda tend to increase the feeling of insignificance of the individual voter. Repetition of slogans and emphasis on factors which have nothing to do with the issue at stake numb his critical capacities. The clear and rational appeal to his thinking are rather the exception than the rule in political propaganda—even in democratic countries. Confronted with the power and size of the parties as demonstrated in their propaganda, the individual voter cannot help feeling small and of little significance.

All this does not mean that advertising and political propaganda overtly stress the individual’s insignificance. Quite the contrary; they flatter the individual by making him appear important, and by pretending that they appeal to his critical judgment, to his sense of discrimination, But these pretenses are essentially a method to dull the individual’s suspicions and to help him fool himself as to the individual character of his decision. I need scarcely point out that the propaganda of which I have been speaking is not wholly irrational, and that there are differences in the weight of rational factors in the propaganda of different parties and candidates respectively.

--…in our effort to escape from aloneness and powerlessness, we are ready to get rid of our individual self either by submission to new forms of authority or by a compulsive conforming to accepted patterns.

--Once the primary bonds which gave security to the individual are severed, once the individual faces the world outside of himself as a completely separate entity, two courses are open to him since he has to overcome the unbearable state of powerlessness and aloneness. By one course he can progress to “positive freedom”; he can relate himself spontaneously to the world in love and work, in the genuine expression of his emotional, sensuous, and intellectual capacities; he can thus become one again with man, nature, and himself, without give up the independence and integrity of his individual self. The other course open to him is to fall back to give up his freedom and to try to overcome his aloneness by eliminating the gap that has arisen between his individual self and the world. The second course never reunites him with the world in the way he was related to it before he emerged as an “individual”, for the fact of his separateness cannot be reversed; it is an escape from an unbearable situation which would make life impossible if it were prolonged. This course of escape, therefore, is characterized by its compulsive character, like every escape from threatening panic; it is also characterized by the more or less complete surrender of individuality and the integrity of the self. Thus it is not a solution which leads to happiness and positive freedom; it is, in principle, a solution which is to be found in all neurotic phenomena. It assuages an unbearable anxiety and makes life possible by avoiding panic; yet it does not solve the underlying problem and is paid for by a kind of life that often consists only of automatic or compulsive activities.

Part 2 to follow soon…

Mitch Mcconnell? Seriously, Kentucky, WTF?

Is Kentucky a breeding den of mutant man-goats? I don’t want to pick on a state full of people I hardly know, but it has some explaining to do. Seriously, there must be something fucking wrong with a state that elects Mitch McConnell to the United States Senate. If you could not find a better candidate, then why was The Hills Have Eyes not filmed in your state? Or was it?

I really want to know from someone who lives in the state of Kentucky: does anybody really like this guy? Why? What positive qualities does the man possess? If you’re going to vote in an evil politician—and here I have to admit that every state is guilty of this—couldn’t you at least elect one that doesn’t look like a boiling frog? Couldn’t you choose someone like Nikki Haley, an evil person, sure, but relatively normal to look at, at least?

What’s the matter with you? Do you think the rest of the country likes to see his face pop up on their news feed or TV every fucking day when we wake up? Gollum has a much better profile than Mitch McConnell. Don’t you know that every person who does not live in Kentucky hates you and judges you for this boiling pot of pea soup you call a congressman? We’re talking about kicking you out of the union, maybe selling you off to Mexico or Saudi Arabia.

Please, for fuck’s sake, just get rid of him. It’s common courtesy. It’s like flushing after you take a big dump. Nobody wants to deal with it.

Fuck. It’s like having an asshole roommate. Everyday we wake up and just want to go about our business. We want to take a shower to start the day, but you’ve already been there and clogged the toilet with your stinky McConnell. It’s not a good way for America to begin its workday.

And so far I’ve only pointed out the physical repulsiveness of Mitch McConnell. Because for God’s sake, that should be enough for you Kentuckians to get him out of the public eye. That alone should make you want to not be judged by the man. But as vomit-inducing as MM is in appearance, his inner self is even more vile. He’s like Dorian Grey, you don’t see all the truly nasty parts of him. The man has nothing to offer to anyone except those who are wealthy. He has done nothing but dismantle the social safety net. He is ruining our country. Morally he is toxic. Intellectually he is toxic. Please, in the name of all that is holy, please tell me why you keep sending him back to congress. Please tell me why you are willing to give this guy a paycheck when all he’s doing is enriching himself at your expense.

As much as I have opposed the idea of collective guilt in the past, you leave me no option but to hold every man woman and child of Kentucky responsible until you have removed that toilet-clogger from our sight. Go ahead, elect him to a state position, I don’t give a fuck, just keep him out of the federal government. I wouldn’t do that to you. I wouldn’t do that to my worst enemy.

I mean, seriously, look at him. I’m not one to pick on a person’s personal appearance, but LOOK AT HIM!!! Is that a face you want framed and hanging on you living room wall? You want a statue with that face standing in your downtown? You want his face on your currency someday? No? Then why do you subject us to that?

Let’s work something out, Kentucky. We’ll talk to Europe and have them end the tariffs on Kentucky bourbon if you ditch Mr. Turkeyneck. They sure the hell would take that trade in a heartbeat. France might be able to stomach Jerry Lewis but even they have their limits. We’ll even talk to California and get them to do an even up ejection of Nancy Pelosi. Who says we can’t find a win-win solution on this? Just no more unholy goat/man nominations, okay? Because if the Saudis buy you up, they're not going to be as subtle in their reactions as I've been.

Republicans Are Sadists, Democrats Are Masochists*

*And some, I assume, are good people.

My observations of Republicans and Democrats over the past couple of years has led me to the conclusion that Republicans are sadists, and Democrats are masochists. The signs are there both in their individual characteristics and in their relationship to each other. They may act as though they were the polar opposite of the other. They may claim they are enemies of the other, but all too often you find them getting chummy together in really creepy ways at after-hour events. In fact, not only do they have a really unhealthy relationship with each other, they each depend on the other to complete themselves. As cruel as a sadist can be, he is inevitably dependent on the masochist to reaffirm his identity. And as meek as the masochist plays his role, there is the element of the sadist about him. Neither is capable of or interested in healthy relationships between equals. In the end, both can only view relationships in terms of power. You don’t want to live next door to a sado-masochistic couple: in fact, there’s currently nowhere safe from them on this planet.

The sadistic tendencies of Republicans are easy enough to spot. Anyone with internet access observes the Trump supporters speaking of Democrats the way a grade school bully would towards someone he has in his sights. Although the average Trump supporter is not the actual bully but the guy who hangs around him in order to get in his good graces. Sadists are quick to become toadies in the presence of a greater sadist. Such is the complicated interrelation between sadism and masochism. Both sadism and masochism are coping techniques learned at a young age. Sadism and masochism are two sides of the same coin, two different ways of dealing with relationships built on power rather than mutual respect and cooperation.

Democrats, like a woman in an abusive relationship, abhor who Republicans are, and yet reflect wistfully about who they were. They may tell others how they wish to get the upper hand in the relationship, but anyone who knows anything about their history knows it is never going to happen. And should a third-party arrive on the scene, the masochist will reveal his inner sadist and fight tooth and nail for his right to be abused and debased by Republicans. The masochist relies on the sadist to give definition to his life. When asked, masochists will be unable to tell you who they are except in relationship to the sadist who gives their lives meaning. This is how fascism begins, by giving sadists willing partners in their sick and twisted perversions. Sadists will come to believe that other people appreciate their sadism, because they have encountered people who actually do. The cruelty and narcissism of the sadist is given legitimacy by the behavior of the masochist.

Democrats’ willingness to submit shows not only in their relationship to Republicans but to the world around them. They are the first to bow to the “inevitable”, thinking themselves quite wise in taking less than they have a right to. They call this being “realistic”. Masochists never imagine shaping the world, merely adjusting to it. Masochists shape themselves to conform to the world the sadist creates. Like a long-suffering spouse, they have learned to take a back seat, to accept what cannot be changed, to resign themselves (bringing along with them  the children/citizens) to a life of suffering. They see a certain nobility in suffering. Sure, they also see the injustice in the suffering, but they are able to offer nothing to those who suffer but their sympathy. “I am on your side,” the masochist says. “I feel your pain,” he says, but does nothing. In the end, the masochist can do nothing, he simply appeals to a greater power, the sadist.

There is a certain passive resistance the masochist displays. The masochist will become quite shrill and adamant on the most bizarre and inconsequential of issues, staking out territory in which he is the absolute authority. Never does it threaten the dominance of the sadist, but through the sheer whining and inconvenience of it all, the sadist will throw scraps to the masochist. By pandering to the neuroses of the masochist, the sadist pays his tithe. It is at such moments that the masochist feels most valued and valuable. He will feel a certain sense of self-worth because he has garnered acknowledgement from his master. But the masochist always stops short of demanding anything more than token change. The masochist does not ask for more because he does not want more. He doesn’t want equality, merely the occasional realization by the other that this unhealthy relationship is essential to both parties.

Observe how the masochists relate to the sadist, Donald Trump. Incapable of exercising any power themselves, at least in a healthy manner, they appeal to other sources of authority. Helpless in themselves, they patiently wait for their savior, Robert Mueller, to come to their rescue. They are the fair maiden locked in the high tower, awaiting a gallant knight to rescue them. It is a script that could have been written by E. L. James. Or Donald Trump.

They are utterly incapable of imagining that they themselves hold any power in this relationship, can conceive of no way of resisting other than wearing pink hats. They dream fanciful dreams of a giant blue wave sweeping away all the bad things, while they survive God’s judgment on an ark built of tolerance and good vibes.

I have great pity for the victims of the violent and the cruel. Sometimes the pity wells up in me so deeply that it paralyzes me. But I recognize that paralysis is a weakness and not just a sign of my heart being in the right place. It is okay to feel sad, but it is not all right to feel helpless, because that is exactly what sadists want you to feel. Democrats are so utterly masochists that they cannot even stand up to other masochists. They are being picked on by the likes of Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi is stealing their lunch money. Democrats can’t even stand up to these would-be bullies, and yet they envision themselves as guardians against the likes of a new Hitler. Masochists are prone to such wild flights of fantasy. It helps them endure the unpleasant reality they have no desire to confront.

Sadists need masochists. They relish their impotent squeals, are nourished by their tears. A sadist shrivels away to nothing if he cannot find someone else to indulge in his fantasies of power. Because just like the masochist having an element of the sadist in him, the sadist has an immense fear of power in his innermost being. What spurs an individual on into sadistic impulses is his desire to flee from an essential fear of his helplessness. In demonstrating his power over others, he keeps at bay the truth that he is a vulnerable soul in a vast universe that does not exist solely for him. The sadist is kept strong by those who would accept his own view of himself. Masochists do not, cannot, oppose sadists. They can only feed them.

A sadist kicks down a sandcastle another has built. A healthy individual will find a way to show others on the beach that it is better to create than destroy, and in so doing marginalize the sadist and force him to moderate his sadistic tendencies. We call such people helpers and teachers. A sadist will remove the solar panels another has built when he takes over his place of residence. A healthy person will explain why they were important, and will put up twice as many as soon as he moves into that house. We call such people leaders.

There is only one thing sadists care about, and that is power. Same for masochists. A sadist gains his strength by knowing not only the weakness of the masochist but the fact that deep in his heart the masochist wishes he could be like him. The sadist sees beyond the sweet ideals the masochist prattles on about and sees the inner sadist too timid to emerge. A sadist will never truly see the sadism that exists within himself, but he will see it in you. And if he sees it in those who say they are the opposite of the sadist, the sadist will only see the hypocrisy. He will only see confirmation of his sadistic impulses.

Let me tell you what happens when a sadist and a masochist do battle: the sadist wins. Oh, sure, the masochist will summon up his inner sadist, because all masochists have an inner sadist. But he will lose because he’s really a masochist. And sadists beat masochists every time, just like rock beats scissors. Just like Republicans beat Democrats.

Democrats make excuses for such losses, of course, just as the make promises that they will be your triumphant warrior who will beat back your enemy if you only believe in them enough. These are the stories masochists need to tell themselves—and others—in order to face each new day. They are adolescent fantasies, but if they speak them often enough they will win supporters. Because they’re superficially charming, loveable losers you want to believe some day will find a way to stand up for themselves. You don’t want to look past their explanation to see the incredibly fucked-up people they are on the inside, don’t want to believe they could engage in bootlicking and disgusting displays of self-degradation at the feet of the powerful.

To support such masochists is a step even beyond being a masochist, because at least the masochist bows before legitimate power. Buying into the stories of the masochists just involves you in their dysfunction, it’s like a support group for masochists who don’t want to change but instead want to blame others for their problems. If you cannot stand up to the likes of a Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, or Diane Feinstein, what hope do you think you will ever have at standing up to fascism? No, you will bow before such a power before you ever oppose it. Even now you do not oppose real power but instead choose to punch down on those below you. You attack Susan Sarandon, you attack Ralph Nader, you attack the lower middle-class and the uneducated. These are the kinds of sadistic acts a masochist indulges in.

“Oh yeah?” you may ask. “Tell us then, Mr. Smarty Pants. What’s the magical answer? What can we do to stand up to the sadists? Show us a better course than the cautious approach of voting for ineffectual wet noodles who lack courage to take on our enemies. Tell us how we can succeed without exhibiting any courage or taking any risk.”

Spoken like a true masochist afraid of confronting his master. Spoken like someone so badly beaten down that he prefers the comfort of his servitude than the freedom that is his birthright. No, I will not tell you what to do, because you are not willing to listen. I can only point you to the stories of those who did not fear to oppose the sadists. I will tell you to learn more about the likes of Martin Luther King, about Mother Jones and Eugene Debs. I will ask you to Google people like Fanny Sellins and Dorothy Day, Granny D, and Jim Zwarg. I can only show you what moral courage looks like and hope it inspires in you some kind of self-respect. There are millions of examples of people who stood tall and risked all in the fight against the sadists who wanted to rule over humanity. Study them if you dare, learn from them and emulate them. You will find answers when you want answers.

The Final Battle With The Big Boss Media

I can’t help getting the feeling we’re playing a video game, and we’ve worked our way up to the big boss in the last battle. Our thumbs are worn out from pressing the X button a million times and the boss is throwing everything it can at you, and then all of the sudden it starts going through all these weird motions like it’s going to throw a giant attack at you that will destroy everyone and mean game over. But really it’s just going through its death throes and is unravelling right in front of your eyes.

The big boss in this instance is the media, which has spent the last couple of years throwing everything it could at you in an attempt to overwhelm you. But the attack seems to be working less, even as its intensity increases. You can kind of sense it in the eyes of the newscasters (spellcasters) who seize up when they are presented with someone who says they don’t believe the official narrative. The look in their eyes is like a robot who is confronted with a situation for which he has not been programmed.

All of us, really, are no different. Which is why it is understandable that we feel frightened. Because unlike a video game, things don’t end when you beat it but you then have to move on to the real task of replacing the system you have worked so hard to destroy. Once you beat the fake game you have to deal with real life, and most of us would rather not get to the ultimate foe and so have to get off of our couches.

I am terrified of what may come once the established paradigm is overthrown, because as bad as it is, it has provided a degree of security and comfort. Granted, it is the kind of comfort one feels in a luxury vehicle that is speeding towards a cliff, but the human mind is reluctant to surrender that sort of comfort, reluctant to build something new when what we had was so good, at least to those in the driver’s seat.

The truth is, we don’t know what will come next. We only know that what presently exists is racing us toward extinction. We can choose comfort of the known, which is an immature way of reacting to the world, or we can choose to leap from our place of safety with a hope that we will be able to respond in a way we never have before. Like a baby bird leaving the nest. Because we must. Because life does not wait until we are ready. Because perhaps we will never decide we are ready on our own. Because that is the way of all living things, to reach outward and go forward. If they are to survive. And I want to survive. Not just for another moment, not just so I can live out my life with a comfy couch and a TV and a video game console to play my pretend life. I want to survive in a much more meaningful way. I want to have children who will outlive me, want them to have children, and so on into an unknown and unknowable future.

Plus, I just really really want to beat the big boss.

They Make The Rules, They Just Don't Live By Them

There are those who set themselves apart from society who nevertheless wish to determine the way society is run for the rest of us. Those who are not themselves educators think it is their right to run our education system. Those who are not doctors or nurses—in other words, those who run the HMOs, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical industry—are determining how our health care systems are run and how we are treated. Those who would never permit their children to major in the arts in college are the ones who decide which books will be promoted, which movies made, and which musicians will receive air play. Those who care nothing about how good government is practiced are choosing the limited pool of politicians for which you can vote. Those who—even if convicted of terrible crimes—will never see the inside of a real jail, wish to dictate how the rest of us are to be punished for disobeying the laws they have created. They are the shapers of a society they have no interest in being a part of. Their interests lie not in creating a healthy society but in extracting wealth the society they create.

They are choosing for us—you and me, and everybody you know or are likely to meet—how the corporation you work for will treat you, what news will reach you, and what you will be talking about at work on Monday morning. Whatever creative innovation that might be boiling up among the ordinary citizens and small entrepreneurs will eventually be ground up into sausage by a machine that is too big to be denied, a machine controlled by them. Whatever human interaction that still smacks of independent thought will be drowned out by the overwhelming spectacle that is created by their entertainment industry. And if you should ever by chance get to know someone who has gone from being one of us to one of them, remember that they never would have been allowed to do so had they been a threat to those who stand apart from us. Those tiny few who join their ranks do so because they are willing to play within the rules provided by their bosses. Even multi-billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg realize they have to go along to get along. Either one of them would have been squashed like a bug by the system if he had been perceived as a threat to the system. And they are still reminded that they can be destroyed should they fail to back the system that permitted their vast wealth. The chance of anyone within the system going against the system is exactly nil. They rose to that level of wealth because they were useful to the system and because they shared in the desire for the obscene wealth such a system provides.

The system in which you live is fashioned by those who have no interest in being a part of it, no interest in listening to what you have to say or meeting you on the street. It is not like in the old days when you would wave to the owner of the local bakery, pharmacy, or any other independently-owned business that helped shape your community. Your local stores are now mostly owned by someone you will never meet and who does not give one shit about your community. They might live in another state or maybe in a different country. You will never interact with them.

Those who operate the system in which you live, live in gated communities, hang out in private clubs, fly on private jets. They know each other because most are on multiple different boards of directors together. They live in the same communities and vacation at the same resorts. They get invited to parties on each others’ yachts. They share a very real bond because they realize they have a shared interest, one that is not yours.

You and I ain’t ever getting a ride on Betsy Devos’ boat. We are never going to be invited to the meetings where our fates and the fate of our planet is decided. Our opinions of their wars don’t matter, we just have to fight and die in them. And it doesn’t matter which party we support, because the politicians from both parties take their orders from them. No war has ever been stopped because the wrong party was in office.

It may seem as though I am drawing a line in order to cause a division between a “them” and an “us”, but this is not true. I did not force them to flee from my neighborhood, their leaving was a choice they made. It is they who constructed the walls, they who distanced themselves from us. It is they who don’t want to hear your opinion, confident that they know what’s best for humanity. I have never built a gated community to keep the extremely rich out, I have never hired security to keep others from taking what is mine. I do not monitor their secret conversations nor place informants within every large group of people interested in social or political change.

I did not create the division that exists. They did. They placed themselves above us and apart from us. They chose to make a nation where money and not people reigned supreme. They preferred money to humanity, placed their faith in the kind of wealth that could be stored in vaults rather than placing their faith in spiritual and communal concerns.

And why is it that they feel the need to shape a society they have no interest in being a part of? Because in doing so they can extract great wealth from those forced to live within the constraints they have built. And the money is necessary in order to purchase bigger yachts, taller fences, more people to protect them, and more bombs to drop on those who do not submit to them. And sadly, the more yachts they acquire, the more of the wealth of the planet they will need to waste on bombs.

I thought you might want to know.