The degeneracy of aristocracy

Front matter

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT.

-

*

Chapter II

The advent of the Israelites with Jacob’s aristocratic proclivity and the natural spirit of liberty his descendants had the cour¬ age to display, yet by clinging to the idea they were a “chosen people,” rushed on to destruction; an example that aristocracy has followed ever since. 20

Chapter IX

Natural conditions gave England the lead in human progress. The advent of coal, iron, and the use of steam was no credit to the aristocracy, who simply grew wealthy upon land rent, and the profit derived from compelling her subjects to either work or starve. 94

Chapter XXXIII

The universal privilege of art a common inheritance, and no reason for its being monopolized by a class choosing to be exclusive, for they could enjoy the bounty of Nature with less fear than they appear to possess at the present time. 351

* i •

• •

*

THE DEGENERACY OF ARISTOCRACY.

Chapter I

JT 7 HE conditions of life can be wholly embraced in [ two distinct features — Nature and Art. Nature is divine and perfect, while Art is human and subject to the individual will. It is quite simple, in the effort to express one’s thoughts in words, to find other words to confound our understanding, until the in¬ dividual will often declare : “ There is no such condition as liberty or free will; we are mere subjects of some power entirely beyond our control.” Such a conclusion can be readily reached when we try to harmonize the confusion of words. It is possible for two persons to absolutely agree in thought, and yet dispute for hours over the method of expression.

It would be well to observe that thoughts and the desire to express them were prior to language or books. From the first effort to produce a written language, great care has been taken to make language comprehensive to people of mutual understanding. It has enabled men, organized in groups, to monopolize the bounty of the earth for their own benefit; besides, it is an unquestioned principle, that the mind can be culti¬ vated to a prodigious extent, until such a person becomes vastly superior to one who is simply endowed with his silent thoughts. Yet the superiority of the cultivated man is Art; while the thought, or more strictly ex¬ pressed, the sense of being is just as pure as when first breathed into the material body of man.

No person is responsible for his birth, and it stands to reason that the earth is a common inheritance from a natural standpoint. Hence the conclusion is, that we are naturally equal so far as rights are concerned, and unequal only in artificial ability.

It is not assumed that this writing is infallible, or that the ordinary student is not familiar with these simple ideas. It is rather in defiance of such a thought. But the charge is made distinctly, that by reason of artificial ability men have assumed the existence of infallibility in man, and also that some men are specific¬ ally privileged. The use of the word privilege as applied to men of superior ability, suggests the question : From whence is this privilege derived? Is it possible for a man to elect himself to a privilege to use his superior ability to deprive others of an equal oppor¬ tunity ? It is a privilege to exist; it is a privilege to be tall, it enables a man to reach higher; it is a privilege for a man to use his superior ability after he has obtained it by great effort. It is also the privilege of the most inferior creature to exercise his sense of being in expressing his thoughts in whatever manner his lesser ability suggests. The first principle of life is the sense of existence — the individual consciousness. Is not the ability to see of greater importance than what we see ?

Besides, is there any word that will express the actual sense of existence ? Mechanical instruments may de¬ termine the length of vision, but the ability to see is only known by the actual ability to see something.

It is very important to the clear understanding of this writing, to agree upon some common plane or starting point, for technicalities and what are termed common accepted authorities, will not be considered as having any influence upon the thought that is endeavoring to make itself clear.

From the fact, that very important words, bearing upon life and personal duty are given both a positive and negative meaning, it is essential to the purpose of this writing to accept words with their positive definitions. For instance: We have the words Nature and Art, as expressing the two most essential conditions of life. Now, the word knowledge, will be used as sense, while the word education, will be used as Art. The word information, is too vague to be of any use in the con¬ veying of knowledge in its strict sense. The word aristocracy, will apply to a privileged class of society; it will not embrace plutocracy, which is a more recent word, and applies to opulence derived from the posses¬ sion of money.

Plutocracy is a recognized condition in the United States, while aristocracy is impossible, if we recognize a consistency in our form of government. In fact, no class condition is recognized in law; yet, sentimentally it could be claimed to exist, and an undoubted privilege for anyone to make such a claim.

Aristocrats cannot find a single sentence in the Bible to justify their claim to being a privileged class Aristocracy is an absolute institution of Art; while the Bible is strictly a plebian book, its superiority over all other books is derived from this fact. Regardless of the method by which it was produced, or from whence its inspiration, it represents the divinity and nature of life more directly than any other book in print. It must be admitted, however, that the production of the Bible is Art, in the sense that the word Art is used in this writing.

Reivers of blood have been shed to protect the sacred book, and yet the people will have it. In addition to the wars it has indirectly caused, it has been assailed in literature by the most intellectual men of the world of the Socrates type. Thousands of interpretations have been extracted from it, and vast volumes written trying to destroy its plebian character. Besides, its firmest supporters have settled down to a conviction that only a superior mind can understand it. It has, therefore, become a commercial affair; that is, a man cannot obtain “the correct” interpretation without paying for it. It does not, however, in any sense disturb its existence or its most important teaching.

When the science of education first began to develop, we can conclude from the present standpoint, that a man’s natural conceit became inflated as rapidly as his senses. We can also infer from the present obser¬ vation of men who become great intellectual characters, that they are especially privileged to transmit the Bible to the common mind. The Bible itself is quoted to justify this claim. Hence, from an early understanding of the Bible it was 'considered to be a fanatical story by the sages of old, who were the nucleus of a later aristocracy. Even the philosophy of Socrates con¬ sidered the power of cultivated knowledge, or education to be the ruling power of the world. There was not the least consideration for the mere toilers of the earth. It is quite interesting to observe that the sages of the present should have discovered they were especially privileged to interpret the Bible, when it is a historical fact that men bearing the same relation to the plebian •class — or claiming to in the earlier age — were the very ■class that the Bible rebuked.

The present situation also reveals how confusion can be worse confounded; when men the equal of Socrates in intellect have dissected the Bible as only a scholar could, and declared it to be a myth, while they clung tenaciously to the principal feature of aristocracy. That is, that mere toilers of the earth were subject to those who were their intellectual superiors. It is easier to •discover the motive than to combat with the intellectual giants of the present day. We have history enough to •disclose the fact that the intellectual “trust” is of that magnitude that the largest commercial “trust” in com¬ parison is a mere pigmy. Why! people are positively trained to abstain from reading books that are not previously recommended by some authority of note. Men in their intellectual frenzy, give every evidence of •sincerity in the delusion that the Bible emphatically con¬ demns, and only by the most strenuous exertion can the giants of intellect keep the multitude in subjection. The simple reason is, everybody is learning to read, and ancient history cannot be expunged.

The Bible would have been smothered in infancy, but for the fact that some enterprising “ crank or fanatic ”

was continually bringing it to light. It is one of the best proofs possible that the Bible is a sacred book, that it has continued to exist in defiance of all the intellectual effort to destroy it. It was the first star of hope of a literary character that revealed to the plebian or human slave that he had a soul. Even if it was smaller than that of the sages, it had the same individual importance to the possessor. Now, to satisfy any critical mind that would waste valuable time in trying to discover earlier literary efforts than the Bible; it might satisfy his thirst for looking backward to see forward, to say, that earlier writings were at least contingent to the Bible, and none had stood a more severe test. Hence it is a reasonable claim to assert that the Bible occupies the first place in literature.

The sages of old had no idea of what is a revealed fact today; besides, it is too well known to more than casually observe, that a new idea in the early days was treated with as much scorn by the sages then as the same class of people treat new ideas today. If a man had prophesied two thousand years ago some of the simplest events that have occurred, he would have been considered an emissary direct from Satan. In the early days of the writings that the Bible was compiled from, the most intellectual men had no idea that literature could be scattered among the people like leaves from trees. All literature in the early days of the art of written language was so rare, that it was guarded with as much care as a new scientific discovery would be at the present time. The sage who could perform such a wonder, however rude, was stared at and worshipped as a person akin to some unseen spirit.

Education as an art — teaching by letters or signs, was limited to the most exalted persons, and it is not at all strange that scribes assumed a commanding position; particularly when it is so common at the present day for a man to try to monopolize whatever he can get hold of. When it is observed how wonderful it was to possess in the mind a system of signs and establish a method of education at its first conception, it was no less remarkable than modern discoveries. Besides, it is reasonable to suppose that only men of commanding presence were expected to possess such skill. The word clergy, signified a man who could read, and he en¬ joyed an exemption from prosecution fully equal to a politician of the present day. He was a privileged character, and the very essence of aristocracy, for the first “blue bloods” were so ignorant that they depended upon the clergy to sign their names for them. There is no evidence in history that the people, as a rule, were as wicked in the early days as they are now, and when we realize that boys in the public schools of the present day, would have put the early clergy to shame so far as artful education is concerned, it may well be asked : How wicked will the Almighty permit the people to become before He puts a stop to it ? The sense of liberty is inherent; the action of a child will display the spirit of liberty in its first effort, it demands “ bread ” and will not be satisfied with a stone.

Valor at arms, and brute force were the first suggestion of aristocracy, or a distinct privilege; it gave rise to a conviction that might was right. In the weak con¬ dition of the natural intellect, desire predominated over reason, and men of superior strength became absolute tyrants. The purity of the inherent intellect was so individual in the first instances of society, it had no method of overpowering brute force. Hence, whoever could collect the strongest force of men, would become a chief, and from such small beginnings aristocratic gov¬ ernments were formed. Art in its infancy, was employed first to make rude implements of war, and when letters appeared, the scribes were considered to be superior even to kings, for they were supposed to be in direct communication with the “Great Spirit.” Now, the advent of the Bible was a victory for the individual purity of the mind over brute force. Nothing can be clearer than the fact that the art of letters discovered by certain scribes, produced the Bible. It strengthens its sacred character, and does not detract in the least from the declaration that it is inspired. It is reasonable to conclude from the evidence of history, that the Bible includes the first writings that individual man was able to perform after the art of letters was discovered. To put these conditions in a concise form, it can be seen that instruments of war were the first methods to protect society. It was also the first apparent necessity for art, which was constantly suggesting to the mind some improvement. Hence, written words became a compet¬ itor as instruments for the protection of society.

A brief allusion to the early formation of society, seems to be necessary to establish a clear conception of the claim that natural man was a perfect being in the image of God. No regard is paid to previous writing, for the privilege cannot be questioned at this day for any individual to express his mind upon the sub¬ ject. Every man is born just as perfect at the present

THE DEGENERACY OF ARISTOCRACY.

time as Adam was; but the conditions have so changed by reason of scientific discovery, and the development of art, that it is not unusual to celebrate the wedding in gorgeous attire, while choice wines and heavier liquids are sipped at the banquet, instead of a solitary apple that caused so much mischief in the early days.

Silent language is just as perfect as the man while he is absolutely ignorant of art; but m‘an is lonesome in solitude. He is just as hungry for society as for food, and the woman is his equal on general lines, and in specialties his superior, for she will make discoveries in the dark that daylight will not reveal to man. Now, when a man and woman first meet, it is the silent language that conveys the first sign of mutual agree¬ ment, and, it is very doubtful if the natural language was ever improved upon by any that art ever introduced. Hence, both society and language were introduced in their natural perfection, and art has been struggling to this clay to compete. It is a stern chase, however, and safe to conclude that it always will be. Man had no business to have fallen from a state of perfection - just because he got married. It was due to the grasping disposition of a man to monopolize the entire earth after the happy event. It is claimed by this illustration, that no depravity appeared until the advent of art. Hence it is a mistake to charge the depravity of the world to Nature, for it was entirely due to art, which became a necessity to the world after man went into society. When man first considered the social problem, he thought he could marry all the women, and kill all his brothers — hence war appeared, and art supplied the weapons.

Facial expression was the infancy of language; it is

THE DEGENERACY OF ARISTOCRACY.

reasonable to suppose that it was the first method of reflecting thought from one person to another. From historical records, it is quite evident that the language of art was ingenuous, but of very slow growth, which the Egyptian hieroglyphics attest — mere pictures of ob¬ jects, to record events. Hence we have natural lang¬ uage, and the picture — the product of art. The former from God, the latter from man.

CHAPTER IT.

CT 7 HE advent of the Israelites was one of the prom- [ inent events of the earth, for several reasons. It is not unreasonable to claim they were a “ chosen people,” for their history was extensively chronicled in the Bible. It is not necessary to question any claim of historical priority from the East, for the Anglo Saxon race is the race of progress, largely due to the instru¬ mentality of the Bible. Hence some historical features of the Israelites are important to show the primary advent of aristocracy. The story of Esau selling his birth-right had more significance than the little affair would seem to indicate. It may not have been the thought of the writer, but at this day it suggests the ad¬ vent of aristocracy, and with such interpretation it is one of the many remarkable illustrations of the Old Testa¬ ment. When it is realized how remarkable the Bible is

THE DEGENERACY OF ARISTOCRACY.

for its liberality, and especially its recognition of the brotherhood of man, the little affair between Esau and Jacob expresses the very substance of the whole Bible.

The priority of birth in those days was, doubtless, of greater significance than it is now. The parting with a birth-right — his manhood — was practically an intellec¬ tual suicide, for while Esau continued to live physically, he was mentally dead. He voluntarily surrendered his intellectual right to being a factor in the Israelite crusade, to gratify a mere physical appetite. He could, doubtless, tend sheep and till the soil, but his natural right to the employment of his mind he had bartered away by subscribing to a subordinate position; it could not have occurred after aristocracy became more firmly established* for a man’s blood relation would have bought him a commission in the army, when he could have satisfied his appetite at the expense of the government. If a man had no aristocratic relations, he would practi¬ cally be in the same fix that Esau was.

Appetite may be a species of disease, for, no doubt, many have observed that a man is more reasonable after his physical needs are supplied. It is well to feel charitable toward Esau, for they had no daily papers in those days, and to his uncultivated mind a good dinner was more important than a correct chronology of his age. Besides, if the story was a mere romance, it signifies a feature of life that has done more to sustain a respect¬ able aristocracy than any other. It reflects upon the equal rights of man, for it can be admitted that liberty makes it possible for a man to commit suicide. But this Esau story takes a different phase when the relation of Jacob to it is considered.

THE DEGENERACY OF ARISTOCRACY.

It has already been shown, and doubtless, the average observer will attest, that man is usually willing to appropriate any circumstance that will benefit himself. Now, Jacob had no business to have accepted that sacrifice from his own brother, for he was more guilty than Esau, and courts of the present day, that would take a little bribe, or a political pull now and then, would not have sustained Jacob. The evidence may have shown that he tempted Esau with the savor of the stew. He certainly accepted the advantage, and, no doubt, realized its value more than Esau; but both being Jews, they, no doubt, agreed that it was “ busi¬ ness.” Now, this little “ stew ” has still another significant feature of more importance to the United States than all the existing aristocrats of the world. It is in such a multitude of forms that it would fill a library of “ Carnegie ” size to express it in detail. Esau was privileged by reason of his liberty to subscribe to an event that practically deprived him of it; but the principle of coercion, or undue influence dwarfs the little trade, for it became the foundation of aristocracy, and when that gives away, it is evident to the thought that is seeking expression by this writing, that it will be dis¬ covered that the foundation of aristocracy was built in the “sand.”

Multitudes of methods are employed to coerce the un¬ wary, and while it is contrary to law at the present time, the difficulty of proving such accusation, would furnish enough new business to occupy all the courts in the United States. All the literary giants of the present day, who compare their own philosophy with the ancient type, should be fore-warned, and study the fact that coercion was comparitively easy previous to the Declaration of Independence, for the simple reason that everybody is learning to read. It is only the illiterate that can be successfully enslaved or coerced into the condition of Esau. Even if politicians can fool the people at the ballot box, and laugh at the Declara¬ tion of Independence, neither they nor our modern philosophers can suppress free speech or the privilege to learn to read. Now, that is precisely the difficulty that modern philosophers have, while Socrates had no trouble in that direction. It is to the credit of the Bible that it was the first literary expression of the equality of man. John Adams, or John Hancock may have written the Declaration of Independence, but the idea was taken from the Bible. The principle of coer¬ cion can only be treated in a general manner; for to enter into the subject in detail, would be too vol¬ uminous. Society is divided and subdivided into all sorts of conditions, for reasons just as numerous. Unity is strength, and societies are formed to counteract the influence of other societies, and from the well-known fact of “man’s inhumanity to man,” a government of some kind is a necessity. No man or woman in the United States, is subject to any other man or woman unless they sell their birth-right, which is their personal privilege. Now, if the individual is unwary, it is possible for him to be unduly influenced for various reasons, or false promises; by such means he becomes subject to whatever conditions he subscribes to. He has legal redress, providing he can prove he has been unduly influenced; but if it occurred in an indirect manner, it would be next to impossible to prove it. For instance:

THE DEGENERACY OF ARISTOCRACY.

If a man joins a society, and subscribes to an agreement either verbally or in writing, that makes him a sub¬ ordinate of some other man, he has sold his birth-right precisely the same as Esau did. On the other hand, if a man, for his own benefit, takes an advantage of another, and unduly influences him to subscribe to some specific object, the man taking such advantage becomes a modern Jacob

It is not the fault of illiterate men that their ignorance is taken advantage of. It is the entire fault of the literate, for while they are better able to take care of themselves, they become filled with Socrates philosophy that men of “knowledge” are masters of the ignorant masses; thus the followers of Socrates sold their birth¬ right for a “mess of pottage,” because they were hungry like Esau, and too tired, or felt too important to be obliged to get something to eat themselves. Such men want to be served, and even if they discover their mistake, it is too humiliating to retrace their steps. For men who claim to be “masters” for the purpose of being served would prefer physical suicide rather than acknowledge they had been laboring under a mistake. Both ancient and modern philosophers use the word knowledge as pertaining to education and information; it implies that God only gave knowledge to a privileged class of society — aristocracy. Now, the Bible claims that God gave knowledge to the entire human race, and they “did know” when their eyes were opened.

Socrates was too intelligent to teach his followers that God gave “ Socrates’ philosophy ” to all the human race. Hence he denied the Bible and God’s right to be so liberal with knowledge. He, doubtless, felt strong

THE DEGENERACY OF ARISTOCRACY.

enough with his powerful intellect, to at least outwit the “ignorant” masses of his time. With all his philo¬ sophical ability, he would have, no doubt, laughed at the idea of teaching the masses to read. He may have been a very humane man — that is, he felt charitable toward the masses in the same manner that he would not be unkind to an animal. But, judging from “great men” of a later period, he was possessed with the same feeling of selfishness that Jacob felt. All men of great ability are, no doubt, aware of it themselves; like Bonaparte, he felt himself to be a man of destiny — he was over¬ whelmed with the possibilities of art, and failed to see that God granted no special privileges to man for a selfish purpose. That the masses were subjects of Jearned men, was, no doubt, thought to be correct by Socrates; hence the traffic in human beings was con¬ sidered perfectly correct by the Greeks, who are wor¬ shipped at the present day for their great learning, while their wickedness and great fall are considered accidents. If any one circumstance will unbalance a man’s judg¬ ment, it is popular applause, or to feel that he is being followed. The Greeks must have felt their importance very much, for literature and great scholars were rare in those days

We should try to overlook Jacob’s mistakes, for his descendants became the most remarkable race on the globe. They were the first to recognize the universal character of all mankind; and while their conduct was subject to fierce criticism, they became the advance guard of civilization. They were the first people who had courage enough to declare their independence, and revolt in a body against the principle of oppression.

THE DEGENERACY OF ARISTOCRACY.

They should not be denied the credit for the good they did, because some of them became too important for their own interests. There were men among them,, which the Bible attests, that had a better idea of the relation of God to man than men who try to cling to both the Bible and aristocracy. If the “ scribe ” among the Jews had never written anything more after writing: “No man can serve two masters,” it was enough to immortalize him, besides being a credit to the race from which he sprung.

In looking back two thousand years, an impatient man might ask the same questions that were often propounded to Moses in substance : “Why is God so slow if he is leading us to the land of milk and honey?” to* answer, that the reason was because even the grand¬ children of Abraham — the personification of righteous¬ ness— were unjust toward each other, and every answer would suggest another query — “ why ? ” To any person that can read, all the questions of — “why,” are care¬ fully answered in the Bible.

All well disposed people are, no doubt, anxious to know when strife is to cease, and when “ peace and good will,” will arrive, or when the people will be led to the promised land. The great advantage the people of this age have over the Israelites is the ability to read; and ancient history is as much the privilege of one person as any specific class of society. It answers the general question: “Why is God so slow?” Because it takes a good while for people to learn to read, and much longer than it would have taken if men like Socrates had not tried to monopolize the power of literature for their personal benefit.

THE DEGENERACY OF ARISTOCRACY. 2 J

The advent of oppression was the discovery of art, in like manner to a babe’s discovery of his fist, and later* that he could appropriate little trifles lying around to satisfy an appetite which he had also discovered by his intellectual sense, that no book is able to teach. As he grew up to manhood and discovered the great power of art to develop natural conditions, he still had the same disposition to pick up things to satisfy his appetite. Do not ask anyone to explain “ why God is so slow,” unless you have some pet scheme which you are anxious to develop, when you will find plenty of men that will explain it to your satisfaction. On the other hand, if you have no other object than a real desire to learn “why God is so slow?” read the Bible yourself, and you have just as good a title to it as anyone who would en¬ deavor to interpret it to you for their own benefit. What you are perfectly able to do yourself, would be entirely improper to ask anyone to do for you.