The Soul of a Man under Capitalism: The Economic Hard-Right and its Ethical Shortcomings

The Soul of a Man under Capitalism

The Economic Hard-Right and its Ethical Shortcomings

It is often heard said by the proponents of Capitalism that their system is supreme, providing the masses with every opportunity to succeed and elevate their socio-economic status. However, I would posit that its perspectives on social services and the ethical obligations of citizens to their fellow mammals is, when euphemized heavily – “limited”. Many of those whom I have met seem to be in favour of a mixed economy, despite their overwhelmingly austere objections to instilling any socialist tendencies into everyday life. The idea of the self-correcting panacea for the intelligent right-wing, suggests that any crash or implosion of the system can merely be reduced to minor pitfalls from which the public can eventually recover. This is an obscene conceit, and (at risk of sounding too Libertarian and New-Leftist) is a scathing indictment of our ethical standards as higher primates. By what right, do these individuals (out of whom the youthful members speak so dishonestly seeing as they more than likely have not yet endured or sustained a depression or recession) babble about their nobility and integrity? The depravities, suffering, and injustices of recession cannot be rhetorically reduced to mere and necessary byproducts of a glorious system that need only be tolerated. For whom are all these funds being accrued and conserved if the public is so marginalized and damaged? The alleged noble and persistent efforts here are not remotely related to valiance in the slightest degree; there is no gallantry in the conscious and willful disregard of your comrades. To profess otherwise in this case is to demonstrate misanthropy and fecklessness. These are the axiomatic positions of an ideology championing a rigid and transactionalist mentality. Solidarity and mutual concern are integral components of the stamps of our lowly origins and are essential to our survival. They are the hallmarks of the development of the one true gift from nature we do know we possess – the faculty of reason. Distribution need not be exacerbated to the point of communism, but it is a vital part of the hard and soft wiring of society and its constituents. To spurn the gift and the potential fruits that can be harvested from it is to reject and destroy the premise from which the endowment sprung – the inception of humanity. As Aristotle so lucidly and valiantly asserted, the goal of our existence and the human condition is to attain happiness – and not to confuse a conduit to it as the ineffable phenomenon itself.

On the Relationships and Incompatibilities of the Abrahamic Traditions: A Short Treatise

On the Relationships and Incompatibilities of the Abrahamic Traditions: A Short Treatise

I am in no way partial to the first of the present-day world’s 3 major monotheisms, nor do I advocate further violence between the proponents of the respective faiths. Nonetheless, I am appalled by the misguided aim of contempt, hatred, and disdain that used to be directed at the votaries of the Jewish faith. Christians invented a salacious accusation of deicide and voluntary self-sabotage against the Jews – barking that they (the few who would have been most likely to have met and evaluated Jesus) were evil and ignorant tribesmen who not only rejected their messiah, but the God-man and saviour of souls himself – the eccentric rabbi of Nazareth. The Catholic Church has long since abandoned and glibly apologized for said accusation, just prior to its decision to return to infallibility; yet the adherents don’t seem to have the same courage and recognition to do so. Even assuming the many self-contradictory, immoral and nonsensical narrations that comprise the 73 books of the Roman Catholic Bible to be true, the Jewish Sanhedrin were the first to encounter the Nazarene, examine him and his anti-Mosaic burblings, and conclude that he was bogus. Jewish scholars are also the most familiar with the dictations of the older Hebrew scriptures, and as such can easily detect dishonest Christological interpolations and corruptions, which try to substantiate Christian prophecies in the anglicized gospels. 

Having said enough about the Jews, let us turn to the most incoherent and final of the Abrahamic plagiarisms, Islam. Unlike the Jews who simply denounce Jesus and the ensuing doctrines, Muslims accept his existence and messiahship. Yet they deny his ministry as per the biblical accounts, repudiate his divinity, reject his crucifixion and any implications thenceforth, and reduce his role in theology to that of a turgid and inarticulate messenger. This to me seems to be a much more evident depredation and evisceration of Christian philosophy, and probably more deserving of righteous condemnation. This is accompanied by blatant injunctions against the blasphemous Christian teachings repeatedly cited throughout the Quran. 

In addition to textual embarrassment and obliteration, many recent Islamic reverts are former Christians. The reasoning for Christianity’s lack of familiarity in this regard is baffling, but may be simply due to unlettered apathy; ironically the cheap quality with which the authenticity of Muhammad’s prophethood is so frantically advanced. Fear is also possible – the militant and oppressive regime of Islamic Sharia is prominent in the Middle East, whereas Jewish spiritual aggression pales in comparison. Easier and safer to beat a wounded horse than to tackle a festering lion, I suppose. However, this ignorance and complacency are not only unjust due to undeserved maltreatment of an old tribe, but to negligence of despotism and medieval totalitarianism occurring overseas – a glimpse into a reincarnation of the Dark Ages.

Textual Transmission Error

It would seem as though our entire generation has succumbed to a terrible vice concealed in convenience; the alluring facility of texting. Despite the overwhelming criticism that it has already received, there is much still to be considered about the inevitable cognitive dissonance that texting evokes. There is a certain absurdity, even insanity about trying to foment a relationship via messaging. This point is most evident in the realm of romance as it seems that the millennials can confect a solid, if not total, relationship                                                                             without even having spent any time together in person. 

It is not snobbish to notice the way, in which the young generation lends itself to one technological craze after another, inadvertently surrendering their judgment in exchange for practicality. From personal experience, I can honestly say that there is an apparent helplessness radiating from a woman, should we have already engaged in too much “discussion” electronically. The messaging fosters a false sense of security, but ironically not enough to provide the recipient with enough serenity to approach a meeting confidently. Why should this fabricated relationship and the milestones of its contents (however meager they are), immediately dissolve when we primates are forced to interact? The answer may rely within the sheer falsity of the expression of our emotions. Aside from the luridly foolish idea that is the emoticon, its implementation has one obvious flaw. The emotions we can express are predetermined in an artificial reservoir, and as such preclude our ability to accurately convey our feelings. It also makes the whole experience mechanical, and gross. It would be of course intellectually dishonest to state that this perception of the effects of messaging could not simply be a result of my own discomfort upon convening on a first date, and the hyperactive lens through which I perceive all ensuing statements and actions. However, there is an adequate amount of corroborating evidence from those around me, as they claim to have experienced similar vicissitudes in intimacy during this stage in a relationship. 

What indeed then is the solution to said problem? Sadly, it would appear as though there is no panacea to rush to our aid and change the dynamic of an entire generation. But there is no need for us to repine in this way. It is enough for us to invoke the old aphorism: brevity is the soul of wit. Let us simply attempt to champion this idea, and spurn the convenience of excessive texting as a poison chalice however enticing it may be. Much more truth, beauty and honesty are sure to follow – if only we could do so, we could experience the emancipating qualities that it may bring.