Social Stratification and the Role of Science

We have finally come to the point in our story where I would like to make some of the most damaging statements against the manner in which modernist ideology has been used to ensure that the control of society and the vast majority of its wealth would fall into the hands of privileged groups. Bear in mind that I will not be judging our (read: your) forefathers for what they have done. After all, we were warned repeatedly by some of the very same thinkers that made the structuring of our society possible, that it was an inherent part of human nature to seek advantage and self-interest whenever possible. This is why Rousseau told us that the system itself would increasingly foster “a growing sense of interdependence that would ultimately force humans to compare themselves to one another and, in the final analysis, create unwarranted fear which would serve as a foundation upon which to take pleasure in the pain or weakness of others”. Additionally, it was also why Montesquieu argued for the separation of powers to create a system of checks and balances. Let us not forget that even under the systems that these refreshingly honest thinkers proposed, it would still be necessary to periodically revisit our societal relations and make necessary adjustments.

Before I go on to make my conjectures and observations known, I would like to tell you a little bit about my motives. For many reasons, people get very defensive when their little world (read: modernist ideology) is threatened. Modernist ideology has become so entrenched into the fabric of our social reality that any attempt to shed light on how it has served the privileged few and therefore, that in and of itself it is bogus in terms of its ability to ensure objectivity, is immediately met with scorn and an entire series of citations and “facts” that would prove to any reasonable person that the anti-modernist view is subversive and ill intended. It might even be suggested, with the support and justification of a large number of individuals that would argue for the need to defend our country against such an attack, that the anti-modernist view that is being proposed is undoubtedly the creation of communists that seek nothing more than to enslave all of us within an institutional system of control devoid of freedom.

My motives are of a spiritual nature and I have absolutely no interest in proposing an alternative form of government. My reason for having undertaken the telling of this story is simply to bring to light an alternate reality that has been evolving and developing concurrently within every form of government in the world and is now culminating with the awakening of a new form of spiritual consciousness on the brink of an upcoming cosmic event of life altering proportions. I write because I refuse to pass judgment on those that find themselves entangled in the web of modernist ideology. I neither believe nor disbelieve that it is important for those that find themselves in such a position to free themselves from such entanglement and become one with the spiritual energies that are stirring. I only know that I love and in that spirit I choose to give expression to the path of my own liberation that others might relate.

Have you ever wondered how intelligent human beings might actually behave during the time of the creation and implementation of our national social structure? Given the complexity of the epistemological issues that had been grappled with by philosophers such as Rene Descartes, David Hume or Immanuel Kant prior to the development of the social infrastructure of the United States, do you think it would be fair to say that while working to implement our social structure our country’s founding fathers were smart enough to consciously take control of the process and ensure their own privilege?

This reminds me of the time when I first started college. I was moving into an apartment in a building that was once a large house and now had four apartments above a real estate office. On one side of the building was a large warehouse. On the other, there was another real estate office with four apartments above it that had not been filled. As it turned out, one of the offices owned both buildings and only recently decided to rent the upstairs portions of both. I was the first tenant. In much the same way as that of our founding forefathers of our existing social structure, I decided that I would not wait around to allow the building apartments to arbitrarily fill themselves. Instead, I went to campus and began recruiting the most inwardly and outwardly beautiful women I could find from the philosophy and theater arts departments. Naturally, I ended up with two buildings filled with female hippies and artisans that were all bisexual. Needless to say, we never locked our doors, we were all very loving to each other and I experienced the two greatest years of my life serving their every need from cooking to running errands and anything else they were inclined to suggest! After all, as a young man that awoke to daily morning erections, it should be easy to understand my motives. I can assure you that there was no greater objective than to cultivate a bevy of beauties with which to quench my considerable sexual appetite.

Let us now imagine the United States as a football playing field. The football represents wealth and power and is being handled by a quarterback that is attempting to advance to the end zone on the West from the furthest point East. I now want you to think back to a time when you yourself were individually, or as a member of a group, in a position to put together a team with which to enter into competition. It doesn’t matter if the competition is in baseball, debate or anything else. I don’t know about the rest of you but I am a 101% all American boy and you can bet I’m going to put together a team that I believe will win. In fact, history would show that I seem to have a knack for putting together winning teams. Only a fool would think that our (read: your) founding fathers would be any less proficient than the rest of us when it comes to putting together a winning team. The first thing we need to do is establish a measure for success against which we will be able to gauge our efforts.

In the spirit of reverse engineering, let us consider what might have happened during the formative stage of the development of our social structure. We should bear in mind that nothing of what I will imagine will be scientifically or legally verifiable and therefore, will remain unfounded conjecture, pure and simple. It will, however, make for some interesting reading and in the process it would certainly go a long way towards being able to explain how we have developed into the state of our current relations in society. Thus, if at the time of the formation of our social structure it were my objective to ensure the continuation of my own privileged status, it would be necessary to identify some measure against which to gauge my relative success or failure in achieving such an objective. It is in this context that the role of property becomes central and our ability to understand the role of property will no doubt also produce a better understanding of how the oppression of non-favored peoples may have evolved.

As the quarterback of the team, our country’s forefathers made the first play of the game and it turned out to be a long pass to the wide receiver (pioneer) catching the defense sleeping and racing down the sidelines for a touchdown. The score in the game, therefore, is founding fathers 7 and indigenous peoples -7. The reason for keeping score in this fashion is that unlike the game of football, when you play with real people and real material wealth such as land, the only way for one group to win something is for the other group to lose something. Now, let us go to our color analyst to recap what just happened.

The first pass play for a touchdown was, in the language of our country’s founding forefathers, equivalent to what was called at the time, manifest destiny. For those of you that are unfamiliar with this particular play, Manifest Destiny was the 19th-century doctrine that the United States had the right and duty to expand throughout the North American continent. Stated differently, they were claiming the right to take the land from those that were already inhabiting it. Was the concept of Manifest Destiny fact or fiction? Don’t be silly, it was just a football game. A football game I might add, that cost the lives and property of many indigenous families. It would be wise to note here that the concept of Manifest Destiny is, in and of itself, self-serving and in fact violates the modernist ideological axiom of having to be based upon observable facts.

Any real football fan would, of course, want to know how the defense could be caught sleeping. If they gave up a touchdown so easily maybe the team should consider firing their defensive coordinator. In order to understand how this might have happened, we need to consider the differences in world views between the two teams. In this context, we can begin to understand how things could have happened. That is, our country’s founding forefathers came to this country to seek their own advantage from countries where advantage had already been established in the hands of others. That is, they came here wanting to be the winners of a game they had already lost in a different stadium to a different team. Alternatively, the indigenous people of the North American continent not only failed to acknowledge the game the forefathers were playing, as entailed in the modernist programmatic that would have us control nature to produce goods for the betterment of mankind, they even went so far as to strive to live in harmony with nature and thereby eliminate the entire competitiveness between individuals and people inherent in the modernist ideology. Thus, the home team (the indigenous), were “caught sleeping”.

It is a fact of human nature that no matter what you believe your relationship to our natural environment to be, if one human being is attacked by another, retaliation will follow. This is also true in the case of the indigenous people that were discovering that they were losing their land and livelihood to the pioneers that were moving Westward. Obviously, our country’s founding fathers would take retaliation into consideration and come up with a plan to further their advantage regarding their newly acquired lands. In this context we must remember that in a state of nature, brute force may have been the determining factor in settling disputes but in the context of the modernist programmatic that was ushered in at the beginning of the Enlightenment, brute force was replaced with reason and the rule of law. Here, then, is a perfect example of how modernist ideology served to oppress disfavored peoples. In a “fair” fight it would always be possible for either team to win or lose but in a game where only one team has the advantage of a massive collective of people and financing, the victor can be determined in advance. Thus, it isn’t simply reason and law that determines the greatest capacity for victory within our social structure. We must also become masters of manipulating the beliefs and opinions of the masses. In this way, we can claim Manifest Destiny to all of the pioneers and thereby gain the strength in number of people fighting and resources available to fight. In this way the entire country can side with the pioneers seeking only what is their God given right under Manifest Destiny against the savagery of the blood thirsty indigenous people seeking to do harm to a righteous cause and its followers.

One of the most fundamental considerations that our country’s founding forefathers had to make, centered on the realization of the fact that the basic ingredients of a society based on the privileged few would, in broad strokes, consist in those that produce and those that consume; the haves and the have not’s. Because material advantage and disadvantage is played out in terms of brute force in a state of nature, the first safeguard of our society would require is the introduction of status quo defenders. In over-simplified economic terms, we can agree to allow individuals to accumulate economic wealth based on their own abilities and to tax each of these individuals for the collective benefit of all through the hiring and maintenance of status quo defenders. In this way we can create a class of individuals based on servicing the needs of the privileged. Thus, such a class would naturally require an inherent stratification of power based on geographical and practical needs. Therefore, the company or smallest unit of defenders must have a leader. Within the fort structure there must be a sufficient number of companies to handle the various needs of the regional privileged class. Thus, in a staged fashion and entire hierarchy of class and power emerges to coincide with the interests of the privileged class.

In light of the fact that the civil servants, including the military, must have their power kept in check, it is also necessary to implement and develop authorities. In today’s society it has become increasingly more difficult to win favor with the masses as opposing sides in any political debate or issue have learned over time how to balance the battle over self-interest and economic interests. However, during the period of history when our social structure was barely being implemented, it was, for all intents and purposes, possible to determine the outcome of an election in relation to the financial backing received by the winning side. It was, therefore, within the power of any given candidate to rise to power simply by backing the appropriate interests of the privileged few. This practice, though much more complicated today, still exists and is at the foundation of special interests. At the start of our social infrastructure it was the primary means by which the masses were coerced and manipulated into supporting the efforts of the overall collective in propagating a structure designed to favor the privileged.

Because of the sheer amount of material wealth and land that was available when our country was being born, it was also necessary to divide the privileged into groups of rulers. There are those that must represent the rulers over civil servants, rulers over the military, rulers over industry and so on. These rulers, then, become the decision makers that influence all subsequent actions and development for the country. Together, the rulers, the authorities and the defenders, oversee the coordinated interaction between consumers and producers to result in the successful closed system of our national government. Thus, these basic levels of society would be used to support and validate the highest order of rulers. However, in a multiracial, multiethnic, and even multicultural society, it would be necessary to replicate these levels or strata of society within each of the strata themselves. In this way privileged status can be disproportionally dispensed at every level of society in a way that would reinforce the supremacy of the “favored race”.

It should be noted at the outset that in this scenario women have not been factored explicitly because at the time of the formation of our social structure they were considered property. Therefore, women were understood to exist at all levels of the social structure but not by virtue of their own merits. Rather, they would occupy every level of the social structure as property of the male members of their social level. In this context, then, only men could be treated as superior or inferior, women were simply used by men as property for the purpose of sex, child bearing, wealth and power brokering. Such a subtle handling for female subordination and oppression is revealed in the graphic image above in the fact that women did not appear in any of the top three layers of the social strata.

In the final analysis, the reliance on scientific methodology historically amounted to a self-justifying smoke screen that was used to set the stage for our ability to implement a system of control and social structure that would guarantee to service the needs of the privileged or favored race at the expense of others. It would be helpful to keep in mind that the system and the process of its implementation would work equally well for people of any racial or ethnic background. The determining factor as to who controls society is simply who makes the first play. In light of the fact that the game began on the European continent and was not shared by the indigenous people of the North American continent, the ensuing White Anglo-Saxon power structure of our country is an appropriate reflection of our systems’ favored race. All subsequent stratification based on privileged status and the oppression and discrimination of non-privileged races are subsumed under the guise of modernist ideology and the scenario herein delineated.