The peasants

The so-called “far-right conservative “ is one who prefers boundaries. The exemplification is national (as in building walls) and international (such as the cooperation in or ignorance of wars) or local (like gated communities). As far back as the Medieval Ages, the definition of land was crucial to the well-being and success of both the Lord of the Manor who owned the land and the peasant who occupied it. It is no accident that the feudal domains of the seigneurs along the St. Lawrence River were mathematically outlined in harmonious narrow strips of land from the River to the nearest concession or sideroad. The creation was hardly Heaven sent.

Remember this all began in France or England depending upon the current invasion.  The native Indians here in North America (or the indigenous inhabitants elsewhere) were historically the proprietors. However today as in the past the evolution of the original entitlement to land ownership (whether by brutal war and appropriation or by cunning commercial skill) was commonly by-passed or conveniently overlooked. Or if you were on the winning side, nobody cared. The acquisition of property as the fruits of competition was considered as axiomatic as an animal claiming its territory. And let’s face it, it’s all a matter of luck (and sometimes calculated trickery). It is foremost an absurdity to pretend that being born in Europe or North America, an aristocrat, a Catholic or Protestant, a Scotsman, an Irishman or an Englishman, is any more predictable than being born a peasant of any description. The monarchs, bishops and barons preserved the metaphorical sanctity and fortuity of their advantage by Disneyland-style creations such as Versailles, manufactures and pretence of thought and reason. Not surprisingly the subterfuge was willingly echoed by the religious partners in the sham who were part of the same tribe of landlords. As their influence grew, so too did their pockets and majestic estates.

The word “peasant” is derived from the 15th-century French word païsant, meaning one from the pays, or countryside; ultimately from the Latin pagus, or outlying administrative district.

The division of people based upon the legal fiction of ownership of land is thus as elemental as enquiring by what right a bird occupies its nest. Putatively there is no explanation other than to support the hierarchy acquired by force of strength. Once the intellectual hurdle was surmounted (embellished by centuries of fanciful judicial and legislative distracting refinements and fabrications such as life interests, condominiums – the celebrated “fee in the air”, cooperatives and time shares) the subsequent derivative motive to isolate and protect oneself from others predictably and logically ensued.

The divisions are predominantly class-based, commercial divisions guided first by utilitarian objectives for the developers or superior owners,  then reputedly for the advantage of the peasants to enable them to share moderately in the overall fiction.  The divisions are primarily recognizable by financial worth or accessibility. Cooperatives for example are an entire deceit. There is little about them that is either cooperative or common. That particular fiction ensures only the well-to-do can inhabit the building because the legal owner of the entire cooperative building is a corporation from which the individual inhabitant enjoys solely a long-term exclusive lease of a portion.  The moot though unemphasized characteristic of this form of land “ownership” is that the inhabitant cannot mortgage what he does not own; therefore, payment of the real estate interest is basically by cash (either on-hand or acquired through another financial source or vehicle).  As a result – and here’s the nub –  hoi polloi are estranged from the building.  More boundary. And, oh yes, the corporation too is a fiction – an inhuman “person” who owns the land, of which others are at best shareholders of “limited liability” governed by the value of their stock.  One big lie!

The wealthy living in isolated, distinct communities is frequently part of the standard model of the far-right conservative (gated communities, remote farm or country estates). Invasion of those classified communities by racially different people in hoodies for example is a treacherous endeavour at best, sometimes fatal for the unwitting transgressor. The more strategic crux however regarding this separation of the rich from the poor whether by outright inaccessible cost or payment, punctuated by fences and guards, is that people are artificially segregated; and, invasion of the limits is untolerated (often speciously for purposes of protection of the investment, an artificial corollary). The expanding distance between the ranks of society enhances the mistaken views each has of the other. The level of understanding is reduced to blunt contests of similarity without concern for need.  Unfortunately all people have needs, not just the rich or the poor. But the feudal paradigm persists to sustain the differences. The metaphor is then entrenched in the minds of both the rich and the poor who mistakenly commit themselves to a lifetime of dispute and acrimony.

Although history discloses that there have been numerous and varied models of community, one mustn’t forget that the current status was not “written in stone”.  There is no prohibition against sharing an understanding and acquaintance of human need.  There is no necessity to overlook the possibility of others having similar goals and resolve as we, including the capacity to work and perform adequately.  There is no conclusion that we cannot reach a meaningful level of cooperation with one another for our mutual benefit. It is part and parcel of this theme of unity that expanding literacy and education were a critical part of the Industrial Revolution and the urban boom.

In this enforced state of malignancy and distrust, separated falsely by money and gates, we have I believe unwittingly engendered a distorted condition of conflict. In the simplest regard we are all alike.  Notably this similarity includes the native intention of cooperation and commonality.  It is what I believe to be the natural and overriding nature of humanity. Essentially like bees and ants we prefer to work and get along for the common good.  We have however allowed the obsequious and selfish desire and ambition of misguided or deficient “leaders” to poison the common good by fulfillment of their personal gain. This is particularly so in the politcal arena.  I have never met a man or woman who had anything good to say about war.  Nor is war by any mental extraction inevitable.  Given the strength of all concerned there are far better ways to overcome synthetic conflict. To argue otherwise is a complete and perishing inadequacy not to mention an insupportable logic. How long must we endure this preposterous yearning to build the most powerful weapon to annihilate others?

I suddently sense myself ricocheting off the margins of communism which just happens to be a common retort from the far-right conservative. But remember there is a queen bee in the hive; and there are others who have equally demonstrable purpose and expectation.  Similarly I accept it as sous entendu that there is no need to contaminate this fruitful solution by a further deceit that we’re all the same.  We are not. Given that even the pharoahs lived by the identical limitations of time as we, it amounts to utter rubbish to obscure the higher purpose of living by the superfluity and vanity of the pyramids or an exotic method of burial or entombment. Nor is it uncommon to hear the rich speak most glowingly of the process not the reward.  If this were true – which I believe it is – then there is no reason to imagine that we should expect a greater motive; but at the same time I consider it self-evident that he who is prepared to work for achievement of advantage is allowed to do so without apology to those who do not.  Once again this does not mean that the worthy applicant is unable to consider and detect meaningful ways of assisting others.  Success does not close one’s eyes; though it may harden one’s heart.

Seemingly – based upon my cursory analysis of our Western democratic assembly – it is up to us to pierce the veil of fancy and to restrict the behaviour of others to comply and maintain this broader selfless possibility. How often – even within the manifestly oligarchical American society – has it been urged that with cooperation “anything is possible”.  And why should it be otherwise? The alternative, need I remind you, is admission of defeat.  I doubt that is either attractive or imperative. Meanwhile we’re being jostled and manipulated for selfish purposes by a select group. As long as we sit back without recognition of the greater harmony, we’ll permit or support the mercenary alternative of division. But we cannot rely upon our “leaders” to make that case because it is so obviously contrary their ultimate objective.  They thrive on division, It is the nature of their debate. It is therefore up to us to train the leaders to direct themselves accordingly.  And that means voting for someone commited and intelligent, not indolent and stupid. Nor does it help that the leaders often articulate imagined dilemmas only to preoccupy us and others with needless division. Let’s fix the problem, not amplify it!  My feeling is the problem is not as bad as suggested; but even if it were, it is in my opinion still preferable to correct it by elementary human motives than isolated agenda hidden behind needless barriers.