Previous Page/Table Of ContentsNext Page


65 Remember, Spengler was writing this in 1922. He forecast that the parliamentary form would last through the end of the century, which is now but a few years away. However, that time-table is by no means fixed. Parliaments could easily exist for a century or more before being replaced by Cęsarism.

66 And therein lies the rub. It is clear that Newt Gingrich comes from the faction of conservative politicians which despises the liberal press. This obvious antipathy prevents him from commanding the press. For example, just compare the full 45 minute speech Newt gave in New Hampshire with the "sound bight" presented by the press! It is clear as of this writing (December, 1995) that the press and the Democrat politicians they favor are combined with one purpose in mind: to "get" Gingrich.

67 The classic slogan for this concept is: "freedom of the press belongs only to those who own one." Another similar dictum is attributed to Hannen Swaffer (1879-1962) from about 1902: "Freedom of the press in Britain means freedom to print such of the proprietor's prejudices as the advertisers don't object to." Neither of these ever contemplated a technology such as the Internet, where a small investment in a home computer would give the ability to publish one's own prejudices throughout the world, without any advertisers present who could object.

68 One basic function of government is "to provide for the common defense." Obviously, avoiding a war with diplomacy is better than fighting it. This thesis of Spengler is: the survival of our nation, vis-ą-vis the other nations of the world, depends upon our own internal politics remaining `in form.'

69 There has never been a significant society founded upon a principle of matriarchal rule. Strong women have emerged as leaders only after the society has been pacified for several generations, and particularly in late Civilizations, such as Cleopatra in Egypt. Typically, when women are allowed to assume the figure-head of "ruler," a strong bureaucracy does the actual ruling on behalf of whichever "ruler" actually occupies the position. If true statesmen are rare, a true stateswoman, responsible for the founding of a tradition of ruling, would be all but unique. This is not a "male chauvinist pig" sentiment, but an observation of historical fact. The reason for this lies in the fact that the true statesman is waging a war, with rules so close to the law of the jungle, that females basically need not apply; at least for the traditional forms of government which have arisen out of chaos and nothingness.

70 Thus, the War of the Roses was a typical factional squabble. There was no ideological distinction between the sides. The only issue was who would rule, and thereby determine the division of spoils. It mattered not to the typical citizen of England whether York or Lancaster sat on the throne.

71 The reference is, of course, to "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli. As the Encyclopędia Britannica says: he was an "original political theorist whose acute psychological observations brought him a reputation of amoral cynicism."

72 As Spengler defines it, "the two prime estates, the priesthood and nobility," are eventually taken over by the "Third Estate," the bourgeoisie. Virtually all primitive peoples have some form of nobility and priesthood, even if it is as simple as a designated tribal chieftain and "medicine man." As the social order moves beyond the simplicity of primitive tribal culture, it is inevitable that some form of a bourgeoisie "Third Estate" will arise, as virtually any form of trade will lead, eventually, to a merchant and craftsman class, out of which the bourgeoisie naturally evolves.

73 Spengler names the concept of "equality" as "unreservedly negative" and "disruptive" for the reason that it reverses the natural order of the law of the jungle, and is thus anti-survival in nature. If the concept of equality is carried to extremes, it becomes communistic: whatever I have that you want, you are entitled to because it is equally yours, etc. In the United States, the concept of equality is strictly limited to the area of rights under the law, and those rights are then further limited both with explicit restrictions and implicit reservations which have grown up out of practice, and it is this fact that the concept is honored more in the breach than in actuality that makes it workable in our society.

74 Spengler's footnote at this point states: "Hence it is that on the soil of burgher equality the possession of money immediately takes the place of genealogical rank." This concept is inextricably intertwined with that of a bourgeoisie middle class. No matter how you slice it or dice it, wealth equates to power. The only question is whether it is your personal wealth or "OPM" (Other People's Money). If you own it or control it (through Politics, or otherwise), you have the power.

75 Spengler asserts that the freedom-idea is always negative because it only separates people from something. Thus, you are free to give up peasant farming and move to the city. The difficulty, of course, is that if everyone exercises their freedom, we achieve chaos, not organization. So, while the concept of freedom may seem greatly desirable to the individual, from the standpoint of a society, each exercise of freedom is an injury to the unity of the whole, and is thus forever negative. Again, in the United States, we develop elaborate social mechanisms (such as enforceable contracts and other limitations on freedom) to ensure that any injury from exercises of freedom is not fatal to our society. But if you wish to consider the potential scope of the negative aspects of freedom, just consider that each homeless person is exercising their right to be free of various of society's rules, such as: the prohibitions against drug abuse; the necessity of working at the sorts of menial labor which would give them a sufficient income to cease being homeless; etc. Obviously, this view is biased in accordance with the parallel view that Order in a society is a desirable state of affairs, and disorder is NOT. We each crave Order, to be safe on our streets, and in doing so, we yield up a quantity of our freedoms.

76 The best example of the true meaning of this would come from England, because it has the longest living tradition of relatively peaceful changes in the power structure. The "party" in the sense meant by Spengler is represented by the entirety of the House of Commons, while the Estates would be represented by the entirety of the House of Lords. It is no accident that the bishops of the Anglican Church sit in the House of Lords! Thus, the noblemen and the priesthood sit in one house of the English Parliament and the "commoners" sit in the other. The entire House of Commons (no matter which of the currently three main parties the members happen to belong to at the present point in time) is the "party" in the sense that Spengler means it here.

77 Spengler's footnote at this point states: "It is an important factor in the democracy of England and America that in the first the yeomanry had died out and in the second has never existed. The `farmer' is spiritually a suburban and in practice carries on his farming as an industry. Instead of villages, there are only fragments of megalopolis." Historically, in England, "yeomanry" was the lowest level of freeholder, and it was this group which was the first "commoners" admitted to political rights. However, by the time that the English Parliament took over the running of the government from the king (as opposed to merely offering the king its advice and consent), the yeomanry as a distinct political class had disappeared. Through the vehicle of nearly universal public education, one consequence of the Industrial Revolution, the world-view of the city is promulgated to the population at large, thus ensuring the effect noted by Spengler in the quoted footnote.

78 By "race," Spengler means "genealogical heritage." Most nobility was hereditary in nature.

79 The founding fathers of the United States saw fit to go so far as to create the Senate to fulfill the function of the House of Lords in representing the Estates. The model for the Senate is that each of the elected Senators represents a block of land, as opposed to a group of people. Thus, the few thousand voters of rural Wyoming have the same political power in the Senate as the ten million voters in the State of California. However, with no native aristocracy, the United States Senate cannot ever fulfill the same spiritual function as does the House of Lords.

Copyright © 1994-1999 by the Agnostic Church

Please send us your feedback!

Previous Page/Table Of ContentsNext Page