October 4th 2020
The surprising spread of a pandemic artificially constructed by disinformation, in the times of information and globality, to which there has been a shockingly medieval reaction in the very advanced Europe and in the Europeanized countries (Australia, Latin America, Canada… the USA itself), with such absurd and harmful measures in all areas as confinement, social isolation, the irrational use of masks, the ban on doing autopsies to find out the truth, persecution of dissidents, conversion of a good part of society into repressive agents, if not lynch mob… All this, seen with the perspective of just some years, perhaps some months, will cause fright and incredulity in wide layers of society participating in fear and, at the same time, fanatically convinced of this atavistic coven that has deprived of dignity a good part of Humanity that believed itself safe from such moral, intellectual and political miseries.
The more I go over in my mind the images (they are worse than words) of the atrocious spectacle of medieval ignorance in which many of the richest, best educated and freest nations in the world are still immersed, the more quickly the arguments and explanations they try, unconsciously, disappear, to relieve my brain of such a chilling nonsense, seeking, deep down, to understand what is happening as an accident, a fortuitous and passing case of bad luck, of collective transitory madness, of bad wind that will take away as this return to the darkest age that Europe has known. And, then, a dejection shakes me trying to get me out of the shock in which we live with an atrocious cry: Wake up, because it is not a dream.
Yesterday I read a chapter of “Homo Simulator” that now makes sense. It is about feudalism. In reality, it is about the neo-feudalism that invaded Europe and a large part of the Europeanized world during the Cold War, which was the continuation, on the ideological stage, of the unfinished Second World War against the other initiator, international socialism. Everything is understood with a sharp, painful, hopeless clarity. And to understand it, all that is needed is a precision that, without the context of the rest of the chapters, would call for misunderstanding and unjust previous rejection.
I distinguish two Christianities. One, that of the Old Testament. Other, that of the New, which is a moral vanguard flourishing in Europe rooted in old values of the civilization that was able to magically harmonize dissidence and loyalty, individual freedom and often heroic defense of society. Heroes rabidly individualistic, dissidents, heretics, who are capable of giving their lives for the values of a society that offers the best conditions to achieve happiness … or misfortune. A society that makes the man (woman) master of his destiny and ultimately responsible for his actions. A society built by that other Christianity that still struggles to survive in the hearts of the best through the corrected formula of Jesus’ words: “One law I give you: that you love one another”. With this proviso made, everyone, and not just Christians of the God of free will, of the miracle of dissent in loyalty, can read this and the other chapters without being hijacked by a sudden and prior refusal. And, perhaps, he will look at things from a new perspective that invites him to dissent and to seek the common space that should govern us: freedom.
Homo Simulator. Feudalism.
World War II was started by National Socialist Germany and the International Socialist Soviet Union jointly attacking Poland. Fascist Italy and Japan soon joined the Nazi bloc. Soon after, because ideologies have no other goal than to survive and spread, Nazism attacked Soviet communism as soon as it had the slightest indication that it could win.
The mechanism of action of this vaccine is very simple: to reduce social inequalities, for which it is essential to restrict freedom. The problem came when this design ideology that was supposed to protect us started doing what every ideology does: infecting the social body by avoiding activating its defenses. Or what is the same, not to seem an ideology but a (social) system of freedoms. And in that harmless “social” resided the end of freedoms so subtly and effectively executed that even today it goes unnoticed or is strongly denied by the vast majority of the population.
The symptoms of the ideology (Neofeudalism) that arose to protect the freedom of Europeans are manifested in all orders of existence to such an extent that it is very difficult for us to identify them as what they really are: signs of vassalage. But there is a fact that by itself should already make us suspect that something very similar to what happened during the feudal era is happening again: We must give to the feudal lords, the politicians (formerly the nobles), at least, 50% of our work and of the fruit of our patrimony, something that has only happened twice throughout the entire History of Humanity (forgive me, scholars, some other exception): During the Middle Ages and now, especially in Europe and in the Europeanized nations.
The enemy in the Cold War was not so much a people or a kingdom, but a “virtual race” that invaded the societies exactly as, as the Romans feared, Christianity did. The problem was that in order to stop this threat, the liberal antidote was not used, as it was considered counterproductive, but an ideology was built to serve as a vaccine. An attenuated communism: social democracy.
Social democracy is an ideology expressly designed to stop socialist infection in its internationalist version.
Servitude is not a civic or social virtue.
In the EU, as well as in some Europeanized countries, we are forced to hand over 50% of our work and assets to political masters in exchange for protection. For exactly the same reason as in feudal times. We pay the lords to guarantee our security which, adapted to the terminology of the fictitious free world, they call the welfare state.
The welfare state consists of limiting inequalities to protect us from the ideology of equality.
Social democracy forces us to live under a 50% communist regime to avoid falling into 100% communism.
We suffer from a control over our daily lives for which it is difficult to find parallels in the last 500 years.
A suffocating regulation that determines to limits never known by Europeans how and what can be done, is joined by the prior authorization of the gentlemen to exercise almost any activity that is not confined to the strict privacy of the home or hidden behind the secrecy of personal relationships without public dimension. The previous authorization and the submission to the regulation under the relentless surveillance of the bureaucratic and police hosts of the political lords reaches a level of medieval servitude.
Personal freedom is restricted to the limits of semi-slavery in the professional and public sphere and also in the intimate sphere.
Not only is the pressure of public opinion applied, whose representation is appropriated and manipulated by the political masters and their vassals thanks to the media, but legality itself assumes black on white the moral dictates implicit in the doctrine of political correctness, prohibiting and criminally punishing! certain opinions under the most varied legal headings, the most common of which is the “hate crime”.
There are many examples in different fields of thought, from historical review to racial issues to the fully medieval “offence against religious feelings”. But there is one example that, even though it has not yet entered the penal realm (everything will go), draws a clear and shocking portrait of medieval dogmatism: “negationism“.
The imposition of certain opinions in the generic field of ecology as an irrefutable truth promoted to the category of faith turns those who do not accept it into deniers, a term with medieval and dogmatic reminiscences that we thought had been forgotten in the darkest depths of history. Heretics have returned, disbelievers, those who deny the Truth revealed, in this case, by the Scientific Church.
The parallelism is shocking. But even more so is the fact that educated people with proven critical ability do not realize what is happening 400 years after Galileo’s forced retraction and barely 28 years after the Church rehabilitated him. Authentic media persecutions from the same pulpits where the Truth of “anthropogenic climate change” is proclaimed, which recently was “global warming” and before that “destruction of the ozone layer”. But not only that, but also academic executions carried out by inquisitorial tribunals against scientists and denialist thinkers, who are ostracized, expelled from the channels of academic dissemination and from the circuit of public subsidies, if not directly from their jobs.
The term “denialist”, equivalent to heretic or atheist, has not been chosen innocently, but has been taken from one of the opinions that most arouse rejection among the population and that, of course, is criminally punished in the current democracy where the events occurred: Holocaust deniers. The word “denialist” taken directly from that atrocious context, brings with it moral connotations that are difficult to ignore and that lead to the mental automatism of considering that those who deny climate change are not only heretics or unbelieving atheists, but also miserable. Well, I believe that the Holocaust existed, that those who do not believe it have the right to express their opinion and to demonstrate freely, and that those who do not believe in anthropogenic climate change towards global warming and the destruction of the ozone layer have not only the right but the obligation to say so without suffering the slightest reprisal.
Before, Rome did not allow people to govern themselves, but to be themselves. Now, Brussels allows them to govern themselves but not to be themselves. Dressed in the new Christian Rome, it allows states to govern their servants autonomously, but always ruled by the doctrine and auctoritas of the new Vatican, which establishes moral principles emanated from a faceless god that dictates a monovision from which none can escape without suffering the consequences of a repression machine as subtle as destructive, with which the media, the new noble dynasties (the political parties) and, finally, all levels of society collaborate if they do not want to be excluded from economic, academic and working life.
Exaggeration? Let us remember what happens with crimes of opinion, which have returned in all their crudeness, or with dogmas that proliferate and are imposed in the most varied areas of existence, from the relationship between sexes to the climate, which again is a divine punishment for the (ecological) sins of Humanity. The Europeanizing conquests of the Renaissance until the Industrial Revolution have been re-Christianized with layman’s words. Everything in an acceptable way for present Europeans, that is, unacceptable for those of hardly 50 or 60 years ago.
The main enemy of the feudal regime is, today as in the past, the modern state. That is why the so-called identity nationalisms are denounced and persecuted.
The medieval kingdoms, after the extraordinary Renaissance experiment, were transformed into modern states that would be the basis, once the absolutist monarchical regimes were eliminated, of the contemporary states divided, in turn, into liberal democracies on the one hand and collectivist ones on the other. The administrative and bureaucratic apparatuses that today stand as the true power emerged. Politicians, those officials of the incipient states, have organized themselves into hereditary dynasties, political parties, supported by followers’ hosts, and have built a feudal world under the shadow of the Cold War where feuds remain hidden behind neo-dog latin of political-moral “auctoritas” and a legal jargon that, like oracles, needs to be interpreted by priest-judges, by making there be no law but jurisprudence, that is, arbitrary will. In the Middle Ages, none, or almost none, saw then the feudal regime as something unnecessary and unfairly oppressive. No one, or very few, now see the European welfare state as an exploitative and tyrannical regime, but quite the opposite: more freedom thanks to more equality, which is achieved by giving up half of our lives in the form of taxes and by submitting to a lordly regulation that even tells us how much sugar we can take and what truths we cannot deny.
We live better than the rest of the world. But better than we could live without this servitude?
We live in a neo-feudal world and this is not an improper or pedagogical exaggeration. We are subject to gentlemen who decide about our lives and not only about public affairs. Real lords of real servants who prevent dissidence thanks to a devilish mechanism of social engineering that imposes a dogmatic and totalitarian monovision disguising it as tolerant and open thanks to the control of the media and a bureaucratic apparatus capable of taking away 50% of our effort, talent and patrimony “to guarantee our well-being”.
In the feudal era of the Middle Ages, opinion and communication were controlled by the Church. Now, the audiovisual media, concentrated in a few hands, control information and opinion in a way equivalent to what was happening then. Even the Internet, that immense virtual plain on which contemporary nomads roam free, is being occupied by the bureaucratic hosts of the neo-feudal lords and will soon be controlled just as they control our lives and our heritage.
Logically, the defenders of European neo-feudalism will never recognize the true nature of that regime which they present as the closest thing on Earth to the Heavenly Kingdom or, in contemporary terminology, the least imperfect of the systems, because it guarantees maximum freedom within equality. Within equality…
But is there really an alternative to this neo-feudal regime?
Of course: Security without servitude. The old dissidence-loyalty. The ideal of the ancestral European. The non ideology. To give fullness to the process of liberation that began 500 years ago.