The Law of Reciprocity and the Con of Corporate Socialism

For a society to function in a way that benefits those involved in it, there must be some form of reciprocity that is based on voluntary exchange. In Modern society, this reciprocation is fundamentally based on the exchange of labour for capital, and so money is given to workers usually on the basis of how many hours are worked. The employer gains capital for himself by charging more for the goods or services provided by employees than is actually paid to them. This monetary gain is his ‘profit’, and the pursuit of profit is what is known as capitalism.

In some cases, profit is honestly earned by an artisan who charges more for a product than it cost them to produce, as the extra charge represents the extra labour that went into putting materials together into a finished product. This becomes a form of exploitation when extended to getting other people to do the work for you. However, there is nothing wrong with this if the decision to do so is voluntary. Someone who would rather work for somebody else to gain their capital rather than than through their own ideas and efforts is perfectly suited to acting as an employee.

Unfortunately, this is many times not the case in Modern society, as labour is often given reluctantly, and is usually driven out of necessity This may even be because even if one wishes to become their own employer, the need to make ends meet forces many talented people to work for others, often in selling goods that they are not interested in promoting themselves. This is a result of corporatism, where a small number of successful multinational corporations have created a monopoly through out-competing small businesses and dominating the market. This has only been possible through subsidies given by the state. As governments collect money through taxation, this means that they are using public funds to support private enterprise. This should give you the first hint that our governments are corrupt (from the local Scottish parliament, through the old imperial UK parliament to the EU superstate), since on what basis do they have the right to prioritize certain businesses over others?

The answer is that it is purely out of self interest at the expense of the public, as politicians benefit from the support of corporate donors to fund their political campaigns, and so in turn they give out subsidies and look the other way when those same corporations mislead the public or damage the environment. The common man is not considered in this exchange, other than a means of gaining either taxes or profit. The reason given for government subsidies is that certain businesses act in the interest of the common good, and so should be given support to fund their projects. However, businesses cannot be trusted to act in this way, as their only responsibility is to deliver a profit to their shareholders, and so their financial gain will always come at the expense of other concerns. This is simply the way of business, it only becomes a problem when said businesses become so powerful that have influence over governments that choose to support them.

Many who can see through this charade advocate socialism as the answer, since this is seen as a way to redistribute the wealth that is earned by the workers through the state, and thus ending the cycle of exploitation. The absurdity of this idea becomes apparent when you consider that wealthy billionaires are usually the ones who fund left-wing organizations. They use their capital gained through exploitation and usury to fund groups which pose no real threat to their interests. The reason for this is that, in order to achieve the ideals that utopian socialists wish for (specifically equality, a concept based on nonsense, as humans are all born with different capabilities and so can never be equal), they must empower the state to enforce their wishes. The same state that colludes with corporations in order to maintain the current order.

While left-wing organizations, such as the Labour Party, claim to advocate for the interests of the workers (or ‘labourers’), the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats support the ‘capitalist’ banks and corporations. In reality, nobody supports the small businesses that are based on garnering wealth through honest capitalism. They are also disadvantaged by the partnership between big business and the state, as they are consistently crushed through excessive regulations that favour wealthy corporations that can afford to pay the fees that accompany such regulation.

This balancing act maintains the power structure between exploiter and exploited, with no option in between and where human worth is gauged by how much money one can make, not through inherent worth based on talents that do not involve the manipulation of capital. The Left continues to encourage the common man to act as if he is ‘oppressed’ (and so becomes an eternal victim, always blaming others and never bettering his situation through his own efforts), while the Centre tries to convince us that our current situation is good for us (the Right has no real influence in Modern politics, and will never be allowed to by those who benefit from the demise of nationalism and conservatism).

There is no choice and there is no ‘people power’ within this system. Corporate socialism is the political game that suits the elites best, as they can continue to find excuses to employ Soviet-lite mass surveillance and suppression of free speech, while still allowing a measure of private enterprise so that people are fooled into believing that we still live in a capitalist society. A man who gives his labour unwillingly is by definition a slave, and this is the position that many of us have been forced into through globalization, as decisions which affect our conditions are made by people far away and whom we have nothing in common with.

The corporate state has managed to elevate itself above the people by bribing us with material goods and by employing mind-numbing media such as newspapers, television and cinema to enforce their world-view and to convince us that it is what we want. Through the proliferation of consumer goods meant to satiate our desires, they have scientifically perfected their psychological manipulation of our minds in order to assure us that the exchange is voluntary, and that our freedom and dignity are a price worth paying for commodities and comfort.

This is why, in a political sense at least, there is no true or effective opposition to the Modern order, as the system sustains itself through itself. No party manifesto filled with dubious promises can ever address the real problems which plague our society, as this would require the dismantling of the whole structure to its foundations in an effort to start again. What has happened is that we have set our expectations too high, and that in order to maintain the perpetual economic growth (which is, by the way, impossible) we have had to coerce people, by hook or by crook, into maintaining the monster that has been created.

This means that people in general go to work and pay their taxes unwillingly, as many of us (particularly in the younger generations) have lost the will to work towards a system that only abuses us and expects us to provide for the needs of the older generations, when we know we will not receive the same treatment in the future due to corruption and overpopulation. Once the trust has been lost, there can be no willing exchange, and holding society together becomes a game of coercion and manipulation in order to get people to work towards a common goal, because there is no incentive for people to willingly work towards filling the pockets of the rich and little else.

It is for this reason that Modern society is doomed. The ‘American Dream’ that has been exported to the rest of the world now rings hollow, and there is no way that the mess that has been created can ever be fixed. Modernity gives us nothing truly fulfilling, it simply takes and takes and takes, as its benefactors are constantly trying to convince us that it is what we want, and they are consistently failing because we can see the results, or lack thereof. It is not only we humans who are having the life sucked out of us, but also Mother Nature, who is constantly having to pay the price in order to prop up our society’s ridiculously high demands for convenience and material abundance.

There will come a point when she will have nothing left to give, and presumably will begin to take from us what we owe her in order for balance to be restored. Learning to give and take in equal measure is necessary for order and survival. Do not give to parasites that will never give anything back, and this includes uncaring employers and abusive partners; as well as what can be considered ‘corporate charities’, where money that is not donated for a specific cause cannot be trusted not to be misused as a means of earning profit.

This is not to say that one should not be charitable, in fact, the cosmic law of reciprocation means that goodwill is repaid with good luck. However, we should never feel compelled to give out of guilt or hoping for a reward, but rather out of recognising mutual benefit and shared interest. This process is not merely a human construct, but is based on cosmic law (known in Sanskrit as rita, from which we derive the word ‘right’) and is the basis on which we give offerings to the gods in mutual trust. This awareness is something that Modern society has lost, but it is essential to us to learn in order to survive as part of a tribe in the hard times to come.

Wulf Willelmson

Church and State: The Two-Headed Beast

No collaboration has managed to be quite as insidious and abusive throughout history as the union of Church and State. These two pillars of government (represented by the two-headed eagle) are the standard for countries which have adopted an Abrahamic religion at some point in history, and they continue to be particularly strong in conservative Islamic countries; where Sharia is used as a combination of religious dogma and state enforcement. However, they have also experienced periods of conflict. While the Church and State maintained equality of power among themselves during and after the Christianization of Europe (the Early Middle Ages), by the Late Middle Ages the Catholic Church had secured its supremacy across Europe and began to experience competition from powerful monarchs. Their monopoly over the European economies through the businesses of the Church (such as charging for forgiveness of sins and the trade in ‘relics’) made them richer and more powerful than the kings, who could only gain wealth through extracting taxes from their people or as tribute from their defeated enemies. This was consistently the case in the ‘Holy Roman’ (German) Empire, where it was unclear whether the emperor or the pope had more control. This eventually resulted in a Papal Schism and, later on, the Protestant Reformation, which involved removing the influence of the Catholic Church and making the monarch the head of the Church, before transferring secular power to parliaments.

The idea of having spiritual and secular branches of power comes from the basic structure of a tribe. In Ancient Germanic society, the spiritual leader was known as an erilaz (which became ‘earl’) and the secular leader was known as a kuningaz (from which ‘king’ derives). The erilaz was the high priest and magician of the tribe, while the kuningaz led the warriors and was more similar to a general. The kuningaz levied taxes and went on raids to gain tribute or booty, so that they could support themselves and the gothar (priests and magicians in Old Norse). Meanwhile, the erilaz was responsible for the general wellbeing of the tribe and performed sacrifices and offering to the gods, as well as made important decisions about what the tribe should do. In Gaulish society, the vergobret (‘magistrate’ or ‘arch druid’) was elected by the druids (though they were probably elected by all free men of the tribe in earlier times), while the rix (‘king’) was elected by the warriors.

However, the Roman kings sought to become both spiritual and secular rulers, becoming both the heads of the army and the priesthood. This continued even after the Roman Republic, as both proconsuls and emperors held the titles of commander-in-chief and head priest. This is one of the reasons why the Late Roman emperors converted to Christianity, because it had become too difficult to control the empire with both spheres of power embodied in one monarch, and so the pope became the head of the Church while the emperor focused more on leading the army. However, the popes became more and more dominant and saw themselves as more legitimate rulers of a Christian empire than the emperors, which caused the schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. In Eastern Orthodoxy, the patriarch acted as the chief priest, but the emperor remained the head of the Church and selected the patriarch, which has meant that there has been less competition between the Orthodox Church and the leaders of Orthodox countries, such as Greece and Russia.

As far as the conversion to Christianity in Northern Europe is concerned, the role of erilaz became secularized, and ‘earl’ has come to be a title of nobility and landownership, based on the earlier territory of tribes (many ‘earldoms’ corresponded to previous tribal boundaries). While the king continued to act as secular ruler and head of the army, bishops were appointed as religious leaders by the Church to act on behalf of the pope. It is in this way that the Catholic Church maintained itself as a religious empire and permeated most of Europe by the Late Middle Ages. Its last acts of conquest in Europe were the ‘Northern Crusades’, carried out against Baltic pagans in Prussia and Lithuania by the German Teutonic Order. In this way, the Church used converted folk to conquer the unconverted. Even after the Reformation, the Catholic Church found new victims in the Americas, Asia and Africa. However, the Reformation did not save the Protestant kingdoms. As the kings and queens moved from secular to spiritual rulers, they simply became the heads of the religion of the State. For example, the Church of England (and Ireland and Scottish Episcopalians) functions as a State religion, with the Queen of England as it’s head. In countries without a monarchy, this role is fulfilled by a president if a prime minister or chancellor acts as the secular leader. In this way, the State acts as a religious body, but without spirituality, both spheres of power have been secularized.

The result of this is that in Protestant countries (but also in any secularized nation whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish) the peoples’ religious needs are fulfilled by consumerism, the shopping centres and cinemas are our churches while actual churches are replaced by mosques to suit incomers from Islamic lands. In removing power from the priesthood, even one as corrupt and abusive as the Catholic Church, the capitalists and ‘social democrats’ (the self-designation of gradualist socialists) have removed the spiritual hearts of our nations, and replaced them with dogmas based on the worship of wealth or the worship of idealism, depending on what side of the political spectrum one chooses to support. Our folk have become disconnected from their native spirituality through centuries of indoctrination and abuse, and are largely unaware of our ancient lineage and heritage.

The Church has so thoroughly mixed heathen traditions with their own that many of us mistake our own customs for Judeo-Christian ones, and so in modern secular society, we have cast aside our own ways in an attempt to throw off the yoke of the Church. Whereas Catholic countries still have these traditions embedded in their culture, the Reformation actually destroyed many texts kept in monasteries and churches and severed many folk from their original, heathen practises. The only leader in the British Isles who ever attempted to do away with Christmas was the Puritan tyrant Oliver Cromwell, a move which even those materialists in control today do not even attempt, at least for now. The doctrine of egalitarianism that was espoused by the Christians has passed over into Cultural Marxism, which denies the legitimacy of the existence of race and folk as a basis for spirituality, leaving hollow faith solely in the ‘human race’ as a uniform and homogeneous unit under one global zeitgeist.

Nowadays, the State is observably more powerful than the Church in people’s daily lives, however, they still continue to support one another. It is no coincidence that there is evidence for widespread child abuse both among political elites and within the Catholic Church. These two institutions exist to mislead and abuse, and are well known for propagating lies to their people. It is telling that both the State and all of the representatives of organized religions in this country (Protestant, Catholic, Muslim and Jewish) encouraged people to support the invasion of Europe by economic migrants from Asia and Africa, conflating them with the refugees from Syria and appealing to ‘humanitarianism’. The Church has done much to feed folk with feelings of guilt and shame that permeate even into secular society, encouraging us to value others more than ourselves, even if others are taking advantage of us. Its role has been to keep folk ignorant and weak, so that we may accept the abuses of the State to take our rights away. We do need two sections of society to balance the spiritual and the secular in our societies, but the Church and the State do not fulfil either need, as their powers are rooted in exploitation and extortion. They only exist in order to govern a population larger than a tribal confederation (such as that of a nation-state or an empire), and cannot be trusted simply on the basis that they cannot possibly have your best interests at heart if they operate as separate classes above the rest of us, rather than belonging to one tribe and working on their behalf.

Wulf Willelmson