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

‘Myth’ and ‘Falsehood’

The word ‘myth’ is commonly understood to mean something that is untrue, false or otherwise not supported by evidence. This meaning is itself untrue, as myths are neither, strictly speaking, true in a literal sense, but neither are they false, as they are meant to convey a deeper truth. A ‘myth’ is simply a story, and can be interpreted to convey truth or to spread falsehood. What is usually labelled as a ‘myth’ today is not a story with a variety of meanings, but rather a lie which has no basis in fact. For example, the myth of Scotland’s landscape being formed by the actions of a primordial woman known as the ‘Cailleach’. It would be absurd to think that a giant woman existed and shaped the land by doing things like letting a well in a mountain overflow to form a loch, but since the Cailleach is a personification of Mother Nature herself, this helps us to interpret the myth in a way that we can understand.

This is because the events described in myths have taken place so long ago that none now live who remember them, and so it is necessary to describe the events in a way that is easier to remember rather than completely accurate. The problem with the modern use of the word ‘myth’ is that it assumes the inherent falsehood of stories like this because they cannot be true in a literal sense, and so discredits the entire story altogether. This is a narrow way to perceive reality, as it means that only that which is material or tangible can be considered true, while deeper meanings and multiple perspectives are neither considered nor questioned.

Mythology is highly dependent on factors such as culture and environment. The features of a particular country’s landscape give myths observable meaning to the people that inhabit it, which is why the forests and mountains of Northern Europe are said to be home to elves, trolls and fairies, beings which are specific to the traditions of these lands. The mythological creatures that are said to inhabit the jungles of South-East Asia are of a similar nature but different form, because their appearance and behaviours are rooted in the folk-consciousness of the people that inhabit that part of the world, as well as the local environment. This also means that different mythologies reflect different values depending on culture. The aristocratic and pastoral ethics of the Ancient Persian epic, the ‘Shahnameh’ (‘Book of Kings’), where the main characters are noble cavalrymen who play polo, hunt lions and fight in great battles for their king, would find little resonance with the hunter-gatherers of Prehistoric Finland, whose mythology is primarily concerned with creation and supernatural tales of heroes journeying to the underworld.

The peoples of the world tell stories about heroes and gods that they admire and aspire to, as they represent the best people to survive in their own environment and embody the potential excellence of their own folk. Our ancestors would look to their lore in times of hardship to give them strength and wisdom. The story of Robert the Bruce, who was inspired to continue pursuing his ambitions by a spider who never gave up when tying to build a web, even after successive failures, serves as a moral to encourage us to learn from our mistakes and push ourselves to reach for success. Now, this story is probably not literally true (apparently the spider was actually seen by one of his kinsmen who told the king-in-exile, in order to encourage him) and is technically more of a legend, since it is based on a historical event. This matters not, its purpose is not simply to inform us about the past, but to apply what our ancestors have learned in our current and future endeavours.

However, a people’s mythology can be obscured or obstructed through competing forms of media, namely modern mass media and academia. These institutions do not exist for the sake of the survival of a race of people, but rather for their own survival as institutions and the international system that they support. Greek and sometimes Egyptian mythology may be taught to school pupils who learn about history or, if they’re lucky, Classics; but Nordic or Celtic mythology is only at best taught at university level and available for enthusiastic readers, but at worse is portrayed in heavily watered down and maladapted forms in Hollywood films and TV series. The effect of mass media is that it creates its own mythology in place of that belonging to a particular race, and serves only to promote ideas that reflect the values of the establishment rather than the folk that consume it. This is also the case with organized religions, who have a universalist approach to mythology which manifests as dogma, which is interpreted as literal truth by their most fundamentalist adherents. This is why only among the most honest academics, and hardly ever among mainstream Abrahamic clergy, is it admitted that their own teachings are simply variations on Judaic mythology (which is itself a mishmash of Babylonian, Egyptian and Canaanite mythology). Since the events of the Old and New Testaments are not generally presented to us as ‘mythology’, this means that the word ‘myth’ as applied to other traditions gains the connotations of ‘false belief’; which is why, to many today, it sadly retains this meaning.

One size does not fit all in this world, there are many ways to determine truth and it is important that this is what we look for when we interpret stories. Myths that are interpreted incorrectly or purposely misused to control or abuse a population should not receive the support of the masses, as the acceptance of lies only creates an impregnable castle in the clouds for those who gain power by fleecing ordinary folk. While it is is interesting to study the comparative mythologies of nations around the world (which is especially helpful if your people have a mythology that has been suppressed and only survives in fragments), it is one’s own local and ethnic tales which will appeal most to the soul and whose meaning can be best understood by the individual. In a way, the myths are themselves abstract constructions, but they are designed not to distort or obscure history; rather, their importance is more applicable to the present state of things than the past, which has passed into the well of memory and slips further away from us in time.

We will not find Truth in lies, nor lies in Truth. Objective Truth is beyond literal and metaphorical, it simply is. Our folk myths are precious and must be preserved, though it is only natural that once they come into regular, oral use, the descriptions and language will change over time, but the meanings will remain the same. Mythology is not simply a static collection of literary verses, but a living and growing body of lore which maintains and is maintained by a people through regular recitation and discourse. Those of us who enjoy reading regularly can find more books and other information about mythology than ever before on the internet, while others with more aural sensibilities can listen to recitations either in audio-book form or by seeking out storytellers active in their communities. Tradition helps us to continue our story, while modernity makes us forget it. We have precious little time to recover our heritage before we are tested to survive in the new world that is emerging…

Wulf Willelmson