This is a very rough, very incomplete summary for my book, The Book of Mutualism. I say that it is rough and incomplete because the book itself is an encyclopedic, cosmo-evolutionary chronicling of the entire Universe (though with a focus on mutualism) and a general synthesis of religion, philosophy, history, and science. As such, there is a whole lot of stuff that did not even get touched on in this summary, not even slightly brushed against. This includes much more mundane or banal history as well as many exciting curiosities and moral takeaways, especially as are found toward the middle of the work. Most importantly, I take no care here to round out any edges or pre-empt any misconceptions that will inevitably arise from reading this summary alone. In this regard, it serves as a right of passage for those willing to put their preconceptions to the test. Also, the summary is delivered a little differently, though it contains the same general information. Regardless of its shortcomings, this should serve as a brief summary so that a reader can tell if they want to read it or not. ____________________________________
The Universe (also known as God) is an eternal whole, each moment never ceasing to exist within it. These moments ("Creation"), however, are temporally experienced, and this temporal change is contingent rather than eternal. All contingencies within the eternal follow sempiternal cycles governed equally by syntropy and entropy, the tendencies to order and disorder, resulting in a recurring Big Bounce or Big Pulse.
Among the contingencies between bounces, there are the myriad of stars and planets, such as our Sun and Earth, and the various satellites, such as our Moon. The relationship between the Sun and the Earth results in an Earth that is alive, and that grows. As it grew, the continents drifted apart. But it also experiences times of shrinkage, wherein the continents come closer together. This may explain the appearance of New World Monkeys and coastal Native Americans.
On the expanding-and-contracting Earth, within our temporally-cycling Universe, life exists, perhaps first appearing in the black smokers at the bottom of the oceans, near the vents from which the seafloor spreads as the Earth grows. This may have occurred on numerous occasions, or may even be ongoing, there likely being many origins of life. Single-celled organisms combine within and across clades to form colonies, which evolve to create more complex, multicellular life, which combines to form societies, such as our own. Living things showcase syntropic processes, which themselves are a sort of theremodynamic time-traveling that may eventually culminate in the formation of the singularity as it existed before the Big Bang. In other words, before the Big Bang, was us.
Humans evolved from unknown ancestors, which is commonly understood to have been a relative of the Chimpanzee, but which may have been a much more unique derivative from other Cercopithecines or other speculative sources. As with life itself, the creatures that humans evolved from were themselves completely different species, with distinct origins, but through syntropic processes had convergently evolved, and, through miscegenation or hybridization, produced different human races as a result, which continued to convergently and in parallel evolve and hybridize further, bringing about the modern human races. Basal Native Americans may have evolved in America, rather than being sourced from Africa, like Africans are. Indo-Eurafricans evolved in Eurasia and Eurafrica. Asians evolved in Asia. All along the way, there has been admixture, which has resulted in greater degrees of evolution for all parties.
The star functions of human societies are cooperation and mutualism. Whether interspecifically or intraspecifically, where mutualism and cooperation can be taken advantage of, they provide advantages. Humans evolved mutualism with other species such as dogs, cats, and honeyguides, as well as across their own racial and ethnic divides, and practiced cooperation with one another, sometimes also across racial and ethnic distinctions. The state has its source largely in the cross-cultural alliances of chieftains to establish class supremacy over their own and one anothers' people. This, too, was mutualistic and cooperative, on the part of the rulers. Ruling class power results from ruling class cooperation and mutuality, though this is typically limited to the maintenance of agonistic systems (such as two-party, winner-takes-all systems), in in that respect is weak compared to stronger commitments to mutual benefit. Nonetheless, the story of class stratification is that of which parties can better aid one another against the others. Mutual aid among the ruling class, in the maintenance of their agonistic systems, has typically resulted, early on, in the dominance of one race by another (most often, white races over darker races), and the formation of caste systems, but has since become less rigid in the form of class systems, though racial and ethnic distinctions still characterize the divide, even if less so than under the caste system.
The ruling classes also assisted one another in the formation of exoteric, supernatural religions, which its own priests, informed of the esoteric intent, understood more logically and naturally. With superstitions, which today have developed into fictions of entertainment and play the same role, the ruling classes have instilled groupthink and controlled their populations. The natural philosophers were the first outside of the priesthood to start thinking for themselves and about natural causes for things being as they are, which has since dealt a great blow to the ruling classes and has tended to secularize, democratize, and liberalize.
Europeans are the most racially-admixed of all groups, and many have the capacity to signal shame through blushing, which has resulted in the most influential stock on the planet today. Among Europeans, there has been an ongoing conflict between Jews or Goths and Anglo-Saxons, especially, but also including Franks and Romans as opponents of the Anglo-Saxons. Mutualism developed most likely from Anglo-Saxon sources, which influenced the lower class French, who became the figureheads of mutualism (despite its presence elsewhere as well), as well as the Anglo-Americans, such as the Ricardian socialists and American individualist anarchists. Mutualism can be traced through the free thinkers, including Spinoza, through the heretics of medieval and ancient times, as well as through the civil societies, such as sodalities, guilds, and friendly societies, that have also extended as far back. But its federalist character is largely Saxon and Frisian, and was perhaps best expressed among the Stedinger.
Jews are a people formally named after Judah, but whose namesake is probably itself an affiliation to the larger group of people from whom the Jews descend, which included a range of peoples along what I have called “the old Jat Belt” from India to Scandinavia, such as the Goths and Jats. As such, they are relatives of the Vikings, and their unique religion is inspired by Babylonian ways they were exposed to as captives in Babylon. The Goths having become the rulers of Europe after the fall of Rome, the Jews were distant kin to the royals and nobles of Europe, and provided the nobles what they believed to be their family trees. Among the Anglo-Saxons, it was the Jutes, a Gothic people, who first adopted Franco-Roman Christianity in England, which was later cemented by Norman rule. The Saxons and Frisians were long holdouts, like some of the Celtic peoples. While there were some Viking holdout, their Gothic origins made conversion much easier. The continental Saxons and Frisians saw Chrsitianity forced onto them in the name of empire, while the island Saxons were pressured by Jutes, Angles, and Franks and relapsed back to paganism. Among the Franks and Normans, especially, Jews saw an elevated social status, but would also find a presence among the Jutes, perhaps as brought by Franks (the Franks had long intermindled with the Radhanite Jews of the Rhineland).
The Normans and Franks brought about feudalism, and then absolutism and mercantilism. Mercantilism was liberalism under monarchical rule, but eventually the radicals came to realize that monarchies would never truly commit to the principles of liberalism, nor to the freedom of religion, which they had come to learn to value during the Reformation, and so decided that they needed to establish a democratic republic to safeguard liberalism. This brought about the Enlightenment and its associated republican revolutions. The Englightenment, like the Reformation, had actually begun with a radical form, the Radical Enlightenment, which was genuinely committed to popular freedom and equality, but in interaction with the Counter-Enlightenment, spurred a Moderate Enlightenment that compromised on its values, being centered instead in sensibilism. It was the Moderate Enlightenment that would have its way during the republican revolutions, and, as a result, the republics that were produced were not democratic republics, but oligarchic republics, which maintained a degree of aristocracy. The American republic, which flies the 13 bars and blue field of the East India Company, is such an example.
Those following the Radical Enlightenment, who were not satisfied with the oligarchic republics and the capitalist economies that the Moderate Enlightenment had brought about, would become class conscious modernists. Modernists wanted to continue in the efforts of the Enlightenment, to better approximate its promises. Among these, and indeed perhaps the first (if we do not count the “early modernists” of the Renaissance), were the mutualists, who had developed from out of the civil societies and radical philosophies of the Radical Enlightenment. The mutualists came to hold that a republican state, and not just a monarchy, was also insufficient in protecting the promises of liberalism, and so set about establishing democratic republics of their own, including communal associationalist expiriments, cooperatives, and confederations, wherein working people could self-govern, free from oligarchs, in an anarchist republic, one without a ruling class.
Class consciousness startled the ruling class, especially as it became internationally organized. As a result, the international association of the mutualists, which itself was more pluralistic and federalistic in flavor, was divided and conquered by Karl Marx, a Jew, and Mikhail Bakunin, a Russian nobleman, and both Illuminists, giving way to the distinction between authoritarian and anti-authoritarian socialism, and leaving mutualism, which fell somewhere between, largely behind. Working class mutualism, which had identified itself as such (an example of self-conscious evolution), continued primarily in associations such as unions, cooperatives, credit unions, fraternities, and among circles of fringe intellectuals in clubs or writing for papers. Mutualism was still strong, but it had lost its central international influence, primarily to the Marxists. Some of the mutualists went along with Bakuninism for some time. Both authoritarian and anti-authoritarian socialists remained a problem for the ruling class, even under the influence of Marx and Bakunin, as genuinely socialist and anarchic positions were still held by the rank-and-file, which Marx and Bakunin also spoke to and, especially in Bakunin's case, may have actually shared to some extent or another. Proudhon, the popularizer of anarchy and the most prominent socialist of the time, would cease to be the figurehead of either, as Marx became the signified or archetypal socialist and Bakunin, anarchist.
Around the same time, the elites of the ruling class were also getting internationally-organized under the ideology of synarchism, which involved a cadre of mystics, bankers, industrialists, intellectuals, and other elites of their fields, all sharing a radical Counter-Enlightenment worldview, one that affirmed some of the lessons of the Enlightenment, but which wished to place legal, scientific, and otherwise democratic institutions under ecclesiastical-style authority, in the spirit of technocracy. The synarchy was established with the explicit purpose of stopping the rise of anarchism. This coincided with the development of the business magnates, democratic socialism, progressivism, and eventually yellow or business unionism, which all served Marxism or the synarchy, however indirectly at times. It must be understood that synarchy is affiliated with Traditionalism, Theosophy, and the fin de siecle more generally, and, as Symbolists, Decadents, and so-on, are characterized by a great deal of idiosyncracy, allowing them to appear on either the Left or Right, or among authoritarians or anti-authoritarians.
The World Wars were instigated or arranged by the synarchy, which included Zionists and Nazis into the bunch along with co-opted Marxism (the “red fascists” such as Stalin, Lenin, and Mao), and which coincided with the rise of Jewish, Slavic, and Catholic (Italian and French) influence in the United States, the bringing about of postmodernity (or pre-modernity, after the fact of modernity), and the displacement of the WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) ruling class and its replacement or vassalage by a new, international Jewish elite and the synarchists more generally (synarchists include Zionists in their ranks, and synarchism was styled as Judaeo-Christian, combining both Jewish and Catholic interests).
Over time, the Counter-Enlightenment efforts of the synarchy, the factitious and contorted efforts of Marxism, the nihilism of Bakuninism, and Stirnerism, Nietzscheanism, and Schopenhauerianism, would be combined with fin de siecle efforts more generally, producing postmodernism and the resulting neo-Marxism and neo-anarchism. Met with earlier, American Romantic sentiments which had become influential in the development of black and womens' suffrage, which had also interacted a great deal with Marxism, postmodern identity-politics resulted. Whereas previously the working class could be divided along the lines of black and white on the grounds of Nordicism and Aryanism, but because this was breaking down with the appearance of multiracial unions like the Knights of Labor and the Industrial Workers of the World, postmodern identity politics would send the pendulum the other way, dividing the whites from the black as assumed racists, and men from women as assumed sexists. This argument was made on the grounds of black slavery and women's not having a vote, but Poor Whites had generally opposed such things, and the most vociferous advocate of women's rights-- Emma Goldman-- opposed women's suffrage. Overall, the argument is not sound or cogent, and lacks a comprehension of human evolution. Nonetheless, it was emotionally persuasive, and sensibilists following the fin de siecle were ripe and ready for a new, transgressive way to do moral grandstanding.
The new, intersectional culture dominated by Jewish interests, and ruled by a synarchic deep state, exists upon a new nobility, which serves as its professional-managerial “class,” the 20% who work for the 1%. The nobility of this “class” is predicated on its noble deeds, namely the casting out of “racists” and “sexists” of a fair complexion. As such, it has effectively divided the population between whites and their advocates and everyone else, and as a result has politically polarized the nation. This being so, class consciousness is basically absent, with words like class and privilege having been redefined so as to have identarian characterists. To the classical socialists and anarchists, class was the relationship between master and servant, and privilege was the legal status that allowed the master to be a master. To neo-Marxists and neo-anarchists, class is the way one is judged by others, and privilege is having white skin and being male. This is absurdity. But it has been believed. As a result, we are governed by a kakistocracy administered by the noble managerial class, and oppression is being called a nigger or bitch rather than when the entirety of one's income is forked over to some absentee idlers. “Racists and sexists stay outside, landlords and bankers take off your coats and stay awhile.” That's the attitude of the New Left. And this is the predicament we find ourselves in today.