The system of cannibalism relies fundamentally and primarily on nihilistic assumptions and a pessimistic outlook.
The belief of the postmodern cannibal is that life is an ever-expiring win/lose system, where the remnants of something are giving way to nothingness, and we must struggle to attain what is left by stripping others of what they have got, whether privately by capitalism or publicly by communism. In this worldview, if you recognize the orienting generalizations, the Universe is breaking apart and destined to dissipate into a dead multiplicity, and, as a result, we should prioritize beliefs centered on emptiness, the absence of any true value, and immediatism, the “power of now.” When one holds these kinds of beliefs, it is inevitable that one will come to the conclusion that in order to get for oneself on must take from others. Thankfully, this is not at all how life, the Universe, or rewarding priorities actually work out, at least in the long-term.
Life is not really a win/lose in an overarching system of general decline. While it is easy to fall victim to such a false belief while the cannibals maintain dominance, and if looking only at mechanistic phenomena, a look into the world and processions of biology and ecology demonstrate that it is actually mutuality and cooperation that are responsible for driving living systems forward. That is, it is the win/win function, where each can provide something the other needs in a complementary and off-setting synergy of reciprocity, that leads living systems to flourish. The complementary off-setting of such a synergistic reciprocity allows for such things as nutrient cycling to occur at a greater velocity, and the increase of such velocities in turn drive the ecological system toward a climax condition. This is why mutualists are often understood as ecosystem engineers, and why even non-mutualist ecosystem engineers are participating in complementary off-setting and synergistic reciprocity in the larger symbiosis they partake in in their communities, mutualism and symbiosis more generally often being matters of degree rather than strict delineations (while symbiosis includes mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism, even parasitism and commensalism have a mutualistic element to them insofar as parasites help to maintain population levels at healthy levels and transfer genes horizontally and commensalists induce no costs to set-off. Arguably, parasitic or predatorial relationships between humans can be considered to also set-off or clear on some level of account, though we wish to bring the cannibals to immediate account. It helps to know that mutuality provides the basis of life, and is present on some level in every relationship, in order to work toward such ends of a more pure result).
Despite what popular scientists have to say, the Universe is not just heading for an inevitable heat death from which it cannot rebound. The singularity before the Big Bang (or whatever version you prefer) did not appear wholly ex nihilo, but is located within the superpositional aether of eternity and is the white hole version of the ultramassive black hole that is the Big Crunch. Together, the Big Crunch and Big Bang compose a Big Bounce or Big Pulse. Before the Big Bang singularity was us. We occur both before and after the Big Bang, because the Big Bounce is absolute while our position is relative to this absolute and is extended in its monopolar field. While the larger Universe may (or may not) be demonstrating an overall tendency toward entropy, suggesting movement toward a Big Rip or Big Freeze, from a presentist perspective, this inference results from the mechanistic methods of physics, which have been insufficient to explain the organic processes in biology. As biological beings, we are not driven by the process toward the Big Rip/Freeze, but the process toward the Big Crunch, the process of syntropy, which suggests eternalism. As such, it is not entropy that governs the Universe and explains the existence of life, but syntropy. Fatalist cosmologies established on nihilistic eschatologies are bankrupt.
The postmodern acceptance of the metaphysics of emptiness comes from its Orientalist and Theosophical influences, themselves enamored with Tibetan and other forms of Buddhism, as well as with conceptions of the placeholder zero as they come from out of the East. Overlapping with this is the outlook of immediatism, which can generally be traced to Crazy Wisdom schools such as those found among the Tibetan Buddhists, and which promote an extreme presentist worldview whereby the only existent taken to be real is the immediate, ever-passing moment, this being similar in some respects to the Greek Heraclitus, but with a much more nihilistic flavor. With our cosmology and ecology sorted out, clearly in favor of something over nothing and of eternity over naive presentism, this whole worldview falls apart, informing only those parts of experience that owe themselves to entropic processes, and not those which give life to organic beings and the Universe.
Unfortunately, the cannibalistic worldview, passed along by various cults and secret societies, has initiated and otherwise infiltrated and co-opted just about every institution of learning, from academic to religious institutions. This is why false philosophies and religions such as entropian scientism and the “Creation ex nihilo” Abrahamic traditions are pushed so vehemently onto the population, echoing the Theosophical worldviews, themselves ultimately stemming back to Roscicrucian, Jesuit, and further back Shamanic origins, most probably and influentially those of Siberia and Tibet, such as are remembered in Tengriism and Bon.
Cannibalism was practiced early on as a means of taking nutriment or perceived spiritual powers (such as mana) from the consumed. This may have been a family member, a tribal elder, or an opponent in war. Whatever the case, cannibalism was intended as a means of taking something left over from the deceased, this sometimes driving the purpose for killing. While there is much to be said of intrafamilial and intratribal cannibalism, our focus here will be on cannibalism of those falling outside of such relations, cannibalism of this sort being more related to conquest than of preserving the powers of loved ones.
Cannibalism of the sort connected to conquest was practiced especially with regard to those who were taken in warfare, or those bankrupted in the face of interest-bearing debts. In short, the bodies of one’s enemies or debtors would be consumed. This provided a means of disposal, a source of calories, and a claim to have absorbed the powers of the slain for oneself, or else a means of off-setting an outstanding debt. Quite often, wars resulting in cannibalism resulted from conflicts over natural resources-- the rent of the land-- such that cannibalism by conquest was connected intricately to conflicts of resources. Cannibals hadn’t figured out that industry can extend the utility of resources beyond the caloric value of one’s enemies’ corpses or that of the game that they had hunted on the newly-taken land.
Over time, it became clear that those who were to be consumed could provide more caloric value by investing their labor into horticulture and animal husbandry, or perhaps especially in mining activities that supported horticulture and animal husbandry, such that rather than slaying and eating one’s opponents or debtors one would enslave them in one’s (or the community’s) fields, pastures, and quarries. Slaves in such conditions could provide useful labor far beyond the caloric value of their corpses, which could still be consumed after a life of hard toil anyway, at least while public sentiments allowed for it (especially before the advent of advanced civilization and Christianity). These sentiments diminished over time, as more of it was spent around otherwise foreign people, who would begin to grow emotionally on their captors.
Some more time would see slaves allotted particular areas of stewardship, or allowed to tend to their traditional lands with the payment of rents, which would eventually result in the phasing out of slavery and the development of serfdom or servitude. Slaves needed constant tending to and watching after so as to avoid slave revolts, escapees, and slacking off. This was actually less efficient than serfs, who were largely self-maintaining and were tied to the land and their families on it, and so could be relied on to keep up with their obligations while paying tribute to avoid the threats of armored marauders (“nobles”). By the time of serfdom, direct cannibalism had largely been eliminated by force of popular sentiment, leaving only the indirect forms of cannibalism, the taking of one’s serf’s life-force in the form of their labor’s investments. It must be understood that every product of labor requires the exertion of life-force, such that the taking of one’s products is the taking of one’s life-force. However indirect, this is still cannibalism.
Serfs were more efficient than slaves, but they were still tied to the land of the lord, who was responsible for ensuring their bare subsistence was ensured. Employees did not provide this problem, as employees could be hired and fired at-will without regard for where they would sleep or make a living, or if they would indeed sleep or make a living at all. Employees, like serfs, could be counted on to produce in order to meet their own needs, but came with the advantage of choosiness and severence. Employers could simply refuse or sever a relationship with an employee they would not have been happy maintaining as a serf. Further, employees could develop skills to make themselves more valuable to particular markets, which could abandon the employee as soon as they start to become less productive. In the form of employment, cannibalism found its greatest success so far, its most efficient method for extracting the life-force of the population for the sake of the rulers.
Modern people didn’t think much about cannibalism until anthropology started to take interest in the phenomena starting after the Age of Discovery. While such scares may seem rather new, especially in the context of modern society, they are actually quite old, and well-documented well into medieval society, if not into antiquity. They didn’t consider it to be much of a problem in their own societies, except as generally associated with Jews, cave-dwelling hermits, or pagan cults. While some of this can readily be identified with attempts to defame opponents by the ruling class, especially when involving heretical humanitarian beliefs and freedom of conscience, it would be incorrect to assume that the ruling class is always in epistemological error or in a constant state of lying, or that it would never put down competitors or those deemed to be atrocious. Particularly with regard to Jews, cave-dwelling hermits, and practitioners of black magic, it seems that there were indeed people in that time defiling and devouring children. It is unfortunate that victims of suppressed conscience and the unconscientious are lumped together into categories such as heretic and radical or extremist by prevailing powers. Cannibalism would continue to be a topic of commoner’s concerns up to the rise of the phenomenon of “Satanic Panic,” which saw a folk concern about Satanists engaged in such practices, something that would see a revival in scenarios such as Pizzagate, which involved a pedivory network of elites using pizza as a codeword for and topic of meeting about trafficking and consuming children, and the Jeffrey Epstein files, which showcased elite pedophile and pedovore networks that trafficked children for debauchery and consumption using jerky as a codeword with connections also to the Rothschild banking dynasty, the Illuminati, and globalist organizations.
With a history that showcases such phenomena as grounded, and with recent events shaking popular notions of the decency that can be expected from the ruling class, I think it is important to suggest that this is probably just the tip of the iceberg, and that such behaviors are likely much more widespread among the ruling class than one would probably expect, particularly as it relates to today’s ZOG kakistocracy. But whether there are direct instances of cannibalism that are much more widespread or not, it is absolutely certain that there are clear, indirect forms of cannibalism upon which these direct forms of cannibalism rely for enablement. The fact of the matter is that it is rich, powerful people who can stand to get away with trafficking and cannibalizing children, and that riches and political power come only from indirect forms of cannibalism, the taking of the economic surplus-- interest, profit, rent, and taxes-- from the people. Without a claim to the economic surplus, which is nothing more than the usurpation of the invested life-force of one’s fellow humans, one cannot muster the resources necessary to create and maintain systems to secretly execute one’s diabolical plans. The material conditions for success are simply lacking.
While the tip of the iceberg stands as quite the eyesore at the moment, and while the submerged portion may hide great extents of direct cannibalism, there is also an iceshelf keeping it from tipping which, like the tip, is perfectly exposed, and showcases magnitudes of indirect cannibalism, scientifically quantifiable, and equal to all of the economic rent, interest, profit, and true taxes that exist in the economy, no instance of which are exempt from the cannibalistic status. Without this ice shelf of economic surplus, itself comprised entirely of indirect cannibalism, the entire iceberg will overturn to expose the underside to the melting of the Sun.
Anarchism has its origins as a conspiracy theory that the state is indeed run for the purposes of economic cannibalism. Both Pierre Proudhon and Josiah Warren-- fathers of anarchist thought-- spoke out against the cannibals, and Proudhon, Bakunin (even if Bakunin is rightly subject to skepticism for his noble breed, nihilist philosophy, and co-option of anarchy for nihilistic ends), Spooner, Tolstoy, Tucker, and more spoke quite clearly of the conspiracy that comprises the state, and of the interests of banksters such as the Rothschilds, who we now know were the employers of Epstein.
Indeed, Benjamin Tucker spoke of the state as a conspiracy, saying “As for States and Churches, I think […] that they are conspiracies […] and I cannot see that the combinations of capitalists who employ lobbyists to buy legislators deserve any milder title than conspirators, or that the term conspiracy inaccurately expresses the nature of their machine, the State.” Proudhon, Bakunin, Spooner, and more speak out clearly against Rothschild, with Proudhon speaking of him as an evil, choleric, envious, and bitter man who hates us, Bakunin as a co-conspirator with Marx, and Spooner calling him the representative and agent of the entire class of bankers.
With regards to cannibalism, its largest critic may have been Josiah Warren, who said, in Equitable Commerce, that “[use] value [to others],” speaking of interest, profit, and rent, “being made the basis of price, becomes the principal element of civilized cannibalism.” He says, “prices are raised in consequence of increased want, and are lowered with its decrease. The most successful speculator is he who can create the most want in the community, and extort the most from it. This is civilized cannibalism.” In explaining, he says that the
value of a loaf of bread to a starving man, is equivalent to the value of his life, and if the ‘price of a thing’ should be ‘what it will bring,’ then one might properly demand of the starving man, his whole future life in servitude as the price of the loaf! But, any one who should make such a demand, would be looked upon as insane, a cannibal, and one simultaneous voice would denounce the outrageous injustice, and cry aloud for retribution! Why? What is it that constitutes the cannibalism in this case? Is it not setting a price upon the bread according to its VALUE instead of its COST? If the producers and vendors of the bread had bestowed one hour’s labor upon its production and in passing it to the starving man, then some other articles which cost its producer and vendor an hour’s equivalent labor, would be a natural and just compensation for the loaf.
He elaborates, saying
A man has a lawsuit pending, upon which hangs his property, his security, his personal liberty, or his life. The lawyer who undertakes his case may ask ten, twenty, fifty, five hundred, or five thousand dollars, for a few hours attendance or labor in the case. This charge would be based chiefly on the value of his services to his client. Now, there is nothing in this statement that sounds wrong, but it is because our ears are familiarized with wrong. The case is similar to that of the starving man. The cost to the lawyer might be, say twenty hours’ labor, and allowing a portion for his apprenticeship, say twenty-one hours in all, with all contingent expenses, would constitute a legitimate, a just ground of price; but the very next step beyond this rests upon value, and is the first step in cannibalism. The laborer, when he comes to dig the lawyer’s cellar, never thinks of setting a price upon its future value to the owner; he only considers how long it will take him, how hard the ground is, what will be the weather to which he will be exposed, what will be the wear and tear of teams, tools, clothes, etc.; and in all these items, he considers nothing but the different items of COST to himself.
And,
If a priest is required to get a soul out of purgatory, he sets his price according to the value which the relatives set upon his prayers, instead of their cost to the priest. This, again, is cannibalism. The same amount of labor equally disagreeable, with equal wear and tear, performed by his customers, would be a just remuneration.
Further,
A speculator buys a piece, (inland of government, for $1.25 per acre, and holds it till surrounding improvements, made by others, increase its value, and it is then sold accordingly, for five, ten, twenty, a hundred, or ten thousand dollars per acre. From this operation of civilized cannibalism whole families live from generation to generation, in idleness and luxury, upon the surrounding population, who must have the land at any price. Instead of this, the prime cost of land, the taxes, and other contingent expenses of surveying, etc., added to the labor of making contracts, would constitute the equitable price of land purchased for sale.
He says,
Now, if it were not a part of the present system to get a price according to the degree of want or suffering of the community, there would long since have been some arrangement made to ADAPT THE SUPPLY TO THE DEMAND. This, even in the present wretched jumble of accidents, would, to a great extent, soften some of the most hideous features of our cannibal commerce.
In a story dialogue within True Civilization, Warren says that
If you turn to the lawyers they devour what is left of you. Some of them [...] have started with saying that the price of a thing should be what it will bring. It is equivalent to saying that it is right and just to demand a price for a thing proportioned to the distress of the receiver of it. This is the root of all the cannibalism of civilization, and men fall to eating each other; but, as no one lilies to be eaten, they agree to protect each other against the operation of their own principles and daily practices, and form a combination called a State, for the purpose; -the multitude cannot conduct the business of a State, but they set apart a few to see to the protection of all, and they protect all as we protect chickens, that we may eat them without the trouble of catching them. This is only another form of cannibalism. There has never been any correct thought on the subject, and never will be till we begin right. The beginning of correct thought for justice, peace, security, and successful society is, that the price of what you receive from me should be limited, not by its value to you, but by the trouble or sacrifice it has cost me. When we begin to think from this starting point, we see that the all-pervading viciousness of trade, and dire confusion and distress that everywhere prevails, have originated, not in our primary nature, as has been so extensively thought and taught, but in this subtle and undetected error in one of the starting-points of our intercourse with each other. That this being corrected, the cannibalism ceases; the demand for “protection” ceases along with it, and we begin to emerge from darkness and confusion into light, order, and repose.
If you turn to the lawyers they devour what is left of you. Some of them [...] have started with saying that the price of a thing should be what it will bring. It is equivalent to saying that it is right and just to demand a price for a thing proportioned to the distress of the receiver of it. This is the root of all the cannibalism of civilization, and men fall to eating each other; but, as no one lilies to be eaten, they agree to protect each other against the operation of their own principles and daily practices, and form a combination called a State, for the purpose; -the multitude cannot conduct the business of a State, but they set apart a few to see to the protection of all, and they protect all as we protect chickens, that we may eat them without the trouble of catching them.
This is only another form of cannibalism. There has never been any correct thought on the subject, and never will be till we begin right. The beginning of correct thought for justice, peace, security, and successful society is, that the price of what you receive from me should be limited, not by its value to you, but by the trouble or sacrifice it has cost me. When we begin to think from this starting point, we see that the all-pervading viciousness of trade, and dire confusion and distress that everywhere prevails, have originated, not in our primary nature, as has been so extensively thought and taught, but in this subtle and undetected error in one of the starting-points of our intercourse with each other. That this being corrected, the cannibalism ceases; the demand for “protection” ceases along with it, and we begin to emerge from darkness and confusion into light, order, and repose.
Warren says,
That the mercantile world — the men of enterprise, the financiers and legislators of continuous ages — should so long have admitted the cannibal principle as the basis of their operations, is a striking proof of the astonishing docility with which the human race receive traditions unquestioned, and follow precedents and self-erected authorities unexamined; and it exposes a weakness that lowers our respect for existing customs, and gives to the careful student of human affairs a courage and strength equal to the demands for them: but what a field it furnishes for the reckless and unscrupulous! What confusion this ready credulity and conformity bring upon all!
Warren was not alone. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, for instance, in “New Propositions Demonstrated in the Practice of Revolutions,” says that “[a]ll religion, every political institution, all the economy of society are successive modifications of cannibalism.” Proudhon says, in “The Malthusians,” that “[n]ever was a man, either in the past or in the present, the object of so much execration as I have become, for the simple reason that I wage war upon cannibals.” As Mikhail Bakunin suggests, in God and the State,
What is more ancient and more universal than slavery? Cannibalism perhaps. From the origin of historic society down to the present day there has been always and everywhere exploitation of the compulsory labour of the masses — slaves, serfs, or wage workers — by some dominant minority.
Leo Tolstoy similarly writes, in Right and Wrong, that “despite the struggle for existence which is said to be a ‘law of Nature,’ mankind is slowly, through the ages, climbing — through cannibalism, slavery, feudal tenure, serfdom, wagedom — towards the brotherhood of man.” In Instead of a Book, Benjamin Tucker speaks of “the system of commercial cannibalism which rests on legal privilege,” saying
I frankly confess that I take no pleasure in the thought of bloodshed and mutilation and death. At these things my feelings revolt. And if delight in them is a requisite of a revolutionist, then indeed I am no revolutionist. When revolutionist and cannibal become synonyms, count me out, if you please.
Francis Dashwood Tandy, in Voluntary Socialism, says
It is no exaggeration to say that rent is a form of slavery. It is even a form of cannibalism. An improvement on cannibalism, to be sure, but an improvement primarily from the standpoint of the cannibal. (And the same may be said of taxes.)
For almost two centuries now, anarchism, especially in its purest and initiatory form, mutualism, has opposed the system of cannibalism, and has offered a viable alternative to the indirect methods of cannibalism that support the direct consumption of children. Yet, as the cannibals, or at least their dupes, have positioned themselves as the leaders of scientific and religious knowledge, so too they today try to co-opt mutualist anarchism. Take, for instance, Shawn Wilbur, an academically-trained sophist, known friend of pedophilic author Feral Faun, found prominently in immediatist circles, known online by the Illuminati moniker humanispherian as derived from Joseph Dejacque’s Illuminatist vision, who-- using French as a liturgical language and claim to expertise leveraged by selective translations used to induce analysis paralysis, highlight weak points of rhetorical delivery, and sow discord-- tries to contrive mutualism into a postmodern worldview that is somehow unreliant on mutual credit and compatible with communism. Wilbur claims to have uncovered some new Proudhonian sociology, as if he has said much that Constance Margaret Hall missed, or anything quite as clearly as his better. Wilbur, unable to contribute original insights of his own consistent with the original project of mutualism, and left to the postmodern project of semiotic decimation, has decided to cannibalize Proudhon’s innards and wear his corpse, speaking for him as if he is still here but in major need of correction, using his translations to claim authority upon which to decimate him. This guy is not only a real piece of shit, he is doing some real damage to mutualism as a whole, positioning himself as a gatekeeper of mutualist texts consisting especially of selective translations that can be used to distort and muddle the message of mutualism.
What did Wilbur’s real hero and screennamesake, Joseph Dejacque (not Proudhon), have to say about cannibalism? Dejacque, in The Humanisphere, and otherwise wrapping these remarks in metaphor, says that the
humanispherians push the love of humanity as far as cannibalism: they eat man after his death, but in a form which is not at all repugnant [...] the resurrection of cadaveric remains to human existence [...] The man, body of flesh, luminous with thought, like all the suns dissolves when it has furnished its career. The flesh is ground up and returns to the flesh [...] Man sows man, harvest him, shapes it and makes it himself by nutrition.
Dejacque also maintains clear globalist, elite humanitarian statements as may be found today among synarchists of various flavors, such as
I crossed all the continents, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania. I saw many diverse physiognomies, but I saw everywhere only one single race. The universal interbreeding of the Asiatic, European, African and American (Redskin) populations; the multiplication of all by all has leveled all the unevenness of color and language. Humanity is one.
This contrasts greatly to the social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer and Proudhon’s sociology of war (which approximates the same idea as Spencer), conflicting even to some extent with a “world citizen” like Henry George, who still maintained a sense of cultural preservation for the sake of the common laborer, having opposed Chinese immigration and monopoly of the land by Native American savages. To these thinkers, racial and cultural differences were still meaningful.
Like the Illuminati from which his tradition comes, Dejacque proposed organizing society according to a central tattle-tale book, where reports would be made on every person, wherefrom their needs and abilities would be assessed and the communist principle applied, saying
we do not hold forth, we do not argue, we do not vote, we do not legislate, but all, young or old, men or women, confer in common on the needs of the humanisphere. Individual initiative accepts or rejects the word by itself, according to whether it appears useful or not to speak. In that enclosure, there is a bureau, as usual. Only, at this bureau, the only authority is a book of statistics. The humanispherians find that it is an eminently impartial president, of a very eloquent terseness. And they want no others.
It is worth remembering that the Illuminati mode of organization was very much the same, on statistics and tattling. The Bavarian Order of the Illuminati functioned on compartmentalization, secrecy, and idiosyncracy. It was strictly and highly hierarchical, with the lower degrees being purposefully misdirected or misinformed about the purposes of the upper. Each member had their own alias and was connected to a superior, knowing no others of the upper ranks and connecting with others of their own rank only on a need-to-know basis. They had symbols, terms, and codes for most of their communications, which relied on being told the meaning or having a cipher. All members had a file with reports on their behaviors, orientations, capacities, beliefs, and practices-- statistics, if you will--, and members were expected to report on these matters to their superiors about others. The members were kept in a state of curiosity with regard to the ultimate purpose of the organization, and were taught conflicting beliefs about it. Enlightenment ideals, popular among intellectuals at the time, were taught and identified with to infiltrate and gain popularity among radicals, but to the ends of surveillance, manipulation, and intrusion. This was, of course, not explicated in their semi-exoteric propaganda any more than it is in Dejacque’s.
Unfortunately, Wilbur is not the only Illuminati agent trying to cannibalize mutualism, as Charles Orser, jr., Sara Horowitz, and many others are pushing a New Mutualism that also tries to muddle mutualism with postmodernism, globalism, and Jewish bankster identarianism, and the Center for a Stateless Society pushes mutualist sentiments alongside a consistent push to get the world to-- using the metaphor of Zhao Gao-- call a deer (a man) a “horse” (a woman) along with its libertarianism, a clear effort of providing poison or a razor blade (Maoism, cultural Marxism) in a candied apple (mutualism), much as was given to Snow White by the large-nosed witch and akin to a Trojan Horse. Postmodernists are obsessed with causing cultural decline, and will package this decline in revolutionary philosophies rendered null by the inclusion of such decline, something known as realpolitik. By analogy, I’ll hand you the gun to kill me with if I know it will backfire, particularly if you don’t know. By handing mutualism out with a foundation of postmodern, globalist sophistry, cannibal knaves know, even if their dupes do not, that it renders mutualism, as originally envisioned by its white West Germanic proponents, impracticable. This is the core insight of paleo-mutualism. Mutualism requires a post-Christian, pro-Enlightenment, rationalist foundation of common knowledge, mutual understanding, and trust that can only be undermined by postmodern worldviews, and that is anthropologically sourced from West Germanic (especially Saxon, Frisian, Anglish, Scottish, with some Frankish) and Anglo-Latin sources (as opposed to Ashkenazi Yiddish, which are often miscatalogued as West Germanic despite being a constructed, rather than organic, language, and one containing Eastern European and Oriental elements alongside West Germanic ones).
The co-option of mutualism is consistent with perennial, elite, ruling class efforts. After all, it has long been cannibalistic tradition to relegate the gods of one’s opponents to the positions of angels or demons, to capture their leading figureheads and wear their corpses (use their totems, fly their flags, use their coats of arms, praise their idols) for the sake of one’s own, Thugeeish ends. In this case, the effort is more related to namestealing (a practice arising from Midrashic or Derashic elements recognized in Kabbalah as involving Rabbinical wordplays), because it has to do with the capture of words that indicate particular ideologies. This happened with communism, which in its original form, under agrarian economies, did not indicate centralized control by an all-seeing eye, but included the efforts of people such as the Diggers as led under Gerrard Winstanley. It happened with socialism, which did not originally refer to the statist efforts of communists such as Marx, but to utopian socialists and anarchists such as Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Proudhon. It happened with conservatism, which did not originally have the post-New Deal meaning of opposing postmodern economy and politics, but to the near traditionalism such as that of Edmund Burke, though it today takes on such a meaning, so wide as to include paleo-mutualism in it. It happened to anarchism, which did not originally refer to chaos, anti-cultural totalitarianism, or immediatism, despite its taking on that meaning today, even among “anarchists.” And the attempt is now being made on mutualism. Unfortunately for the ruling class, mutualism, unlike Christianity or any other ideology, has a name that is hard to divorce from its implications. While it may be easy to disparage or put on the face of a figure such as Jesus of Nazareth, it is much more difficult to pitch authority or communism as mutuality. Mutuality, unlike Christianity, is a well-established concept anchored in a balance of relations rather than in the sentiments of a particular figure, and mutualism is tightly-anchored to this concept, which is found even in legal contexts and so culturally quite sturdy and hard to bury with philology and rhetoric. Thus the attempt to limit mutualism to the words of Proudhon, particularly under the interpretive authority of Willlburrr.
Posers like Shawn Wilbur can make ecclesiastical attempts to reduce mutualism as a brainchild of a particular Frenchman named Pierre Proudhon, whose message he distorts and confuses, but it’s becoming clearer everyday that, although Proudhon should indeed be regarded as a great philosopher and freedom fighter who contributed to our understanding of mutualism, he has basically no claim whatsoever to having fathered mutualism. Instead, mutualism can be traced in primitive forms to various ancient and medieval associations and to Saxons and Frisians overall and especially such as the Stedinger, anti-Jewish and West Germanic heretics such as Spinoza and the surrounding pantheist and deist freethinkers such as Toland and Tindall, to legal insights about set-off and mutual credit in England by Anglo-Normans (as with Warren) such as Richard Babington, and to radical liberals and republicans such as the Ricardian socialists and Pierre Charnier, with Proudhon falling into the tradition as established especially by Charnier, acknowledging good and well and despite his French nationality the Saxon foundations of his federalist thinking, and failing to adhere to the pantheist foundations of the Radical Enlightenment, being too far removed from its source to know better, having failed to understand Spinoza. There is no single “father of mutualism,” as mutualism is a convergent phenomenon, though it has tended to converge primarily, even if not exclusively, from out of West Germanic sources, and though Proudhon is rightfully acknowledged as an important contributor to the philosophy and practice.
The Latin-informed (mutual being a Latin-sourced word related to mutuum, a loan for consumption without interest) West Germanic sources of mutualism clearly indicate the cultural foundations that bear fertile soil for the development of mutualist philosophy, the Christianity, Reformation, Renaissance, Scientific Revolution, and Enlightenment upon which it is built. Such sources prioritized natural law, objectivity, rationality, and universalism, and prioritized or would come to prioritize values such as the Harm Principle, the Golden Rule, and the Law of Equal Freedom, giving rise to protections on the freedom of conscience, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of association. Without the West Germanic cultural foundations, however influenced by Roman and Norman conceptions from customary and civil law and equity, mutualism could not have ever developed as a philosophy or biological concept. It required the West Germanic foundations, currently under cultural attack and undermined by postmodernism at-large and the quasi-, pseudo-, and false mutualism of Wilbur, Horowitz, Orser, and the Center for a Stateless Society more narrowly, to ontologically come into being. Mutualism did not originate in aboriginal Australia, Africa, Asia, or South America, it originated and developed in the anthropologically Western Germanic nations of the Netherlands, England, France, and the United States. Those were the nations whose cultures were conducive to mutualistic reasoning, and whose systems of property, credit, and law developed natively into the mutualist standards of occupancy and use, mutual credit, and federalism. If the cannibals are to be countered, it is going to require a paleo-mutualist effort that pushes back against postmodern decimation of the cultural achievements of the West and defends their worth.
Of course, West Germanic peoples are not without their own faults, and can be said to have caused our current problems overall. In particular, Franks, and, in their admixture with Romans and Gauls, the French, have been a particularly problematic West Germanic people, importing to the world aristocratic ideas like tipping and expertise, hosting the fin de siecle, and lending their name to Frankfurt, home of cultural Marxism and the Rothschilds. However, even our beloved Saxons, whom Kropotkin traces as the source of mutual aid, whom Proudhon calls the “federalist race,” and whose folklands operated on occupancy, use, and defense, and whose common law approximates best the natural laws, can be found among the worst elements. One merely need look to Adolphe Knigge, the Illuminatiman, a native to Saxony bearing a Saxon name but serving the interests of his Holy Roman Empire foundations, or to the royal Illuminati family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha or other such Saxe families. The Saxe line continues the House of Wettin, which was founded under Frankish rule and continued through the Holy Roman Empire, however, such that even the worst of the Saxons can be traced back to Frankish and Roman influences, and, as the name suggests, seen intermarrying with Goths and having connections with Jews. Nonetheless, and even while Frankish and Roman-influenced Saxons may be compromised, and even helping to lead in the New World Order as part of the Illuminati, synarchism, and other such Rites of Strict Observance, and despite those positive influences from other peoples (such as Roman customary and civil law) that should go without saying, mutualism is still a development from out of the less-compromised elements of Saxon and other such West Germanic peoples, the Ricardian socialists having been Anglo-Saxons and Scots, Warren, Greene, Spooner, Heywood, Tucker, and others standing as Anglo-Saxons (and Anglo-Normans, in Warren’s case), and Charnier and Proudhon standing as Saxon-influenced Frenchmen. Afterall, Kropotkin did not source mutual aid (such as Charnier’s Society of Mutual Duty, an instance of frith) in Jewish, Roman, Gothic, or Frankish sources, Proudhon did not call these peoples the “federalist race,” and Spooner did not practice their laws. In each of these instances, it was Saxon culture that was shining through. While mutual aid can be found across all cultures and mutualism can theoretically be practiced by people of any race or ethnicity, it has not been, and attempts to establish mutualism by people such as the writers for the Center for a Stateless Society, Horowitz, Orser, and even Wilbur (whose surname may be Jutish or Gothic, or perhaps Celtic) have all been attempts to include particularisms and exceptions into the universal and normal project of mutualism-- that project by which there was an emerging consensus among radicals with regard to the state and capitalism-- as it came from out of Radical Enlightenment pantheism and deism.
Academic “anarchists,” such as Shawn Wilbur, who are trained in poststructuralist and postmodern sophistries within accredited institutions compromised by cultural Marxism, and who position themselves like Gothic chieftains-- the Gothi or “god”-- as gatekeeping online moderators maintaining unilateral and undemocratic control over forums of general interest, pushing dissensus and obscurantisms at nearly every turn, should not be admired, respected, or deferred to, but scorned, ridiculed, and warned against. Such individuals cannot approach mutualism with an untainted mind, and unlike someone like myself have not sought out the proper foundations for mutualism, which come not from fin de siecle and Marxist or Illuminati sources, such as cultural Marxism and poststructuralism/postmodernism more generally, as Wilbur draws from and is immersed in, but from Radical Enlightenment foundations and those that developed into early modernist approaches to realism and naturalism, before its co-optation by the synarchists of the fin de siecle into Modernism as characterized by impressionism, symbolism, decadence, and so on. Jewish banksters like Horowitz, social justice warriors like Orser, and those who call a deer a “horse,” like the Center for a Stateless Society, who forward the rhetoric of mutualism’s opposition to privilege as a wrap for racial, ethnic, sexual, and confused deviant privileges, should also not be trusted to have a mutualist message free from particularistic compromise.
In today’s age, this leaves only self-educated anarchists, and primarily mutualists, as defensibly having un- or less-tainted foundations, particularly if said foundations have been sought-after and rooted properly in Radical Enlightenment and Radical Reformation thought. My paleo-mutualist project is exactly that, the seeking after the proper cultural foundations to support mutualism. Mutualism must be supported with sound-mindedness, good character, civic responsibility, and organizational integrity, particularly as have been historically- and developmentally-grounded, perhaps especially with tolerance. I have not been indoctrinated with the ruling class ideologies of cannibalism-- whether that be economic or semantic--, although I am acquainted with the wide range of them, from string theory and transhumanism to capitalism and communism. Instead, and while I am pressured by the same conditioning as everyone else, my conscience has driven me to seek the truth and think freely and critically with regard to the story we are told about mutualism. This has led me to reject postmodernism and its cannibalistic Counter-Enlightenment foundations, as well as peddlers of its garbage such as Shawn Wilbur. Wilbur may outwardly reject the cannibalism pointed to by Warren and Proudhon as he semantically consumes Proudhon and wears his flayed skin with selective translations and poststructuralist or postmodern interjections and interpretations.
To support the Radical Enlightenment worldview, which was based in common sense, natural magic, rational mysticism, and organicism, and in order to defend it against postmodern entropian cosmologies, I have included with much of my paleo-mutualist effort a remodernist element that builds from those foundations, including especially pantheism and deism as could be found among Spinoza and the free thinkers, such developments in mutualist ecology as developed since Pierre-Joseph van Beneden from Proudhon’s work and the syntropic metaphysics of mathematician Luigi Fantappie, especially as presented by Ulisse Di Corpo and Antonella Vannini, each of which cohere to or support an optimistic worldview consistent with Radical Enlightenment insights. I maintain that, rather than Wilbur’s neo-Proudhonianism-- a form of neo- or postmodern anarchism that muddles mutualism as vague, unreliant on mutual credit, and compatible with communism-- the remodernist approach of paleo-mutualism conforms greater to the trajectory originally set off on by the mutualists before their derailment by cannibalistic, Counter-Enlightenment forces coming from out of the Illuminati and synarchism; the forces which developed into poststructuralism, postmodernism, fascism, and cultural Marxism (all of which undermine the cultural foundations upon which mutualism developed and upon which its genuine form must rest), and then into neo-Proudhonianism by way of Wilbur’s fascination with Illuminatiman Dejacque and poststructuralism/postmodernism as by way of Lyotard.
I provide paleo-mutualism as the saponification needed to wash Wilbur’s and the others’ lipid filth of neo-Proudhonianism and, to say the same from another angle, New Mutualism, from the defiled remains of Proudhon. This will not be popular with grandstanding students and gatekeeping alumni (“Illuminati,” as with Alumbrados, from out of which Jesuitism comes), but the world is better for that being the case. It need only be understood by working class autodidacts, the illuminati with a small i (as per the Free Spirit, not the Bavarian Order, though including the Alumbrados).