Spencer Heath Archive

Item 114

Following this, and in a different typeface to avoid confusion, is a slightly edited version, possibly suitable for publication.

No date

 

 

 

     Grave and serious questions beset the anxious minds and hearts of men today that ‘mid all the “tumult and the shouting” will not down. The nations of the Western World practice a pagan Asiatic ideology which they follow in all their public and political affairs, calling it Christian, and a Christian ideology that they practice only in their non-political affairs, calling it pagan or at least non-Christian. Their politics are pagan, derived, in form and in practice, literally from Rome, based on force and arms; while their commerce and industry, though not so recognized, are Christian, in that they follow no rule but the Golden Rule of equality in exchange.

      True to its Roman origins the Sovereignty is sustained by taxation and expropriation by organized force while the economy imposes no obligation but the performance of contracts in the production of wealth and values.

      Saint Marx of the Manifesto, to destroy private freedom to own productive capital, and Saint George of Agrarianism, to slay the dragon of private property in land; — these are the patron saints that the coercive sovereignties have unconsciously evolved, whereas the Golden Rule of equal authority in free contract without coercion derives, all unknowingly, from Him who in parable and precept prescribed it as the way of freedom and of life abundant among living men.

      Thus the state, with its dependence on expropriation and rule of force and the free association of men as society with its dependence on proprietorship

      Thus Society, dependent on the evolution of property and contract as against coercion and expropriation, which produces all the wealth of nations and pays for all their services, both private and public, is nature^’s Golden Rule alternative against a total coercive dominion by the political State.

      These are the two allegiances between which, whether they know it or not, the loyalties of mind must divide. There must be those who by education and long tradition give their faith and first allegiance to the political state and hope for justice and benevolence in its rule. And there are others who by intuition and reflection have come to mistrust the beneficence of man-made laws and their coercive administration and put their faith in proprietary administration under the Golden Rule of contract and consent that in modern times has grown world-wide and continues to evolve.

      Among those who put their sole trust in the State and its laws for the protection and advancement of mankind there are three types of mind. First, those who hold the present state and traditions of the past as evil and would abolish them by drastic new laws or, if need be, then by revolutionary force. Such are the radicals, or self-styled “liberals” when not in full power. Second are those who believe in progress through agency of the existing State and by much legislation and many new laws. These are properly called liberals. Third there are those who wish as far as possible to maintain a status quo favorable to them, and obstruct all liberal and radical legislation, yielding only to the pressure of circumstances and popular sentiment for new laws and enforcements.

 

      What unites them in principle, and leaves them to differ only in degree, is their common lack of any theory of social amelioration or advance /other/ than by the legislative and coercive process. As political parties they are called left, center and right — and in the long term each tends to succeed the other, radicals once in full power becoming conservatives to conserve power, conservatives under increasing pressure becoming liberals lest they lose power, and the liberals by using power to increase the burden of regulations and laws provide the mechanism by which radicals take their revolutionary control.

      Under all these degrees of statecraft, the more or less free Society must bear all the burdens of both peace and of war.

      Thus do all the peoples and the nations of the earth divide — and by their fruits are they known — the right from the left, as the sheep from the goats — those who stand fast from those who wildly plunge.

      There is always the party of the right in whom lie dormant the unawakened seeds of peace and of true social growth and advance. And there is the party of the left, valiant for change, seekers after power, often with good intentions but seldom scruple as to means.

      As like begets like, so does radicalism feed on tyrannies and spring from wars. As Bismarck fathered Hitler so did Nineteenth Century liberalism in America beget the ‘new freedom’ and the ‘new deal’ and the growing power of government to wage the wars they entailed. And the aftermath is an era of radicalism of both the left and the right. Nearly all its voices are from the sinister left, with few that would save even the material wealth of today, much less conserve the spiritual values of a much less fearsome past.

      This brings us to the “Christian left,” or “Christian left-wing,” as it has been called. This, like other powerful wings, has a head and well-articulated bony structure with many feathery or flexible appendages that tend to follow en masse whatever its gyrations.

      The protestant clergy especially is under suspicion of gyrating extremely to the left. This is to be deplored. It brings them down out of the free Realm of the Spirit of Inspiration and of life, into the realm of politics, the kingdoms of coercion, of rulership and war.

      The Christian Gospel, for the few, was simply, “follow me;” for the many it was “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” In this was the promise of a new kind of kingdom, not a kind of kingdom such as those of the “world” but a kingdom descended from above, a Kingdom of Heaven upon the earth. This was the good message, the glad tidings to be spread by good messengers — ev(u)angels — which taken into the hearts of men would regenerate them out of their animal limitations into a new state of being within themselves and into a new kind of relationship, non coercive and non-political, a spiritual and thus creative relationship with their fellow men throughout all tribes and nations of the earth. This Golden Rule was two-fold: first for the transformation of the individual soul, a subjective transformation, and then for the transformation of the world-wide relationships of men which, being political, kept them unspiritual and uncreative as masters and slaves but, coming under the spiritual rule would bring them a new Kingdom, a creative dominion over the earth with abundance of life and ever lengthening days.

     Subjective transformation of the individual could come quickly but the Heavenly Kingdom on the earth would be like a tiny seed or a bit of leaven and would come all unknowingly like a thief in the night. It would come consciously to the individual but only by slow growth and unconsciously to the race. Many were converted to good and generous feelings in their hearts — to good intentions but the vision of a new and universal Kingdom of non-coercion in the world was too high and far. Hence the cry, “0, Jerusalem how often would I have gathered thy children together but you would not.”

 

 

=======================================

/Same as above but with some slight editing for possible publication:/

 

 

Grave and serious questions beset the anxious minds and hearts of men today that ‘mid all the “tumult and the shouting” will not down. The nations of the Western World practice a pagan ideology which they follow in all their public and political affairs, calling it Christian, and a Christian ideology that they practice only in their non-political affairs, calling it pagan or at least non-Christian. Derived in form and in practice literally from Rome, their politics are pagan, based on force and arms, while their commerce and industry, though not so recognized, are Christian, in that they follow no rule but the Golden Rule of equality in exchange.

      True to its Roman origins the Sovereignty is sustained by taxation and expropriation by organized force, while the economy imposes no obligation but the performance of contracts in the production of wealth and values.

      Saint Marx of the Manifesto, to destroy private freedom to own productive capital, and Saint George of Agrarianism, to slay the dragon of private property in land; — these are the patron saints that the coercive sovereignties have unconsciously evolved, whereas the Golden Rule of equal authority in free contract without coercion derives, all unknowingly, from Him who in parable and precept prescribed it as the way of freedom and of life abundant among living men.

      Thus Society, dependent on the evolution of property and contract as against coercion and expropriation, which produces all the wealth of nations and pays for all their services, both private and public, is nature^’s Golden-Rule alternative against a total coercive dominion by the political State.

      These are the two allegiances between which, whether they know it or not, the loyalties of mind must divide. There are those who by education and long tradition give their faith and first allegiance to the political state and hope for justice and benevolence in its rule. And there are others who by intuition and reflection have come to mistrust the beneficence of man-made laws and their coercive administration and put their faith in proprietary administration under the Golden Rule of contract and consent that in modern times has grown world-wide and continues to evolve.

      Among those who put their sole trust in the State and its laws for the protection and advancement of mankind, there are three types of mind. First, are those who hold the present state and traditions of the past as evil and would abolish them by drastic new laws or, if need be, then by revolutionary force. Such are the radicals, or self-styled “liberals” when not in full power. Second are those who believe in progress through agency of the existing State and by much legislation and many new laws. These are properly called liberals. Third, there are those who wish as far as possible to maintain a status quo favorable to them, and obstruct all liberal and radical legislation, yielding only to the pressure of circumstances and popular sentiment for new laws and enforcements.

 

      What unites them in principle, and leaves them to differ only in degree, is their common lack of any theory of social amelioration or advance other than by the legislative and coercive process. As political parties they are called left, center and right, and in the long term each tends to succeed the other. Radicals, once in full power, become conservatives to conserve power; conservatives, under increasing pressure, become liberals lest they lose power; and the liberals, by using power to increase the burden of regulations and laws, provide the mechanism by which radicals take their revolutionary control.

      Under all these degrees of statecraft, the more or less free Society must bear all the burdens of both peace and war. Thus do all the peoples and the nations of the earth divide — and by their fruits are they known — the right from the left, as the sheep from the goats — those who stand fast from those who wildly plunge.

      There is always the party of the right in whom lie dormant the unawakened seeds of peace and of true social growth and advance. And there is the party of the left, valiant for change, seekers after power, often with good intentions but seldom scruples as to means.

      As like begets like, so does radicalism feed on tyrannies and spring from wars. As Bismarck fathered Hitler so did Nineteenth Century liberalism in America beget the ‘new freedom’ and the ‘new deal’ and the growing power of government to wage the wars they entailed. And the aftermath is an era of radicalism of both the left and the right. Nearly all its voices are from the sinister left, with few that would save even the material wealth of today, much less conserve the spiritual values of a much less fearsome past.

      This brings us to the “Christian left,” or “Christian left-wing,” as it has been called. This, like other powerful wings, has a head and well-articulated bony structure with many feathery or flexible appendages that tend to follow en masse whatever its gyrations.

      The protestant clergy especially is under suspicion of gyrating extremely to the left.

      This is to be deplored. It brings them down out of the free Realm of the Spirit of Inspiration and of life, into the realm of politics, the kingdoms of coercion, of rulership and war.

      The Christian Gospel, for the few, was simply, “follow me;” for the many it was “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” In this was the promise of a new kind of kingdom, not a kind of kingdom such as those of the “world” but a kingdom descended from above, a Kingdom of Heaven upon the earth. This was the good message, the glad tidings to be spread by good messengers — ev(u)angels — which taken into the hearts of men would regenerate them out of their animal limitations into a new state of being within themselves and into a new kind of relationship, non-coercive and non-political, a spiritual and thus creative relationship with their fellow men throughout all tribes and nations of the earth. This Golden Rule was two-fold — first for the transformation of the individual soul, a subjective transformation, and then for the transformation of the world-wide relationships of men which, being political, kept them unspiritual and uncreative as masters and slaves but, coming under the spiritual rule would bring them a new Kingdom, a creative dominion over the earth with abundance of life and ever lengthening days.

      Subjective transformation of the individual could come quickly but the Heavenly Kingdom on the earth would be like a tiny seed or a bit of leaven and would come all unknowingly like a thief in the night. It would come consciously to the individual but only by slow growth and unconsciously to the race. Many were converted to good and generous feelings in their hearts — to good intentions. But the vision of a new and universal Kingdom of non-coercion in the world was too high and far. Hence the cry, “0, Jerusalem how often would I have gathered thy children together but you would not.”