Prologue.
I had so tirelessly endeavored to refute Marxist thought, and I feel now I so thoroughly have. These findings may be shocking to the uninitiated, but I assure all that these are most evident findings.
On History and Mankind.
In a 1966 interview in Rhodesia, L. Ron Hubbard proclaimed man's objective is survival, exclusively, which I feel to be far too naturalistic. I feel man's objective is heroism, and greatness. What is a nation without his myths? What is Sri Lanka without Kumari Kandam? What is America without the Revolution? What is France without Napoleon? And thus, I feel almost compelled to say man is without tangible objective beyond his psychology. On mankind itself, I think the naturalistic argument does suffice in a strict material sense, but I feel mankind is above this animalism, and I feel we are far more of operaesque species which behaves theatrically, even without meaning. I think humans have transcended these mere instincts. I think it is evident with our grand civilizations which litter the earth, great contingents engaged in great politics, that we are a rational, heroic species by the merit of having been capable to manipulate our surroundings, and conceived notions of welfare, and prudence, which are virtues so vacant in the minds of instinctual creatures. Man is the only creature with a self-inflicted history, which I think exemplifies our natures as rational beings. However, this does not preclude the natural state of things to impede upon this reason. I think the basic building block of civilization is the family unit, and whenever this is destroyed, civilization collapses subsequently, as evident with the great nations of Babylon, Rome, Akkad, and Yasodharapura, and I do not want so say that humanity is entirely severed from our natural instinct, but that our instinct exists as the foundation for the mountain of reason which lies atop this foundation. This alone is evident by the necessity of a strong, stable, family unit of one mother and one father, which is moral and right, and we may freely witness what occurs when this is deprived from the populace. It is perhaps so that our politics, our great movements, our great philosophies, and our grand armies are driven by theater, while it is the heart-thinking populace driven by instinct, though of course, some instinctual facets are more universal than others. I feel that civilization, in the broadest sense, is driven by the family unit, meanwhile, the politics, the battles, and the movements of our civilization, as applicable to all civilizations, is theatrical, and fascinating. It is entirely undeniable that history is not driven by simplistic, trite notions of “class conflict” or “materialism”, rather, that history is driven by grans philosophies and great men, that great men of philosophical persuasions vye for power, stability, alliance, autonomy, or stagnation, as the broader peoples who strive for leadership subordinate to those great men whose philosophies are most reasonable, per the identified Wisdom Of The Crowd in an isolated, localized manifestation. This is the reason why early feudal serfs, despite living in squalor, never had any means of uprising, and certainly no mass recordings of it, thus already discrediting Historical Materialism and Conflict Theory, and instead exemplifying the necessity for hierarchy of any movement and society, with leaders and followers, great men who strive to retain their philosophical implementations, to either influence power, overtake power, hold power, or seperate their movement from such authorities, and attaining a sustained autonomy. Every revolution, every coup, every assassination, every internal court-politic, it is all driven by great men and philosophy. This however, does not entail history is to be told as a personable story, nay, as the personal lives of the great men are entirely irrelevant, as the great men’s philosophies are wholly distinct from themselves, and we are better to attribute history to great philosophies, great movements, grand courts, and operas pushing, pulling, and stagnating to a nuance of absolute authority, coexistence, autonomy, stability, alliance, internal influence, or otherwise. Of course, however, this is due to the innate aspect of society of leaders, and followers. Scarce leaders, great men and philosophers, join to concieve great politics, in which factions form, and philosophies are either imposed by the swords of an army, or the rhetoric of the court, driven by these great men, who possess the reason and admirable prowess to wield the spoken word to galvinize those who are less rational. People of the ration disposition, and the propensity to rise at the helm of global leadership are born a solitary number of times, annually, exclusively. This is, however, not to say history ought to be fixated on the personal lives of these men, rather, that their philosophies and feats take primacy, as their personal lives and anything but their feats and philosophies are ultimately irrelevent and largely disparate to their contributions.