Ophelia[_7_]
December 25th 07, 07:42 PM
only the Low are never even temporarily
successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that
throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even
today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better
off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening
of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a
millimetre nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change
has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.
By the late nineteenth century the recurrence of this pattern had
become obvious to many observers. There then rose schools of thinkers who
interpreted history as a cyclical process and claimed to show that
inequality was the unalterable law of human life. This doctrine, of course,
had always had its adherents, but in the manner in which it was now put
forward there was a significant change. In the past the need for a
hierarchical form of society had been the doctrine specifically of the
High. It had been preached by kings and aristocrats and by the priests,
lawyers, and the like who were parasitical upon them, and it had generally
been softened by promises of compensation in an imaginary world beyond the
grave. The Middle, so long as it was struggling for power, had always made
use of such terms as freedom, justice, and fraternity. Now, however, the
concept of human brotherhood began to be assailed by people who were not
yet in positions of command, but merely hoped to be s
successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that
throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even
today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better
off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening
of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a
millimetre nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change
has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.
By the late nineteenth century the recurrence of this pattern had
become obvious to many observers. There then rose schools of thinkers who
interpreted history as a cyclical process and claimed to show that
inequality was the unalterable law of human life. This doctrine, of course,
had always had its adherents, but in the manner in which it was now put
forward there was a significant change. In the past the need for a
hierarchical form of society had been the doctrine specifically of the
High. It had been preached by kings and aristocrats and by the priests,
lawyers, and the like who were parasitical upon them, and it had generally
been softened by promises of compensation in an imaginary world beyond the
grave. The Middle, so long as it was struggling for power, had always made
use of such terms as freedom, justice, and fraternity. Now, however, the
concept of human brotherhood began to be assailed by people who were not
yet in positions of command, but merely hoped to be s