Please note, this archived edition is outdated, is no longer being updated, and has been rescued from the web-ory hole solely for idle curiosity and accurate historical perspective. To look for the preferred, most current edition please go to this page.
The Promethean Trilogy I
The Promethean Manifesto
"He that has ears to hear, let him hear!" - Nietzsche
Introduction
I am searching for others to help us change the world.
I first began writing this document with the fervent hope of finding others to join me in writing it, and in founding what I call the Promethean movement. But for some time, I found no others. Today, I remain one of a scarce number of Prometheans leading our small but determined movement. I am still searching for others who share my dream, a mission to found a new way of thinking, a new kind of society, a new world based on valuing our own lives. These things have become my purpose in life.
I had originally never intended such a personal work as you now have before you. But The Promethean Manifesto has become the beginning of a new life for me, so it is appropriate to make it personal. Think carefully about how Prometheanism can apply to your own life - I hope you will discover that it can be personal for you as well. The only thing which has given me the courage to write a document of such ambition, and to take sole responsibility for it, is my belief that I can and will make a difference. If you believe the same of yourself, you may find a great deal of worth in what I have written.
I believe that ideas can have incredible power and influence. This has been proven by countless works, including religious texts such as the Old and New Testaments, and secular texts such as The Communist Manifesto (to which the title of this work is naturally an ironic allusion). In the past, a great many texts with powerful influence have not been worthy of it. In The Promethean Manifesto, I believe I have developed ideas which will have enormous power to benefit the reader and the world.
As you read, please remember that this document is not intended to be a final or complete statement of ideas. Living ideas should be developed, and improved by revision, and I hope that Promethean ideas will never be reduced to stasis. The Promethean Manifesto and its continuation should be adapted periodically, and I plan to do so as long as the mission I have outlined within remains incomplete. The Promethean Manifesto, in this version or a future one, is not meant as an unquestionable authority, a new bible. I do not ask that you take this Manifesto on faith, but instead that you consider and question it reasonably.
The following Manifesto deserves your fullest attention. With your help, it can be the beginning of a profound and radical change, for you and the world. Let it be read by all those who will read with an open mind, who are willing to question the way things are, and the way they could be. If you are one of those people, read these words with the knowledge that they were written for you. You will decide the ultimate outcome of The Promethean Manifesto.
When I first began, I intended to sign this introduction as part of a group with other writers and founders. It was with great regret that I signed it alone. It is now my great hope that the next edition of The Promethean Manifesto will bear the names of many Prometheans and members, who have since joined our movement.
Signed,
Colin Barth, also called Phoenix
Writer of The Promethean Manifesto 5.20.2000 and founder of the Promethean movement
Foundations
You and I live through ourselves. We are not something other than our own perception and experience, our own thoughts and feelings, and everything which belongs to our bodies and minds. We experience the world and ourselves through our own senses, we understand the world and ourselves through our own interpretation, including our experience with others. No human being has ever lived another way. To live as another is impossible; for us to imagine another's experience is still a part of our own experience. We each live subject to the individual identity we describe as our self. And so, our picture of the world is always individually subjective. What is true and what is false are practical assertions. Deciding what is important and valuable to us is not basically about a search for truth. Nor is it basically about a moral argument over right and wrong or a moral conflict between good and evil, or any value system we have been instructed to believe. Our own understanding should not be about strictly following another's understanding of value, although from others we may learn much that is valuable to our selves. Just as we interpret the world of experience as a world of our own, we must assert our own ideas of worth on our lives and on our world. We are free to do this independent of the assertion of others. Our own standards of value for ourselves should be what we each believe furthers and advances our own lives.
The advancement of life - is this not what is truly of value to us, as human beings?
The codified, unexamined moralities we have inherited only confuse the real issue with arbitrary RIGHT and WRONG. No less is the real issue of life obscured by the quest for truth as if we know that TRUTH can be revealed to us, or finally found and held in the hand like a pebble, at which point we are supposed to discover, for some uncertain reason, that this truth is the same as value for a life.
These artificial judgments of value should be left behind for the sake of the advancement of life - the only idea which can fully address the improvement of your life and mine. Only to an extent can this be general and not specific; ultimately lives are individual things. But all of us have at least that much in common, and so the need to improve life individually is at the heart of Prometheanism.
What is the essence of a life?
What makes us vital and vibrant?
What makes us feel more or less alive?
It is self-expression.
For a human being, self-expression incorporates both intentions toward expression, and that expression itself - that is, both will and action. For some, that expression is often well-described as creativity.
A clarification of will, action, and self-expression:
A relatively clear example is the self-expression of speech, which incorporates both the physical action of producing sounds and the mental drive to do so, the will. The separation between will and action can not always be as clearly described, especially when the act of expression is not especially physical. Consider listening to music, for example. This seemingly passive experience makes many of us feel alive, and it too is an act of self-expression, in the way we experience. In the case of listening to music, it is difficult to say what is willed, and what the action involved is. Of course, the distinction is always somewhat artificial, yet very useful. Although the separation can seem awkward at times, and both will and action are really just perceived shades of self-expression, for the sake of practicality we need to distinguish them. This is especially necessary in order to talk about freedom of will and freedom of action.
I claim that a certain freedom of will exists. More precisely stated:
People, as individuals, have a fundamental potential to determine and direct their own actions.
I call this the axiom of freedom of will. Recognition and understanding of this basic principle of life leads to monumental and staggering implications about ourselves and our world. Most importantly, it means that you and I naturally have an independent power over ourselves. Societal concepts and organization must be made to reflect this.
The degree of the "fundamental potential" in each person may vary a great deal. It may be reduced or augmented. This is very important, because the extent to which people have freedom of will determines their capacity for self-expression, and is therefore an essential influence on the degree to which they are alive. The rest of what we do is instinctively willed, and comes less from our unique selves than from the environmental and genetic influences upon us. Developing and enhancing freedom of will is a critical part of advancing the quality and strength of individual human life. This has much to do with critical and experimental self-awareness.
But just as freedom of will is desirable and necessary for the advancement of life, so is freedom of action. The potential for self-expression in individuals is bound by inherent and evolving limits of their conceptions and mental impulses, and the limits and controls placed on their expression in action. Without both freedom of will and action, self-expression is lacking, and life becomes less vibrant and strong, its potential unexpressed.
Notice also that the less powerfully we live in self-expression, the less able we are to believe in the value of our own life and our potential as we determine it. We become less independent, dependent instead on others' judgments and opinions for a sense of worth. This dependence is a symptom of the suppression, or even decay of a strong life. Further, this phenomenon of conformity can easily become a cause of that degradation, an entrenched resistance to self-expression. If we are observant enough, the acceptance of sameness and interdependence, or worse, glorification of this, can warn us of further threats to the strength of our lives, or of danger to life itself. This may be a threat to oneself, as in the malleability of a depressive person. It may also become a threat to many or all people. For example, in the behavior of a politician on the world stage, an appetite for popularity can be evidence of a dangerous hunger for power which will affect the lives of millions. It is wise to recognize when and how following others may lead to ruining ourselves.
Vital Self-Interest and Individualism
Our self-expression follows our values and drives, our interests. In a way, these can always be called self-interests, because they spring from the instincts and will of our own minds, regardless of whether they are believed 'selfless' or 'self-interested,' whether they are considered or spontaneous. Whatever is valued, self-expression shows self-interest. So truly 'selfless' motivation is an impossibility, a dishonest description of one's own interests. Similarly actual 'disinterestedness' would really be lack of interest, lack of self-expression in a particular realm, not impartiality.
What then is the important distinction between self-interests, and returning to the question at hand, what kind of self-interest is life-advancing?
There is a vast difference between self-interest motivated by an interest in one's own advancement, the more useful definition of self-interest which I shall use from now on, and other motivations. Self-interest is usually used in a negative sense to mean being interested in one's own advancement, as if this were a terrible attitude to have. But this interest is generally a healthy attitude. The fulfillment of life really rests with the individual, in his self-expression. The advancement of the individual should be positive to us, not a source of shame. When an artist creates a brilliant work solely to satisfy his own creativity, we should recognize that this self-expression is a sign of vitality, the potential of the artist fulfilled - and that his work may secondarily enrich countless other lives. An investor who gives an inventor the money to build a factory to produce his product, solely for the investor's own profit, is usually doing a great thing. He is expressing himself in his own way, as well as making possible the advantage of many others. The inventor, the factory, people who do business with the factory, those who purchase the products, et al. are very likely to gain from the so-called 'selfishness' of the investor. So much is only possible with self-interest. It is one of the greatest, healthiest, and most useful innate human traits.
Certainly not all self-interest (or self-expression) is beneficial to oneself, and so to life, at least in the most direct sense. However, since self-expression itself is instrumental to the vitality and advancement of life, the 'risk' of self-interest must constantly be taken, or life decays through the weakening of self-expression. For self-interest is merely a convenient word for the individualistic direction of one's self-expression, charted through freedom of will. And it is the strength, variety, and fullness of self-expression which make for the greatest achievements and the greatest diversity of achievement, including those which advance life immeasurably. Self-interest is not hostile to the advancement of life. It is in fact necessary and integral to individualism, in its best sense a near synonym for what is life-advancing!
So why is it common to think negatively of self-advancement? Well, this attitude is not entirely unjustified; there is real potential for harm. After all, our (self-)interests in the generic sense vary with what we believe and who we are. That includes self-interest in the sense of self-advancement. The values and tenets of each person affect the nature of his self-interest, and this is the real complication. It is always the case that values and tenets have been assumed, and are evident in action, even without conscious, deliberate consideration through freedom of will. It is especially likely that assumptions made haphazardly, without due consideration, and not willed through deliberate choice, may happen to be harmful and irresponsible. But far worse, if we lack respect for other people, we may find it to be in our interest to exploit them for our own sake, even with careful consideration. This raises a critical question: what is the primary source of respect and consideration for others?
The answer returns to the root of Prometheanism, an interest in the value of life. The values and tenets which are the basis of self-interest must be, and usually must be willed to be, in the interest of living to the fullest extent, to be beneficial instead of harmful. With devotion to the vitality and vibrancy of one's life, with that pride in one's own existence, there naturally evolves a healthy respect for other lives devoted to the same. This interest is part of an integrated strength felt and lived by people who are striving for their potential, feeling their power to express themselves. Self-interest should be personal and individually unique, but should be harmonious with a basic interest in life. Here lies the solution to reconciling the individual's interests with the interests of others. When self-interest becomes an interest in life, a life-interest, we discover that there is no contradiction at all.
Respect for others and respect for oneself have the same source. If an integrated strength of self devoted to living makes us treat others well, it is our frailties, our psychological complexes, our weakness which lets us treat others poorly, out of disrespect for life. For the most convincing evidence of this, consider your own life in these terms. Have the times in your life when you have mistreated people been during your stronger moments as a person, or your weaker moments, when you were feeling less confident, and less alive? Are others who mistreat you better described during those times as strong people in an integrated sense, or weak - particularly, as people who are compensating for weakness?
We should wish that all people had a self-interest that is a life-interest, a life-interest in themselves. I believe that this beneficial orientation is possible for many to achieve, though difficult, and that with such people Prometheans can form a new and better kind of society. Anything more, an expansive, activist life-interest in others, is really far too much to expect from the world at large. Someone with that self-interest is a true Promethean, which requires an exceptional perspective indeed.*
The most essential requirement for a Promethean is a devotion to the improvement of human life, above all other interests. The profound value of a life is not merely its survival and subsistence, but especially its strength and vitality. The basic inspiration for Prometheans, the leaders of the Promethean movement, should come from an overriding and fundamental belief in the importance of preserving and enhancing the value of life. A Promethean works to advance the essence of life and the character of life. Many reading this who have that value at heart will not immediately see themselves as potential Prometheans, but the evidence of valuing life is often more in how one acts, or what one is, than what one consciously believes or claims to believe - or has the courage to believe.
*Nietzsche described this quality as a gift-giving virtue, the sense of such strength, fullness, and overabundance of self that it is natural for attention and concern to "overflow" to others. For one with this self-expression, it becomes natural to actively and mightily engage others with their life-interests in mind, as well as one's own. Someone with gift-giving virtue does not give for the sake of self-justification, for he has enough. Nor is he acting act out of pity when he gives of himself. (Pity is an emotion which asserts inferiority, only infrequently and tangentially assisting the life of another.) Rather he is so vibrantly, confidently himself that it is natural for him to give - it is the way he must express himself.
Motivations
The motivations of a life-interest become strongly evident in self-expression. When healthy and vibrant, people have emotions and sensibilities which reflect the inherent value they ascribe to life, such as confidence, pride in themselves, and the joy of existence. They believe in themselves and want to believe in others. They revel in expressing themselves, and feel capable of accomplishing what they wish. It is most natural for them to feel responsible for themselves and their actions. From a sense of nobility, they have the luxury of sincere contrition and real forgiveness, without feeling that they risk themselves. They are secure in their own identities, even as they are willing to grow and change. These are signs and components of strength and vitality, of being alive to the fullest.
But motivations which run counter to a sense of vitality are detrimental to life, and these too are reflected in the way a person feels and acts.
Spite...
helpless regret...
petty jealousy...
resentment toward oneself or another...
irrational fear...
consuming thoughts of revenge...
demeaning pity -
these bitter things make us smaller.
They are destructive to ourselves and others. They are symptoms of enervation and weakness. Recognize them for what they are, obstacles to a vital life which we should strive to overcome.
This is true not only of single people, but of larger scales as well.
Illustrations:
Crying out for the redistribution of wealth has become a cultural institution. This is the eventual product of jealousy and envy, with an unhealthy dose of spiteful revenge. The pathological tendency to attack the most productive people is an ancient tradition. It was old when welfare once again excused the official robbery, taxation, so that redistribution might solve the problem of poverty. It was old when the first income tax was justified by making the rich pay their 'fair share.' (If you are stubbornly inclined to believe that taxation is not a kind of theft, try this convincing experiment: simply choose to keep all of your money, and observe the result.) It was old when Marx and Engels penned their Manifesto of hatred. It was old in the days of allowing European Jews only the shameful vocation of money lender. And it was old when the Catholic church censured money-lending for profit, the means of much modern prosperity. The tradition of despising, insulting and punishing the successful continues, always with a predictable outcome for the successful and everyone else. Spite leers behind the lips of the blind followers on this worn road, as they desperately assert principles of justice and fairness... far too desperately to be honest.
(More about accomplishment and economics later.)
To me civil 'justice' exhibits the mass motivation of revenge and fear. Punishment carries the implicit idea of revenge; offenders are rarely made to fix what they have done (if indeed it can be fixed), they are made to "pay for what they have done," the one thing they can almost never do. Nothing can ever pay for a murder or rape, and even returning what is stolen does not erase the violation of theft. What really happens is that criminals are forced to undergo retribution, to bear the angry revenge 'of society.' While protecting oneself from harm is a healthy, innate human reflex, most punishment does not spring from this motivation. Even incarceration, which is ostensibly used to protect society from dangerous elements, seems to satisfy people mainly because it "makes criminals pay." And revenge aside, is imprisoning a large part of the population accepted because it is the most effective way to protect ourselves from harm? Or is it more from a helpless feeling of fear, expressing itself in a reaction far beyond what is justified by real avoidance of danger? I wonder, also, just how substantive the deterrent effect of punishment can possibly be; it hardly seems that murder, rape, and robbery are prevented. Certainly any effect of deterrence is overshadowed, in terms of human advancement, by the means of repressive fear.
(See Anticonstitution for a Promethean Society: Beyond Law for a discussion of Promethean alternatives to civil punishment, which can maintain civil order without using fear and repression as means.)
The Power of Self-Expression
One meaning of power is the capacity to accomplish an act through self-expression. This power, let us call it capability, is a fundamental aspect of life. It is necessary for any accomplishment, including the preservation and enhancement of life. Individual capability directed by will and expressed in action (i.e. through self-expression) is responsible for all individual accomplishments.
Of course, the potential achievements of cooperative capability are usually greater than those of any one person alone. This is simply because cooperative capability is a combined effect of individual capability, of individual contributions building upon themselves. Everything which is done by a group, is ultimately done by an individual.
An economic illustration of cooperative capability: capitalism.
Capitalism is not properly described as an organized system. Real capitalism (also known as free-market capitalism or free enterprise) is the economic aspect of unhindered cooperation, however the people involved are nominally organized. Capitalism operates through the voluntary exchange of goods, services, labor and ideas. This flow between individuals means that the efforts of one may be easily traded to many, and the profit of those efforts can be enjoyed by many. The profit comes not just directly from a single exchange, but is indirectly spread from exchange to exchange, building upon itself. (This point deserves expansion. But rather than include a treatise on economics here, instead I refer readers to these capitalism links for more information.) Methods which improve efficiency, or ideas which create entirely new opportunities, can spread quickly. This mental currency is the most profitable of all, since people can build on the mental power of countless others who have come before, in devising their own ideas. Given the organic interconnection of millions of thinking people, ideas and methods can be invented at a remarkably accelerated rate, compared to societies of people who do not enjoy the unrestricted ability to freely trade and share their mental effort. All of this allows individual productivity to be magnified, not additively, but exponentially.
A theoretical illustration of cooperative capability: this Manifesto.
Although what you are reading was written by me, in a sense it is also a combined effort, an accomplishment which would have been impossible in isolation. Much of Prometheanism is built upon the mental achievements of innumerable other people, most directly upon very few (particularly, upon the work of Nietzsche). But their ideas, likewise, were creations based on the ideas of others, and theirs upon the ideas of still others.
Remember, all contributions to cooperative power to achieve are from individual capability, accomplishment through individual self-expression - which is directed by will and expressed in action. So all capability, including cooperative capability, depends on both freedom of will and freedom of action of individuals. All accomplishments, even cooperative achievements by thousands of people, are therefore limited by the freedom of will and freedom to act, of each person.
An economic illustration of the necessity of individual freedom for accomplishment.
Capitalism is the economics of freedom of action, and therefore allows for the greatest possible accomplishment through cooperation. Witness the meteoric rise to prosperity of Hong Kong during the last few decades. A small area almost devoid of natural resources, it was fortunate enough to have been allowed relatively unrestricted economic freedom in recent years (close to true capitalism). Compare this to the economic progress of the United States over the past century. The comparatively enormous US has plentiful resources and a large population, yet suffers from official economic planning, controls, and significant taxation. As of early 1999, inhabitants of Hong Kong and the United States earned approximately the same income per capita.
Controlled, policed, or officially fostered markets are a corruption of the inherent greatness of capitalism, freedom of exchange. Fascism, imperialism, and colonialism, the subjects of many critiques of 'capitalism,' are not examples of capitalism. Capitalism in itself does not necessitate or imply compulsion, in fact it requires that exchange be voluntary. Total, enforced, and therefore limiting monopolies arise from official interference and control, such as the grants and exclusive licences issued to railroad corporations in the 19th century, or patents which are guaranteed not by voluntary agreement, but through bureaucratic fiat. In real capitalism, predominance in an industry must be achieved, and can only be maintained through achievement. Compulsion and control have so far ensured that no truly and completely capitalist society could exist... and will never exist, unless established by Prometheans.
The greatest possible individual and cooperative accomplishments are necessary and desirable to the advancement of life; they are the stepping stones built for that advance. To remove inhibitions to self-expression, whether economic or artistic or ideological or psychological, Prometheans must always strive to create the greatest freedom possible. The advancement of life is always through the individual, and the individual advances and improves through maximized freedom of will and action.
The Power of Repression
However, another conception of power is so likely to be destructive, that in the interest of the enhancement of life and even the preservation of life, it must be opposed. While capability exists in a very practical way and its effects are real to all involved, this other power is an illusion. It is entirely a conceptual device. Once fabricated for a purpose, it is now an overwhelmingly burdensome and dangerous idea, as well as quite unnecessary. This lie is political power.
Those in political power are said to have authority, or those in authority are said to have political power - a circular definition of these two synonymous contrivances. In itself having political power means nothing, and accomplishes nothing. So what is political power? How does it 'exist'?
The answer is that authority exists and acts only through the belief of those who obey and those who command. Authority depends on the capability of those who obey - those who can be commanded, those with less authority - in order to have any real power to act. By itself, political power is not really capable of accomplishing a thing, which means it is not even required to achieve any useful purpose.
A specific illustration of the superfluity of political power: the US FDA.
Millions of people in America trust the United States Food and Drug Administration to make certain that their medicines and food are safe. They believe that the FDA is needed to accomplish this task. How can so many be mistaken in their faith, because we do not, in fact, need this agency? The FDA is an example of the very typical, twofold lack of effectiveness of government organizations: the FDA is not only superfluous, it is ineffectual. Although the FDA inspects meat and tests pills, it is actually able to monitor only a miniscule fraction of what Americans consume. And its testing is notoriously slow (think of all the lives lost in the years before heart attack drugs were approved). Private, independent testing services would be much more likely to be thorough, yet efficient, due to competition in quality of service, and impartial, at the risk of losing their position to competition (the same reason Consumer Reports is unlikely to be bribed - unlike FDA inspectors). As for superfluity, yes, even the FDA is unnecessary; independent private companies could perform the actual functions of testing and verification, because the actual capability to accomplish this task rests not with the FDA's authority, but with the actual inspectors and lab employees who test food and medicines - and they do not need to work for the government. Companies need not be forced to have their products inspected and tested, because they would want and need to; independently inspected food would always outsell uninspected, and trying to market untested destructive drugs would bankrupt drug companies. Consumers need not be prohibited from purchasing what they choose; if they choose to buy an untested drug or uninspected food, they are taking a risk, but at least this risk is theirs to take. And after all, experimental, untested treatments are often the best choice for many patients, all risks considered.
Those in political power have control over certain basic and critical functions in every society, functions which make authority seem indispensable. These include settling disputes between individuals, preventing them from committing, and wanting to commit, direct abuse and harm against others, and defending against external attacks. But even these really depend on the power of capability, not political power. They too can and ought to be performed by private alternatives to authority, acting under the right ideas. Agreeing on standards is always preferable to imposed mandates. To settle disagreements, private and independent arbitration is already used. This task is most of the actual contribution of courts, and when both parties are willing, it is sufficient. Societal ideals and the need for the acceptance and assistance of others can exert pressure to ensure that the decisions of arbitrators are accepted. In cases of direct harm, private policing agencies who operate through the consent of those they protect can improve enormously upon government police. Working together, arbitration and protection can replace the judicial and law enforcement systems which operate under governmental authority. Nor does external defense need to be accomplished through political power.
Expansion: private armed forces.
There is a stigma attached to the idea of soldiers operating based on self-interest; they would be slighted by many as 'mercenary' and dangerous. Many would be reluctant to give them the respect granted to armed forces under the control of authority. But the ruinous evidence of a world monopoly of official militaries convinces me otherwise. Private defense forces would have no incentive to suffer in the large and small clannish strifes which rage around the world, but only to repel attacks upon those they are paid to protect. Men and women whose arms are at the beck and call of those in power can be made to fight for almost any reason, and usually the nebulous and mercurial interests of 'the body politic' are sufficient. For the self-interested, competition and public scrutiny would make the abuse of military power unlikely, while the Promethean devotion to life can ensure that these forces prove to be what the military vocation has never been, but should become. In fact, private armed forces would only be necessary to protect against external attack by militaries under political control, from societies based on political power. The real path to world peace is the end of political societies, through the adoption of new ideas... Prometheanism.
(See Anticonstitution for a Promethean Society: Ending War.)
Recall that the capability of each follower of authority comes from self-expression, through acts which he wills. Political power is potent in direct proportion to the willing capability of those who subscribe to it. So the capability and the very existence of authority is subject to the will of those who would be commanded, and in this sense it is voluntary. For the sake of authority those who are commanded must be convinced to obey rather than refuse. This is accomplished by the threat of force, and by delusions about the nature of political power and government. (Note very well that obeisance is necessary to preserve and advance authority, but that is not the same as preserving and advancing life.)
Force
Force in a political sense is the compulsion of an individual against his own will. Force need not be overt to be effective, as long as it intimidates. As long as there is belief in the validity of authority and the importance of obeying it, as long as individuals obey authority even over their own wishes, the position of authority is secure. But in order to achieve mastery over opposition, even if that opposition is merely passive refusal to comply, political power must be supported by force. Innumerable examples show that authority faced with persistent disobedience responds with force, from gassing student protesters, to imprisoning dissidents, to murdering political rivals, or simply implying that violent measures will be used. By its very nature, authority is intolerant of anyone who places his own intentions and ideas above the commands issued to him. Political power inherently tends to require the threat of force.
An illustration of the extent of political power: Saddam and the UN.
Political power needs to menace the unwilling in order to exist. A corollary idea is that the power of those in authority reaches only so far as the force they will use. Witness the impotence of the UN against Saddam Hussein's refusal of inspections in 1998. Once threatened, he had the choice to believe in and recognize the overreaching authority of the UN, or not. He was unwilling. While the UN was willing to threaten, or even attack in limited circumstances, at a certain point Saddam's refusal would require escalation to all-out conflict. In fact at a certain point, annihilation might be necessary to neutralize Saddam. But the UN was unwilling to even approach that extent, so Saddam continued to deny their power over him and his authority with impunity. He could even remain recalcitrant after the minimal attacks initiated by Bill Clinton on the eve of his impeachment, since they could not destroy Saddam or his power over the people living in Iraq.
If the will of one in authority is not backed up by violence or the threat of violence, if it is not enforced power, it can be denied and will cease to be powerful through belief, and thus will effectively cease to exist. This is a consistent and ageless incentive for those in political power to engender a monopoly on force, whether in the mandates of official armed forces and police, or controls on the sale and ownership of firearms.
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
- Adolph Hitler, 1935
The compulsive nature of authority is demonstrated in ways which are far less blatant, every day. Interference in everyday life is the business of those in political power... it serves as a constant reminder of the way things stand. For example, there is more to police involvement in communities than simple protection, or even law enforcement. There is a need to emphasize control through a presence. There is a consciousness of power.
A personal illustration.
As a 17-year-old walking on city streets at night, I was stopped by the police for violating curfew - interrogated, searched, handcuffed, and taken to the station where I was handcuffed to a chair. I had done nothing to draw suspicion besides simply being outside, in violation of city ordinance. There was no question of my being a threat in any way, or of my involvement in one of the many consensual acts which typically merit harsh punitive measures under the legal system. No, I was simply a kid on the street, but I was not dealt with accordingly. The experience was clearly intended to become an example to me, to remind me of my place in relation to the policeman's authority and city law. It was also meant to put the fear of punishment into me for the future. Fortunately, I learned an entirely different lesson.
Government
Political power, and even its threat of force, often seems justified due to misconceptions about the nature of political power and government. Government is nothing more than the institution of political power through its (conceptual) investment in individuals. This institution always involves making a claim to legitimacy. That claim is based on a supposed sanction, given when authority is invested or conferred upon those in the offices of government. The nature of this sanction varies. At one time, it was common that governments claimed the sanction of God through the hereditary, so-called 'divine right of kings.' In modern times, however, it is usual for those who are ruled to grant their obeisance and consent in a formal and institutionalized manner.
These modern terms of consent vary only in particulars: the frequency with which votes are held, the population allowed to vote, the population which actually votes, etc. In all modern systems of government, some number of people may choose to consent to the investment of political power in officers of government. The choice may be given between various candidates for those offices, but what is always supposed to remain is the monopoly of government on power over each life. This is true of communism (in party elections) and representative democracy alike. Perhaps the most perverse thing about the electoral process is that a vote against a candidate is actually a vote for him if he is elected. By voting, one is confirming the process, and accepting the authority of whoever is elected by majority. A vote against Hitler or David Duke is still a promise to obey them if they are elected. It is a disturbing irony that the seemingly more sensible Germans who feared Hitler, and voted against him, were confirming the system that would put him in power. Election is a useless choice, designed to support authority. A vote is always a vote to support government, and its power over you. Do not be fooled by the way voting is proclaimed to be a powerful choice. Election excuses the circumvention of your freedom of choice, rather than expressing it.
A specific analysis: democracy and representative democracy.
Today, democracy is a hallowed lie. It is called 'rule by the people.' 'The people,' or demos (Gk.), is a fallacy. There is no such collective. Each individual person can create and propose an idea, or make a choice, but no collective people can do so. In reality, votes by the majority of the people are votes on propositions made not by the people, but by those who have the political power - for instance, the demagogues of the first democracy in Athens. These men persuaded the mob, the demos, to vote for their ideas, sometimes completely contradictory positions from one day to the next. This was truly a tyranny without bounds, as the will of one could instantly be granted the legitimacy and compulsion of 'the demos' through a simple majority. There is no reason why a majority should be wiser than a minority in any system, and in the total democracy of Athens, this 'rule by the demos' quickly destroyed itself. Governments since have adopted 'representative' democracy in order to mediate the instability of mob sanction, thereby introducing another fabrication: representation of the people, or divisions of the people, by election. But one official cannot think and speak for one billion, one hundred million, one million, one hundred thousand, a thousand, one hundred, or even one single other person. Each person can only think for themselves, remember: individual freedom of will. A choice made by a representative is not a choice made by any one or all of his constituents, merely because they have chosen him over alternate officers of government. He exercises his own choice over theirs because they accept his will over their own. Yet, so many believe that a modern representative government follows 'the voice of the people.' This is an incredibly dangerous sanction, which is used to justify any or all actions taken by those in government. In the end, democracy and representative democracy are based on collective myths, which excuse the expression of few at the expense of many individuals.
The legitimacy of a government acquires the inertia of custom and tradition after a time, and is less often analyzed or justified than blindly followed. But custom and tradition are man-made. They can be changed, and should be changed if there is good reason. There is excessive reason.
In all modern systems, a 'choice' to grant authority involves the same dangerous contradictions. Since freedom of will belongs inherently to each individual, no one can give that power of choice to another by any means, including choice. So that cannot be what is actually going on.
Political power is really operating on the principle of surrogate will. When people in authority make decisions for those under their power, they are trying to substitute their own will for the will of those who obey. But because individuals always have their own will, those who are ruled by a government must agree not to exercise their own will, their own power of choice.
Consider the essence of that: people are agreeing to stunt their own expression by not willing. They are agreeing to weaken themselves. They are agreeing to become less expressive, less capable, less powerful... less alive. Consenting to government means consenting to this.
With every act of a government, citizens become less and less accustomed to using their own power of choice. They become less and less accustomed to think and consider their own choices, in every area of responsibility which the government takes away from them. They are also prevented from acting on their desires by force. Whether or not you regard the government's involvement in your life as objectionable (although I think self-respect demands this), it does have a debilitating effect on the degree of your freedom of will and action, making you a weaker person, making you less alive.
A specific illustration of the effect of government: social welfare in the US.
Establishing social welfare is one of the very worst things governments can affect without physical brutality. To actually assume responsibility for the well-being of those who are poor, believing that they are incapable... what a disgusting insult this is! As if 'the poor' are not their own individual selves, with their own freedom to will and act, and accomplish... what a rejection of individuality. And what nearly irreparable harm it does to assume responsibility for another in this way. I could not invent a better example of personal enervation through the exercise of political power. By imagining an entire 'class' of people who live at the bottom of society, assuming they are incapable of supporting themselves, and treating them accordingly, most of these people have very nearly been made incapable. Government, at the expense of taxpayers of course, took responsibility for every basic facet of life; in effect, government said, "do little or nothing." Unfortunately most accepted this 'help'; they agreed not to exercise their own abilities or make their own decisions about much of their lives. Not surprisingly, enervation set in quickly, producing the 'welfare society,' including an entire generation unprepared to express themselves... generally unwilling, mostly untrained, often unable, living in the decay of urban projects and slums constructed and restructured by government grant. That is enervation by government writ large... though these purveyors of charity are now being forced to admit the failure of welfare, at least on such a large scale (as if a different scale would make it successful), and abandon a now weakened, hopeless, and further impoverished generation to a more natural state. Even for government, this is an impressive monstrosity.
There is a perverse, destructive contradiction in supposedly sanctioning government by choice, by will, when that sanction means choosing that one's own will be overridden, subverted, and suppressed to favor the wills of others. To voluntarily choose to follow involuntarily, under force if need be - that is a monstrous self-denial of the importance of your power of choice. Such a disastrous weakening of will, of self-expression, of vitality, could only exist with the rationalization that it is sanctioned. If we pretend it is willed through some means, it seems at least innocuous, if not beneficial. For this the devices of election and representation are required.
How could all this exist, and so many approve of it?
Collectivism
I have talked about government's foundation on false, collective beliefs. But collective thinking is far more pervasive. Collective understandings of the world occur constantly, because of the integration of human intelligence and language. Using language to think, we name things with words. We approximate very complex and diverse things with labels in order to think about them. Many of the large collective concepts we invent become entities unto themselves and become real to us, and unfortunately many of these mythic constructions are very dangerous, and detract from the importance of the individual.
The axiom of freedom of will I mentioned only recognizes a freedom of will in the individual, because the fundamental seat of human life, of human thought and will, lies with each self, each individual. It is always critical to remember that every conception of people thinking or acting in unity is invented. They may be useful approximations of reality sometimes, but they are imaginary. They are false. The individuality of will means that collective will is invalid. It does not exist. In reality, every group, every imagined collective, is a group of individuals. Each has their own freedom of will. There is no collective viewpoint or collective identity, except as imagined - and has at one time been willed - by individuals. The issue is not whether these false ideas are believed. The real issue is whether they should be. If these illusions are not useful and beneficial, but instead counterproductive and harmful, they should be dispelled.
Collectivism is in contradiction to the reality of life, and life's advancement in the individual. Collectivist ideas deny the individual will, suppressing it or replacing it with myths of collective action. These ideas downplay the importance of individual expression, seeing more purpose in the many than the individual, denying that purpose only comes from the individual. Collectivism defines us as mere parts - parts in a 'greater' whole.
Examples of collectivism:
Society is often invoked as if it were one complete entity. In truth, a society is a loose description for many individual people. For instance, 'the needs of society,' or 'the good of society' can never be defined, as society is entirely a tenuous and subjective idea. These dishonest phrases are often used to justify and legitimate one's own opinion of what is necessary or good. Certainly, 'the will of society' is not merely indeterminate, it is non-existent; on any issue, a society encompasses at least as many distinct viewpoints as the number of its members. 'Society' can never think or act as one.
Minorities and majorities are also invoked by people to give their claims greater legitimacy, from legislatures to college campuses. In fact, when they speak, it is not 'the majority' they speak for. Nor is it a 'minority' which claims special rights. This is merely another dishonest justification of their own opinion or their own wishes. Dividing a collective understanding of a group of individual people into greater or smaller parts is just as inaccurate, and brings as much risk, as the collective itself. It is the individual who is important.
Culture is properly a means of describing commonalities between individuals, derived from the experience of their interactions. There is no cultural consciousness except as conceived individually, and subject to perspective. Culture finds expression in the individual, not a collective. Ultimately an individual is not only, and should not be mainly, a product of cultural influence, but derives his own unique personality from a variety of sources. These include environmental influences such as 'culture,' genetics, and the mysterious realm of personal creativity.
"The true locus of culture is in the interaction of specific individuals and, on the subjective side, in the world of meanings which each of these individuals may unconsciously abstract for himself from his participation in these interactions."
- Edward Sapir
Race should be merely a loose expression for relative genetic similarity, for example, to describe light-colored skin versus darker. (And, sometimes 'race' is used in place of 'culture.') But genetic similarity does not make a collective. Some of the most insidious concepts involve the idea of collective race. Racist ideas are always based on believing collective illusions about race, over the reality of individual difference and individual thought. No matter the nature of an individual, racism sees mostly, or even only, race. It is critical to understand that ideas which are positive towards a 'race' are as racist and false, and quite possibly as dangerous in the long run, as those which are disapproving or hateful. The defect common to both is collective thinking. The only effective way to combat racism: do not think in terms of races. Do not accept the concept on which racism is founded. Race hatred would be extinct without 'race.' Racism simply could not exist without widespread recognition of collective races - but this is the very idea perpetuated by those who would speak of race in a positive sense. Personal pride is healthy, but racial pride is a subtly dangerous thing. By this point, it should also be extraneous for me to say that the vengeful motivation of payback for past misdeeds of 'the white race' (a total absurdity) through affirmative action or redistribution, is a compounded abhorrence.
The primary allegiance of people today on a large scale is given to nations and states. They are considered an eternal fixture by their citizens, a fait accompli in human civilization. Very few people know that the modern nation-state was invented only two centuries ago. The first real dominance of nationalism over locality was instituted during the French Revolution and the time of Napoleon. French culture was homogenized, making centralized rule of the country much easier. French nationalism was used to justify the first mass conscriptions in history, required to assemble vast armies to fight and die in conquest - for 'France.' Today the nation-state is still a most dangerous lie. People within a nation-state may have very little in common with others in the country, yet they are to believe that the most important identifier for all citizens is to be, for instance, 'Americans.' When 'America' acts, in fact government officials give orders, which are carried out in the name of - America. To see this clearly is to understand how 'the will of the people' could do horrible things, like wasting lives in the Vietnam War or instituting welfare. 'The will of the people of America' wanted neither, because it has never existed.
Most of the enervating effect of religion lies with specific ideology and doctrine. Humbling oneself before divinity, guilt, affinity for suffering, self-sacrifice, a basis in payback and revenge, et cetera, all contribute to psychological warping and weakness. But organized religions suffer from an additional dysfunction: collectivism. We see this in the idea that devotees of a given sect can act or should act as a whole, and in conceiving of them predominantly in the context of their religion, from within the religion or without. To say that a Jew should be a certain thing because he is a Jew, rather than be himself... to see Muslims as a stereotypical mass... to believe that one man should speak for world 'Catholicism' - these kinds of perception retard a healthy consciousness of self.
The obvious natural differences between the sexes may seem dominant, and it is easy to allow stereotypes to control perception. But that is a mistake - the individuality of men and women (regardless of sex or sexual orientation) should always be considered before simple sexual identity. Especially, because the most vital people will not be stereotypical; they will be strongly individual and transcend any simple categories like sex or gender. The modern desire for social consciousness according to sex and gender is misguided, to say the least. (What activist can truly speak for 'what women want' - and why do many approve of this denial of their own identities?) As with racism, even positive sex-based collective ideas promote and perpetuate sexism.
The predominance of collectivism is a grave problem. Not only are collective ideas rampant; most of the socio-political establishments we live under today are essentially derived from collectivism: government, nation-state, county, church, and so on. Against this will stand the Promethean movement. Prometheanism is the revolution of the individual.
The individual - especially oneself - must be examined, developed, diversified, valued, liberated, and always considered first before collectives. What exists at the level of the individual is both basic and necessary to the advancement of life. Life at its best is vibrantly individual.
The First Objective: Create a Promethean Society
Being a Promethean does not consist merely of the right motivations, a life-interest toward himself and others. While this is absolutely instrumental, what distinguishes a Promethean is also the determination and drive, the strength of will, to change the world around him in the interest of life.
Transforming the world is not a minor undertaking. It is not easy, safe, convenient, or simple. But it is infinitely worthwhile, it is tremendously exciting, and it is possible.
But it is impossible to transform all the world directly from its current state into an entirely new kind of society, a society based on Prometheanism, a Promethean society. Even if this monumental task could be accomplished as a whole, the strain of such an inversion would have a destructive effect, not the desired result. Not everyone is ready.
Instead, Prometheans and members of the movement should work toward a first Promethean society, a prototype, a demonstration to the rest of the world. The success of this venture will be a far more persuasive argument for Prometheanism than anything I could write. A Promethean society will also provide a secure home for the Promethean movement, a safe place from which to operate, which could never otherwise exist. We will need such a place. For the stronger the Promethean movement becomes, the more it will be in the interest of those who resist change, especially governments, to persecute and slander our efforts. Understandable, because Prometheanism will mean the end of political rule and the societies of today, and a new beginning.
The War of Ideas: How to Rebel
"The people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them: They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as possession and income and rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept intact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered a new relation: a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."
- Adolf Hitler
This chilling quotation shows that one of the most collectivist rulers in modern history understood something we must also understand: ideas are the real battleground. (More than anything, the power of this understanding made possible his savage victories over freedom, and the strength, diversity, and advancement of life.)
Ideas are profoundly more important than any other means of affecting change. Ideas help to make us what we are. Ideas produce the way we live. Our own consciousness of ourselves and each other leads to the practical establishments and institutions of our society, leaving their manipulation a secondary consideration. It is in the realm of ideas - enduring perceptions and judgements, beliefs, values, ideologies, and especially ideals - that the greatest and most profound battles are fought. It is dangerous that the institutions of government have the stature they do, but it is far worse that the disastrous and oppressive ideologies behind them dominate the world today. Against these we must rebel.
In the eternal war of ideas, the course of human lives now and in the far future is determined. Few are aware of this. The war of ideas may be subdued and subtle, but the earth shakes with its resounding echoes. We must recognize what is at stake: everything from your very own self-respect and happiness to the survival of all of humanity may depend on victories in the war of ideas, victories for the advancement of your life and the lives of others.
Ideas are not only worth fighting for, they are the only way to win. Victory in war is always hollow and fleeting until ideas change; how much greater, then, is the triumph of philosophy alone! To conquer the world through military might will never be the mission of Prometheans. That would be the surest defeat - another rule by force, another waste of life. The Promethean movement must always be foremost a revolution of ideas. Like everything else, military strength and action should be a means to aid and safeguard that end, in the interest of life. Bloodshed is always a kind of loss, no matter the victory ensured. But if Prometheans are ever forced to protect the freedom of individuals, to guarantee a Promethean society, or to further the Promethean quest in combat, they must still always remember that true victory is in changing minds.
Prometheans must endeavor to transform concepts - replacing the collective with the individual, favoring self-expression and self-interest, and especially honoring the purpose that defines a Promethean. It is important to reflect theory in practice. Eschew and oppose all politics, making use of existing governmental establishments only as necessary. A true Promethean does not accept the validity of political power. For example, voting or seeking political power in order to dismantle it would be hypocrisy. However, the appeal of refusing to support government with taxes should be resisted; such an isolated protest is unlikely to achieve much besides arrest. Practically, resources and support from many people must be gathered, and that is impossible without using what exists, and suffering much to exist until confronting it can be successful.
The primary importance of the ideas we believe also makes it possible for a society to be founded on the best principles of life - ruled by them, instead of law, institution, government, or unexamined doctrine, and succeed brilliantly.
END of The Promethean Manifesto.
continued in Anticonstitution for a Promethean Society
This is a publication of promethea.org provided only for personal or private viewing in electronic or print form. Mass reproduction or duplication of the written content of this page in electronic or print form is prohibited without the express permission of the author, including publication on websites. Private and informal circulation among friends and associates of printed or electronic versions of this page or its contents is encouraged, however. Please share but respect the author. Thank you.