Rewrite: A False Dichotomy Which Pits Rich Against Poor

Again, the one true ongoing dichotomy, the one which has been happening for all of eternity, pits a blessed king against a cursed wretch.

All other dichotomies are false and should be utilized, at best, as necessary evils.  

Most sociological and political-science textbooks divide reality into a political conflict happening between a master class and a slave class.  Karl Marx portrayed this (false) dichotomy as between a bourgeoisie class, those who own the means of production, and a proletariat class, those who have to be subject to working under the authority of this bourgeoisie class.  In actuality, there has always been three classes of people:  1)  Those within an empowered class made up of royalty, 2) those within a wealthy class made up of aristocrats and nobility, and 3) a poor class of nameless and faceless commoners.  While the royalty classes are empowered and thus do not need any money to purchase products, the wealthy rich aristocrats and nobility have to work at least to the extent that they must invest at a risk.  Those in the commoner class have to work in order to survive.

Even more insightful, in past tyrannies, while there was indeed a conflict happening between a ruling master class and an obedient slave class, both of these classes together worked in unison to persecute and expel a third class of outcastes.  This is the subtle point that most don't understand today.  There wasn't two classes making up society, but three.

As I've mentioned before, from what Jesus seemed to have learned as a boy, what He understood Himself to be, He always referred to Himself as the Son of man, or as the very least among those who were the most worthless.  Allow me to elaborate.  As the fearful masses would praise a living Son of God as greater than his own great father, the same people would also rate an unclassified Son of man as the very least born from those who were nameless and faceless.  So, in my interpretation, the term "Son of man" means "the very least of the most worthless born out from those who were nameless and faceless."

As the best understanding of reality entails a lot more complex work, we just can't help being deceived in a direction downhill and off course by an overall paradigm made up of false dichotomies.  These aminated conflicts are presented to us as black versus white, male against female, art against science, rationality versus the irrational, rich against poor, and so on.

Indeed, while this is the real classification under which a selfish cruel world operates, we should instead take responsibility.  For, once again, we are the ones responsible who served the drunkards their drinks, suffer willingly as a result of our actions, and then complained about it afterwards as a consequence.

Indeed, thinking back, it wasn't the fifth prefect Pontius Pilate or King Herod who the Almighty confronted regarding persecutions made against His children, but the seemingly blameless Saul of Tarsus.      

Going strictly by the sequence of events established in the book of Acts, while on his way to Damascus, Saul was confronted by a new convert to Christ, a baptized eunuch, the one the deacon Philip had met up with while preaching the gospel about the death of Stephen.  To Saul, the eunuch and the Christ, the latter of the two being emasculated in the process of his crucifixion, were one and the same.  Indeed, Saul was surely the same horseman who enslaved Simon to help Christ carry his cross.  Simon, aware of the immense power Saul welded to have him arrested and also crucified, dared not refuse the request.  Indeed, Saul surely had to be there during Christ's crucifixion as he would have already been dispatched to spy upon any Christians present as illegal followers of a false prophet.

In other words, the Almighty placed the correct blame on Saul and not on Pontius Pilate and King Herod.  (In acts, Christ as the Holy Spirit did ask Saul for what reason he was persecuting Him).  After all, it was Saul and others of his similar stature within the Roman empire who were responsible for giving  power to all the evil emperors of the Roman Empire.

To back this up with an excellent example, later on, concerning the philosopher of science John Locke and his burden, it wasn't an actual king who proclaimed himself to possess absolute power.  Instead, such a claim was being made by one of the lessors under him named Robert Filmer.  Indeed, in order to advance his own status within the royal kingdom, Robert Filmer wrote a patriarcha arguing on the side of the king possessing the sovereign authority (power) of God Almighty.  In response, John Locke didn't confront the king directly in his writing of the two treatises; but, rather, he confronted the written patriarcha by the author Robert Filmer.

In order to advance themselves even further today, a new class of aristocrat and nobility are now empowering a new ruling emperor over this earth.  Such an authority is false as the position was abolished by Christ and, so, such should be considered the anti-christ.

Fd. Uncle Emanuel Watkins
Prime Minister of these united States