The ancient Roman mob

This editorial is written by Sun News contributor Conlan Salgado

The two most destructive forces in history are mobs and intellectuals. I understand that this is, indeed, a controversial saying, but still I think that the twentieth century vindicates my theory. The archetype of the intellectual-mob relationship is manifested in Karl Marx and the Bolshevik Revolution; then, of course, when Marx passed away, other intellectuals assumed Marx’s position, such as Lenin and Stalin. However, the mob-intellectual relationship has been an ancient relationship: the Roman Empire was built upon it. A great man such as Caesar put on a great show for many small-minded people, and then they voted for him; it was the intellectual-mob relationship. But there are two other relationships that are related to this former relationship: the first one is the mob-mob relationship, and the second is the intellectual-intellectual relationship. The latter relationship is highly unproductive for society, and perhaps it leads to the conception of ideas that later become the fruit for many a destructive intellectual-mob relationship. The correspondence of intellectuals through the ages makes good reading, but bad reality. That’s not to say though that all intellectuals are to be disrespected; they are to be respected, and certain of them, such as Winston Churchill, have saved civilization at times. Reverting to the idea of the mob-mob relationship, we must really consider this one as the most destructive in history, even more than the intellectual-mob model; the mob-mob relationship is what caused the downfall of Rome. There were many, many mobs, larger than any Roman mob and stronger willed than any Roman intellectual, who swept across the crumbling borders of Rome and devoured civilization, digested it, and regurgitated it in unrecognizable forms. The question now remains for consideration: which model is now prevalent in our society? I am inclined to suggest the intellectual-mob relationship, primarily because of how great an influence tech geniuses such as Bill Gates exert upon the modern world. Politicians have seized to be intellectuals and have become mob organizers, but they are still part of the mob. Artists are part of the less refined mob, and they are not even mob organizers. Scientists have tried to be bystanders, but even some scientists have become mob organizers. The frightening and rising reality is that there is a great plethora of mobs which are rapidly rejecting their intellectual patrons. I say frightening not because I believe that the intellectual-mob relationship should be maintained, but merely because an intellectual-mob relationship degenerates most usually into a mob-mob relationship, and thereafter follows anarchy. There are spawning signs that indicate there are mob-mob relationships forming; the rather new theory of intersectionality fits such a mold. Intersectionality is the idea that groups of oppressed people should bind themselves together in public activism for a common solidarity. There is slight evidence that these intersectional mobs have any intellectual forces behind them; they have only loathing, perceived injustices, and a hatred of civilization. In fact, let us contemplate this hatred of civilization even more closely, because it is the hallmark of modern mobs, and the most threatening aspect of them. Let us imagine metaphorically that our forefathers in civilization are a set of parents, and the modern age is their child. Now, a child is bound to suffer at least some injustices by his parents, even if they be not grievous or flamboyant; the modern child has undoubtedly inherited injustices, but the modern child has also created many more injustices than those which he inherited. The modern child has become bitter and ungrateful, and children who turn bitter and ungrateful very often waste themselves away wallowing in their bitterness. A child who blames his parents for his many faults and failings will rarely correct his failings; he will merely scream and rage against his parents who are no longer with him. Injustice is thought only to be an inspiration for change in the victim of the injustice if he is also the source of injustice; if the victim is not the source of injustice, then he perceives that it is only the perpetrator who must change. The Modern World has chosen to occupy the office of victim universal, forever seeking out new perpetrators to feed their hunger for satisfaction of injustice. You see, once a scape-goat has been established for some perceived evil, then the evil is thought only to be corrected when justice is torn from the scape-goat by punishment, by torture, and death, and extermination. If you replace the word “Jew” with the word “man” in the Nazi propagandas, you perhaps would think that you are listening to a third-wave feminist apologist. A mob does not have a mind, for a mind (as an abstract definition) is an entity capable of consuming an idea in whole or in part, considering the idea, and then either making the idea part of itself, or reject the idea from its consideration. A mob merely operates within the ideological parameters it has been imbued; the true occupation of a mob organizer is to suggest certain premises to the mob, and then supervise as the mob gradually assimilates this premise into itself, creating for itself new parameters within which to work. For instance, the mob organizer might suggest the premise, “White people are oppressive.” The mob quickly assimilates the suggestion into its psychology, therefore adapting itself for appropriate action (perhaps violence or some external showing). The mob organizer is not himself an intellectual; his premises often are like primitive forms of life and they will morph into similar, yet slightly different forms of life. The premise is then suggested in a modified form, “White men are oppressive.” The mob adapts the modification into its psychology. So then neither the mob organizer nor the mob are quite able to comprehend ideas; the intellectual figure is the fellow in the relationship who provides the ideas which the mob organizer makes use of in his hypo-emotional mob-stoking. A mob does not have a mind capable of creation, which is why it cannot comprehend ideas, and this then causes the volatile spirit which runs like high-flammable gas through the mob. The mob though possesses a mind which holds memories, and it is able to be trained, similar almost to an animal, to retain certain notions (premises) within its psychology. An animal is conditioned to give obedience through external reiteration of an idea, in other words external suggestion; a mob is trained to obey and give the name of action to particular premises through external suggestion(i.e. mob-stoking). A mob is closer to an animal than a human being.

Note from the Editor of Sun News:

To show the topicality of this editorial on mobs, the reader is directed to the following article just published in Politico:

Opinion | The New York Times Surrendered to an Outrage Mob. Journalism Will Suffer For It.
The mishandling of a controversial column by Bret Stephens sets three pernicious precedents for American journalism.



Mr. Salgado
The ancient Roman mob