Pt. II, We Must Invent A New World

Pt. II

We Must Invent A New World


R.E. Prindle


Matt Pigasse’s manifesto of the future of mankind seems a bit dissociated from reality. He seems to be living in some parallel universe while commenting on this one. He does ask the pertinent question: So how can we approach tomorrow in a new way? I myself would hesitate to offer a suggestion finding nothing wrong in the approach to tomorrow from 1950 to 9/11/01. As far as I was concerned the world was as it good as it has ever been and probably will be. Of course, it’s major defect from Matt’s point of view is that it was a meritocracy which means you had to do something to earn your share; nothing was granted automatically on the basis of your color or race.

Matt has a ready answer to his question however:


We must invent a new world.

We must recover the meaning of progress, not progress as an automatic reflex or an empty word, but as an act of will.

Never become resigned, never submit, never retreat.

We must never see the market as a more effective means of coordinating individual actions.

No society can organize itself simply by virtue of the markets.

Thus we must be wary of the liberal illusion of a society that has no need to think out its future or define its regulations.

On the contrary it is up to politics to reinvent itself, to define new rules and new institutions.


Fine words indeed, but a maze of fine words through which it is difficult to find your way. Matt’s essay strikes me as the kind of high school essay that got raves from the teacher but had his fellow students shaking their heads.

Inventing a new world has no meaning while sounding like excellent science fiction. On what principles are ‘we’ to invent a new world and who are ‘we’ and how are ‘we’ to demonstrate our ability to invent a new world, whatever a new world may be, and how are ‘we’ to convince the old world to accept what ‘we’ devise in our own image? One suspects that this new world is already being invented by the destruction of Europe and its values to be replaced by the old world Jewish, Moslem and African values. It is clear from the influx of alien peoples into Europe and the United States that these two areas are the only ones being affected by Matt’s grand vision. It seems that Asia and Africa are not only not affected by Matt’s grand vision they haven’t even heard of it. How is it going to work without their cooperation?

Matt says that we must recover the idea of progress not as an automatic reflex but as an act of will. I can hear Matt’s high school teacher reading his essay in class, but what do his fine words mean? When was progress ever an automatic reflex and not an act of will? Were not Charles Darwin’s studies an act of will and did they not open society’s mind to ‘progressive’ notions? Was not General Electric’s motto that ‘Progress is our most important product?’ Weren’t their scientists inventing as an act of will? Where does Matt come up with crap like ‘automatic reflexes?’ Reflexes are automatic anyway. I’m beginning to worry about the future of Lazard Freres with Matt at the helm, let alone society.

‘We must not see the market as a more effective means of coordinating individual actions. No society can organize itself by virtue of the markets.’ I’m not sure these are even fine words while I have no idea what they mean. Are they a Communist attack on individualism? Are they a call to regulate free speech, and thought, scientific investigations that may produce unwanted results according to Matt? I have no idea. They words sound like they were intended to mean something but I can’t figure out what.

‘We must be wary of the liberal illusion…’ Is Matt posing as a Conservative or is he a Communist rejecting what they consider Liberal palliatives? No idea, Matt isn’t clear.

Then he comes up with this whopper: it is up to politics to reinvent itself, to define new rules and new institutions.

Well, new? Communism has already been tried and rejected; free enterprise was working fine but is apparently unpalatable to Matt. So having rejected collectivism and individualism Matt feels ‘it’s up to politics to reinvent itself.’ Tall order and good luck Matt, the choices are limited and they’ve all been explored.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s