Which is the more "antisocial" ? society or the robber?
1331. Between these two extremes the rest of terrestrial mankind was divided into different stations and classes according to how much "capital" or how big a "bank account" they each possessed. Any natural difference of station, which means, the innate "spiritual difference", the difference in intelligence and feeling, the difference in intellectuality and morality, was here completely disregarded as a quite subordinate factor beside the all-determining significance of the class difference represented by the amount of capital possessed by the beings or the size of their "bank account". The perhaps quite untalented sons of the rich man became "upper class beings", "directors" and figureheads of their father's or family's large companies, quite regardless of their being naive, less gifted or primitive – if they were not actually so inane that they had to be declared abnormal or mentally deranged – just as the son of the poor man of limited means had of course no chances of holding such posts, quite regardless of how talented, highly qualified or well-trained he all the same was for the post. From here we have the old saying, "the devil looks after his own". That the "upper class" in this way had to end up containing a large percentage of individuals who became almost idlers, life-long gluttons and wasters, even as the "lower class" had to become the home of a great percentage of the so-called "antisocial" individuals – "thieves", "robbers", "cheats" or "financial swindlers" – is naturally a matter of course. If the person of limited means cannot get work and has thus no possibility of securing an income for himself in the so-called "legal" way, he has of course no other solution than the "illegal" way, that is the animal's way of sustaining life on a daily basis. But is this really a "crime"? It has of course long since been established as fact that the control of society by the "false principle of business" has not been able to provide any absolute reassurance that everyone will avoid unemployment and the destitution it entails. But if society cannot guarantee the individual employment, the individual is thereby relegated to the "animal state", to the life conditions of an "animal". It can do nothing other than make use of the "animal's method of taking the law into its own hands". It must "help itself" if it does not prefer to lie down and die. Which is then the more "antisocial" in this case – society or the "thief" and "robber"?
Return to start page
Previous