Chiave della Commedia anticattolica di Dante (Google Books/Extrait)

Man, Myth & Magic: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Supernatural
https://books.google.com.ph › books

1971 – ‎Snippet view – ‎More editions
Hecate could also take wolf shape (see HECATE). Leto, the mother of Apollo and Artemis, appeared as a she-wolf and a wolf was emblazoned on the shield of Artemis, the huntress. Apollo (see APOLLO) was said to have expelled wolves …

DIANA Delia, la luna, la tripla Ecate. Figura della papità dalla triplice co
rona, mobile come essa, regnante come essa nelle tenebre, astro dell’erro
re, dai raggi senza calore, in opposizione al sole della ragione che illumi
na, riscalda, vivifica quelli che l’influenza contraria ha ghiacciato del
freddo della morte.

CANE, CANI Bruti arcigni che si gettano sul debole e il povero; espressio
ne di disprezzo impiegata per designare i membri della chiesa ortodossa.
L’epiteto di cani è quasi sempre da intendersi nel senso pagano o miscre
dente; non è fatta eccezione che per il veltro che dà la caccia ai lupi ne
mici della truppa settaria

LUPA Emblema dell’avidità, dell’ambizione sanguinaria dei pontefici, dei
32
loro appetiti carnali, di cui la nutrice di Romolo diveniva il simbolo.
Anche l’Ariosto non manca di dare un lupo per cavalcatura alla sua cru
dele Erifile, una testa e due denti di lupo alla bestia scolpita sulla tomba
di Merlino e, tuttavia, a credere a Delécluze, l’Ariosto, che dedicava il
suo Orlando Furioso al cardinale d’Este, avrebbe avuto la pretesa di ot
tenere il porporato da Leone X, con il quale era stato legato; e in questa
bestia dalle orecchie d’asino, la sua intenzione sarebbe stata quella di raf
figurare l’eresia di Lutero

Plutocratic Magnates

It’s not that there weren’t any non-aristocrat/non-chieftain/non-royalty magnates before (business magnates did in fact exist in medieval Florence). But it’s parsimonious to think that if/when royalty/nobility/chieftainship/land ownership are practically diminished or marginalised in power, prestige and affluence that business would take its place. It’s not that chieftains, aristocrats and landowners have stopped existing.

But they’re nowhere as powerful as they were before now that they’re practically competing with more powerful businesspeople. To survive they either have to sell some land, still act as mayors and landowners of sorts and even dabble in business. Conversely speaking, there are businesspeople (as well as celebrities) who own land themselves whether as landowners proper or farmers.

There are still small scale businesses around, especially in fishing villages and farms (hence farmers’ market) and to some substantial extent, local businesses of any kind. But the bigger ones have aped royalty so well that they even bypass territories. If kingdoms incorporate different countries, logically conglomerates incorporate different businesses.

That’s how scarily powerful plutocracy’s become, not only have plutocrats aped aristocrats they also become aristocrats themselves. Look no further than the Rothschilds and Medici. Some plutocrats actually own land themselves. That’s how far plutocracy’s come these days.

A radical character

I still think when it comes to racism, though I do think black people are just as capable of being racist or discriminatory (Francophones oppress Anglophones and Bantus oppress Pygmies in Cameroon or Indians being discriminated in Kenya though this might not be the only examples around, discrimination against albinos and colourism in general) let’s not also forget that AAs don’t like being oppressed by whites enough that some actually move to African countries.

Not just in Ghana but also in Liberia which was founded as an African American colony and to some extent, Sierra Leone. Not all AAs necessarily like nor know Africa but the very fact that AAs generally seem like second stringers not just compared to whites but also their dogs that it’s unsurprising that a study stated that some people care more about pets than they do for fellow humans. If they did for the latter, that involves greater maturity and understanding at times.

If the prejudiced sentiments still linger though some are willing to want to give up on those for good and sometimes actually try to understand them. Not to mention that whilst not all AAs fear/hate/abuse dogs (same for their South African Bantu counterparts) and some actually care of/own dogs and even cats (same for their African counterparts), but the fact that if/when nonhumans get elevated at the expense of other humans that the latter are going to call pet owners out.

I even know this from personal experience at times from being chided for caring too much about pets so this gives insight into how African Americans would’ve felt before and much moreso in the slavery days. To pull a Gloria Steinem, what if dogs are treated in the same way black people are? Mistrusted because they might assault people, with people calling the cops because they see a dog and said dogs get shot.

That those who like dogs are serious perverts. And dogs possess occult powers and seem older than humans so it makes it harder to sympathise with them. On one hand, people were already mistrusting dogs since ancient times especially on the basis of witchcraft and pestilence (and they still do to some extent). On the other hand, that’s how dehumanised black people are to the point where the best case scenario’s that they’re forgotten or they’re in the background.

Worst case scenario’s that they get abused, nobody cares about their feelings (something I realised from being rejected by two black men but the same can be said of anybody else really) and they’re seen as less than human (I admit being guilty of this to some extent). There’s a thing called white privilege and why it has to be taken more seriously.

Not to mention if blacks are shown to be really no different from whites (down to genitalia size) and if dogs are increasingly considered to be worse pests, then that’s proving what I’m saying all along. So much so it takes a radical character or mindset to think of black people as people and dogs as animals not to be trusted at times. That’s still proving the point about dehumanisation playing a big part in discrimination (something I’m guilty of before).

The new rich, same as the old rich

I have a feeling that owning land, whether if it’s owning a hobby farm or having ranches, theme parks and even islands, might become a big status symbol especially in the West. If because a good number of celebrities already own land themselves in some way or another. There’s one actress that does hobby farming. The late, infamous Michael Jackson had a theme park. Businessman Ted Turner owns a ranch.

It’s already a reality to some extent in the West but should it go mainstream, this might have damning ramifications socioeconomically speaking. Those who could afford to own land, whether if it’s a hobby farm/garden/orchard or an island are much likelier to be richer than average. They can afford to have a substantial enough garden to cultivate and grow crops with as well as having the right equipment, especially those who are upper-middle class.

(I actually think the upper-middle class are much likelier to be hobby farmers given how costly it is to own a farm these days, especially with the right resources to be this self-sustaining and the means to own as much land as cheaply as possible.)

The billionaires would easily go from owning yachts and private aeroplanes to owning entire villages and towns. There are already company towns and some billionaires do own land themselves. Some even have sufficient political power. Look no further than Donald Trump who went from real estate to ruling America. (For old world analogues, there’s always the Rothschild family in recent memory considering their beginnings in banking.)

Lastly but not the least, the tendency for the rich to own land leads to profound changes in society but much moreso in America where if it ever separates into several countries this is going to be the inevitable situation or case. Upper middle class families own farms and sometimes make their friends/neighbours help them along (that’s if drones aren’t that accessible or cheap).

The really rich afford to own entire towns, villages and cities. I mean, Donald Trump went from real estate to president. This might not be much of a stretch for a billionaire to exert far more socioeconomic and sociopolitical clout these days. This even becomes the norm in America’s city-state period where quite parsimoniously cities would have more in common with neighbouring border countries than they do with each other.

It wouldn’t be much of a stretch for the Twin Cities to be practically neighbourhoods of Toronto and logically, Seattle would be a Vancouver suburb (Mexico in this situation gets back California, Nevada, Texas and even gets Florida). Neo-feudalism re-emerges this way and when you think about it, the hobby-farming upper-middle class is practically the new minor nobility. Logically the billionaire class is the new major nobility.

(Hence Emperor Trump in a way.)

The fact that a good number of celebrities own land themselves and some businesspeople manage to exert political influence should suggest the possible re-emergence of feudalism, especially in the American City-State period so.

What next?

I sometimes still have a feeling that when it comes to marriage becoming more of a thing for the rich, especially in the developed world, that the next logical step’s to bring back arranged marriage. That’s already happening in some cases but might become the norm in the future. Not that premarital sex will entirely go away.

But I think the era of free-love might eventually be over. In the sense that for some wealthier people, it’s much more sensible to help a child pick their spouse. Whatever their social class (given this may vary among individuals, circumstances and families), practical arranged marriages might return in some form.

There are already some people who do marry up but given the rise of plutocracy, I believe there’ll be more of a pressure to not only marry up but also admittedly prefer women with similar (financial) backgrounds as well as actual aristocrats. Meghan Merkle and Kate Middleton both got married into royalty. One of them’s an actress!

This is a logical possibility and it might even become the norm in the future.

Do the time warp

I sometimes think that although the tendency to equate relatively fair skin (for as long as you don’t have albinism) with beauty’s there before in Asia and Africa (in Africa, I think it generally refers to reddish brown skin), it seems among African Americans I get the impression of them being stuck in a time warp. (Same with Asian Americans to some extent.) As in they’re likelier to still see relatively paler skin as a marker of beauty.

Whereas white Americans pretty much outgrew that. If I’m not mistaken, relatively pale skin was a marker of beauty in the sense of it being aristocratic and not bothering to work long outside to get sunburns or even a tan. Even white people used to find this attractive until recently if it weren’t for Coco Chanel and the like popularising tan skin. Considering that many black Americans are descended from slaves, one might wonder if they unconsciously equate pale skin (except for albinism and vitilago) and white people with wealth and prosperity.

A good number of black American men I know sometimes find black women to be ghetto (read lower class) and if that’s the case, it’s almost as if they unconsciously want to marry up or something. This may not always be the case with albinism, which I suspect probably has the same stigmatised reception as red hair does for European whites. In the sense of being odd-looking and likely to be the receiving end of teasing and gossip.

That and superstitions (same with red hair really). 21st century black Americans (as well as African blacks and Asians) aren’t exactly like old fashioned Europeans but their attitudes to certain things are close enough to give insight for better or worse.

They got ennobled

That’s the weird thing about the Medici, Fuggers and Rothschilds is that they’re so rich they’re powerful enough to even get ennobled and in the case with the Trumps, ascend to presidency. All four of them started out in business which comes to show you how powerful these merchants and bankers are especially in recent memory. They didn’t just supply money to royalty and religious institutions but also gained political power themselves.

I won’t be surprised if at least for the Medici and Fuggers, they’re either pressured to marry aristocrats (and especially those who’re still in power) and/or did it at will to increase their social standing. Some rich men still do it. (I suspect that these are the sort of men who don’t bother marrying a much richer woman than themselves and some will themselves to do it.) Plutocrats are in some regards every bit as powerful as aristocrats are.

In some cases, even more popular than them especially in a world where aristocracy’s practically either abolished or marginalised as to allow plutocracy to take its place.

Rich but very middle class

Like I said, there could be a new middle class composed of millionaires and even multimillionaires but still also means it’s going to be a self-sufficient one at that one manual labour takes over, scions of these characters would end up spending more on making their own cars, boats and soaps. Since it’s not easy and cheap to make your own items, these would’ve accidentally humbled themselves by spending so much on creating their own items.

Not quite communist or socialist either but I suspect multimillionaire CEOs would now be considered fairly humble. That’s if s/he spends money on making farms and barns than buying yachts and property. Making your own items can be more expensive than buying them. I suspect you’re going to waste a lot of fortune on making your own farm, especially if it involves lots of crops (fruits, vegetables and ornamental plants) this time.

Unglamourous but also highly possible given the growing numbers of billionaires and trillionaires that making millions become too accessible to many and price inflation.

The new middle classes

I feel like there could be different subsets of middle class in the future, albeit one that includes millionaires who may constitute the self-sufficient middle class that’s by spending their fortunes on manual labour/more constructive hobbies like boat-building, farming and brewery. Given it’s not easy and cheap to make your own items, I easily expect this new middle class (millionaires) to be self-sufficient enough to make their own farms and houses.

Millionaires’ preferred things to spend on won’t involve buying cars and expensive breeds but rather on making their own cars and owning private farms and gardens with which they use to raise crops and livestock with. That’s if most jobs are going to get automated any further, expect more multimillionaires to spend/waste their fortunes on building their own boats and cars.

The next one would be what we’d traditionally consider middle class which may still be around in the future. What’s alarming’s the odd possibility that even somebody who earns millions might be considered middle class in the future. Strange as it sounds but not when the future’s home to even more billionaire as well as trillionaires that being a millionaire’s now too humbling.

Alarming but possible.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

A handy idiom that suggests that nothing changes much even with a new person around. Similar things can be said of how plutocracy came to displace aristocracy especially in places where aristocracy’s either extinct or heavily marginalised and disempowered for whatever reason. If aristocrats/chieftains still exist, they’d be nothing more than glorified mayors and some become business people.

Especially with presidents taking their place and some indulge in the same nepotism chieftains and aristocrats have been doing for centuries. Some plutocrats even buy land as much as aristocrats and chieftains were made to own and inherit land for years. If there are any changes, it’s primarily got to do with changes in management.

Aristocracy might be considered the oldest form of leadership if chieftainship counts as such, that’s relying on leaders who tell them what to do. That’s been around for as long as humans exist though similar things can be said of other primates, humans have refined this and progressively so. That’s by necessitating a hierarchy of aristocracy.

The baron’s chief of a barony. The viscount’s chief of a viscounty. The count’s chief of a county. The marquess’s chief of a march. The duke’s chief of a duchy. The prince’s chief of a principality. The king’s chief of a kingdom and the emperor’s chief of an empire. Chieftainship and aristocracy tends to preside over communities and land, especially certain settlements and villages.

They even take over land and include it as part of their territory. Not that businesspeople and bankers never did similar things before. When it came to the Medici and Fuggers, they certainly did by expanding their business elsewhere and anywhere as far as I remember. The Fuggers even acquired something from the Medici and both families got ennobled.

However plutocracy replacing/replicating aristocracy, that’s without being ennobled, has become a real thing where aristocracy’s either extinct or heavily marginalised. In those places, being immensely wealthy and powerful’s associated with big business not how much land one owns and presides though some plutocrats do buy land.

Both groups (aristocrats/chieftains and plutocrats/businesspeople) earn money indirectly, not just by the government but through the people who work for them. That’s not to say aristocrats never did any real work, they did by presiding over and ordering people. Aristocrats/chieftains were judge, mayor and estate manager. To whatever degree.

Businesspeople tend to manage businesses and there’s a hierarchy between them as a well. You have manager, chief cooperative officer, chief channel/creative officer, chief financial officer and chief executive officer. Everybody else works for them. There are some businesspeople who do lobby for more control over people.

Some rule over national governments like Silvio Berlusconi and Donald Trump. The only real difference is that aristocrats are entitled to rule over land and community, plutocrats are entitled over their respective businesses.