13. The Purpose and Nature of Civilization

13.1 Survival Factors Force Group Formation

From the perspective of a lone individual, things are pretty simple. You secure safe shelter, forage for food and sex. You take your chances with predators, most of which can be handled by intelligence and stealth.

When other individuals are present, the survival factors of the environment change dramatically with the addition of new prey or predators competing with you for limited resources. Predator or prey is distinguished by whether or not they are stronger or weaker than you. The weaker individuals have the ability to react to your predations by forming a group and cooperating for your demise. The stronger individuals will prey on you unless you seek the protection of a group. If you are strong enough to be able to choose to not join a group or be a predator on man, you will still be viewed as a competitor for resources claimed by the group and thus an enemy. In all cases, natural factors dictate the only viable survival choice for early man or any creature able to evaluate and choose in an environment of limited resources is to join a group. Many animals are also intelligent enough to form groups and co-operate for survival.

Given the survival advantages of co-operating in groups, it is inevitable that some groups will achieve sufficient power to forcefully absorb or destroy weaker groups. Consider groups as individuals driven by survival and limited resource considerations, distinguished by relative strength. The same survival choices that force individuals to join groups, with the added ability to force weaker groups to join, results in an overwhelming natural tendency driving mankind to form as large a group as is possible. Once a critical mass of group power is achieved, this is completely independent of the wishes of individual group members or internal group organization, apart from the requirement that some means of ensuring enough individual cooperation for group survival exists. Cooperation may be voluntary or forced on an individual basis. Clearly, a group where all members are forced to be members is not possible since all would then agree to be free. Thus, groups of man must have at least some individuals who are voluntary members which means they consider it to their survival advantage.

The above consideration of basic survival facts of intelligent life sharing an environment of limited resources yields the higher level knowledge that man has no option but to be a member of a group, which must be to the advantage of at least some group members. Further, there must be some means to insure enough cooperation for the group to survive.

13.2 Inevitable Polarization Within The Group

The unavoidable necessity for individual man to become a member of a group was a major environmental change for mankind, affecting his very nature. The organized power of the group provides protection from non human predatory forces of nature at the cost of the individual having no choice but to associate with the most dangerous predator of all, other human beings. Further, the dictates of group survival requires that the individual cooperate either voluntarily or under coercion. Individual man, in a group environment is still compelled by the most basic need of life, to survive. This must be achieved in an environment of like minded individuals, whose survival dictates that they must seek advantage over you, as you must seek advantage over them. Within the group, resources are still limited. A further consideration is that not all individuals have the same strength. Since the topic is the choices of intelligent man as offered by physical reality, there is absolutely no requirement for morality or consideration of the survival of others, including the group. The only consideration is to individually survive. In a group environment, this means by seeking advantage over others and preventing others from achieving advantage over you. It is still every man for himself in a very dangerous environment.

The initial result of these environmental factors is that the strong cooperate to enslave the weak. The result is a division of labor within the group where some do the work and others force them to do the work. The group is now composed of two sub-groups. This division of labor is an intellectual environmental change for both sub-groups, who no longer have the same survival considerations, resulting in a division of viewpoint. Survival for those who rule demands that they do whatever is required to stay in control and extract the maximum possible tribute from those who do the work. Survival for those who do the work demands that they do the best they can to resist this rule and minimize or eliminate the tribute that is extracted.

This forceful relationship between ruler and ruled is inherently unstable, since the rulers are totally dependent on the resources extracted from those who do the work and provide no value except protection from themselves in exchange. This instability is further reinforced by the fact that the more tribute the rulers demand, the more workers that are required to meet this demand. If the unrealistic assumption is made that all members of ruler and ruled sub-groups receive an equal share of limited resources and the ruled produce twice as much as they consume, the result is that the maximum number of rulers is equal to the number of ruled. In practice, rulers are greedy and arrogant and delude themselves into believing they are more deserving which means that there are always less rulers than ruled. This gives the workers numerical superiority and a shared survival goal (common interest) to cooperate in dealing with their oppressors. A mathematical proof and graph of maximum percentage of rulers versus ruler greed is presented in the Section XXX, "Mathematics of Rule".

The result of these basic factors is well documented in mankind´s bloody history, which, for the most part is a chronicle of the dynamics of groups absorbing other groups and sub-groups competing for control of the larger group using various methods.

The conclusion is that natural factors, a consequence of the fact that men differ in intelligence, strength and initiative, results in the polarization of mankind into two basic sub-groups, those who rule and those who are ruled. The rulers are at a perpetual numerical disadvantage with the ruled having strong common interest in changing the status quo.

13.3 Evolution of Methods of Rule

13.3.1 Fatal Disadvantage of Rule by Force

If physical strength is the means of control, the ruler must be physically strongest. Given the fact that the environment of rulers and their agents leaves them at a numerical disadvantage, it is necessary for the ruler to recruit the strongest as agents.

The ruler must share enough power to keep the voluntary allegiance of his agents, who are fully capable of forming common cause to seize control themselves. This is the agents best survival choice, limited only by the requirement to maintain enough cooperation to control the workers

From the ruler´s survival perspective the conclusion is that exclusively relying on force as a means of control is a poor survival choice for the simple reason that your physically strong agents will inevitably want to occupy your position. In addition, the workers are always numerically superior, motivated and perfectly capable of organizing to achieve your demise.

Some other means of control must be found by rulers to maintain power without relying exclusively on dangerous force.

13.3.2 The Intellectual Problem of Control

Whichever methods of control are chosen by rulers, several basic problems must be addressed:

• 1 - The workers will form common cause to reduce or eliminate your cost and predations, since by definition, rulers do not contribute to the work of survival and only consume. Rulers thus have negative value.
• 2 - Your agents will also form common cause to replace you and have the further advantage of possessing power and being privy to the secrets of power.
• 3 - Rulers are thus, by environmental considerations, in a very risky position, a magnet for malcontents.

Since we are discussing a ruler who understands the perils and limitations of naked force as a means of control, this is an intelligent ruler, considering a problem.

An obvious general solution to this problem is to have exclusive control of some sort of power which all, including your agents universally fear, making them afraid to organize for your demise.

Another approach is to prevent any possible consensus between factions that could cooperate against you by manipulating them to fight each other, dissipating their resources against each other instead of you. This is called "rule by divide and conquer".

Another approach, given that being a ruler is a dangerous position, is to rule by proxy control of puppet rulers. If they are overthrown and replaced, control the new ruler by demonstrating that you hold the real levers of power and things he wants.

A seldom used approach is to accept the inherent freedom of people and rule benevolently, imposing minimal cost.

A never used approach is to accept the fact that mankind cannot be ruled and organize civilization accordingly.

In general, the problem of rulers is to extract the maximum amount of tribute from the ruled and to find some way to keep opponents from co-operating for their demise. This generally involves instilling such fear that none dare attack them and/or interfering with the ability or willingness for any to cooperate against their rule.

Given numerical inferiority, and the perils of keeping force with its own conception of self-interest around, force alone is not sufficient. Rulers must therefore use a combination of force and "something else". Much of human history is about the intellectual evolution of the "something else" used by rulers and the opposing reactions of the "ruled". This also explains the historical and present differences between cultures worldwide. Cultures differ mainly by the mythology their rulers use to maintain control to augment naked force. Culture is a large part of the "something else" used by rulers.

The purpose of this "something else" is to reduce the risk of depending exclusively on naked force for control. This "something else" is therefore a persuasive argument to convince people that revolt is futile, the status quo is as it should be, changing rulers won´t help or some other reason for acceptance of "rule" and slavery.

13.3.3 Rule by Mystics

An obvious choice is to be smarter than the rest and use your observational and intellectual power to observe nature, make predictions and claim to be connected with some higher power. For example, by noticing the relationship between storm clouds and lightening or predicting eclipses. Early man rightfully feared the unpredictable gods of nature because of lack of knowledge. Many primitive tribes and civilizations throughout history have been ruled by an alliance of the physically strong and spiritual witch doctors, demanding tribute, including human sacrifice to placate the capricious Gods of nature. This method of rule relies on ignorance and superstition reinforced by arcane ritual intended to confuse and project the illusion of knowledge that is denied to those without mystic power. In other words, power is by definition unachievable to any who may consider seizing it, since it has been conferred by the Gods, whom you had better not cross. In this case, the "something else" is fear of the unknown and those who claim to control it. Your competition as a ruler thus becomes intelligent rather than strong individuals and the crime of heresy is invented.

Whether or not the existence of God is acknowledged, it is a historical fact that up until the Renaissance, European man was ruled by forceful rulers deriving moral credibility and fear from claims of representing a higher authority called God in alliance with clergy who claimed to represent God´s will. Rule by the clergy with their corruption, stranglehold on commerce, inquisitions suppressing all competing ideas and innovation is rightly called the "dark ages" whose repercussions are still felt five centuries later with a general distrust of all things religious. The clergy were brought down by dissension in their ranks by greats such as Martin Luther who were totally offended by the divergence between God´s teachings in the Bible and the Church´s behavior. At the same time, secular thinkers such as Galileo were calling the Church on the divergence between religious dogma and the facts. In addition, for the average person religious predations made life intolerable.

The effect of the Renaissance was not just to replace corrupt rulers, it destroyed a basic method of rule and forever changed the nature of the game. The main point is, during the Renaissance, knowledge based on proven fact and courageous individuals standing up for the truth was enough to overcome what appeared to be insurmountable odds by the simple expedient of attacking mysticism and ignorance with knowledge and its ability to explain and predict real world observations. Mysticism 0, Knowledge 1.

The demise of the Church left a power and moral leadership vacuum and convinced many that the power of fact and knowledge has some merit. Citizens rebelled and refused to be chattel. The ruled stepped into the power vacuum. This resulted in significant human rights accomplishments such as the Magna Carta which heralded British Common Law. This mitigated conflict between citizens and arbitrary state power, providing enough predictability, stability and opportunity to allow cooperation in building the British Empire.

13.3.4 Rule by Sovereign King

You have no choice but to be a member of a group, performing some function to survive. In the absence of any law, you are prey to the strong and must form alliances to counter this which then tempts your group to be a predator. The interplay of predator/prey between various factions yields the stability and predictability required for survival and cooperation only so long as the balance of power holds. This is inherently unstable and can only buy temporary stability.

In short order, it is realized by all factions that something has to change or nobody survives. A consensus has to be formed to accept a single individual as supreme arbiter of disputes. Initially, this was the strongest and wisest with the most appealing proposals to the rulers of all factions with power (ability to coerce). Whoever occupies "the arbiter of disputes" position inevitably becomes ruler, by virtue of having the final say. A kingdom is born. If the king keeps his word, the frequency of collapse of social consensus in the area of who resolves disputes is increased to the lifetime of the king. If the king does not keep his word or dies, the question of succession and conflict arises again. This question must be resolved quickly or in advance to avoid the conflict of factions competing for this position. History is rich with examples of succession methods such as heredity, election from among members of the dominant factions, challenges between the strong, etc.

Having achieved stability by agreeing to a single arbiter of disputes, allowing cooperation, citizens adapt to the rules and go about pursuing their own goals, paying whatever tribute the king and his agents demand, under compulsion of organized force. If the tribute leaves enough to survive and a quality of life above a threshold considered as adequate by the majority is achieved, an uneasy peace reigns between ruler and ruled. This means the average person, interested only in peace and survival must be able to survive and should be left alone by a wise ruler. This is acceptable to rulers, since the average person has nothing of value to take and therefore makes poor prey. More ambitious and productive people are able to accumulate wealth making them excellent prey. Productive people also risk becoming rivals, by accumulation of wealth and influence, which is power (ability to coerce). Attention should thus be focused on the productive by rulers both for tribute and to prevent them from becoming rivals.

This created a new class of ruler, differing from the old whose claimed value was to refrain from violence in exchange for the ruled paying arbitrary tribute. It became necessary for rulers to mitigate their demands to allow the majority to survive, by the natural law of groups and force which states rulers are in the minority and by definition weaker.

In this case, the "something else" is the willing consent of the ruled to accept the "necessary evil" of a single ruler whose role is to be the final arbiter of disputes, leaving enough for the average person to survive, backed by force. Since the ruler thus provides value, the ruled agree to pay tribute in exchange. As long as this trade is perceived to be tolerable to the majority of subjects, they will support the ruler and help in dealing with troublesome dissenters or the ambitious, for mutual self interest and survival.

A wise king lets his citizens prosper and, as a result, the kingdom´s wealth and power increases. This, of course, attracts the attention of covetous neighbors requiring either an expensive standing army (more tribute required, risk of internal takeover) or allowing the citizens to be armed and maintaining their allegiance (less tribute achievable, risk of common revolt).

Per the physical laws of groups, weaker kingdoms are taken over by stronger kingdoms and grow to their natural limit. This limit is dictated by either running into an equally powerful civilization, forcing competition, geographical boundaries or the practical limits of communication and projection of military and/or economic power and maintaining the allegiance of distant agents who will consider autonomy from your rule.

13.3.5 Democratic Rule

Prior to the advent of manufactured goods, the only thing to rule over was farmers and commerce in the basic material wants and needs of man. From the practical perspective of rulers, this meant control of land and trade routes. The ruling factions were landowners, controlling serfs who did the actual work. The landowners were perfectly capable of controlling their serfs by force since the only power of serfs is to refuse to raise crops or rebel, which meant they starved first since the landowners had sufficient wealth to find alternate food and more reasonable serfs. General rebellion was difficult to organize due to practical limits of transportation and communication. Commerce was even easier to control since one only had to seize goods in transit.

Therefore, the risk of conflict and disorder came from competition among the landowners themselves. Their squabbles also required a single power to resolve disputes for mutual survival. Initially, this was a king, leading to the phrase "divine rights of kings". As time passed, due to royal corruption, capricious demands, greediness and failure to honor agreements, it became clear that some limits must be placed on royal power. The concept of division of powers and law written by elected members of parliament was invented. Initially, in early England, the only people allowed to vote were those with power, the landowners. This was a concession to the fact that only those with power have the ability to withhold necessities or create conflict. It was a method of power sharing. This provided enough security and stability to survive corrupt kings and transitions of kingly power. The increased longevity of stability and fixed rules allowed people to adapt, think, cooperate and become more productive. Commerce and innovation increased as a consequence.

As a result of innovation, transportation, communication and organizational ability increased allowing greater range for the projection of military, organizational and economic power. The age of exploration and empire was born, fueled by competition between various European countries.

When the Americas were discovered, vast resources became available for exploitation at very low cost, since the only competition was the sparse native populations who were primitive, disorganized and no match for Europeans who were much more ruthless, having been conditioned in environments with far fewer undefended resources and therefore far greater aggressive and competitive skills.

To extract this wealth required labor, and, compared to Europe, there was enough wealth for the average person to benefit, for the simple reason that they were needed and their European masters had not yet fully consolidated power in America. It was thus possible for any person of initiative to be free and prosperous in America. As European power was consolidated, you could always move further west. The American Revolution became possible because the American people were hardened to the rigors of conquering a wilderness and had become accustomed to freedom and limitless opportunity. This was aided by geographic barriers, a strategic disadvantage for England.

In addition, knowledge and innovation had reached the point that it was no longer possible for the skills required to perform critical economic functions to be easily learned or replaced. This resulted in the birth of another powerful class, the skilled trades, who gained power by virtue of having specialized knowledge and organizing themselves into guilds which excluded outsiders except for apprentices. Guilds jealously guarded their trade secrets and thereby invented the first economic monopoly not requiring force to maintain and being immune from retribution. Guilds had the power to withhold necessities from rulers who could not live without them or replace them. Naturally, this was of some concern for rulers, and at the time was an un-resolvable problem. As a consequence, the monopolies of guilds and skilled trades increased in wealth and power. This situation persisted until the industrial revolution and invention of mass production, which allowed complex tasks to be broken into smaller tasks, requiring less worker skills and further efficiencies. Workers became interchangeable and thus easily replaced. This was the end of guilds in the area of the production of material goods. Their power was divested to the workers who could seize and control factories, the means of production. To dislodge them by force was impractical, since a factory and the knowledge to run it are not easily replaced.

Increased innovation resulted in monopolistic trade specialization which spawned mass production, leading to more workers being economically required, giving them the ability to organize and withhold their services as a bargaining chip for wresting further power from their rulers. Rulers compromised power by conceding democracy to a broader base.

This democratic concession was a major and very reluctant admission of fact by rulers. Rulers were forced to admit that they are at a strategic disadvantage both in terms of numerical inferiority and economic dependence. Rulers had to concede major power to their prey as a consequence. Some way had to be found for rulers to maintain control in this new balance of power and environment.

Democracy, if not limited by law, allows the opinion of the majority to be imposed on minorities. Rulers are by definition a minority in the target sights of those who hold the power. To say rulers were terrified by this unfortunate turn of events is a gross understatement. They were helpless, since they consumed resources, produced nothing, added no value and therefore earned the hostility of those on who they depended, by the methods they preferred to use for survival.

Democracy changed the nature of rulers by forcing them to adapt. They were no longer able to command obedience or be in direct control, making them targets of democratic wrath. Under democracy, rulers have to rely on indirect methods and coercion by other means. The rulers became the superrich, using their wealth to coerce government and law into helping to arrange matters to their advantage, such as the granting of monopolies or laws to their advantage.

13.3.6 Enter the Gun

Another major factor contributing to freedom in the US was the fact that weapons were required by virtually all citizens to counter raids by natives and predations by fellow Americans on lawless frontiers. This gave Americans a healthy respect for each other and a live an let live, mind your own business attitude. In essence, guns equalize people and cancel the advantages of intelligence and strength. If you were not dealt with fairly and did not get a "square deal", this was something a gun could easily solve. In addition, the possibility of concealed weapons makes potential predators very wary.

Even today, in states with liberal laws in the area of concealed weapons, both crime and taxes are lower. This means less predatory behavior and more freedom. This fact is thoroughly documented and proven in R[2], "The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong".

13.3.7 Rule by Divide and Conquer

In considering the problem of sharing power and losing control posed by democracy, it became apparent to rulers that several problems must be solved:

• First, the problem of your predations being considered a problem making you a target had to be addressed. This implies retaining control and cash flow without appearing to do so.
• Second, it is apparent that voters need to at least believe they can have some effect and need to have someone or something else to blame when frustrated.
• Third, it is apparent that unless some non-democratic means of influence is retained over government and law, all is lost. The ruling class were forced to get jobs; they infiltrated government and the legal profession.

Democracy means that rulers can no longer be in direct control. Some indirect influence can be applied to government and law, but this can be detected and countered by thwarted voters. The political debate and ideas must therefore be controlled. The environment and perceptions of voters must be controlled to the advantage of rulers.

In theory, this problem was no different than what rulers had being doing all along, playing potential rivals against each other and making them dissipate their resources against each other while preventing them from discovering common interest and cooperating for the ruler´s demise. The only difference is that, with democracy, there are far more players and potential viewpoints. The solution must be to split the voters into factions and make them fight each other over issues not affecting your control. Some other solution must be found for those inevitable un-corruptible trouble-makers who see this truth and manage to achieve a large enough consensus to pose a serious risk to power. Martin Luther King Jr. comes to mind as a hero, since to see this truth is also to see the risk. He is honored as a rare outstanding "black" person, but the reason for his honor (fighting for equal treatment of all people) is denied, suppressed and rarely discussed. Honor the man, deny the idea by misinterpreting history is the method.

Democracy was a consequence of innovation that resulted in power for skilled, productive people with a broader base. This also resulted in a division of labor civilization with various specialized trades performing very specific functions requiring focus in areas related to these functions. It was realized by rulers that a division of labor civilization also implied "division of viewpoint". This was a natural, ready made set of factions between which divisions and rivalries could be created and exploited. Make voters think each other and not you are the enemy. Make them compete to achieve advantage over each other by using government and law, leaving you invisible and unmolested. This is a very low cost solution for rulers, since the conflict is paid for by the combatants via taxation, the whole point. Rulers can escape taxation by using very good lawyers and accountants and legal loopholes that they themselves have created by coercing lawmakers.

This is the intellectual origin of modern democratic politics where all is illusion and pretext and all are competing for the prize of government and lawmaking ability, to achieve forceful advantage over competing viewpoints, to achieve "king of the hill" status.

As a consequence, "the law" has become an incomprehensible hodgepodge of historical concessions to parochial viewpoints, politically conceded as forgotten horse trades between forgotten politicians over forgotten issues or bribes or blackmail. The law has become "divide and conquer" codified and cast in stone for all time. Any good modern lawyer is able to pull enough legal precedents to prove any point and then turn around and prove the exact opposite point.

The law has become so complex and contradictory that it is incomprehensible. As citizens, we cannot have enough knowledge to obey the law. There are libraries upon libraries of law, more than anyone could read in ten lifetimes. Any choice except to do nothing may have unknown legal consequences and even doing nothing may put one in a position of violating some unknown legal obligation.

Legal "professionals" are a legacy of the dark ages, wearing priestly robes, pretending an aura of mysticism. They represent their subject matter as so complex that citizens have no choice but to do what they say, pay and shut up under penalty of losing all freedom and property. It is even a crime not to pay proper respect, as defined by those who demand it. Abject terror is a very acceptable expression of "respect".

In practical terms, the law is a monopoly since the legal profession creates, interprets and profits from law. The law has no objective standard by which it can be judged by third parties. Politicians cannot write law without lawyers. It is no longer possible to do anything of significance or have any relationship without consulting a lawyer. Our civilization pays a very high cost and receives very low value from the complexity of the legal profession. We are expected to obey laws that even the practitioners themselves cannot understand and which can be used to prove any arbitrary point, limited only by how much legal expertise can be afforded.

According to the definition of knowledge, the law, being unable to reliably predict consequence from action is not knowledge. The law has become whatever those wielding it say it is and is thus arbitrary power which is by definition totalitarian.

From a practical perspective, if you are an average person, barely making ends meet with no valuable property, the law has no interest in you unless you perform some act which may be interpreted as contrary to what the powers that be pretend to provide in maintaining "social order". Therefore, so long as you offend no-one important and are a good little citizen, you can be free, at the cost of also being irrelevant.

On the other hand, if you are a productive person with income and/or property, you had better pay tribute to very good lawyers and accountants and keep your nose very clean, otherwise some legal pretext will be found to separate you from your property.

It is a simple fact of life that it is pointless to expend effort without possible gain. The larger the prize and the greater the probability of success, the greater the effort that can be economically justified in going after it. In a legally corrupt environment, this is a natural limit on general prosperity, since great expense must be paid by both offensive and defensive sides to the legal and accounting professions who add no value except defense from themselves which is extortion by definition, a protection racket. It may be accurately said that our civilization has become organized into mutually antagonistic factions buffered by armies of lawyers and accountants profiting from conflict that the legal profession itself has created. The same is true of relationships between countries, buffered by military, mitigating conflict that has also been created.

In this case, the "something else" used to augment force as a means of control by rulers is the illusion and false hope that we can control our own destiny using the democratic process. The reality is that our perceptions are managed, public debate is tightly controlled and kept to irrelevant topics by corrupt media and we are manipulated to consider our fellow citizens as "the enemy". Meanwhile, our common interest and mutual survival is neglected and large events and unaddressed problems are occurring with absolutely no intelligent control on the part of voters. We are democratically apathetic and rightly consider voting a waste of time. We believe democracy has failed and await an uncorruptible hero who will never come to lead us to a better life. If a miracle occurs and such a leader gains power, some lone madman, with un-provable or denied connections to any other interests will inevitably appear and assassinate our hopes.

The problem is not the quality of politicians, it is the system (artificial environment) which is designed to corrupt and subvert them so their time and energies are focused on taking advantage of the environmental corruption opportunities and not their jobs, except for pork barreling and bringing home the bacon for their constituencies whom are inevitably their political supporters or local elites.

13.3.8 Rule by Proxy

In this method of rule, the visible ruling class are puppets, subject to control by shadow rulers whose whims are implemented by coercive means. In this case, government, media and law are controlled by considerations other than the will of the people, contrary to natural order, established historical fact and the "rule of law".

There is a large body of circumstantial evidence that this is the current state of affairs in Western democracies by the inability of government and law to focus on common interest and mutual survival. Clearly, some coercive force is at work, thwarting the will of the people, to the detriment of survival for all.

In the United States, a peaceful, productive, good people have been manipulated into loss of freedom, destruction of the basis of their former prosperity, loss of their constitution and a century of war which has only benefited conflict mongers and financial elites. The state of the US people is far worse than before the revolutionary war, with their own government now sharing many of the attributes alleged against Great Britain in the Declaration of Independence (Appendix A).

Politicians are a group whose survival depends on doing whatever is required to stay in office. Since we are universally dissatisfied with our politicians, they are not doing their job by satisfying the electorate. The fact they remain in office means they must be satisfying someone. Politicians are also human beings with personal goals in the area of prosperity and a very real vulnerability to extortion, blackmail and media smear campaigns since their "value" is purely perceptual. These weaknesses leave politicians very susceptible to coercion. In addition, the party organization of politicians forces them to toe the party line, meaning that coercion at the top is sufficient to control an entire political party and deal harshly with dissenters.

Judges are also human beings, subject to coercion and blackmail. The law is also organized in a hierarchical manner, meaning that corruption at the top is sufficient to negate the honest efforts of all past and lower court judges. Clearly, the law is not protecting our freedoms or dealing with corruption in the system. This means that the law must be driven by other considerations, apart from its role in protecting civilization.

Rule by proxy in a democracy is a very expensive proposition, requiring coercion of a large percentage of politicians, government, media and law. The only group with sufficient resources to achieve this are large financial interests, since money is the universal coercer.

13.3.9 Cry Havoc and Slip the Dogs of War

The above is a quote from William Shakesphere´s Julious Caesar, Act 3, Scene 1.

In the absence of fully informed democracy, rulers only need to see some economic advantage combined with weakness in their prey to wage war and will do so on the slightest of pretexts. In more honest ages where courage and honor were one, members of the ruling classes actually went to war, helping to reduce the occurrence of war somewhat.

In our age of rule by stealth, rulers are cowards and prefer to shed the blood of our innocent (and therefore susceptible to lies) youth at no cost or risk to their craven bodies. It is still about economic advantage.

Democratic societies are more prone to a live and let live approach to foreign policy, value their prosperity and are therefore far less prone to wage wars of aggression but are very quick to rally for defense. This poses a problem for rulers intent on starting a war for economic advantage.

War is a large, costly social undertaking. Rulers are unlikely to betray their nature or share the spoils by patiently explaining to the public the economic advantages of war. Creation of war is a long term, carefully managed process of building the target into a perceived threat by economic assistance and selling weapons to the target. It is necessary for the target to appear as a strong, dangerous threat so you do not appear as the bully you are. Some political pretext is then found to demonize the enemy or to trick them into some act that can be used as a pretext for action. The public is then manipulated into believing this new foe is a personal threat. War is declared and civilization completely obliterated in the target country. The target country is then rebuilt by industrial concerns using revenue generated from extracting the natural resources of the same country. This is the whole point. A puppet government more amenable to future resource extraction is then installed. A more reasonable population would realize that this is a dog eat dog world and they also stand to prosper by increased employment, at the small cost of a few unnecessary young adults that are easily forgotten. This small cost can be further reduced by promising foreign youth citizenship in return for fighting, since, by definition, foreign citizens are far less valuable than your own, whom are superior by virtue of whatever twisted logic is used to instill patriotism.

Unfortunately for rulers, citizens of democratic societies do not agree with this impeccable amoral logic and value freedom and peace more than aggression. Clearly, since democracies will not agree to an offensive war, rulers intent on war must somehow make it appear as a defensive or at least pre-emptive war. Democracies respond very predictably to external threats. One way to achieve this is to act in a pugnacious manner and try to goad your chosen enemy to attack or to "accidentally" place one of your interests at risk.

Historians are rapidly achieving consensus that the Lusitania was intentionally placed in harms way by the British prior to being sunk by the Germans, pulling the US into the First World War. Prior to this event, the US public was strongly against entering the war, considering it an European insanity of fools who do not understand the advantages of commerce and peaceful competition. R [3], "The Lusitania" is considered to be the definitive historical account of this.

There is also strong historical evidence that the US was goading Japan into attack by threatening their oil and rubber supplies prior to Pearl Harbor. It is also historically proven that the US administration knew in advance the place and date of the attack and had been decoding communications between the Japanese Fleet and Japan which discussed the attack details as the fleet progressed. Pearl Harbor was not notified, despite a week´s notice being available. The commander of Pearl Harbor was court-martialed and scapegoated. The subsequent congressional investigation was blocked by the executive withholding information for "national security" reasons. Sound familiar?

After the second world war, the Soviet Union was built up into a threat by US industrial concerns (as was Nazi Germany prior to the second world war), leading to the cold war and major US military expenses and continuous involvement in adventures such as Vietnam, all feeding the US military / industrial complex. After the Soviet Union andsocialism imploded as most economists predicted at the outset, military budgetswere being slashed and the West expected a major peace dividend.

For groups who profit from conflict, this was a major blow. Luckily, terrorists came to the rescue, creating a boon in military and security related industries. An added bonus is that terrorists provide a pretext to domestically reduce some troublesome freedoms. A terrified population is more than willing to trade freedom for the promise of security.

The promise of security is made by the very same groups who profit from pretending to deal with security threats and who got an eighty billion dollar bonus immediately after 9/11. They are paid for their failures and are getting paid more and more as time goes on. This is economic incentives in reverse, the more you fail, the more you profit. This is a standard behavioral characteristic of monopolies. The actions and failures of the groups profiting cause the problems in the first place.

Failures of security can also be used as pretexts to reduce freedom, to the advantage of those who control security. Tyranny is rapidly descending on the United States. As the U.S. goes, so goes the rest of the world, given the fact that the U.S. is the dominant power on the planet, with overwhelming coercive force.

Freedom and security are two inseparable sides of the same coin, you cannot have one without the other for the simple reason that freedom is something people will personally defend and people change sides when a security state deprives them of freedom for whatever pretext.

That the American Congress and people have been severely duped and are fools is an understatement. It is not apparent which side Congress is on, by their inept-appearing response.

The "Northwoods Document", recently declassified under U.S. freedom of information legislation is a 1962 proposal by the Pentagon for covert U.S. operatives to engage in domestic terrorism on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens. The plan was to blame it on Cuba as part of a pretext for invasion. John F. Kennedy quashed this. Another president might not have. The fact that significant effort was put into this proposal is proof enough that those advocating this course of action believed they had some possibility of success and would not be chastised for this treasonous proposal. This alone is sufficient proof that the interests of the U.S. government and the U.S. people had parted paths as long ago as 1962 when this proposal was written.

Similar evidence is rapidly becoming available about the 9/11 terrorist attacks being allowed to happen and perhaps even aided by U.S. government factions. Pre-9/11 investigations of terrorists were suppressed and blocked. Fighter jet response did not happen on 9/11. A fighter jet response is and was legally mandated by FAA standard hijacking procedures. The collapse of both towers in response to the impact, explosion and burning of the airliners has been proven impossible by the laws of physics, due to insufficient energy and temperature to melt the steel support columns. Demolition experts claim it looks like explosives were placed on various floors and at the base of the towers. Seismic recordings by nearby universities show immense ground shocks unexplainable by the force and angle of airplane impacts and explosions, before any debris hit the ground. The steel removed from the towers was rapidly whisked out of the country for foreign recycling, precluding forensic analysis, an illegal act, because it is a crime to interfere with a crime scene before full investigation.

Add to this blatant lies to make it appear Iraq was a major threat and to blame for 9/11. Never forget that both Bin Laden and Iraq were armed and trained by the US.

These are very strong indications that enemies and threats are being intentionally created by the most militarily powerful group on the planet wanting to survive and able to do nothing else to justify its existence and acquire resources. Defeat of these enemies will not happen until a more profitable enemy is found or created.

In conclusion, in addition to economic benefits for rulers at no cost or risk to themselves, war is an ideal way to achieve democratic consensus and greater control, with an external threat forming that "something else" required to reduce the risk to rulers of using naked force for social control and extracting resources from the population. War also has the advantage of shifting public attention away from other issues rulers may not want to be considered such as faltering economy, soon to be worthless currency, alienation of virtually all allies, corruption of democracy, financial corruption, judicial corruption, etc.

13.4 Changing the Status Quo

In order for rulers and ruling classes to be replaced, it takes intelligence and courage. Intelligence is required to analyze the weaknesses of current rulers and to gain support from those whom you form common cause with. This results in the intellectual discovery and transmission (evolution) of knowledge from the ruling class to their successors. To defeat a ruling class, you must learn from and exploit their mistakes. To rule yourself, you must also understand their successes. As a consequence, there must be a large body of knowledge within ruling classes and their bureaucracy which is not shared with the balance of humanity. For it to be knowledge, it must adhere to the basic principles which have been discussed in this section.

R[x], Machiavelli, "The Prince" is an excellent example of this private knowledge escaping ruler control. Machiavelli has been an embarrassment to governments and ruling classes ever since. Machiavelli has the dubious honor of having a concept named after himself: "Machination: a crafty and involved plot to achieve your (usually sinister) ends".

This suppressed knowledge must also have the power to predict human behavior in order to anticipate and thus control it. Courage is required since rulers will not easily give up their perks and by definition hold sufficient power to squash you like the insect they consider you to be.

Rulers and ruling classes have been overthrown many times, only to be replaced be equally corrupt rulers using some other pretext or "something else" to augment naked force. The necessary power of the "final arbiter of disputes" position is the power to enslave. No individual or group holding this power throughout recorded history has been able to resist the temptation to use this power for personal gain or imposing personal philosophy at the expense of collective survival. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The transition from one ruling class to another always requires knowledge, courage and intelligence. History says this transition has never improved the situation of those who are "ruled" in the long run. It takes time for the new " rulers" to take advantage of their environmental position in the hierarchy of civilization to consolidate power and close the noose of slavery. In the interim, freedom increases.

Similar analysis may be performed on the history and current events of any civilization, by considering it as the intellectual evolution and interplay of the methods used to enslave versus the response of those who would be free. This is mankind´s basic polarization and those who would be free are by definition numerically superior to those who would enslave. In other words, independent of methods of rule, natural factors dictate that the natural state of man is freedom. Much effort is expended in convincing us otherwise and instilling terror of acting on this knowledge.