This essay assumes that you understand that 9/11 was not an attack against the United States by Al-Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden, but rather a 'psychological operation' perpetrated by various elements of the U.S. government, the City of New York, and certain foreign governments through their intelligence services. For more information about 9/11, click here.
So, given that the government in fact did this deed, what does that say about the nature of the American government? How does it impact the need for, and the possibilities for, a world government? And, what can we and should we do now?
Even before 9/11, we have seen how the federal government has become beholden to various corporate mega-interests. These corporations are world-wide; they owe no allegiance to the United States nor to any foreign country. Although they are incorporated in one specific country, they can then have some or all their operations in other countries, and can change where they are incorporated instantly. They are prepared to instantly move any of their operations from country to country, and will do so at the drop of a hat - or at the onset or even possiblility of any intereference to their operations by the government at any level: national, state, or local. Because of this they are not accountable to the citizenry of the United States or to any other country, nor to the environment, nor to their employees. They are in theory accountable to their stockholders but, in many cases, one person owns 'controlling interest' in the stocks; in other cases mutual funds, holding companies, 'parent' companies and so on hold controlling interest and when so, they have no accountability to the remaining stockholders. Many corporations are in effect controlled by super-rich CEOs and other top management officers, who own huge amounts of stock given to them in stock options. To be sure, they have to be accountable to their customers; however, any one corporation is accountable to that person only to the extent that he is a customer of its products or services. For instance if a corporation makes and sells shoes, it is accountable to a common person only insofar as he is interested in buying shoes.
Given this situation, it is obvious that efforts of the government to 'manage' these corporations is like trying to manage air with a fish net. Indeed, it is the corporations that manage the government. Through their intricate and well- paid lobbyists and by their campaign contributions they manage Congress; by campaign contributions they manage the President, and through his appointment power they manage regulatory agencies like the FDA, FTC, FCC, NRA, FPC, SEC; and the federal courts. Their power is not limited to the federal government; they also influence state governments and even municipalities by similar means. And other countries are not immune: they manage the great majority of national and regional governments around the world.
Consider: there are about sixty lobbyists in Washington for every congressman, and collectively they are paid about a hundred times what Congressmen are paid.
Corporations are not the only entities that in this 21st century have 'gone global'. So has organized crime. They are, to be sure, the targets of law enforcement in all the countries that they operate in. Corporations are not, as a rule, interested in drug trafficking or in other of organized crime's enterprises. They are however interested in money laundering, because this is very profitable to them. And they launder money from insider trading. Thus, corporations secretly encourage crime, especially drug trafficking, that generate a lot of money to be laundered. And they secretly encourage insider trading for the same reason. Through their managing power on governments, they get them to 'look the other way' from organized crime generating much money to be laundered, especially drug trafficking and insider trading.
We call this kind of government, beholden to corporations, influenced and essentially managed by corporations, and tolerant of certain kinds of organized crime because it is desirable to corporations, a corporatocracy.
Drug trafficking is a heinous crime understood by all. But many do not understand insider trading, thinking it a victimless crime. This is not true. We are all victims. Every time someone makes a 'killing' on an illegal trade, someone else loses at least that amount. In the end, we all lose.
It is to be emphasized that in general congressmen, state legislators, and probably most of the top people in the Administration truly believe the national (and state) governments are in control, while in truth they are not. Likewise most people in the mainstream press so believe. The corporatocracy does not consist of these. Rather it is in the way that different corporations work together in lobbying Congress and state legislatures, and financing re-election campaigns for them and for presidential candidates, financing that is always a thinly veiled bribe. And it is in the way that, in owning the mainstream media, they censor the media's output. In true Machiavellian fashion, the media make it seem to the public that they are 'looking out for them'. But in truth they print or publicize what the corporatocracy tells them to, and their censorship is in what they never talk about.
9/11 showed the existence of yet another kind of government. It is government that will commit such a heinous crime as 9/11, cover it up with a carefully planned 'story' for the media, for the purpose of manipulating public opinion to accomplish its aims. In other words, a 'psychological operation'. It is totally unaccountable to those who suffered in the 'collateral damage', although it may appear to pay these victims lip service. It appears democratic, as does the corporatocracy, but in fact acts through secret alliances to accomplish its deeds and its cover-ups. Due to its deceptive nature and secret alliances, we will call it an occultocracy.
The occultocracy consists of intelligence/espionage agencies such as the CIA, the NSA and their counterparts in other countries. They operate with a surprising amount of co-operation with one another, forming the 'intelligence community'. They thus form a world-wide 'shadow government'. Though in theory each intelligence agency is accountable to its respective national government, in practice they slip around national governments in much the way that corporations do, and are in fact accountable only to themselves. What empowers them to do this is their ability and practice to establish 'proprietary companies'. These for-profit companies appear to operate in the private sector, but are in fact fronts for one or more intelligence agencies. Their profits go into the coffers of the intelligence agencies, making them less dependent on congressional or parliamentary appropriations. And it goes without saying that these 'companies' deal heavily in money laundering, making them even more a 'cash cow' for their agencies. The CIA also has extensive and very lucrative drug trafficking activities.
The effectiveness of the occultocracy as a global government can be appreciated by noting that the great majority of people in the United States, and at least a large minority of people around the world, still believe the 'official' explaination of 9/11. Furthermore, through 9/11 it got the Patriot Act passed, which creates links between the CIA and the FBI. The FBI has police power. Thus, the occultocracy has an army.
It goes without saying that both the corporatocracy and the occultocracy have no accountability to the common person, and are elitist, as we shall see. But more significantly, both are global governing forces, whereas all the national governments, even America, are only regional. Nonetheless, they are mortal enemies of one another, as we shall see. In this, each is trying to absorb elements of the other. For instance, recently the intelligence community has taken to hire companies as contractors like the Pentagon does. But this is only window-dressing; the contractors are still essentially proprietary companies as they are persuaded to share their profits with their contracting agencies in order to continue to exist. : And similarly, trans-national corporations involved in the various so-called free trade agreements are adopting the secrecy tactics of the occultocracy.
Metaphysically, corporations are feminine entities as they produce and serve. But even as a cancerous tumor is uncontrolled feminine energy within the human (or animal) body, so unfettered corporatocracy, which grows in society like a cancer as it continually sucks wealth from the poor and delivers it to the rich, like a cancerous tumor directs blood vessels to itself to feed itself, is uncontrolled feminine energy in society. In contrast, the occultocracy is metaphysically masculine energy as it controls information by making it secret, and in its fetish for secrecy it is uncontrolled masculine energy. Thus the conflict between corporatocracy and occultocracy is one of uncontrolled masculine versus uncontrolled feminine energy, and this explains their tendency to try to consume each other.
This depends on what theory of political science you believe in. There are many of these. We will examine three of them here as representative. They are: the tribal-communist theory, the elitist theory, and the Spenglerian cycle theory
In examining these theories, bear in mind that the political good that they bear is measured not in terms of how 'democratic' they are, but rather how accountable leadership is in that system to each and every person in it, and by what means that accountability is implemented. For that matter, that is the measure by which 'democracy' itself must be evaluated.
The tribal theory holds that all political consciousness originated in tribal societies in ancient times. A few tribal societies are extant today which serve, more or less, for comparison purposes. Unfortunately, in most cases this is less, for tribal societies are under enormous pressure from 'civilization' and this has colored their politico-philosophical outlook. Tribes are organized on familial lines. As in any family, each person has a place and a unique relationship to the family and to the tribe. From each person is expected output according to his capabilities, and to each person is provided according to his need. Health care in particular is the responsibility of the community. With small tribes, there are subdivisions designed to minimize the occurence of incestuous marriage relationships. This is done either by subdivision of the tribe into clans, or into two roughly equal groups known as moieties. Marriage has to be between clans or between the two moieties.
In the communist theory, private ownership of property by individuals is limited to very personal items only; all other property is considered to be community. In particular, land cannot be owned by an individual. The great majority of tribal societies were communist.
Politics in tribal societies are markedly different from what we are used to in "civilized" societies. The three basic differences are consensus politics , accountability-driven politics, and bottom-up organization.
In tribal societies generally, consensus politics are practiced. This requires, for a decision of a group, not merely a majority, but unanimity - in other words, a consensus. The effect of this practice is that attention tends to focus on whatever issue a 'holdout' has that prevents him or her from joining the majority and thus allowing unanimity. In consensus politics there are no minorities and thus no issues of minority rights.
Consensus politics has a deep effect on the perceived nature of leadership. A leader has to be accountable to each and every member of the tribe, for any one might become a holdout and he would have to lead the effort to resolve the issues that he or she is holding out for. Consensus politics also affects the level of accountability that each and every member perceives in participating in the political process. In majority politics, coalitions must be allowed to form so that several diverse factions can coalesce into a single majority; but there will always be a minority which can be ignored. But in consensus politics there will be no minorities, no one will be ignored; but anyone who would 'hold out' must take accountability that the issue upon which he or she holds out is a fair and relevant one.
Leaders themselves are selected, in some cases, through hereditary rules: Polynesian societies are an example of this. But in other cases leaders are selected on the basis of competency and achievement: New Guinean and most Melanesian societies are examples. In these a political process implements the selection.
Other characteristics of tribal society include: the concept of art as the product of a group of people rather than that of a single individual. The latter, first taking place in post-tribal Spenglerian states, indroduced the concept of copyright which is generally absent in tribal societies. Also, dance in tribal societies is ceremonial, and elements of a dance symbolize elements of lore and legend. In tribal societies, division of labor falls along archetypal lines, and specialties and expertise is inclusive, meaning that an "expert" - including the shaman, is encouraged to develop skills in other fields of expertise. A "jack of all trades" in tribal society is a highly respected person. (By contrast, in Spenglerian states division of labor and professional expertise falls along academic lines, expertise is exclusive, and in general cross-development of skills is discouraged. A jack-of-all-trades is at best pitied.) Also, tribal societies have hermaphroditic concepts of sexuality, as they believed that humans have descended from hermaphrodites, whereas in post-tribal states they tend to believe male (or female) chauvinist concepts of sexuality. Finally, tribal socieites are very strong on male and female puberty initiation rites. These take the form of ritualized death and rebirth: the boy dies to allow the man to be reborn, for instance.
It is to be noted that in the tribal system, freedom and equality are only peripheral issues. To a tribal man, freedom is a relative term. He must be free to discover both his abilities and his passions, which together comprise his capabilities. And as for his needs, some like food and shelter will be obvious enough, but he must be free to discover and experience the more subtle spiritual needs. So freedom must exist to serve these core values of tribal society. As technologies of transportation and communication grow, it becomes more possible for a person to move away to a different tribe. But he or she knows that once there, the new tribe would have its expectations on how that person should contribute to the common good. And to tribal peoples, equality meant nothing; the guiding principle "from each according to his capabilities; to each according to his need" which started not with Marx but with tribal societies, assumes each person is different and accommodates those differences, whatever they are. So they respect that each person has different talents to contribute; and different needs that the tribe need to tend to. Equality became an issue only as the tribal system was breaking down, as we shall see.
As tribal societies grew, the consensus process grew more and more cumbersome and unworkable. They got around this problem by subdividing the tribe, as had been done earlier to contend with the incest problem. They were subdivided into either clans or bands; there was then a governing council to which each clan or band sent delegates. More than one tier of subdivision was necessary and implemented in some cases. Bands generally implemented geographical subdivisions; the Lakota Sioux were examples of this. Clans generally implemented functional subdivisions, the Hopi tribe was an example of this. Civil or secular leadership was under the Bear Clan; other clans such as Parrot, Snake, Bow, Eagle, Badger, Coyote, had certain duties connected with their cycle of ceremonies. For the Hopi, the cycle of ceremonies acted as a template for their cycle of life.
Tribes in some cases bonded together to form 'nations' or confederacies. The five tribes of eastern United States were an example of this. They established a governing council; and to prevent any one tribe from dominating over the others there was an agreed-upon system containing 'checks and balances'.
Tribal societies broke down because of pressures both from within and without. The pressure from within was as their size increased, the danger of incestuous marriages became less and less of a problem, and the need for clans or moieties seemed to be going away. But as clans disintegrated, so did one's unique identification in the tribe, and so did consensus politics.
Pressure from without was more telling. Conquerors subjagated the tribes to their governance. They had no respect for clans, bands, or familial relationships. They were elitists; their subjects were at best cannon fodder and at worst nothing. Conquerors were succeeded first by kings and aristocratic courts (for Native Americans, by the government and the cavalry), and then by corporations. The common person was at best to the former, a tenant; and at best to the latter, a customer. Other than for that, neither conqueror, aristocrat nor corporation had any accountability to the common person.
Conquerors and their successors also did away with true communism. They owned the land and all major things, so much for communal sharing; and as for the slaves/tenants/common people, perhaps they considered themselves communist but it really didn't matter, they had virtually nothing to share.
Notwithstanding the demise of tribal society from all but a few isolated places in the world, it is considered under tribal theory the fundamental yearning of man contemplating political systems. It remains alive today in nuclear and extended families, and in small local organizations of many kinds. In ancient Greece when democracy first arose, it was like a substitute for tribal organization, and majority politics with its institutions of elections and voting was a substitute for consensus politics.
As a political theory, the tribal theory forwards and keeps alive the values of tribal society, as summarized above, as that satisfying the fundamental yearnings of man. It is neither anti-capitalist or anti-socialist; any and all issues of nationalization or privatization are decided by which means, public or private, best serves the values of tribal society, especially the core values of accountability of leaders to all in his or her jurisdiction, and from each according to his capability and to each according to his need.
The elitist theory holds that it is natural, prevailing and fundamental for elitists to control society, and that tribal structures, utopian societies and democracies are but deviations. The theory originates in part from the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) who, in reviewing history up to his time, concluded that "liberty will be more safely guarded by the nobles" than by the common people. He held also that if a ruler or conqueror is to maintain his power he must move people from one province to another, "as shepherds move their flocks from place to place". A ruler must manipulate the people so that "it may seem that there is no change in the institutions, even though they are entirely different".
Many learned people have described the theory; George Orwell quite illustriously described it in his anti-utopian novel 1984. In his description, people in any stable society are divided into High, Middle and Low. The Highs are the elitists, be they conquerors, aristocrats, bureaucrats or corporations. The Middles are the wannabes. And the Lows are everyone else. But as communication and media proliferates in a society, the Lows are manipulated into believing that the system provides that all people are considered equal, as a sort of panacea for their condition. At various times the Middles will enlist the help of the Lows to overthrow the Highs, promising them greater equality and greater benefits. If they succeed they themselves become the new Highs; the original Highs are exterminated or their remnants disappear into the Lows, and the Lows are betrayed - once again. If they do not succeed the Middles are destroyed, or their remnants disappear into the Lows, and likewise the Lows are betrayed. But in either case a new Middle eventually arises, and the cycle continues.
Since in the elitist viewpoint stratification of society is natural and necessary, communism is inimical, and essentially all property is privately owned. The elitist will go through any number of mental manipulations to believe in a justification to all that he has, and why the Lows should not have it. Given a society with mass media however, they will go to any amount of trouble to convince the Lows that they should have some property, or indeed that they already have it. ("The American Dream ") Indeed, the elitist's most effective weapon to wield his power is propaganda, as Machiavelli predicted.
In the elitist viewpoint, Greek democracy arose because the governing class 'allowed' it. And the American Dream can happen because the governing class 'allows' Americans to own homes, cars, whatever. Likewise, rights exist only because the elitists 'allow' the common people to have them. Corporatocracy and occultocracy are the natural order of things in the elitist viewpoint.
It is important to note that the elitist has no accountability to the Lows. He does not provide property, benefits, rights, whatever to the commoner out of any obligation. He appears to do so 'out of the goodness of his heart', but in reality it is to ensure his continued position as a High. The Middles are always there somewhere, ready to enlist the Lows and shake the pedestal on which he stands.
Elitists are generally opposed to public education, since public schools are governed by boards elected by the people and accountable to the people. Charter and private schools, their curriculum controlled by corporate mega-interests, are their preference.
Elitists go to considerable trouble to make it appear that the 'good' things they do are for altruistic motives, when in fact they are not. But occasionally they must do 'bad' things to satisfy their needs, and they are likewise adept in making it appear that the 'bad' things is someone else's fault, not themselves. 9/11 is a shining example of this, but really, necessity has always been the excuse of tyrants.
In today's world the corporations are the High; the occultocracy (the international intelligence 'community') is the Middle, and 9/11 is part of its struggle to ascend to the High. The fragmented national governments are becoming the Low, which has the effect of making the common people the Low of the Low.
As noted above, as a political theory elitism is normally anti-communist. It is generally, but not always, anti-socialist as well. Fascism is classically defined as an elistist government in league with elitist corporations and/or private sector.
Today, a super-elitism is emerging in the aims of the Republican party and Tea party to destroy the middle class and deliver most of the world's wealth into the hands of a handful of super-rich individuals and mega-corporations. As Alex Jones points out, this is the present manifestation of a "dark dream" beginning with Malthus, and continuing in various forms with Huxley, Galton, the pseudo-science of eugenics, the abortive attempts to engineer a "super- human", Hitler's super-race, and so on- a sort of super-Machievellian vision where the "nobles" would only temporarily rule the masses with the "final solution" of killing them, reducing the population of the world to a tenth of its present level or less.
President Richard Nixon once said "Once (a world leader) gets into the stream of history, although he can be tossed aside (at any time), it is very difficult for him to remove himself - if it is intended that he stay there."
The historical stream, or Spenglerian, theory extends this principle of a compulsive historical stream to society itself. Its signature proponent was historian and political scientist Oswald Spengler (1880-1936), who in 1918 published The Decline of the West. In it, he described cultures and civilizations as subject to eight distinct phases of political evolution. In these phases, art and archeitecture, religion and philosophy, and even mathematics went through characteristic phases as well. He applied his theory to the Classical (Greek and Roman) culture, the Arabic culture, and to Western culture, which is today in the process of evolving.
Central to his theory is understanding that in tribal society political power is contained in a framework where everyone is related to everyone else, however distantly, and this includes all leaders, major and minor. When a State conquers a tribe by whatever means, familial relationships as a source of political power are abolished at least among common people. The power structure, whatever it is, then has "masses" to deal with, and it looks for ways to make the masses more governable, that is, easier for them to govern. The eight phases he lays out are the phases that the State goes through in looking for these ways.
At first it creates a priesthood to use the power of religion to make masses more governable. But first it must change, mold, design this priesthood so that the religion it disseminates will truly make the masses more governable. In classical times they invented polytheism, originally not a faith but as a means to divide people's loyalty as they tried to worship several gods; such people with divided loyalty were easier to govern. In early Arabic (pre-Islamic) times this was done as well. In Western society the Church was given the job, they did not resort to polytheism but by designing Christianity around the idea of forever having to turn to the clergy and community to forgive sins, they accomplished the same ends; and by blurring the archetypal energy flow between the female forgiver and the male forgivee there was created the first stage of Spenglerian statehood.
The priesthoods so created eventually became so powerful that they replaced the state rulers to a significant extent (in Arabic civilization Islam arose and came to dominate state power), and such was the second or "interregnum" phase of Spenglerian statehood.
The state then reestablished familial lines at the top of the power pyramid (royalty/aristocracy), or strengthened existing lines from phase one, and more importantly, asserted the absolutism of the state as being more fundamental than that of the priesthood, and such was the third phase. The masses were held in thralldom (serfdom).
Eventually middle classes arose, and the state existed by holding middle classes(bourgeoisie) in a balance with aristocracy, and such was the fourth phase - a phase of alliances and balances.
For whatever reason, in the fifth stage the state turned to military power to govern, and made it possible for at least some citizens to pridefully serve in the military, so that all citizens venerated the military as once they had venerated the priesthood.
In the sixth phase money was used as a means for the state to effectively govern, and banking was developed so as to keep common people in constant debt, and so be easier to govern. But even as the priesthood has once came to overpower the state in phase two, so in phase six banks came into a power in themselves, and drove the state ever deeper into debt.
And this led to the seventh phase, where the state uses force as a ruling power, not a military that would be an inspiration to common people, but an elitist force (secret police, intelligence community, 'republican guard'). Finally in the eighth phase the state uses any combination of these means to hold onto its waning power.
In summary the eight phases of political evolution are:
Looking about, it does really look like Western society has been following his cycle since he first outlined it in 1918. We have seen contending states fall away and a single superpower emerge. We have seen the superpower become more and more like an 'imperium'. We have seen the rise of religious revivalism and zealotry. Spengler's system would predict however, that in the present struggle of the occultocracy against corporations for ascendency, the occultocracy will win. (victory of force-politics over money)
As a political theory the Spenglerian theory can be argued to be anti-tribalist; Spengler's personal prejudices were in that direction, but actually since his process begins with tribal society and ends with it, it is more the series of consequences of what happens to a society that loses the values of tribal society by whatever means.
Copyright ©2004, 2013 by Dave Smart. All Rights Reserved.