Superior Directives and Privatized Military Research


How do we explain the national and geopolitical tensions so prevalent among social castes and nations, those which demand the continual efforts of a developing military? How will we explain the strivings of military researchers, whose sole function seems to be the development of better offensive and defensive systems? Why is military leadership continually involved in the functions of the bureaucratic machine? To what extent is this involvement necessary or cosmetic? Are the opposed ideologies of opposing nations the fundamental reason for military deployment, or do more permeating directives exist, by which military is empowered to engage the impossible? To whom does military actually respond, the national needs of the governed, or an agenda which is self-serving? Military responds to the several dictates which combine national security, technological competition, and superior directives. But who enunciates the superior directives?

The evidence of history, and the often irrational events with which international history is replete, cannot be the result of chance. More often, at the very highest levels of the social governing structures, we observe the consistent and patterned bureaucratic responses to unnamed authorities. Developing a model based on such observations, one finds sharp correspondence with events historical and actions contemporary which cannot easily be ignored. The consistent patterns strongly suggest the existence of rulership at higher than governmental authority levels. Some accuse that these models are attempts to rationalize the chaos of human affairs and the irrational responses of humanity when placed under duress. Consistent patterns which emerge through bureaucratic networks, whose variables are constantly changing and whose structures are completely variant, are not the result of order from chaos. Such patterns are the result of directed control, descending through the smoke screens of confused bureaucratic labyrinths, and thereafter enunciated and enforced as social policy. An astounding pattern can be traced back through history, a correspondence of our developing models with plausible world reality.

Those who interpret national and international affairs soon discover a consistency which frames specific geopolitical models, that which places aristocratic or Oligarchic Houses both within and over nations. This model provides us with a more clarified and cohesive explanation of tensions social, technological, and military. In this view, the various social tensions within and among nations, of ordinarily unexplained origin, stem from tensions between warring Houses. The Oligarchic Houses are the “big gears” in the world clock. Oligarchic Houses rule whole sectors of the world, a network of independent rulerships whose history spans the human adventure. Best represented in the ancient totalitarian dynasties of Egypt, one finds all too much evidence that a continuity of Oligarchic rule has indeed conformed and compromised the best geodemocratic ideals. Oligarchic Houses remain mutually independent, the result of ancient growth and conflict. A model which places traditional warring Houses of aristocrats over visible government structures, fares exceedingly well when matched against real world happenings. The patterns of response in government policy follow a path which is not as meandering as most assume. Courses of action follow regular patterns, and are not the combined result of several internal variables. The flash disputes, violent and barbaric confrontations which form among briefly developed nations form an interesting example, the obvious results of external influence for deliberate effect

Indeed, in all of the international disputes of the Twentieth Century, one perceives and interprets the invisible hand of influence very much at work. More recently, these influences move science and technology into receptive underdeveloped nations, with subsequent deliberations of war. Provisions of arms and munitions daily arriving at the gates, such nations are trained by private militia forces in unmarked uniforms, and raised to fever levels of emotion. Soon thereafter, hostilities break out, and national forces from the Old World or New World appear to “liberate” the oppressed. This model presupposes that complex relationships between warring Houses define the complex international relationships which, on topical inspection, are often imagined to be the result of random social action. Houses each rule whole geopolitical sectors. Each House region is viewed as an occupied territory, one whose ownership flows downward into a pyramidal power structure which it has generated. The obvious pyramidal structure of society is the evidence. Visibility within the pyramid differs for each level, a function of station and knowledge. There are those for whom the upper point of the pyramid will forever remain invisible. Living in the lowest levels of the pyramidal base, we are often able to penetrate the bureaucratic haze upward just enough to glimpse the convergence of power toward a probable point. This point is poised far above mere governmental structure. To those in the working class with eyes to see, the power structure appears truncated. Each House is therefore a virtual pyramid, occupying large portions of geography. A “geopolitical” region. These geopolitical regions of control have changed with time. The shifting of the borders among nations produces effects seen as often unprecedented “national reorganizations”.

If social movement depended on the power flow through the pyramid, then only the pyramidal bases would change. The points of power would forever retain their identity. Nevertheless, we live in a biodynamic world, not a world of synthetic rulerships, however traditional. There have been two notable kinds of instances when the points of power have been compelled to move with the base. One is caused by external competition among Houses. The other is caused by “rogue” technological discoveries. The first commands power down through the structure, mobilizing societies to engage the competitor. The second cannot be rationalized or neutralized. Biodynamic technologies conform with naturally enunciated directives. They do not recognize synthetic power structures. Relying on conscious force, they make their unbidden presence felt throughout the entire pyramid, demanding change. Ideas penetrate the structures of power, shaking the seemingly rigid gantry asunder. The true and enslaving nature of power becomes evident during those instances, for not only are those who serve enslaved to the ruling power, but those who rule are compelled to follow the movements of their property. This property, whether geographic or social, becomes a cohesive structure which binds and restricts all freedoms, both for those at the bottom as well as those at the top.