What is Oligarchy?

(Before It's News)

    Throughout recorded time, and probably since the beginning of the Neolithic Age, there have been four kinds of people in the world, the idiots, zealots, elitists and patriots. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude toward one another, have varied slightly from age to age, but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as gravity sets equilibrium, however pushed one way or another.

    The aims of the four groups are entirely reconcilable. Their behaviors are dissimilar, but their differences fit together. Idiots refuse information, zealots refute information, elitists misuse information and patriots distribute information. Despite dramatic alterations in the world and occasional fluctuations of people from one group to another, the shape of society, the formation of the groups remains the same, just as planetary gravity shapes globes.

    Idiots avoid all new pertinent information in order to maintain perspective. Zealots ask certain questions of certain information, ignoring unaligned information in order to maintain perspective. Elitists question information in order to manipulate and reap gains off of those without information. Patriots question information to educate themselves and share it with others in order to progress.

    The characterizations are general, but ancient and accurate as well. All people, in all of history and today can be fairly understood according to how they interact with information. The way in which people react to new information is the primal and realistically only legitimate guideline to understanding people. Any other labeling of people is at best secondary and often inaccurate or completely absurd. Historically people have been labeled and judged based on various descriptions and assumptions and rarely according to how they think.

    History contains important information, recent and ancient events contain valuable perspectives. Despite countless paradigms between a given event and the present, history provides insight and lesson. It is tremendously important to dig around established facts, to seek new information, as in archeology, in order to better understand the past and present. It is equally important not to take theory as fact and to question the delivery of said facts. The distant past is always more difficult to decipher and more easily mixed up than recent occurrences.

    Throughout recorded time, people have been divided into groups and classes based on their appearance, their religious beliefs, their heritage, their nationhood, their possessions, their poverty, their schooling, their institutional status and on and on. Historically these differences have been enhanced or eliminated for institutional agendas of one form or another. Labels based on anything other than interpretation of information are normally inaccurate and used by institutions. The only constant way to understand people is through their reaction to information.

    History is the story of many people being manipulated by a few. It is a story of manipulations to maintain situations and revolutions to change situations. The story of the oblivious and conscious, the active and passive, the haves and have-nots, all contain these four political archetypes. History is a story of idiots, zealots, elitists and patriots. The pattern has more or less remained the same over time. The past and present coincide, they are not distinct. Many events are known, but not many events are known completely.

    History’s mysteries can be cast to the wind, until the known actualities are deciphered and dissected. Questioning the known is required before one can effectively question surrounding unknowns. The conditions of the present and known facts are important and enough to ponder alone, before or rather than, the mysteries preceding and about. Mystery is best left aside, until all is deciphered about that which is known, or commonly agreed upon.

    It would be a luxury to have all the questions about all the known facts and actualities answered. When the luxury of comprehending reality’s knowns is attained, then leftover mysteries can be addressed. By questioning actuality instead of mystery many mysteries may be dispelled, mysterious no longer. By concentrating on reality, mystery is surpassed and eliminated.

    The distant past is full of unsolved mystery and wonder; the shadowy past of millennia gone by is mostly mysterious. To what extent actuality of the past has been swayed is hard to say, but certainly the presentation of history has been distorted. In our own time interpretation and speculation surround thoroughly investigated, recorded and witnessed events. Truth is difficult to obtain about events last year, let alone last century. We can only imagine how time can twist history through the influence of institutions and the biases of historians.

    Speculation and interpretation looms about the Kennedy assassinations. Both were witnessed by many, partially recorded and it is still highly disputed. The extent of purposeful and accidental distortion in history is impossible to calibrate, but looking at recent history allows us to see the likelihood of distortion. The truth sways and is also swayed, manipulated.

    Unknowns surround the attacks of 9/11. Unidentified lights adorn the sky and light only curiosity. New planets are discovered and new species are found on Earth. Speculation surrounds the origins of people, our cosmology. The missing link in the evolution of humanity is still debated on. Natural reality provides plenty to question as well as the actuality of society.

    People desire the mysterious. Everything contains some mystery, but to grasp it requires questioning. To have any hope of understanding mystery one must first question actuality. One must first question the elementary before inquiring into the ornate. Reality is the starting point and an endless subject in and of itself. Mystery can only be contemplated by first, thoroughly questioning evident reality.

    A realization of the basics is required before questioning the esoteric; otherwise it would be possible to equate thunder and lightning with the boogeyman. Without knowledge of actuality one can make wild assumptions that might seem reasonable. Without questioning our surroundings, subjects assumed to be realized entirely, may only be known partially, if at all. Without knowledge of actuality one creates mystery where there is none, with knowledge one cancels mystery that once was.

    It is easy to find a laymen’s answer. As it turns out, every subject has multiple layers, like onions. The more information one acquires the more layers one finds. It is wise to question, and continue questioning. A prerequisite to knowledge, understanding and realization of the basic or complex, is questioning. Great mystery may be a well-kept secret, and is often just a series of unasked and unanswered questions.

    People constantly uncover remnants of the ancients that lead to discovery, but lead mostly to more mystery. More answers lead to more questions. People in the past left behind monuments of stone. How people in the past accomplished building some of their architecture is unknown. New information leads to new questions.

    World history contains people living primitively in simplistic villages alongside sprawling cities of great expenditure, neighbors in the same time. Hunter-gatherers perhaps practicing subsistent agriculture existed nearby workers with specific talents. Nomadic and fixed tribes subsisted off of their surroundings alongside expansive institutionalized kingdoms.

    Royalty and the elite of oligarchy, monarchy, patriarchy, matriarchy, diarchy, and all other forms of hierarchy harvested off of the people, instead of off the land. Despite variations in operation, societies share certain traits no matter the continent or time period. People of the past made stone monuments. The intricacies of their stone testimonials might differentiate them, but performing their construction is shared. Many people built monuments to the stars and their Gods, which remain testament of their organization. How they moved such stones to build them is still mostly mystery.

    There are leftovers of harvesting and hunting tribes alongside remnants of engineering accomplishments and architectural feats that we are only now capable of contemplating. People of all different wants and ways coexisted at the same time. Whether they were hunter-gatherers or pyramid builders, the mystery of their existence still abounds. What did they know? How did they know? The celestial and architectural knowledge of the Mayan, Aztec, Incan, Egyptian and similar ancient peoples are only recently fathomable. The Gobekli Tepe monument in Turkey, the Piri Reis Map, the Waldseemuller Map, the Baghdad Battery, the Antikythera Mechanism, Mystery Hill in Salem, NH, the Ohio Serpent Mound, the ancient pyramids the world over, are all suggestive of highly advanced peoples.

    There are many facts which run counter to established history. Because they go against history, also known as his story, they are little discussed. History is an alterable presentation of one altered version of events. There are anomalies in history, in the history that we’ve been taught. The known anomalies exemplify the likelihood that there are other unknown anomalies.

    History is at best partial truth we have, often only one portion, of one side of the coin. Anomalies are proof that real history may have been swayed. Who can say why, when or how? The dark ages, the inquisitions, the burning of libraries and cities, every war and a whole slew of other occasions have allowed for revision, distortion and withholding of information. Known history contains gaps, contradictions and is potentially revisable. What is presented and held as concrete is often soupy.

    The mysteries of history are glorious curiosities, yet actualities at present are more relevant. The actuality of the present is more important than the past that manifested the present because of the paradigms we all now face. The present is more important to realize than the past, but knowledge of the past enables knowledge of the present. The past is part of the same book, just earlier pages, torn and faded.

    The last few centuries provide well documented history, and yet still unknowns and falsehoods are many. Events have been recorded, people quoted, and still in the end, there is plenty of uncertainty. Everything should be questioned, especially when there is a track record of error and anomaly, as in the recording of history. Those who would not question, those who promote unquestioning behavior are questionable. Those who insist that the present story is the entire story, don’t know the story well enough, and perhaps act to prevent realization of the entire story.

    What is commonly accepted as truth may be incomplete or partly false, but we have to start somewhere. All history is elusive and uncertain, but recent history is more reliable than the distant past. Recent history is more pertinent to present actuality and luckily better recorded too.

    The actualities of the present should be dealt with before mysteries of any time period are explored. The mystery of creation is inconsequential to the current condition of creation. The mysteries of ancient pyramid builders are inconsequential to their legacy, the legacy of a pyramidal system, of the few over the many, of oligarchical collectivism. Mysteries are inconsequential to the actualities. Throughout recorded time, there have been pyramid systems regulating class and existence. The pyramidal design is societal, regulating the few over the many.

    Distinction and organization in the past was mostly racial and territorial. The pyramidal oligarchical organization was a mark of grace or a stamp onto the exploited. Some people were branded or tattooed, most had their exploitation stomped into them through generational threat and abuse. Throughout recorded time people have been judged on their appearance, race or some stimulated stipulation.

    Some of the oldest known civilizations, Sumer and Babylon, in the area of modern day Iraq and Iran, constructed pyramid systems, with one king, many slaves and everyone else falling somewhere in between as luck or charm would have it. Five thousand years ago, they constructed Ziggurats, stone pyramidal structures with stairs leading to the top.

    The pyramids of Egypt are perhaps the most stunning and inspiring. Today speculation surrounds the mystery of their construction. Why? How? The stone construction of the pyramids and the societal construction of the pyramid system still hold secrets, unknowns. There are ancient pyramids all over the world in Babylon, Egypt, and Nubia of course, but also in Greece and elsewhere in Europe, South America, Mexico, Central America, North America, the Canary Islands, Samoa, Tahiti, China and throughout Asia. In the past, one commonality of mankind was pyramid construction.

    Pyramids were generally stone constructions, hierarchal worship and burial and possibly more. Today, pyramidal construction continues as institutional format more frequently than it does in stone structure. Oligarchical collectivism is a pyramid system supported by many different stones, representing many different institutions. Throughout recorded time, manmade institutions have designed systems, whatever distinction or label, whatever dogma or legislation, to keep hold of their power and control the status quo in pyramidal fashion, to insure the continuation of the majority of power being in the hands of a minority. No matter the brand name it would seem, be it republic or regime, all institutions are pyramidal.

The pyramid system provides more pleasantries and a better view the higher one ascends. Those on the lower levels experience more pressure, and are not able to observe as much. In the past people were born into a situation, and there was no leaving that station, the son of peasant would be a peasant, and that was that. Systems of nations were set up to keep the majority held in their place, unquestioning and unmoving. Those on top prevailed and acted to maintain their power, unquestioning as well.

    In the past, no matter one’s place in the pyramid, ignorance prevailed and served well. Most had no desire to question or were kept so ignorant it was difficult to ask relevant questions. If one was at the bottom, it was impossible to know that there was a way out. If parents were serfs, their children were just lucky to be alive and often grew accustomed to the local oligarchical enforcement. Serfdom was better than nonexistence. Patriarchies, monarchies and feudal, pyramidal autocracies violently ruled most of the world. Those at the base worked the hardest and were forced to pay upwards.

    If born into nobility at the top, one would receive the best education of the day and most likely would still be ignorant. Oligarchies set up education as a privilege and program too. The best education of the past taught that those in the base were a “them” among an “us” to the point some of the base believed it.

    Education was more institutionalization, propelling the notion that certain people were more valuable than others. This led to war, genocide and slavery. Institutions taught individuals to understand others according to their race, or anything other than their reaction to information, how they think.

    The people in the lower portion of the pyramid were deprived and repressed so that they did not know how to question or what to ask, or dared not to. Those in the base of the pyramid were happy to have a bowl of gruel without a beating. There was nowhere for people to see other ways of interaction in order to properly question reality. Anyone who was so bold and brave enough to question the system would get their tongue cut off, or worse. Lacking questions perpetuated the system. 

    Those at the apex of the pyramid system were comfortable, so rocking the boat with questions would be foolish. The only questions among the elite pertained to maintenance of the status quo and their comforts. Why question when things are lovely? The royalty, nobility and clergy were often free to perpetuate evil toward the exploited and did not want to be responsible for their own wrongdoing. One was either so beaten down or held so lofty, that just asking a question was out of the question.

    Throughout recorded time, most individuals have been left unconsidered next to the functions of institutions. It took centuries of individually instigated progression to enable individual rights among the mechanics of elite institutions. The U.S.A. wasn’t the first nation to sanction the right of individuals to question and to steer their country. The original patriots were not original in their attempts at liberty, only original at attaining it.

    The Magna Carta is a collection of documents written in 1215–1225. Parts were copied from the Charter of Liberties, written in 1100, England. These documents provided people with Habeas Corpus, protection from being jailed for nothing, but it mainly addressed royalty, nobility and clergy privilege. It was written as a legislation to prevent the King of England from taking advantage of church officials and other nobility. Those at the base of the pyramid were mostly unconsidered.

    The Charter limited the power of kings over the bishops and barons. These documents were mostly concerned with the privileges of the haves, relative to the despotism of the king, the have-all. The Magna Carta inspired the original patriots, but the documents were limited in scope and mostly recognized the institutionalized rather than all individuals, including the have-nots. 

    The 1689 English Bill of Rights set forth certain rights for certain individuals as well; many concepts were shared by the Colonies. Yet the rights were prescribed only for certain individuals. The Colonists believed they were included in the English Bill of Rights, but soon it became apparent they were not.

    The original patriots used ideas from England, but they also had other influences. The Haudenosaunee as they called themselves for generations, now known by the name they became associated with by outsiders, the Iroquois, directly influenced the original patriots. The exact etymology of the word Iroquois is unknown, but in all likelihood, the word was once derogatory. The Iroquois Nation of Haudenosaunee is a generations old democracy that was long established when Europeans first arrived. The Iroquois Nation influenced and assisted the European newcomers to North America, formerly known as Turtle Island.

    The newcomers, as illustrated by dichotomous Thomas Jefferson, essentially advocated the gentrification and genocide of American Indian indigenous peoples, while at the same time looked to many of them as an example and inspiration of tribes forming one common league. The Colonists not only adopted native knowledge, but also, at the same time legalized the theft of their land and institutionalized their expulsion and murder.

    The trinity of liberty was influenced by native ideas as well as European concepts. These ideas formed the foundation of the U.S.A., and were themselves a paradigm. Meant to insure the liberty of colonies among empires, they have since changed the world.

    These documents provide principles of basic individual rights among institutions. People have set on a course for increased all-encompassing liberty ever since, for the documents allow progression. The Declaration of Independence was meant to inspire the Colonies to shun the blood right of kings, and has gone on to inspire much of the world to seek true liberty and the Haudenosaunee assistance and influence cannot be overlooked.  

    Through the trinity of liberty, inspired by indigenous democracy, individuals countered the framework of generational, global, oligarchical exploitation. The original patriots questioned and wrote off the way the world was and practically always had been. Throughout recorded time, nearly everywhere, were fiefdoms, kingdoms and oligarchical empires. Any place and people that weren’t designed in such a way, or were weaker, were rolled on and capitalized on. Empires set sail on the Seven Seas to colonize and institutionalize the world over.

    The Declaration of Independence was an open letter to the royal and noble oligarchical collectivism of King George III and his underlings. It stated that the people had enough and would no longer support their oligarchical collectivism. The people wanted liberty, not the slanted pyramid system. They could taste liberty, being far from the dominant European institutions and they could see liberty exemplified by the autonomous indigenous, and they announced their discontinuance of institutionalization.

    The Declaration of Independence was a direct insult to George III and the well cultivated oligarchic and monopolistic institutions. It is a declaration of discontinuance. The Colonists, people without an actual nation to call home, began flattening the slant of the empirical exploiters with an open declaration, with words. The Declaration of Independence boldly questioned the King’s actions and announced that the royal exploitations were detested and that they desisted.

    The Bill of Rights protects the basic rights of individuals in a complex institutionalized world. They are elementary rights preventing exploitation of one, under another. No institution or individual can supersede the Bill of Rights. It exists to protect individuals from religious, corporate and government institutions. People around the world aspire for the universal rights the trinity of liberty assures. The Bill of Rights was arguably written with the hindsight of The Revolutionary War, with the knowledge of what rights needed to be secure and counters institutional exploitation by providing individual rights.

    The Constitution provides framework to a government of the people, for the people and by the people, an institution with checks and balances to guarantee that all actions are questioned and all powers limited. The Constitution did not set up the most effective government, but attempted to set up the most impartial and fair government. The Constitution is adjustable, it develops along with people; its laws are changeable so the government acts without interfering with the individuals and on their behalf.

    The checks and balances restrict institutional monopolization, or oligarchical collectivism. Liberty allows for progression; development is possible via democratic principles within republic structure. Processes are questioned at every turn and no one individual or entity is given complete control. The Constitution keeps power among many offices that ideally function together in partnership. It put into place the complexities of cooperative government in liberty.

    The Boston Tea Party was one of the original protests and patriotic acts that led to U.S.A independence from English oligarchical collectivism. The Boston Tea Party engaged questioning the situation, the monopolistic taxation of the tea, trees and other commodities. After communication, the original patriots openly ceased support and proclaimed their reasoning in the Declaration of Independence. Then the original patriots set up a system that was stable and yet, changeable to allow development.

    The trinity of liberty provided equality and limited institutions among individuals. Kings, royalty and familial power were more or less banished in these U.S.A. Ideally people were valued on their merit instead of their heritage. The documents provided a government that could be questioned and improved upon, but conditions were not ideal. Today the phrase “all men are created equal” is acceptable in ways that it originally was not.

    There were setbacks and underhanded exploits, but the documents intended to provide everyone the ability to rise above their circumstances. Today, whoever can reflect, question and speak whatever they want. Anyone can choose any path and take it, so long as it does not harm others. Therein lays the responsibility of true liberty, overcoming the wrongdoers. Freedom is not liberty. Freedom means one is free to ignore exploitation, free to let it happen, free to profit from it and/or free to prevent it. With liberty comes responsibility because liberty is for all individuals, and there has always been some who seek engage their freedom to take liberty over others.

    The trinity of liberty was reactionary, but it instills responsibility. The documents intended to empower individuals and to cast off the royal and elite grip. They were well planned reactions, but reactions nonetheless. The Bill of Rights prevents institutional exploitation by providing explicit rights to individuals to prevent specific exploits, but still these rights were not applied universally, they were exclusive, relegating some to caste existence.

    The trinity of liberty was a reaction to exploitation, directly experienced and known historically. The exploitations of elite monopolistic institutions were disbanded by preventing and restricting specific exploits. And yet, certain individuals and institutions infiltrated what was designed for individuals and institutionalize situations in their favor. Liberty is pliable for individuals, but also permeable by institutional influences.

    The original patriots questioned and renounced the wrongdoing of institutions despite global establishment. They questioned what was wrong swore them off with the Declaration of Independence. Despite the wrong being the global status quo, despite the majority tolerating it, despite it being beneficial to some, they stopped sought to stop the exploitation.

    Who knew how King George III would react to their gallant words? They stood up for what is right, without consideration of the drawbacks to standing up against the exploits of empire. They made themselves independent of wrong by ceasing it, simply because it was the right thing to do. The original patriots chose to stand up to British exploits because it was the right thing to do, not because it was a battle they wanted or one they counted on winning.

    The trinity of liberty made the state independent of any royal family, church, corporation or other institution. The trinity of liberty also makes institutions accountable, including government institutions. Until then, oligarchies were predominantly familial institutions and always had supportive churches as well as lucrative corporate charters. Church and state had been joined at the hip and corporations were their whips, and they were unquestionable. The trinity of liberty allowed for open inconsequential individual worship. But it prevents churches from intertwining with government because when institutions collectivize oligarchy is cemented. The trinity of liberty provides freedom for religious interpretation and more importantly freedom from religious institutions.

    To question oligarchies was disallowed. Protesting was practically unheard of. The Bill of Rights guaranties the right for individual interpretation of God in whatever manner one sees fit. It provides the right to gather and communicate and the right to make public any information. It guarantees the right to question and petition the government and any institution under its governance. The First Amendment provides for the freedom of speech and the freedom to question all, but it is more than that. It is the First Amendment because it enables and supports all the other following Amendments and covers the most important material relative to individual empowerment.

    The Second Amendment gives people the right to bear arms, the right to possess the same might as institutional authorities. This is meant to level the slant. The original patriots were reacting to the violent age-old battle between institutions and individuals and attempted to level the field. The Second Amendment is for self-defense certainly, but also to influence institutions to listen to people who might be armed when they question and protest. Also, if the First Amendment rights do not work, the Second Amendment and following Amendments back it up. The Bill of Rights is in a specific order for specific reasons.

    Because British soldiers were invading homes with accusations and forcibly procuring provisions and housing from colonists, the Bill of Rights disallowed unannounced entry. The Bill of Rights prevented institutional search and seizure of property without justification. These were reactions to protect individuals over institutions without concern for institutional agenda. The Third and Fourth Amendments protect these liberties.

    Because oligarchical institutions had always confiscated property as punishment the Fifth Amendment gives individuals the right to eminent domain. Because of the difficulties in receiving a fair trial for individuals, the Bill of Rights addressed trials in the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments. One need not speak if one doesn’t want to and one has the right to a trial by a public jury.

    The Eighth Amendment prevents institutions from holding individuals without possible payment of bail. It also prevents excessive institutional fines and cruel punishment.

    The Ninth Amendment ensures that these are not to be the people’s only rights. The original patriots knew very well how institutions flip words and intentions. The Ninth Amendment ensures the intention behind the Bill of Rights is clear. No one down the line can ever say that people do not have the right to clean water because it is not written in the Bill of Rights.

    The Tenth Amendment puts power in the hands of people and state representation. The Bill of Rights provides liberty, and direction to protect and progress liberty.

    The disdain of royal oligarchical infallibility led to the formation of a democratic republic, the likes of which the European world had not known since the ancient Greeks. The Greeks had an exclusive freedom, democracy for Grecians and slavery for everybody else, a quality the early U.S.A. shared with ancient Greece.

    The design of the U.S.A. was such that it was left open to all types of forces, including from institutionalized individuals. No longer would one man or one family be able to claim the divine right of kings, but only certain individuals had rights. Every freeman had an equal say, but freedom was exclusive. Originally only white men were considered to be born free because of institutionalized corporate agendas, because of psychological flaws, that transposed freedom for some, as liberty for all. Exclusive liberty is an oxymoronic impossibility.

    Ideals that gave no man absolute power over another were radical concepts to most then. Throughout recorded time institutions were violent and slanted oligarchies. Rarely was power vested among people and not a primary royal family ordained with power through God. The same people who eventually fought off the most powerful army and navy of the world in the name of liberty, owned people as slaves; that’s how radical the idea was.

    Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were the primary architects of the trinity of liberty and both were slave owners. Ben was also a Grand Master Freemason. Ben had international connections through the club, such as in France, who helped the founding of the U.S.A. Slavery is a steeply slanted pyramid system, Freemasonry is pyramidal as well. Ben and Thomas wrote opposite ideas to the old world, they also wrote opposite ideas to much of their own behavior.

    On many occasions Ben and Thomas met with Iroquois federation. The generous indigenous people offered resources and information on how to live in the new continent and also ideas on how to live together. Their cooperative autonomy was an inspiration. The ideas of localized government and consent of the people within a greater federation were Iroquois ideas. The notion that a federation of equal small states provided power and protection for one another was exemplified by Iroquois practices.

    The ideas of Greek democracy and Roman Republics inspired the foundation of the U.S.A. But the Iroquois were a well-established, peaceful, yet powerful democracy that faced opposition not only because there were corrupt influences that sought to take their resources, but also because of institutionalized biases based on appearance.

    Throughout recorded time, people have been divided based on their appearance, birthplace and apparent alignment. People have been harmed, exploited, enslaved and murdered because of numerous conceived, nuanced differences. The differences in appearances have been magnified to mean all sorts of absurdities. People have been subjected to judgment and harm, all because of how they looked or where they lived. The only way to fairly understand people is according to their individual mentality.

    It is not how people look that defines them, but how people think. There are four distinct types of people in the world. Idiots only question irrelevance, zealots only question in accordance with their preconceptions, elitists only question to advance their own situation, and patriots openly question all information. To understand people based on anything other than their mentality is at best marketing or polling and normally just a Neanderthal or cavemen notion of division.

    The original patriots installed the idea that information and reasonable and logical thought had precedence over the power of the right of kings. But people still had biases and tolerations that allowed for exploitation based on appearance. The Revolutionary War was as much a war over the freedom to think as it was a war for the freedom from certain oligarchical exploitations. If the British Empire won, they possibly would have been free to exploit and monopolize entirety. The U.S.A. allowed progression and protection from exploitation and from being defined by appearance or heritage or other arbitrary standards.

    Many of the original patriots, those at the Boston Tea Party and the signers and architects of the trinity of liberty were Freemasons. Freemasonry is pyramidal; however in those times it was counter to the pyramidal system of the royal oligarchies. Freemasonry, despite its design, countered the pyramid system then conducting exploitation and monopolization.

    The original patriots promoted reasoning in intelligent discussion where one was free to speak. They shared information about engineering and God and everything in between. The Freemasons had to exchange this information in secret, so much of it counter to the oligarchical dogma.

    The Boston Tea Party was the catalyst for further protest and ultimately revolution against royal monopoly. The planning for the Boston Tea Party took place, at least in part, at the Green Dragon Tavern, a meeting place of Freemasons in Boston.

Ideas of the autonomous natives, concepts of questioning, belief in rational thought and historical examples of liberty inspired the original patriots to create a country free from royal despotism. The repugnancy of their continued exploitation by the authorities of the old world caused a reaction – they cast away the wrongdoers and fearlessly ceased support.

    Tolerance might be ambivalence or acceptance, negative or positive behavior. When one is ambivalent to evil one has acquired negative tolerations. When one is open and accepting of individual differences one has positive tolerance. The tolerant indigenous people welcomed the European newcomers. The European newcomers acquired negative tolerations concerning the murder of native peoples.

    Well before 1776, there was a confederation of states with localized power and unified representation in the new world. Truly the U.S.A. is the land of the free and always has been. Despite indigenous Americans subsequently experiencing the worst and most institutionalized genocide and gentrification in world history, they were originally an integral part in inspiring the trinity of liberty, and physically enabling the survival of many European newcomers.

    The ideas of the trinity of liberty were, and perhaps, still are ahead of its time; more accurately ahead of most people in its time. The wording, “All Men” now equates to everyone, not just white guys with land and loot. Basic freedoms and privileges are now adorned to all.

    It took generations for the word “men” to mean human beings, but finally it does. The U.S.A. has evolved into a country that would not have anything to do with the country of the original patriots. In some ways, we have surpassed them. The U.S.A. has evolved to the point where people might consider the thirteen Colonies as repressive and exploitive as the monarchies existent around them. Liberty allows for progression.  

    The romantic story of the immigrant to the U.S.A. typifies this notion. It is the idea that anyone can come to the U.S.A. and walk streets paved with gold, open opportunity. The U.S.A. offered liberty and open equality that was unavailable elsewhere. In the U.S.A. a pauper could essentially become a king. Starting with nothing in the old world meant one was sure to end up with nothing, in the new world one could end up with it all.

    The liberty people experience today is a magical exception in history. In the old world, one was overtly forced to worship one way, live one way and stay in one place. Oppression was normal. The glorious and rebellious nation of the U.S.A. was founded against empire, but greed and corruption infiltrated. Land was taken away from people who already lived there. The liberty enjoyed in the U.S.A. has a bony underside.

    Basic liberty was already legislated in parts of the Americas. The new arrivals removed them and then pronounced their own legislation which relegated many as “them” and others as “us”. Progression was allowed and occurred and yet the early U.S.A. was no less empirical than most other nations of the time. A partial version of liberty was provided to the privileged and revoked from others. Many people in the past tried to hide from institutions and avoid being implicated as a “them”. Others were violently confronted and forced to defend themselves like Chief Sitting Bull and similarly William Wallace.

The trinity of liberty provides for power to rest in people’s hands. Power rests with local people who communicate with locals. Power is not automatically in some ultimate, distant, royal, infallible family and their nobility, it is nearby. Any and every person has the right to take hold of the reins of regional and national institutions and influence their course. 

The flexibility for laws to evolve and progress allows people to develop and progress as well. Overt and covert racist slavery and slavery at all is wrong, but it took action and legislation to outlaw and eliminate institutionalized slavery. Nearly every culture from Asia to the Americas practiced slavery in one form or another for centuries. Open legislation outlawed racist intent and institutions. Progression was allowed to happen.

    Women should have always been allowed to vote, but at least the creation of the trinity of liberty allowed for the progression. They had to demand it first though, through women’s suffrage. They had to question the situation and stand up for their rights. Women held positions of power in the Iroquois Nation.

    Temperance for change is essential in order to develop and progress. Encouraging legislation of change has progressed equality, noble ideas and functions. The most noble of people get power because they earn it, not because they seek it. The most noble develop change and give up power when alternatives are available. Willingness to give up power can, by itself, make one worthy of having it.

    Any and all people now have access to all positions in the U.S.A. This was, and is, an extraordinary concept that provides great benefits with occasionally not so great consequences. Potentially evil and malevolent people have access to all, as well as the compassionate and benevolent.

    Any ideal, great and godly, or vile and defiled, can gain popularity and focus if it has the predominant number of people’s acceptance or the acceptance of certain persons of prominence. Anyone can rise up in the U.S.A., even the despicable. All people, despite local tolerations, lean toward what is right and therefore evil must trick, evil must convince and distort truth, tolerations and situations, to conduct and coordinate their evil. But the evil are free to do so and people are free to ignore it or react, people might follow and fight for evil, or might flee from and fight off evil.

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why the original patriots separated church, state and corporate from each other. It was a reaction. The original patriots knew from experience once the three formations of institutions linked, absolute power was possible and the exploitation of individuals was all but sealed. The U.S.A. was founded on Lord Acton’s Rule.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely and some power corrupts some. It is not that all people of power are corrupt, or that they always become absolutely corrupt. It is that the corrupt tend to seek power in the first place. Not all people, once in a position of power, become absolutely corrupt. It just seems so because the corrupt gravitate to power and the corrupt in power seek to be joined by others who are similarly corrupted. The corrupted in power absolutely empower more corrupt. They need more corrupt people around to maintain their corruption. The corrupted, always seek power, power does not always corrupt. The corrupt seek power, and absolutely empower other corrupted to maintain the corruption.

    Corruption happens all the time. Every day there are multitudes of random stories of one prominent institution or institutionalized individual accepting bribes from another institution for special considerations. They embezzle, extort, bribe, con and operate any number of scams to contrast law and distort information to con people. The most successful corrupt gather other corrupted around them in order to keep their corruption clandestine.

    There are many sorts of corruption, but most corruption transpires unnoticed, as corruption is a clandestine coordination. Corruption benefits the few off of the many and always revolves around lies and the distortion of information. Corruption results in the less corrupt and more honest being restricted to the outskirts of power play.

    In 1296, Scotland was controlled by the English monarchy. Scottish people were routinely imprisoned, punitively taxed and expected to serve King Edward I. All the land was corrupted and slanted to benefit the few over the many. William Wallace was a simple Scot who fought against the royal monopoly.

    The unverified story goes that William crossed paths with English soldiers one day after fishing. The soldiers demanded all the fish he had. King Edward had monopolized everything in Scotland; there was not a fish that swam or a bird that flew which was not owned by the King and all the King’s men. Wallace offered a portion of his fish, but refused to give the soldiers his whole catch. There was a confrontation and William ended up beating them and possibly killing one or more.

In 1297, William Wallace killed an English Sheriff and officially became an outlaw. William and his peers began battling the English oppression and exploitation with swords. “Oppressed by the burden of servitude under the intolerable rule of English domination,” (from Declaration of Arbroath) the Scottish people gathered together and rose up against exploitation by English royalty.

    On September 11, 1297 at Sterling Bridge, William and the Scottish surprised the English forces and ultimately celebrated victory. William and the outnumbered Scots used Sterling Bridge to reduce the advantage of the English forces. Thousands of English soldiers perished. After the battle, William was knighted and made into a respected and titled leader. He was charismatic, and a ruthless fighter known as Scotland’s greatest patriot.

   In the medieval world everyone was obsessed with the pyramidal hierarchy of personal classification. The kings believed they were ultra-men, descendants of God. They believed that those outside their family were beneath them. Whatever situation one was born into was likely to be the same when one passed. People stayed in their place or the hierarchy would find a place for them, six feet under.

    The extraordinary military achievements and the assumed personal magnetism of William, gave him power in steering Scottish policy, even over some Scottish nobility. This was an exception to the rule. William attempted to improve his situation as more or less a commoner. He came from a respected family, but was not nobility. He was educated though and a brave leader who stood up to exploitation conducted by royalty.

    After years of battles and diplomacy, in 1304, Scottish leaders recognized King Edward as overlord. Only William refused to submit. He was captured in 1305, turned in by fellow Scots and brought to London for trial. William was charged with being an outlaw and traitor and sentenced to immediate execution.

    William was dragged by horses for miles, hung, removed before he passed out, and then disemboweled. They chopped him into pieces and threw parts of his body into a fire, then cut his head off and put it on a pike atop London Bridge.

There’s a message there – rise up and we’ll kill you. As a matter of fact, we’ll bloody kill you three times and continue to torture your shell after. The royal authority instituted such punishment to instill fear in any who would question or act against their authority. William was a patriot and is a hero to this day because he selflessly fought for people against oppression and corruption.

    War for Scottish independence continued for most of the thirteenth century and eventually a treaty was signed that held, sealed with the marriage of Scottish and English nobility. The only way they would let people in is if they were related. One was either in the family or serf to the family. Either one was zapped with the blood right of kings directly from God or unequal.

    The only way they could recognize the Scottish nobility as peers was to marry them in, then they could be imparted with the divine right of kings. This was the most acceptable means for royalty to quell a lengthy, country wide insurgency. Throughout the world, marriage of royalty maintained control within selected arrangements and groups. There was no way the monarchal or oligarchical authorities would capitulate to common people, but they would acknowledge and cooperate with other royalty.

Today, William would most likely get blasted to bits like anyone else on the present technological battlefields. Today, the axe and sword are no longer the preferred tools of exercising free will. Because mechanisms of warfare have improved, anyone can be efficient on the battlefield; great strength and charisma are not required. It is practically impossible for individuals to raise arms and battle oppressive institutionalized overt might with overt might alone. Anyone with fingers and eyes might use a gun well.

    To go to war is considered a last option for individuals as it may mean their end. People normally need to be convinced to go to war through pushing and prodding with fear and desperation. To fight for reasons other than self-defense and preservation requires tolerations to evils and institutionalization.

    People go to war when they are convinced there will be victory and glory, that they will live as heroes, or that dying is better than living. People mandate war when they are convinced their institutions will benefit or that without war they would be threatened. Two choices polarize, but are perhaps the same coin. There are always more options other than fighting or fleeing.

    William was extremely courageous and gave up everything in the face of the royal English oligarchy, which took control of everything. He attempted to free his people from forceful exploitation by force. He resisted the English soldiers and steel with the might of his sword and his courage, inspiring people like no nobility or royalty of the time could. He fought to cast away the oppressive oligarchical monopoly.

    Today raising arms against the powers that be, no matter how exploitive and aggressive their oppression, is probably not the best option. Institutions have built up vast forces and armies to squash violence and engaging in violence enables them to engage in violence with near limitless and technologically superior resources.

    There are many ways to resist. William went to war with a broadsword many would not be able to swing. He had immeasurable courage and displayed it eloquently and physically. In his time, the only way to overcome exploitation and oppression was to revolt at arms. Attacking the attackers is often like giving your big brother an excuse to hit you.

    Mahatmas Gandhi probably could not have wielded William’s sword. Gandhi practiced nonviolent resistance and would have yielded the entirety of his catch back into the waters from where the fish came rather than oblige or attack. Gandhi did not battle, but matched William’s stature of heart and ability to fight exploitive powers. William yielded nothing to institutions, Gandhi yielded nothing as well.

    A vegetarian, who regularly fasted, sometimes for health and other times in protest, Gandhi never attacked anyone. He freed millions from institutionalized oppression via nonviolent activity and discontinuance of institutional support. He fought against the same empire as William, only through peaceful resistance and non-cooperation. Gandhi battled the remnants of the same type of empirical institutions as William did with sword and the original patriots did with musket, only Gandhi never raised his arms to harm. Gandhi used compassion and his senses to speak out against, and dismantle the institutional oligarchical collectivism.

    A man of small stature and great principal, Gandhi freed South Asia from British empirical rule. Through peaceful nonviolent protest he rattled the might of the Empire; the Empire on which the Sun never set. Gandhi peacefully dismantled the deeply entrenched and continental oligarchical collectivism.

    In the 1850s Britain took control of what is now India. India was already conquered, and essentially under British rule prior, but the corporate soldiers of the British East India Company previously owned and directly governed the entire region. India was a corporate plantation, not a nation. The Company at one time owned all of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka (Ceylon), Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Britain took over South Asia and it officially became an English Colony instead of a Company plantation. 

    The Company organized monopolization wherever they went, whether in India or the East Indies. They stole and enslaved, then sold whatever they could all around the world, all under the auspices of the British royalty, a conquering Germanic family. At one point The Company was allowed to coin their own money, declare war, wage war, make peace and other privileges normally attributed only to states.

    From timber and textiles, cotton and silk, to tea and opium, The Company and the British Empire owned all. The sea salt in India, as plentiful as the sand, was monopolized by the Company and Britain. Opium though, was among The Company’s most profitable cargo.

    The Company was largely responsible for the illegal opium trade and developed and held a monopoly on the junk. The trade ultimately led to the Opium Wars and the seizure of Hong Kong, which further opened up the opium market. Tea was an addition or cover at that point. The Company also made fortunes from the slave trade.

    The Company was ultimately disbanded. Their attempts to monopolize the world were finished. Fortunes were made and people were broken. The Company ruled South Asia until it was no longer fit to do so and was completely dissolved of Indian rule by 1857.

The Company flag makes the flag of the U.S.A. look a lot less original. The design depicted is from the beginning of the 1700s. St. George’s Cross in the canton instead of stars is the only difference between The Company flag and the flag of the U.S.A. Why is there a correspondence in the flag design? Who did Betsy Ross work for?

    Francis Hopkinson was a signer of the Declaration of Independence who is given partial credit for the design of the U.S.A. flag. Francis also participated in the design of the Great Seal of the U.S.A. He was successful author who penned many poems, essays and books. He wrote on contemporary political subjects allegorically to describe his perspective. His book The Prophecy colorfully described and criticized the royal monopolization of the Colonies. Francis’ writings, largely published under pseudonyms, were widely influential in inspiring people to cut ties with the royal monopoly.

    The people of India were directly involved in The Company’s final exit from India through the Indian Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 and further rebellion. The people of India were fed up with being enslaved workers in a royal monopoly. The Company was out, but India was not yet free.

    Richard Blair, George Orwell’s father, worked for the India Civil Service in the Opium Department for a few years in the early 1900s, before returning to England. Eric Blair, or George Orwell, served as a Policeman in Burma briefly in the early 1920s. George later fought in the Spanish Civil War in 1937 where he was shot in the throat by a sniper, but survived. He wrote about his experiences in the Spanish Civil War in “Homage to Catalonia.” The Spanish Civil War is often noted as build up towards WWII.

    During the Spanish Civil War, Germany and Italy supported the Nationalists while the Soviet Union supported the Republicans. Many foreigners participated in the war, on both sides, George fought for the Republicans. Approximately five hundred thousand people died in the war. In 1939, the Nationalists installed a dictatorship and went on to execute thousands more.

    When The Company left India, the British rule instituted was not necessarily better for the Indian people than Company domination, in fact, it was more organized and sometimes more harsh. Though British rule was not without its benefits, it was still repressive. Gandhi had the opportunity to go to university in London and became a lawyer for instance. Names changed, but not much more, new offices were now in the name of the Crown, not the Company.

    Later, while living in South Africa, Gandhi experienced racism and came to the conclusion that there was global discriminatory exploitation. He would recall being asked to move for a white man to sit down on a bus in apartheid in South Africa. There he developed his ideas of peaceful resistance. Gandhi organized and led an Indian stretcher-bearer unit during British conflict with the Zulus in 1906. The Zulus protested and rebelled against unfair taxes and the British stomped out their rebellion. Gandhi later called the military action a manhunt. In September 1906, Gandhi first theorized Satyagraha. It is the practice of peaceful resistance and non-cooperation, literally translated as the pursuit of truth.

    Gandhi influenced generations and was himself influenced by many, including the Russian writer Leo Tolstoy, author of War and Peace. Leo served in the Crimean War in an artillery unit and later became a pacifist. He also wrote The Kingdom of God is Within You about nonviolent resistance to war and oppression which Gandhi held dear. In 1908, he wrote A Letter to a Hindu openly suggesting that the only way India would be free of British rule was through peaceful resistance.

The events of September 11, 2001 inspired Ethan Indigo Smith to write his first book The Complete Patriot’s Guide to Oligarchical Collectivism, an insightful exploration of  history, philosophy and contemporary politics.  This essay is an excerpt from it. For more please read and support an indie author today.  .

Blending philosophy, politics, activism, spirituality and humour, Ethan’s more recent publications include:

• The Little Green Book of Revolution  an inspirational book based on ideas of peaceful revolution, historical activism and caring for the Earth like Native Americans. On sale! the week of 8/8/2015(8)

• The Matrix of Four, The Philosophy of the Duality of Polarity  on the subject of the development of individual consciousness
• the controversial  The Terraist Letters, a work that humorously contrasts the very serious issues of global nuclear experimentation promotion  and global  marijuana prohibition

• The Domino Effect Has Begun As Christian Hatred Is Sweeping The Nation (VIDEO)
• Exit From The Matrix: never give up on artists
• 163 F (73 C) Record Heat In Iran , Frying Eggs On Sidewalk, Pylons Melting In The Streets! Zetas Say Earth Wobble Is More Extreme
• Columbia County Deputy Receives Lesson in Accountability from CopBlocker (VIDEO)
• Mark your calendars: K9 Golf Tournament in Support of VC Sheriff’s K9 Unit
• Donald Trump Got Republicans to Admit They’re Bought and Sold
• Thousand Oaks Republican Women’s Salute to Law Enforcement—August 16th
• Why Mentally Ill Police Officers Are Put Back on the Streets ASAP
• Top 10 Nostradamus Predictions for 2016
• US Wants Enhanced UN Peacekeeping Operations Serving Its Interests