The Cycle of Human Order And The Game of System Lord

In 2005, my spiritual teacher gave a group of us a series of speeches outlying a number of ideas.  One of them was what he called the five institutions ruled by the dark which he called religion, government, economics, race, and hierarchy.  Eventually, after years of thinking about it I realized that the five institutions could be changed to their proper function and that this would alter their character from being ruled by the dark to being ruled consciously by people of good intention.  This essay is a thesis regarding this process involving the five institutions and expansions on anther theory called the Law of Social Cycles which I read about from Ravi Batra, an economist.  

The 5 institutions of the collective in their transformational phase will produce the following outcome:

1.  Religion becomes Spirituality and Science
2.  Government becomes Administration
3.  Economic Institutions become Society
4.  Race/Tribe/Culture becomes Nation
5.  Hierarchy becomes Family

Family builds the nation which is the community.  The nation appoints society to govern it.  Society determines administration to maintain order.  Administration summons spiritual and scientific advisor to help them make good decisions.  

Failure to do this last step creates the prophetic gap whereby the most intelligent and spiritual people begin to practice their art.  Eventually this art will produce a prophecy, and this prophecy will shape the future.

Prophecy produces in its wake ideology.  Ideology leads to the formation of religion.  Religion returns and begins to dominate the remaining four institutions until a patriarchy or matriarchy is created based on hierarchy through dominance.  This represents the return of the systemic Ego.  Once hierarchy is established, a series of conflicts will occur based on demand.

The first thing that typically happens is a monarchy is formed.  This individual then demands recognition from all other organizations that exist.  A monarch will gather a flock of followers and create a hierarchy.  This hierarchy will then demand recognition for the monarch.  When recognition is not given, the monarch will then proceed to expand his or her organization further through egoic gestures of self expression.  Eventually the monarch will get the attention of someone who perceives the monarch as a threat.  This will result in an attack on the monarchy by the administration.  This begins the war.

War begins with attack.  Someone or something attacks.  Once an attack occurs, it will continue until war ends.  A properly built monarchy is already a military organization before it is attacked.  When it is attacked the organization responds as a singular unit to protect the monarch.  A struggle between the administration and the monarch will occur.  Whichever is stronger will win the war.

If the monarch wins the war, he or she, if he or she wishes to remain a monarch, will create government.  Government emerges as the rules of the military of an expanding hierarchy centered on a monarch.  Government rules patriarchy and matriarchy.  This is a system at war.  The emergence of government means a state of emergency exists.  Governments exist solely to make war on behalf of the monarch whom they serve.   Government rules until religion begins to counteract it.  The period of government dominance is called the rule of warriors from the law of social cycles of P.R. Sankar and Ravi Batra and monarchy/tyranny in Aristotle's system.  There is always only one that rules in this type of state as the head. 

When the head of such a system fails to manage it properly, the system begins to collapse.  The existence of government requires the existence of religion.  Without religion government cannot retain followers as chaos will eventually overwhelm it.  As a consequence religion grows in the wake of the wars created by government.  Priests and bureaucrats become more important than the warriors who have conquered through force and will.  Incidentally they are the one's that are used to create the rules of war that become government structure.

For instance, a monarch cannot emerge unless someone has declared the status of the monarch through justification.  The monarch may self justify, however to do so would place him or her as God/Goddess.  This would mean he or she would be claiming the right of Divine Monarchy by self appointment!  Such an appointment would have to be justified by argument to the spiritual and scientific masters of the old administration.   However, the usual retort to this sort of claim is "prove it"! 

In any case, a monarch can prove divine right in the absence of priests/priestesses only by demonstrating the mandate of heaven or the divine right of kings/queens.  This is something that is demonstrated by sighting heritage traditionally or by achieving victory in a defensive war to protect the nation from intruders who wish to harm it.  In order to site heritage, a king or queen needs record keepers.  In addition they need justifications which, if they cannot construct it themselves, or much more likely, do not wish to because it is tiresome and boring work, they have someone else do it for them.  These people are usually, again, the priests/priestesses/bureaucrats who are either directly appointed by the king/queen in a divine monarchy or appointed by the church of a divine monarch (you know, Jesus, son of God).

Monarchies are built on honor.  This is their bedrock that can hold them together in the absence of a divine mandate, however, in this case they are considered merely warlordships by those who have a formal organization of political succession.   Many a monarchy has been destroyed by warlords.  Warlords, however, are merely the natural outgrowth of the problem of dynastic succession as eventually that 100th son of the whore the king laid with will turn out to be naturally gifted with unusual strength and intelligence, gather himself a bunch of followers, and come home to demand father's respect. Let's hope daddy can explain himself shall we?

Well in matriarchal monarchies this problem is usually quite rare as mother keeps an eye on all her darlings.  But in such a monarchy the bigger problem tends to be stagnation.  Matriarchies tend towards stagnation over time while patriarchies tend towards excessive violence.  Matriarchies and patriarchies both function best when periods exist where rapid population expansion is possible and the core institutions are busy cracking out babies.  In other times, these two forms of order tend towards extremes and dissolution.  Properly managed, these extremes can be ironed out, but it takes a huge amount of management and exactness to achieve this.  In times of crises, the time is simply not available.

So returning to the age of priests/priestesses/bureaucrats.  This was described as the Age of Intellectuals by P.R. Sankar and Ravi Batra's law of social cycles and as oligarchy /plutocracy by Aristotle.  The rule of nobles is another way of looking at it in polite and properly formalized social systems.  Here, the king/queen is no longer as important as his/her council of nobles.  Now a council of nobles is a military organization largely that has become a round table of equal participants.  Perhaps the king or queen keeps the honorary title but essentially now we are ruled by a group instead of one.  This is nice at it takes the stress off the poor queen who is sick of all the responsibility. 

All monarchies are followed historically by the rule of nobles in pagan tradition.  Our only effective example of this is the tale of King Arthur.   In Christian society, which is ruled by a church appointed by a divine monarch through divine mandate, the divine right of kings had to be claimed outside the jurisdiction of the Pope, the vicar of Christ as defined by the Catholic doctrine.  The person who did this was James I of England.  This radical interpretation though was in line with Henry VIII's prior break with the Catholic church creating Anglicanism. 

In other societies around the world in the ages of Patriarchy we have seen this same pattern with regard to empires being controlled by either rule of their respective religious priests or in China, for instance, Confucian bureaucrats.  Thus the system started in monarchy becomes either a monarchy in name only ruled by a circle of nobles, indirectly through the priests/priestesses, or indirectly in more secular systems from bureaucrats.  If bureaucrats rule, the rule tends to be a sort of protocol based control.

Over time, the role of these new ruling social castes becomes tiresome and historically people have sought freedom from their general tendency towards oppressiveness in the rules area as defined by Ravi Batra in his book describing this problem.  This results in a new system of rule.  Let us see this last, third system of social order in hierarchical periods and how it works

We see that in a natural setting outside the idea of God that people tend to organize themselves during expansionary phases of development through monarchy which is replaced by nobility and then finally the nobility is itself further subdivided into minor nobility.  This results in the natural evolution of feudalism whereby instead of one king, one has 10,000 kings all vying for a piece of the pie.  You can easily substitute queens if the system is a matriarchy.  This final phase of development is what Ravi Batra and his teacher P.R. Sankar referred to as rule by aquisitors, and in Aristotle's system this is called democracy/anarchy (once the peasants start voting out their landlords) which is rule by those with the access to property through title.  In our modern version, capitalism, is rule by those with money.

We can see the division of power is natural going from one person, the monarch; to several people, the nobility; to many people, the minor nobility.   The final extension of this is the equal division of property rights to all, a sort of land democracy where everything is distributed equally, and presumably the process of history starts all over.  If only all transitions were so smooth.

Our systems, though, have developed in a very complex way apart from a natural monarchy, whether matriarchal or patriarchal because of the existence of organized religion.  A natural monarchy is the one that forms from natural monarchy to natural nobility to natural minor nobility.  Yet in the development of our systems the existence of an external deity has always empowered a group of individuals to claim power exists through this deity, in anti-female patriarchy always male. 

The problem arises here because of the existence of disputes.  This creates the necessity for arbiters.  The arbiters determine the outcome of the dispute.  A series of rules have to be created in order to keep order.  In a natural monarchy this is done directly by petition to the king/queen.  However, if the queendom/kingdom gets too large the king/queen must delegate authority to someone to judge in his or her absence.  In natural monarchy this can be a noble making decisions appointed as a formal noble of judgement.  This creates the beginning of formal law, or written law.  Eventually a system will emerge of dispute settlement that is independent of the will of the king/queen. 

This is the birthplace of institutions.  An institution emerges when written law begins to take precedence over human agreement due to the complexity of the social network which tracks relationships of property and contract.  We have given birth, then to the system, which lies outside the natural relationships that have evolved, often violently, from patriarchy and matriarchy.

Consider how God was born in our consciousness.  Moses brought down laws from God.  Moses was the first truth teller.  He said, hold on here all you big egos, there is some thing greater than any of you, and its abstract and fuzzy, but it wants order through law that is universal for all.  Nothing seems terribly wrong about that except that this automatically creates a need for an interpreter of what the invisible hand of God truly wants out of everyone and everything.  Presto chango, instant priest class!  Not that Moses was being anything other than honest, but those that followed in his footsteps were often not as truthful let's just say.

Now, of course, priests of Gods and Goddesses existing throughout the pagan world before our would be monotheistic heroes came along with Judaism, which is a fabulous religion by the way.  Judaism is beautiful in its abstract notions of divine perfection, even if the feminine in it is not immediately evident, but you can see the reality of the feminine presence clearly in the mystical traditions of this faith.  But it was Judaism that gave humanity the idea that there existed a singular unified Truth that leads to Divine Judgement, the ability to discern the law.  And this ability is what makes science the natural outgrowth of Jewish thought!  For all these scientists that search for the abstract truth that reveals the laws which govern the universe, they must trace in the Western mind this inescapable conclusion that Moses and Aaron were onto something back then.

The natural codes of order which these old social systems were based were built on the naturally evolved dispute settlement structures set in precedence by the classes of priests and priestesses of the God/Goddess which in most of these societies was a Guardian God similar to Yahweh.  This God was considered the guardian of the nation.  The concept of the judge was thus created and the judgement of God came to represent the power of the priesthood over the lesser rulers of the world who were not God.  This threw a real monkey wrench into any would be monarchs who would try to claim the divine right of kings.

The Christian church thus was often at odds with the kings and rare queens who challenged it's power over the millennia.  After all, they have a divine mandate from a divine monarch to rule in His stead until His return.  And to this day the Church remains unchallenged and continues to perform its mission awaiting the return of Christ who is to rule the kingdom of the New Earth as the divine monarch.  It's all in the Bible people, quite well spelled out in fact.

Interestingly, judges remained appointed by the kings and queens though, so the church never really managed to keep everything quite in check the way they wanted it.  The church also had a problem raising armies because their divine monarch said "live by the sword, die by the sword" and decrying the use of violence by His own example.  He also said that thing about if you wanted to be His follower you had to grab your crucifix and get cracking dragging it around.  Not the stuff of warrior legend mind you, but the greater stuff of the power of martyrdom of the weak in the face of the strong.  This created a problem for the church since they never could muster an army like the King could.  But the church's power was on a firmer bedrock as long as it followed the example of it's divine monarch.  But, of course, we all know it didn't.

That leaves us with the rise of the capitalism and democracy to explain.  The very last piece of our puzzle is here.  After the divine right of kings weakened the Church beginning in the Renaissance period, the power of religion waned in the West.  A new religion, however, was born indirectly.  This new religion, secular bureaucracy usually based either on informal atheism or agnostic hypocrisy, managed to make inroads against the power of the monarchy during the neo-classical period of European history when the advisors and courts to the king as well as the ever increasing army of bureaucrats were far beyond their power to manage.  Eventually, this lead to the destruction of the monarchy in France and its castration throughout Europe.  The rise of democracy coincided with the expansion of credit from the banks who became the caretakers of capitalism, and from there the great captains of industry borrowed the credit necessary to move the world to where we know it today.

Today all the centers of organization I have described here exist in an uneven balance of position that is highly complex, irregular, and has even more factional elements that what I have described.  There are also the new idealists who want to bring secularization to its ultimate conclusion and make atheism, humanism, and secularism the new law of the land.  These individuals will no doubt succeed in some way modeled on anti-religious Communism in some way, but first the story of our cycles of history is not over.  There are other factors at work that are not so cut and dry that point to trouble.

First, according to Ravi Batra and his analysis of history we Westerners, especially the United States as a system, are on the tail end of a aquisitor cycle that has always ended in a rise of a monarchy as in the past.   There have also been several instances of short lived warrior ruled systems that ended within a relatively short period of time.  The best example is the Empire of the Mongols in China.  The Chinese only let them stay around for around 150 years or so.  But, for modern democracy to become a warrior ruled social system, it cannot be done with the culture in place so a new paradigm is needed to understand the evolving dynamic here.

In warrior societies the central government is exceptionally powerful.  The monarch or warlord does not accept any law but his own.  His word is law.  All institutions are ultimately under the authority of the singular king.  Does that sound like the United States to you?  See the problem?

Batra got around this issue by suggesting a version of what I am about to offer as a suggested plausible outcome.  The different branches of a republic's government represent the monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy of Aristotle's system specifically because the founding fathers had read extensively about the Roman republic and it was realized that a republic balances the three structures of Aristotle's theories.  The president/prime minster represents the monarch, the Senate represented the aristocracy, and the House represented the democracy.  However, the situation is not exactly like that.

Firstly, democracy is clearly not representable, you either are able to vote on issues of concern to you directly or you are not.  The structure of the republic was specifically designed by most of the founding fathers with a few exceptions to disinclude the average man through elite control.  It was well known of the founding father's distrust of democracy similar to Aristotle's distrust.  The republic was designed to avoid democracy because democracy is tyranny to any land owning elite.  This is what the founding father's knew and they knew what they were doing in this regard.  The electoral college is one aspect of this and, of course, originally Senators were selected by their state houses, not by the voters.  Thus, democracy got cheated!

None the less, the Law of Social Cycles should clearly have the House of Representatives, as the representatives of democracy in a aquisitor ruled society, to be the dominant branch of the whole system.  But it seems as though the House is no more or less powerful than the Senate.  So clearly the analogy doesn't work exactly.  The most powerful institution in America is Wall Street as everyone knows, and they pay the House and Senate to write laws for them through hiring them as lobbyists after they retire.

So, the president does represent the monarchy.  But who represents the intellectuals?  The judicial branch does, of course.  And then the aquisitor class is represented by the Congress.  Thus, if the Law of Social Cycles continues with the Republic in one piece, three types of Republic emerge.  The first republic is the executive representative democracy referred to as the elected dictatorship where the president is much more powerful than the other two branches.  This system is called an executive republic.

The rule of intellectuals is represented by a republic dominated by the courts, a system that must be called a judicial representative democracy if the judiciary is appointed by the people directly.  In any case, whether directly elected or not that system would be called a judicial republic.  The courts would be very powerful, but if directly elected the law itself would be subject to constant interference from the values of the electorate.  A rule of judges can be formalized that places the judicial power above that of the other two branches to the point where judges can rule from the bench effectively.  Only social precedence prevents this from happening.

The third system is the republic dominated by the Congress, the one we do actually have, so that this type of republic is called a parliamentary representative democracy or a parliamentary republic.  The Congress writes the laws and the other two branches enforce the laws and make sure their are no conflicts between laws in its ideal form. 

Now if we are going from an aquisitor society to a society run by warriors we would expect to see increase power of the military and a transfer of power towards the presidency away from the other two branches moving towards an executive republic.  The result will be the strengthening of the federal government through the direct rule of the president through executive orders.  These, in the event of a crisis, would allow the president to rule independently of the other two branches.  All that would be required would be that the president manage the crisis correctly and then he or she could slowly transform the system.  Once we begin going down this path society will be changed utterly.

Each new president would reinforce this trend as the system became more and more dominated by executive functions.  The president would gain the ability to draft people into work brigades through something like AmeriCorps.  The president would have to have the power to circumvent the limitations that money imposes on the central government to do this.  If you look carefully you see this is already happening in some ways.  The US Federal Reserve's QE program is an example of how the president can direct agencies indirectly to stimulate production through the printing of credit.

One problem with warrior ruled systems is that they tend to get into alot of wars.  This is one major brake on the possibility of the expansion of power of the executive.  Violent expansionism in American history has tended to be frowned upon except when against the South during the Civil War and Native Americans historically.  Getting the American public to buy into the bloodlust necessary would be a major stumbling block to any would be executive monarch.  The problem is that the costs of such wars become unbearable over time.  America is simply not that kind of place.

However, I cannot having read and thoroughly studied Batra's account of P.R. Sankar's Law of Social Cycles honestly believe that this version of how historical cycles occur will not be repeated.  It is simply an inevitable outgrowth of the unconscious development of social systems.  Think about it.  How many people know about the Law of Social Cycles?  A few thousand maybe.  How many think about it alot?  Probably a dozen.  You see?  A fundamental law of social evolution and hardly anyone knows about it.  That is actually not a good sign at all friends.

If something is going on all over the world and has been going on for thousands of years and we just heard about it now and nobody knows about it, then clearly we haven't mastered this Law of Social Cycles.  It is highly doubtful that our ability to overcome the limitations implied by our current state of injustices is improved by our lack of knowledge concerning this Law of systems.  In fact, it shows that we, as a collective, have no idea what we are doing.  None the less, the resulting emergent properties of the new order that will arise are visible in the system right now.  A new monarchy of some sort is on its way in.  What that looks like I really don't have the slightest clue, but I'm very certain it will not be what anyone expects, even the best analytical geniuses who attempt to use the Law of Social Cycles to predict the complex emergent properties of systems of consciousness as advanced as human beings have the potential to become.

What can be said is that over time any aggressive patriarchy or matriarchy will attempt to convert everyone to their cause resulting in a systemic crises.  At some point heroes will arrive that announce the end of the crises, form a front, and defeat the patriarchy or matriarchy.  It is likely from these heroes that will emerge the true executive leadership of tomorrow's executive republic or even executive democracy.   It simply depends on what everyone wants to believe in I suppose.  But let us not forget that leadership is what begins and ends crisis which is why those sort of societies we call warrior societies emerge in the first place.  A crisis begets a desire for change in people that leads to action.  Action is the heart of the queendom/kingdom I can assure you.  And this action will be from both women and men, of course.  I expect to see alot of Goddesses running much of this new warrior's democracy in short order balanced by a few Knights in not so shining armor.  It's almost enough to make one sentimental.

After the defeat of whatever distortion in reality has been created by the complexity of our failing systems, family will begin to build the new nations.  These new nations will appoint societies to govern them from within.  These new societies will from new administrations to maintain order.   These administrations will summon spiritual and scientific advisors to help them make good decisions.  The cycle will begin again.  And at last, we will have peace.