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
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.
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
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
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.
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"!
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).
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.