The laws of progress, Part one

Since the end of the ideological battle of the cold war between capitalism and communism the notion that ideologies are dead or dying have gained a wide range of supporters, in this essay I would like to portray a different perspective, ideologies in the classical sense are not dead they are rather misinterpreted and misused.

 The notion that ideologies as a concept can disappear, be forgotten and lost all together or that a single one of them should stand above the others are both flawed and should be rejected.

The main factor behind the perceived failure of ideologies or political idealism in general is not lack of conviction as their followers would suggest but an abundance of conviction.

The fault that politicians and especially their supporters commit, politicians being naturally scared of interfering with the status quo due to self-interest, is that they view political ideas as equal to religion when the fact of the matter is that they are fundamentally different.

An ideology should be regarded as a perspective of how to govern society, the communist manifesto is not a bible, Mein Kampf is not the Quran and the U.S. Constitution is not the Torah. It is not a divine truth and should never be portrayed as such.
 
Some might claim that religion in its essence isn’t more than a way to control society, which in a sense is correct but religion has it’s largest value not in a discussion regarding governance in the material world but as a spiritual motivator and as a guide for self-improvement. It doesn’t have its own ideas about matters such as economics or foreign policy other than supporting everything that helps spreading the word of their prophets.

It is also in it’s very being a foreigner in the political world since it’s main focus lies on issues beyond this world and the present whilst ideologies on the other hand is extremely materialistic in it’s approach to different issues.

They are merely a political tool of governance and should be viewed as such, a ruler if you will to straighten the crooked line that is human society. They all contain the potential to not only harm our civilization but actually ending human existence if they are left unchallenged and therefore free to enter a phase of totalitarianism.

As history has proven utopianism, whether in the form of Hitler’s reactionary expansionism, Marx’s Communism or the democratic imperialism that is being used to justify the wars of our time, is a threat to human life.

The culprit guilty of this folly is the gullible follower of mentioned ideologies and their leaders constant misuse of the powers granted to them. Every ideology is in it’s very nature elitist, the notion that a certain set of ideas shall govern every aspect of our lives with complete disregard of local conditions and dilemmas can’t be called anything but elitist, almost on the verge to madness.

Despite that, the ambition to reach a universal standardization of ideas has a widespread acceptance even though it will always end up being a threat to diverse societies of any kind whether it is diverse in the sense of its religion, its ethnicity, its class system or any other form of social organisation with a unique belief system that somehow differs from the principals of the ideology.

Therefore every single-minded ideology will fail to become universal due to lack of popular support. By stubbornly clinging on to power through force and thereby failing in its mission to improve mankind it will always end up being contraproductive.

Every ideology have gained recognition during a time of specific conditions, socialism was created when enclosures and rough competition drove farmers of their land and forced them to move to the cities where they could be easily exploited as labourers. Capitalism gained support first after the technological advances started benefitting the general public.

Nationalism rose in a time of war and when the need to protect the group from outer threats was high. The powerful theocracies of the past have always occurred when man has been confused in his search for an explanation to his place in a complex universe.

To suggest that one of these ideologies would overpower the other one and govern society until the end of time is to suggest that our socioeconomic and emotional conditions would stay the same for just as long.

Communism is the most resent example of this, in it’s desperation to stay in power it became what it despised, and it failed in its mission, lost its soul and then ultimately its power despite all the desperate efforts to keep it. No social movement has been able to regain initiative since.

The most reasonable conclusion to draw from these historical facts is that opposition to the strongest ideas of any society, which is often presented as truths, is always justified.

The truth of the matter is, even though the combatants would never admit it to each other, that every ideology is needed. Early political thought teaches us that the workings of human society are the same as those of a living organism. Every ideology has a value in being the representative of its particular group. In turn every group is needed in order to guarantee that the organism is functioning.

A highly valuable theory in this context is the theory of the four classes, it’s been a social fact in our world since the dawn of man, the theory was made famous by the communists and perfected by Julius Evola in The Metaphysics of War even though mentioned just briefly.

It’s not enough to understand everything that happens in society but it provides us with a model which can be used to explain and investigate further in order to increase the knowledge about ourselves and the times we live in. 

The theory suggests that mankind is divided into four castes which throughout our history have been struggling for power over the other three in order to dominate the pack. The four castes are the slaves, the bourgeois, the warriors and the priests. Ideologies are only an extension of these four castes and their principals.

 Evola himself talks of the hierarchical quadripartition, “which interprets most recent history as an involutionary fall from each of the four hierarchical degrees to the next. This quadripartition – it must be recalled – is what in all traditional civilisations gave rise to four different castes; the slaves, the bourgeois middle class, the warrior aristocracy, and bearers of a pure spiritual authority.

Here caste does not mean - as most assume- something artificial and arbitrary but rather the place where individuals, sharing the same nature, the same type of interests and vocation, the same primordial qualifications gather.

A specific truth, a specific function, defines the castes in their normal state and not vice versa.

This is not therefore a matter of privileges and ways of life being monopolised on the basis of a social constitution more or less artificially and unnaturally maintained.

The underlying principle behind all the formative institutions in such societies, at least in their more authentic historical forms, is that there does not exist one simple ,universal way of living one’s life, but several distinct spiritual ways, appropriate respectively to the warrior, the bourgeois and the slave, and that ,when the social functions and distributions actually correspond to this articulation there is – according to the classic expression – an order secundum equum et bonum, according to truth and justice. “

He’s suggesting that humans have a natural hierarchy that throughout the centuries have been tampered with and been cast aside, now the result is chaos, where every faction fights exclusively for its own benefit and not to the benefit of the whole which is slowly killing the organism. He also suggests that different people belong to different castes based on the nature of their spirit more than on social factors such as one’s upbringing or general surroundings.

In other words a man of warrior spirit would always be of a warrior spirit, no matter where he was born or what times he live in, his spirit would be suppressed if he lived in an age where any of the other castes where superior but it would never be totally erased, it’s as much a natural part of him as his heart, his lungs or his hands.  And it will always present itself fully when the opportunity comes.

He goes on further “Only such cases, in which this straight and normal relationship of subordination and co-operation exists are healthy, as is made clear by the analogy of the human organism, which is unsound if, by some chance, the physical element(slaves) or the element of vegetative life (bourgeois) or that of the uncontrolled animal will(warriors) takes the primary and guiding place in the life of a man, and is sound only when spirit constitutes the central and ultimate point of reference for the remaining faculties – which, however, are not denied a partial autonomy, with lives and subordinate rights of their own within the unity of the whole. “

Each respective caste or force if you will, represents not only a certain caste, a social group with diverse needs and perspectives but it also represents a universal principal, for instance the warrior caste’s key principal would be strength whilst the slave caste’s would be suffering,
a society focused only on the needs of the strong would suffocate the weak.

 A current example is the technological race for nuclear arms, where the need to become stronger and stronger in order to keep ahead results in a situation where the quest for strength endangers the very people it was supposed to protect, for instance by throwing the world into a nuclear war.

A society focused mainly on the needs of the very weakest would in turn endanger the group by creating a society without the ability to sustain itself, in many communist and socialist countries it’s been common practice to imprison and in many cases even execute the best and the brightest, In Cambodia during the Red Khmer regime it was a guiding principle, there just the appeal of being intellectual could be enough to be executed, people with university diplomas or just owners of a pair of glasses were in the danger zone.

Any society which fails in analyzing and solving these inner conflicts run a risk of being stuck in a permanent state of imbalance, with lasting consequences for every member, there is a constant unwillingness to realize the need for harmony within a group and there lies a grave danger in not taking every principal of the castes into account before making decisions, it threatens the continued existence of the entire group, even of our species, this imbalance is the greatest threat to any society, it is guilty for the fall of every empire, it’s to blame for every civil war and revolution.

The imbalance of our hierarchy where we choose to fight internally for dominance is unique in its extent, incomparable to that of any other social animal. It can be explained through our role in nature’s food chain, most other animals have a subordinate role in the food chain where they have another group of animals both above and below them, the group above them endangers the group and through that serves the purpose of keeping the group together, the group that is below the animal serves the purpose of being easily exploited and used as a means for sustenance.

Mankind has reached the top of the food chain through military and technological prowess and lacks another animal positioned above it and the rewards gained by exploiting the animals below them are not big enough to satisfy it's needs and wants, it is therefore forced to fight internally to determine who gets to play the role of exploiter and who is to be exploited.

According to this point of view humanity was governed by the spiritual authority, the priests in prehistoric times and up towards the decline of the Roman Empire and after followed the time of the warrior aristocracy that ended around the 17^th Century and was replaced with the rule of the bourgeois and the industrial revolution who are the primary forces behind the world order we live in today, an attempt to take over was made by the slave caste during the 20^th century but failed with the end of the Cold war and the fall of the Soviet Union.

It’s been suggested that what rather happened was that the USA and the USSR, the physical manifestation of these primarily spiritual forces reached a point where neither force could dominate the world and essentially compromised, even though the USSR itself was dismantled the slave castes cultural and economic influence was enormous even though it’s influence decreased slightly with the disintegration of its empire.

The bourgeois have been largely at power throughout the world since then and its ideas have the strongest influence on our daily lives but it could never have been achieved without the approval of the slave caste who gave their support to the bourgeois vision for the world in exchange for the creation of the welfare state.

The laws of progress, Part two

Today socialcritics and historians have suggested an end to history, according to them humanity has reached a point of progress which cannot be surpassed and the radical changes in earlier history is a thing of the past. In our progressive era, man has seized to be a hostage of ideologies and is from here on mainly guided by compromise and co-operation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What these historians have missed or wilfully ignored is the incredible changes taking place in the world’s communities today, changes which are highly ideological and haven’t gone unnoticed by anyone even though some might not understand how severe these changes are for our future and where they are derived from.

After a peace agreement had been signed between America and The Soviet Union in effect ending their power struggle a huge power vacuum emerged due to the forfeit by the Soviet leadership, a power vacuum that no one seemed to be able to fill, except for America.

It was therefore within the American leadership largely agreed that America should fill that void and reign supreme, the methods of how to achieve this might have differed but not the general ideas, it was regarded as essential that America was to be a beacon of light in a dark world, a place of freedom and democracy, a land like no other which could lead mankind into a century more prosperous than ever before.

This was a beginning of a modern power struggle within the government which took place from the end of the cold war until today, many victories have been made by one side since then but the war within is in a sense still going on.

The players in this game of global chess was of course thousands of individuals with diverse interests and game plans but a few essential ones should be mentioned, , firstly is the Neoconservatives in the Republican party such as Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld.

Especially Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld were essential due to their membership in PNAC (The project for the new American century) which is a highly influential organisation with members such as Robert Zoellick, The World Bank president, and deep connections within both the American and the Israeli security apparatuses.

The group’s main objective is the creation of a U.S. –lead world order.
Dick Cheney was also a highly influential character due to his mentor-like relationship with the former U.S. President and his powerful network within the executive branch of the government.

On the other side of the battlefield stood a collection of more moderate advocates of US supremacy, a few notable fighters is Bush Senior, former Secretary of state Colin Powell and former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft.

They were all hesitant towards the invasion of Iraq and suggested other, less aggressive ways of responding to the attack on America on the 11^th of September, 2001. 

However, the radical neocons with Dick Cheney in front had bigger plans for Americas future, what they wanted to achieve was essentially what every leader of great political power wishes for, a global empire, to achieve this, a leader needs three things, a faith, an enemy and a prize. With the fall of the USSR America was missing practically all three of them but after 9/11 an opportunity of grand proportions arose.

Trough the attacks they gained an enemy, the terrorists, he already had his own faith, free trade democracy and the prize was what he as a man with a background in the oil business had probably always desired, US control over the worlds energy supply. 

With these three pillars he saw an opportunity to build a new world for the next century and hopefully beyond. Backed by the Israel lobby, right-wing Christians, The arms and energy industries and with a frightened American public demanding revenge in order to feel relieved and slip back into their safe little bubble Cheney just had to convince a single person, the then president of the United States of America, George W Bush.

With his father unsupportive of the war due to more moderate views and perhaps because of the fact that his loyalty was entrusted rather to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia than to Israel many people within the administration would have guessed that Bush Junior would have gone in his fathers footsteps and denied Cheney his Empire but George W Bush Junior determined to be his own man, went against his father and declared war.

In Craig Unger’s book the Fall of The House of Bush, based on interviews with people with great insight in this power struggle it is claimed that George W Bush was the victim of a very skilful manipulation by his power-hungry mentor, it’s also been claimed that this betrayal is the real reason behind George H W Bush’s tears during his speech to Florida’s legislators where he was praising his other son, Jeb Bush.

After the invasions of Iraq that followed the invasion of Afghanistan America has gone even further, the neoconservative wing of the national security apparatus suggested in the late 90’s, seven states which they considered to be states in need of a regime change, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Syria.

These states all have a few things in common, they all have strong forces within the country negative towards Israel and America, they are all heavy influenced by Islam and many of them are extremely rich in energy resources, especially Iran and Iraq.

 They also have a very important geographic role; these countries are placed around America’s middle eastern allies Israel and Saudi Arabia and at the same time around the majority of the worlds energy supply and in a region where a large portion of the world trade has to pass through on its way to its destination.

The geostrategic importance of this area has even been claimed to be of significant importance by the PNAC member himself Paul Wolfowitz in his infamous Defence plan the Wolfowitz Doctrine, where he stressed an invasion of Iraq and increased U.S. influence in global affairs, it was released as early as 1992 but it was quickly rewritten by Dick Cheney and Colin Powell due to public outcry even though many of it’s ideas re-emerged in the Bush Doctrine.

Former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski has also highlighted the importance of this area and in his view control of the Eurasia is the key to America’s power and was to every other superpower in earlier history.

All of these so-called enemy states have had some sort of interference by either Israel or America since the writing of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, Iraq was invaded and it’s leader hanged, Sudan has suffered a civil war, been split in two and was recently bombed by Israel, in addition they also have a small U.S. lead peacekeeping force within the country, Somalia has suffered heavy bombardment by American drones who also support the government military with arms, training and funds.

Syria is suffering a civil war against various rebel groups which have been accused of receiving arms, intelligence and other support from France, Israel,Saudi Arabia and America. Lebanon is heavily involved in Syria’s crisis and is receiving constant threats from Israel of an attack if Hezbollah is not kept under control, the country also risks being pulled into a civil war of it’s own between Syria friendly and western friendly groups if the conflict escalates further.

Libya was invaded in 2011 and it’s leader Khaddaffi was thrown out of office and killed at the hands of rebels, after suffering from torture. Iran seems to be next on the list, with Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria pretty much under US control or with to deep internal problems to put up a fight it’s only a matter of time before America pretty much has Iran surrounded and without strong allies.


Add also the heavy bombing by U.S. drones in Pakistan and the invasion of Afghanistan and it’s easy to understand the gravity of this enormously ambitious battle operation. Its effects on the world are still not quite clear but it’s obvious that it was a major turn in American foreign policy and the events will have grave historic repercussions.

This was made clear by the election of a new U.S. president Barack Obama who despite his ambitions to end the wars instead managed to increase U.S. activity. 

Obama who belongs to the more moderate faction and with a security board handpicked based on the advice of former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft, is still unable to do anything to change the course of American foreign policy. If it’s due to apathy or failure I do not know but moderates within the administration used to think that it was a practical impossibility to just withdraw the troops and leave Iraq and Afghanistan to its destiny.

The decision to enter the war may have been incorrect but what’s done is done and the suffering caused by a sudden withdrawal would be worse than the suffering caused by staying seems to be the way the argument goes.

Upon Obama’s election many neoconservatives feared a return to a more moderate and less aggressive foreign policy; any attempt of this was however prevented. By launching a fierce media campaign against Obama mostly through their own media outlet Fox News, the neoconservatives tried to portray Barack Obama as a Muslim, a socialist, a communist, a tyrant, the antichrist and any other anti-American insult you can think of.

They even managed to help spread a rumour that he forged his own birth certificate and isn’t even a real U.S. citizen.

Through this Barack Obama simply had his hands tied, any attempt of him to rebuild the torn relationships with the Arab world, advocate less military spending and put an end to the wars would be easily pictured as an American declaration of defeat by his antagonists. A move easily portrayed as anti-American in a time where the people feel threatened.

With little support in congress he even ratified the NDAA act, giving an additional 662 billion dollars to the national security apparatus and legalizing the right of the government to imprison U.S. citizens suspected of being terrorists without any obligation to give them the right of a fair and just trial.

With all this in mind it’s an accomplishment that he at least managed to get the troops back from Iraq, even though he was helped by the fact that the war was a complete failure according to the official reasons for instigating it. However this didn’t stop him from launching a new intervention in Libya, while increasing U.S. military presence in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

Today the conflict at large seems to be in a bit of a standstill where America is plotting to make its next move. Israel has recently launched several attacks against Gaza, killing Hamas military chief Ahmed Jabari and countless civilians. Even threats of a ground based invasion have been voiced. The Israeli and various supportive lobby groups advocate a sudden attack on Iran to get a new regime in place. Voices are also being raised for an intervention in Syria.

The American public, theoretically the rulers of the nation,  seem anxious to end the war and so does the people in the concerned region, chances are high that the next move will be determined during this presidency, whilst Mitt Romney was a strong supporter of the Israeli stance Obama has taken a more careful view, he seems afraid to anger the Israeli leadership to much, he’s stated that Iran will not get the chance to acquire nuclear arms and that such a move will be stopped by any means necessary, he has on the other hand not supported an invasion and seems reluctant to throw America in yet another Middle eastern conflict.

In a way this next presidency will be a strong test of U.S. democracy, if Barack Obama decides to invade Iran or Syria it’s proven without a doubt that the neoconservative hardliners are in complete control within the military administration, no matter who is elected president or what he’s views on foreign policy matters is they run the show.

It will also be proof of the American leaderships complete disregard for reality, the three goals of the operation, to win the war on terror, spread democracy and free trade and to gain control of the worlds energy supply have all failed. High-ranking military officials and analysts have stated that the threats to America is greater than ever before, the war on terror has actually increased the number of potential terrorists and flooded the region with arms and desperate people willing to grab them.

Hillary Clinton showed her unwillingness to face reality when she asked herself how a U.S. Ambassador could have been attacked in a country that she and her co-workers supposedly liberated.

All over the region anti-American and pro-Islam movements are gaining ground, even in the countries with no real stake in the matter resentment towards America is growing, take for example Latin America, a region long plagued by failed American leadership, There is now a strong leftist anti-American coalition steadily being created with new ideas, institutions and fierce resistance to U.S. dominance. Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro seem to be the strongest figures in this group but their views are reaching new heights also in other countries such as Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia and Brazil.

These movements are not only gaining ground but also working together with each other, for instance the two leading countries in these separate movements Venezuela and Iran have an excellent relationship and both countries get the occasional friendly gesture from both China and Russia.

Even in Europe, Americas most reliable ally is starting to question American leadership, all over the continent nationalist parties unwilling to accept the current state of the world are rewriting the rules of the political game. This development is so far strongest in Eastern Europe but even in the more Americanized western-Europe the support of these movements are increasing.

In it’s desperation to topple Saddam, the middle class in Iraq , historically the key component of every democratic take over, has been steadily erased by the U.S. , now forces are gaining ground with the complete opposite views of American based democracy.

The process is now being repeated in Iran where U.S. and European sanctions is hitting hardest at the middle class, erasing their savings and actually forcing them to seek protection at the hands of the regime which now has an even easier task then before to identify America as the number one enemy to their society. 

The aggressive foreign policy created by the neocons is not only harming millions of people world-wide but their also strengthening Americas enemies; even though officially the aim of the policies are to promote democracy the effects are opposite. Instead of bringing peace, democracy and prosperity these policies are bringing war, oppression and poverty, this is undermining the American world order instead of strengthening it.

Add the enormous national debt, an exhausted American public still unsatisfied by the unfulfilled promises of hope and change, a steady devaluation of the dollar and a congress unwilling to cooperate with the countries president it’s a bit of an understatement to claim that Barack Obama is in over his head.

The laws of progress, Part three

The situation in the world today is similar to the time before almost every major war in history, a superpower desperate to hold on to its power being challenged by a new up and coming force. If America doesn’t play its cards right and keep making short sided decisions it’s not impossible that a coalition of nations will emerge in the near future capable of filling America’s shoes.

These nations strength would not lie firstly in their military capabilities but in that they are fundamentally different in their world view and approach problems in a different manner. China and Russia, for instance, both have strong similarities with the military aristocracies of old times,they are more pragmatic and traditional, highly attractive qualities within the leadership of the third world, so is Iran and it's allies, even though they share similarities with the priest caste their outlook is more centred on warfare than spiritual  matters. Spirituality is more of a tool than the ultimate goal.

The difference in outlook between China and America demand some explaining, America is trying to be the strongest in order to get wealth, China is trying to get wealth in order to be the strongest, this is obvious if you look at the countries policies on most areas, China is building for the future and planning, America is spending and borrowing.

For example in America the government has spent enormous amounts of money that they don’t have on industries that are collapsing, in China the government is buying enormous amounts of steel from Australia that is being stored at the bottom of the ocean and might not be put to use in decades. The Chinese government is borrowing to business as an investment; the U.S. government handed out money to business for consumption and the payments of debts.

The Latin-american competitor is another interesting participant, it is culturally very influenced by the slave caste, in being a supporter of the weak and through its history of oppression it’s a natural enemy to the strongest nation on the planet. 

The nationalistic parties rising in Europe is heavily influenced by the ideas of the warrior caste. The social revolution taking place lacks a serious spiritual dimension and is to antisocialist to be related to the slave caste.

By themselves none of these emerging movements are strong enough to topple U.S. supremacy but together they might be, maybe not in a hands-on military combat but by becoming their regions dominant cultural  force it could alter the power balance of the world. We would have a world of several regional powers instead of one global power.

The current world order might not die in a total war of global proportions but by a lack of vitality, maybe the ingredient that it used to have the most of, America is maybe the first global power to ever have such a widespread acceptance, it’s been a role model throughout the world, always despised by the few but celebrated by the many.

The land of opportunity has always had a certain allure to people, with the help of their ideals of rule of law, democracy, great economic freedom, freedom of the press, diplomacy before war and human rights they have always been able to legitimize their power. But in these recent wars this image has been soiled, by lying, torturing, killing civilians and the lust for vengeance.

There has always been a certain gap between the image of America and the real America but not to this extent. The America in theory and the America in practice have begun to differ, a lot.

By starting an unjust war, an illegal war, even by standards set up by America themselves through the U.N. it gave up it’s ideals for conquest and in doing so America surrendered a weapon more powerful than any nuclear warhead, its vision for the world. It became just a nation among nations; all the goodwill built up over decades was basically thrown away.

In it’s rather short history as a global power America has without a question been that power that has relied most on the usage of what is called soft power such as diplomacy and trade instead of the classical hard power approach, which is mainly focused on the use of military force to acquire power.

America has of course engaged in other ruthless conflicts before this but in the conflicts of the past there was always a clear enemy and a fierce ideological combat to rather strengthen their ideals than to weaken them. In today’s war America has given up it’s ideals in order to fight, in the war against communism and the wars against Fascism the ideals was a contributing factor for fighting in the first place.

Now people are beginning to question the state of things, with the worlds leading nations in economic turmoil the appeal of open markets and democracy is diminishing, even the Americans themselves seem unwilling to protect their own ideals, since the start of the war, the executive branch of the government has gained more control, George Bush won an election with uncertain validity and used his position to create laws which goes against the U.S. constitution, issues of national security has long surpassed the importance of privacy, even in the economic field Americans are raising their voices to enforce more trade barriers and they are relying more and more on Government spending to shake of the Chinese threat.

The Government has despite being governed by two supposedly different parties twice given their approval to the largest bail out of banks and industry in the history of the world, without any demands on the receivers to declare what the money is being spent on. In the land of the free industrial workers hard earned cash was confiscated by the federal government and transferred to bankers, without anyone even raising a voice of resistance until it was too late.

So if the world is starting to oppose American ideals, if the American public has stopped defending them and if the American leadership has stopped applying them in day to day politics, what hope is there for continued ideological dominance?

The only tool left at America’s disposal would be its military might but since that could potentially kill most biological life on the planet, what would be left to govern?

It is clear that America is at a crossroad, and theirs only two possible outcomes, either they keep following down the present road, they take out Iran, Syria, Pakistan and everyone else who dares threaten their position, they unleash the full force of it’s military, take control of the worlds last energy reserves and try to dominate the world through coercion and coercion only until the end of its days.

This in connection with a deepened global depression that would follow would breed global anarchy, with U.S. citizens and companies being potential targets across the world. Eventually the world would rise up and answer with determination and tear down the American world order with their bare hands. Not to mention the threat that would emerge from within.

The alternative is to take the long road, to rebuild their reputation again and reassert their role as leader through consensus, the opportunity to take this road is greatly weakened because of the faults committed in the past, without the wars and the trillions of dollars in bailouts America could have launched a plan to take the world out of the depression through world-wide investment, gaining trust and loyalty throughout the world. Instead it’s being passive.

America is a nation claiming the right to control global politics, but at the same time it’s refusing to take global responsibility, their solution for this crisis has been furthered protectionism and isolation.

By raising taxes on imports, bailing out the national auto and finance industries and by leading the world into a new currency war America has shown that it will not accept responsibility in a time when the world lacks leadership, this challenge may have been just what America needed to preserve their role as the worlds leading nation.

 It was their chance to  spread a message to the world, when it’s in crisis America is there to solve it, instead it was weakened by it's own bad choices to such a degree that it lacked the means to provide any significant aid to the global community, even if it would have wanted too.

These failed policies are putting the world at risk of another major conflict, where the ambitious,the oppressed and the vengeful would unite against their common enemy. It wouldn't necessarily take military form but the possibility of that happening should never be ruled out.

The priest caste on the other hand, is not presently in power within any current nation of today.It represents values long lost in all states of our time, any organised religion and largely in the general populace, its focus lies not on the needs of the weak, the strong or the crafty but on the needs of the organism as a whole.

It sees the value in every caste as a member of a unit larger than the individual, it doesn’t crave for temporary material wealth, universal equality or loose itself in dreams of a glories history. It connects the values of past, present and future. Few people of today’s world have the spiritual depth of our ancestors and are therefore unable to adhere to these values.

The only possible representation of this caste lies in the biological life of mother earth herself. It is nothing a ruler can govern or reform it is created but whatever created us and everything living we see. The bourgeois  is unable to accept these biological limitations, in turning the earth into its private factory they have succeeded in making sure that everything has a price and nothing has value but in so doing they have also made their own future as rulers increasingly uncertain in the long run. 

Today they are facing a growing opposition from three different directions, their world order is resting on a number of contradictions, On the one hand they have to increase economic activity to protect their place in the hierarchy of mankind in order to stop the prospects of the two main opposing castes, on the other hand a larger economic activity means a greater usage of the earths resources which endangers our whole ecosystem and ultimately the bourgeois caste itself, along with all the other castes.

Another grave contradiction is America’s promotion of freedom in theory, and oppression in practice. This hypocrisy is harmful to American supremacy because it is driving the other castes in each others arms. From the perspective of the warrior caste, the slave castes vision for society, however different it might be from the spirit of the warrior still risk being more appealing than the bourgeois vision and vice versa.

A historic parallel can be drawn to the Second world war where the British American bourgeois civilisation faced a threat of both the warrior caste manifested in the fascist cause and the slave caste manifested in the socialist cause, in order to keep power it was forced to share power, in countries as Germany and Italy the power was shared amongst the warrior caste and the bourgeois, amongst the allied forces the power was shared with the slave caste, The U.S.S.R. This was the underlying conflicts that caused the Second World War.

 In today’s world there is still hard to say which castes will unite and which castes will fight who. In countries which have been forced to recently face the failures of the bourgeois way of life such as Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal both ideologies are gaining ground at the expense of the current one. It is yet unclear as to what direction the countries of the world will take, there’s a good chance that it might differ from region to region, people to people.

One indicator of which side might prevail can be seen in the solutions chosen to solve the economic crisis, most states have focused on supporting it’s economic elite and letting the people take the fall through radical austerity measures, market liberalisation and privatization of collective property, a solution only sustainable through an alliance with the warrior caste where it gets to play the role of muscle to fend up a certain public uprising.
 
However the picture is still unclear, what events might occur during this historic crossroads is unknown to us all, one can only try to predict the future and when the time for action comes act accordingly to ones moral.

The moral code of any individual, however differentiated it might be is still universal in one aspect, every moral code attempts to give answers to what’s good for mankind, historically it has always failed in achieving more then temporary improvement but its strivings has essentially been well-meaning. What ideas will bless us in the future or bring about our doom is beyond our knowing, the processes at work are too large for a human brain to even comprehend.

All ideologies or perspectives, which is a more suitable description, has played the role as both saint and devil in our history, the ethical judgement of an idea is more attributed to our different material and spiritual circumstances during certain time periods than a sudden arbitrary change of preferences.

The only viable conclusion to draw from these facts is that a multitude of ideologies and perspectives is always in our interests, in diversity lies the only guarantee that no single caste can rise above the rest and enforce it’s views on the whole. It limits the possibilities of the consolidation of power, and ultimately the damage caused when that power is being misused.

It’s simply a matter of not putting all your eggs in one basket, if one road cannot be followed, an exit route must exist. Compromise and damage control must always be an option because a narrow-minded set of ideas can never protect us sufficiently to all the threats that the world throws at us because it leaves no room for mistakes or setbacks.

It doesn’t accept different perspectives, creativity or alternative truths. Therefore the only rational course of action for mankind is the wilful acceptance of multitudes and the refusal of centralised ideological rule.

This philosophy can be summarized in one simple formula, the eternal laws of progress; honour to the past, opposition to the present and sacrifice for the future!

*(for further insight in these affairs I suggest reading the works of Bob Woodward or Craig Ungers book The fall of the house of Bush)