The truth about how things really run in this world is apparent from childhood on throughout our lives. Every human being as they mature experiences that truth and yet much of it is clouded by the distractions wrought through propaganda, whether political, economic or religious. We sublimate our experiences of this truth via the myths and mores of our particular cultural environment, since for almost all humans to accept the truth of our lives would lead to despair and inertia.
There are those who are unable to sublimate the reality of their personal experience and do give in to despair and inertia. For the most part we call these people addicts, or define them as suffering “Personality Disorders” . This condition is defined as: “a class of mental disorders characterized by enduring maladaptive patterns of behavior, cognition and inner experience, exhibited across many contexts and deviating markedly from those accepted by the individual’s culture. These patterns develop early, are inflexible and are associated with significant distress or disability”. Studies have variously estimated that perhaps 6 to 10% of all humans suffer from personality disorders. Yet there are some clinicians who find “many issues with classifying a personality disorder. There are many categories of definition, some mild and some extreme. Because the theory and diagnosis of personality disorders stem from prevailing cultural expectations, their validity [and] is contested by some experts on the basis of invariable subjectivity. They argue that the theory and diagnosis of personality disorders are based strictly on social, or even sociopolitical and economic considerations.” As a former mental health practitioner, who spent years involved in the treatment of people with severe personality disorders who were also addicts, I’m somewhat on the fence between these two viewpoints. There are people who suffer greatly from their particular psychiatric condition and have since childhood. Yet by the same token, mixing in my own life experiences, I can see how many would have a psychiatric label appended to the fact they see the world in a way not defined by the cultural norms of their life experience.
Prevalent throughout almost all of human history is that all societies are run as hierarchical pyramids. I believe that this is a result of both genetic and cultural evolution and it is clear that in most of our closest genetic cousins, monkeys and apes, our societies are merely slightly more complex versions of their social structure. “Alpha” individuals, no matter how you define “Alpha”, rule the rest of us and in that “ruler-ship” are not constrained by the social norms, structures and strictures that bind the rest of us. Through most of human social history the power of the “Alphas” was enforced brutally and summarily. Controlling the lives of most humans in the social structure was (as best we know it archaeologically) a religious system that proscribed how all the people within the given societal unit should live day to day. This religious system defined the hierarchy and usually involved a power sharing relationship between the temporal leader and the spiritual leader. Tension between who sat atop the pyramid of power, existed throughout history, with the ultimate power usually residing in the temporal leader because that person controlled the warriors. Though sometimes, as we saw in the history of Roman Catholicism, the religious leaders sometimes prevailed because of the hold religion had upon the spiritual fears of the populace. Nevertheless, the age old dictum of “might makes right” has prevailed almost universally throughout human history.
As the power of humans to control their environment increased, as societies grew in numbers and complexity, the manner of control became much more sophisticated. Human biological evolution moved quite slowly, perhaps still beyond our ability to judge it. However, our Sociocultural Evolution drove our species rapidly towards evolving structures to handle a human race whose technological progress kept expanding exponentially. Most of humanity, including its leaders, believe in the idea of human progress. It was accepted dogma that human society was evolving from our early primitive state into a more modern version, ordered by reason and rule. To my mind this was merely wishful thinking and sophistry. Human society is still ruled by an elite (Alpha?) class, that at base dominates us through the exercise of power, even if that raw power is not readily apparent. Let me explain as I consider the truth we learn in childhood as we interact socially.
Our species is a social species. The success humanity has had in becoming the dominant species on the food chain of life, is our ability to come together in social units that evolved into ever larger societies. While it is true that some “geniuses” have been responsible for tremendous gains in knowledge, those “geniuses” revolutionized various realms of thought and invention by building on the work of “geniuses” who preceded them. Albert Einstein took the discoveries of Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Liebniz in calculus as a basis to help formulate his Theory of Relativity. Jesus “Golden Rule”, which is a philosophical construct of how we humans should live together, was first formulated by Confucius in the Fifth Century BCE. “The philosophy of Confucius emphasized personal and governmental morality, correctness of social relationships, justice and sincerity.” If you limit yourself to the parables and direct teachings of Jesus as related in the “Gospels” it is apparent that these “geniuses” were trying to teach humans similar goals.
Examining the Jewish Torah we see that much of the “history” expressed in it built upon the mythology of previous cultures such as the Sumerian Creation Myth and upon legal doctrines such as the Code of Hammurabi . Possibly the greatest innovation of Judaism for the benefit of mankind was the banning of human sacrifice for religious purposes. Human sacrifice to placate the Gods of nature was practiced almost universally at the time and the story of Abraham and Isaac represented a more advanced perspective.
While all of these religious innovations, which had societal implication, represented attempts to evolve from what could be seen as a less advanced human state, the reality was that those who held power, whether from might or wealth, were exempt from the strictures of law, morality or religious concepts. This is a truth that we learn from our childhood as we are socialized, or not, into our place in society. Our environment instructs us, no matter what its’ nature. We either learn that there are those more powerful than we are, or for a very few, they learn that they are exempt from the rules and strictures that subjugate others. I’m not being specific because there are innumerable ways that you can present the truth of this and unless someone is completely lacking in self awareness these are obvious truths, which I believe most of us sublimate in order to function in the society around us. Differences in political policy, philosophical outlook and religious belief, become proxies for that which most of us would rather not face, which is that only a few rule us and that those few are immune to the rules that constrain us and in many cases subjugate us to their needs.
Humanity has seen some evolution though in the relationships between those who hold real power. In an age of rapid mass communication, where the entirety of humanity is interconnected in all aspects of life, no one person can be emperor. To an extent this has always been true once humanity socially evolved from hunter/gatherer to agriculturally based societies, to City States, to Nations and finally to Empires. Once we humans started living in ever larger social units, the power of the person on top of the pyramid had ceased to be absolute. One powerful human can impose absolute rule upon perhaps 15, or 20 others as long as their strength holds out. For greater groups that leader must develop alliances and allies among those below them on the social structure. The concept of a “Noble Class” stems from this and the usual operation in kingdoms and empires was a cooperative one of mutual self-interest. The great leaders were able to forge alliances and loyalties in those below, even though in some cases that “great leader” was actually a proxy for those behind the scenes who held real power, or a revered symbol to pacify the masses.
History is rife with proof that “Great Leaders” can emerge for a period of time, but that time is finite when compared to those who these “great leaders” rely upon to help them administer huge masses of people. Julius Caesar was able to become a great leader, only to be killed by those who represented the ruling class of Rome. Alexander the Great put together the Greatest Empire then known, but his early death saw that empire collapse into constituent parts ruled by his former minions. Ghengis Khan was the scourge of most of the known world of his time, but his death splintered the empire he created. What we see though, is that for the most part these great leaders come and go, but that behind them remains an elite class that persists in their power, despite the politics and religions that appear to dominate.
Accept if you will for the sake of discussion that this is true. I assume that those reading this are in all probability not really a part of a permanent power structure, but are themselves like me a mere pawn in the game. Feel for a brief second or two, in your gut, what it feels like to imagine that in the course of the world you and those you care about are unable to affect the greater course of your own destiny if you should confront the real powers that be. We have seen any numbers of instances where agents of power can come into average peoples lives and destroy them because they have gone too far in offending someone with power. Whoever you are, I suspect that in your gut you know that is true and that you have evolved on your own ways to sublimate that reality in order to give meaning to your existence.
Naturally, I don’t exclude myself from this condition, nor do I see myself as a particularly brave person able to lead people in changing the facts of human life. My writing is my way of co-existing with this understanding of this world and trying to defy it, even though I’m imbued with the knowledge of my own vulnerability and powerlessness. For me having faced death imminently from a failing heart, I fortified myself by the words “Do not go gentle into the night” and found the courage to fight to keep myself alive until a donor heart was found. For me now, having been reborn through a heart transplant, I honor my good fortune by using my writing to try to make this world better for all of us. Yet I am imbued with the knowledge that my contribution won’t change anything, but will at least give me the satisfaction of speaking truth as I know it. So let us look at the way of the world today as expressed by two discrete, yet completely interconnected institutions.
It was an article by Russ Baker at his website WhoWhatWhy titled “A Rumination on the Bilderberg Group” that set me off on this path. Baker wrote about this group that gathers together some of the most powerful people from all parts of the world to discuss issues that affect the world and deliberate upon solutions. While there is no evidence that these discussions translate into actions, the fact that the participants wield tremendous power in finance, industry and government, certainly indicates that much of our world is influenced by what goes on in these closed meetings of the world’s elite. The locations and the participants of these meetings are not secret, but like the secret society at Yale “Skull and Bones,” no one but the participants knows the inner workings.
“Bilderberg’s current chairman is Henri de Castries, a French aristocrat. Castries lives in Paris, spends his weekends in a castle, and one week a month in the United States. He served in the French treasury, and participated in the weaning of France from a mixed economy influenced by socialism to a more purely capitalist one. He is chairman and CEO of something called AXA Group, a global conglomerate involved largely with investments, insurance and healthcare. Its subsidiaries are around the world. In the United States, those include Equitable Life and MONY. The largest ownership stake is held by Americans; the government of Qatar has a piece too.
Others on the steering committee are from familiar names like Microsoft, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Alcoa, and the corporate law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, as well as PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, the neocon former Bush official Richard Perle, along with an amalgam of public and private officials from a host of countries and entities, including a Dutch economics professor, the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the CEO of the European aerospace giant Airbus, and a vice president of the conservative Hudson Institute. Sitting all by himself, after the Steering Committee, under the heading, Member Advisory Group, is David Rockefeller.
A key question worth asking, of course, is how officials from companies that derive such a big share of their profits from war get along with those ostensibly concerned with advancing the cause of peace.”
Shouldn’t it be a matter of world interest that people representing such powerful forces in this world get together to confer in secret about the major problems that face humanity. Isn’t it curious that only:
“One news organization that has not dismissed Bilderberg is the UK’s Guardian. As noted by the Guardian’s Bilderberg correspondent—who has been hanging around outside the proceedings for years—the most interesting visible development this year was the arrival of the U.S. Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, followed by the head of NATO, to brief the assembled on the situation in Ukraine.
[M]ake no mistake. Bilderberg is part of their job….This was briefing papers, dress uniforms and military aides. Land Rovers packed with military bodyguards.
This is NATO business. U.S. military business. Government business.
…What’s obvious is that…this is an official international summit. The discussion about Ukraine isn’t chitchat over a cup of tea. It’s international diplomacy, which makes the mix of people at Bilderberg such an unsettling one.
Bad enough that you’ve got military chiefs briefing arms companies bosses—in private—about their hopes and dreams for Ukraine. But you’ve also got billionaire speculators and the heads of gigantic private equity funds listening in.
People who stand to make a killing out of knowing where and when the bombs are going to fall, how many and on whom.
People like David Petraeus, the former director of the CIA and now head of KKR’s Global Institute, the advisory wing of a multibillion dollar private equity company….
The KKR Global Institute prides itself on “knowing how to respond to emerging geopolitical and macro-economic trends”, which enables “smart investing, portfolio management, and risk mitigation”, in other words getting the inside tip. And once you’re inside Bilderberg, you’re hearing “emerging geopolitical and macro-economic trends” right from the secretary general of NATO’s mouth. Very profitable, I’m sure.
The Bilderberg conference is a five-star car crash of the public and private sectors. It’s full of scenes like this: the head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, having a cheery one-to-one with Carl-Henric Svanberg, the chairman of BP…..
The real story about Bilderberg is not that these people are colluding to secretly run the world. It’s that information is money—and being in the know and socializing with others who share your interests in power and money are good for business. And any consensus reached at these conclaves, however partial and temporary, can affect us all.”
By the way you can see this group’s website here . Perhaps it’s my own paranoia but it seems to me that the real power in this world resides in groups exactly like this. Russ Baker’s full story discusses that at the link above. Yet it is also somewhat well-known, yet little speculated about in the mainstream media, that there is another meeting of the wealthy and powerful that also is supposedly just a forum for discussion. That is the World Economic Forum . This annual meeting takes place in Davos, Switzerland and is attended by such luminaries and powerful people as:
“Felipe Calderón, Robert B. Zoellick, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, Nicolas Sarkozy, Ban Ki-moon, Angela Merkel, N. Chandrababu Naidu, Ferenc Gyurcsany, François Fillon, Morgan Tsvangirai, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Min Zhu, Paul Kagame, Queen Rania of Jordan, Dmitry Medvedev, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Kevin Rudd, Barney Frank, Kofi Annan, Werner Faymann, Leonel Fernández, Jacob Zuma, Naoto Kan, Jean-Claude Trichet, and Zeng Peiyan.Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Bono, Paulo Coelho, and Tony Blair also are regular Davos attendees. Past attendees include Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Henry Kissinger, Nelson Mandela, Raymond Barre, Julian Lloyd Webber, and Yasser Arafat.”
The WEC Foundation is sponsored by “its 1,000 member companies, typically global enterprises with more than five billion dollars in turnover (varying by industry and region). These enterprises rank among the top companies within their industry and/or country and play a leading role in shaping the future of their industry and/or region. Membership is stratified by the level of engagement with forum activities, with the level of membership fees increasing as participation in meetings, projects, and initiatives rises”.
There is much more material provided at the links above. What it shows is that the WEC has a multiplicity of programs that impact on economic policy throughout the world. It also shows by just a look at some of those who attend the conferences as shown above, that individual’s politics seemed subsumed by a kind of Corporatist outlook. Between Bilderburg and WEC I don’t think it is crazy to infer that those wielding money and power in this world, at time work together, to ensure that they control mankind’s destiny. This is what I would submit to you is the way of the world. My hope, which I suspect is a vain one, is that most of us might wake up and see the world for how it really is, rather than how we have accepted it to be for the sake of our personal sanity.