How do we explain the national and geopolitical tensions so prevalent among social castes and nations, those which demand the continual efforts of a developing military? How will we explain the strivings of military researchers, whose sole function seems to be the development of better offensive and defensive systems? Why is military leadership continually involved in the functions of the bureaucratic machine? To what extent is this involvement necessary or cosmetic? Are the opposed ideologies of opposing nations the fundamental reason for military deployment, or do more permeating directives exist, by which military is empowered to engage the impossible? To whom does military actually respond, the national needs of the governed, or an agenda which is self-serving? Military responds to the several dictates which combine national security, technological competition, and superior directives. But who enunciates the superior directives?
The evidence of history, and the often irrational events with which international history is replete, cannot be the result of chance. More often, at the very highest levels of the social governing structures, we observe the consistent and patterned bureaucratic responses to unnamed authorities. Developing a model based on such observations, one finds sharp correspondence with events historical and actions contemporary which cannot easily be ignored. The consistent patterns strongly suggest the existence of rulership at higher than governmental authority levels. Some accuse that these models are attempts to rationalize the chaos of human affairs and the irrational responses of humanity when placed under duress. Consistent patterns which emerge through bureaucratic networks, whose variables are constantly changing and whose structures are completely variant, are not the result of order fi-om chaos. Such patterns are the result of directed control, descending through the smoke screens of confused bureaucratic labyrinths, and thereafter enunciated and enforced as social policy. An astounding pattern can be traced back through history, a correspondence of our developing models with plausible world reality.
Those who interpret national and international affairs soon discover a consistency which fi-ames specific geopolitical models, that which places aristocratic or Oligarchic Houses both within and over nations. This model provides us with a more clarified and cohesive explanation of tensions social, technological, and military. In this view, the various social tensions within and among nations, of ordinarily unexplained origin, stem from tensions between warring
Houses. The Oligarchic Houses are the “big gears” in the world clock. Oligarchic Houses rule whole sectors of the world, a network of independent rulerships whose history spans the human adventure. Best represented in the ancient totalitarian dynasties of Egypt, one finds all too much evidence that a continuity of Oligarchic rule has indeed conformed and compromised the best geodemocratic ideals. Oligarchic Houses remain mutually independent, the result of ancient growth and conflict. A model which places traditional warring Houses of aristocrats over visible goveriunent structures, fares exceedingly well when matched against real world happenings. The patterns of response in government policy follow a path which is not as meandering as most assume. Courses of action follow regular patterns, and are not the combined result of several internal variables. The flash disputes, violent and barbaric confi-onta-tions which form among briefly developed nations form an interesting example, the obvious results of external influence for deliberate effect
Indeed, in all of the international disputes of the Twentieth Century, one perceives and interprets the invisible hand of influence very much at work. More recently, these influences move science and technology into receptive underdeveloped nations, with subsequent deliberations of war. Provisions of arms and munitions daily arriving at the gates, such nations are trained by private militia forces in unmarked uniforms, and raised to fever levels of emotion. Soon thereafter, hostilities break out, and national forces from the Old World or New World appear to “liberate” the oppressed. This model presupposes that complex relationships between warring Houses define the complex international relationships which, on topical inspection, are often imagined to be the result of random social action. Houses each rule whole geopolitical sectors. Each House region is viewed as an occupied territory, one whose ownership flows downward into a pyramidal power structure which it has generated. The obvious pyramidal structure of society is the evidence. Visibility within the pyramid differs for each level, a function of station and knowledge. There are those for whom the upper point of the pyramid will forever remain invisible. Living in the lowest levels of the pyramidal base, we are often able to penetrate the bureaucratic haze upward just enough to glimpse the convergence of power toward a probable point. This point is poised far above mere governmental structure. To those in the working class with eyes to see, the power structure appears truncated. Each House is therefore a virtual pyramid, occupying large portions of geography. A “geopolitical” region. These geopolitical regions of control have changed with time. The shifting of the borders among nations produces effects seen as often unprecedented “national reorganizations”.
If social movement depended on the power flow through the pyramid, then only the pyramidal bases would change. The points of power would forever retain their identity. Nevertheless, we live in a biodynamic world, not a world of synthetic rulerships, however traditional. There have been two notable kinds of instances when the points of power have been compelled to move with the base. One is caused by external competition among Houses. The other is caused by “rogue” technological discoveries. The first commands power down through the structure, mobilizing societies to engage the competitor. The second cannot be rationalized or neutralized. Biodynamic technologies conform with naturally enunciated directives. They do not recognize synthetic power structures. Relying on conscious force, they make their imbidden presence felt throughout the entire pyramid, demanding change. Ideas penetrate the structures of power, shaking the seemingly rigid gantry asunder. The true and enslaving nature of power becomes evident during those instances, for not only are those who serve enslaved to the ruUng power, but those who rule are compelled to follow the movements of their property. This property, whether geographic or social, becomes a cohesive structure which binds and restricts all freedoms, both for those at the bottom as well as those at the top.
Modern geopolitical regions eu-e Ohgarchies, House possessed world regions. Western Europe (WEO), Central Asian (CAO), South East Asian (SEAO), and the several isolated groups in India (lO), China (CO), and Japan (JO). From our accessible ground view, these territories are not connected by national or ethnic unities as much as they are by economic unities (Napolitano). The discovery and acquisition of the New World afforded new territories for certain Houses. Warring House are in sometimes vicious competition with one another. Their sometimes hostile relationship is entirely predicated on the personal ambitions and desires of the oligarch in question. Because the geopolitical regions of each House support the pyramidal point, the actual seat of power, ambitious or warring Houses may attempt hostile takeovers at a great number of levels. One may subvert economical levels, wasting potential capital from a House. One may subvert bureaucracy with “foreign” ideologies. One may actually attempt a forced geographic takeover, otherwise known as a “war. The needs of the House power structure therefore “become” the needs of those who are kept under its thralldom. If wars are waged against the local House, citizens will fight that war. Therefore the military has its prepared intentions; personal survival needs enunciated by the presence of superior command.
Wars find their rational explanations in the manipulations and machinations of warring Geopolitical Houses. If we assume that divisions and separations exist between Geopolitical Houses, cracks as it were in the ceiling structure of society, we find the real origin points of invisible instabilities through which international disputes are most likely generated. This model serves us well in comprehending the operation of nations under superior directives. Perceiving and observing this implicate structure teaches us the real flow of power within the nation, permitting us now to best comprehend the role of military eis enforcement agency. Today, oligarchies require a complex labyrinth of mirrorworks by which to divert the gaze of a working class public. Therefore various Intelligence branches are sequestered and used to prepare “operations” well in advance of acquisitions. Military Operations are convenient “excuses” for imperialistic acquisitions, excuses for the eyes of a now-watching world.
Since there are rarely any viable reasons for armed conflicts or escalations leading to land invasions of foreign territories, we are led to consider the possibilities toward which the aforementioned geopolitical model invariably leads. One does not imagine that mildly frictive relationships between neighboring nations can realistically mount from violent acts to declarations of war without the stimulations of a catalytic agency. Geopolitical Houses, their nations, and their military aggregates explain the movements of military might in prearranged seasons. Warring Geopolitical Houses prompt their military aggregates to develop superior weaponry in the event that external hostilities bring land assaults to the borders of their authority. On their behalf, and by their explicit permission, mihtary is to develop weapons, but never to become a private power unto themselves. Only those who dictate move power. Those who obey receive permissions. But now, do the words of rule always carry the greater force? Are there natural emerging phenomena whose unexpected manifestation reveals the limits of oligarchy and rule?
Because of the potentials afforded through new ventures, and the limited world extent of powerful exercise. Houses are never in mutually benign relationship. Since so much of the world is owned, the acquisitions of one House are necessarily the loss of another. The fundamental rules of supply and demand are thus apparently quite intact at even these high extra-social levels. It is only at successively lower social levels that manipulations can be so direct and complete. Oligarchs arrange economic depressions and recessions at their own convenience and in fulfillment of their ovm desires for their regions. But these actions among geopolitical power centers, among pyramidal struchires, are more slowly applicable. As each geopolitical House strives against the others, there is a slow and creeping forward of progress attempting its exertions toward total world rule. When those exertions become necessarily quickened by internal circumstance, of which we may only guess, wars result
Geopolitical Houses war over the control of geopolitical regions, the boundaries of which have been clearly delineated by traditional conflicts and subsequent diplomatic persuasions among the same. In this model, the continual exertions of military force and international manifestations of violence is explained by opposing Houses whose violent relationships are founded in centuries’ old conflict Warring Geopolitical Houses produce the defined geopolitical splits, both historical and contemporary, which appear across the world. The nature of oligarchic rule and the permeating power locally exerted by that superior command become the personal need and liability of the entire society. Gathered by each House, the complex collection of governments, bureaucracies, and citizen-workers all became liabilities in a world of sometimes hostile Houses. Because of these sometimes warring Houses, ohgarchs are each necessarily driven to defend their societies and lands through varieties of means. Military means represent the very last line of defense in the conflict. First are those channels through which Houses “communicate”; those economic “messages” which are wordlessly sent throughout the world of pyramids. The Geopolitical Houses each use those nations in which they have based their operations. The working class population labors on their behalf, serving the principle supportive function of profit generation. Geopolitical Houses each require and accrete a corps-cooperatif, a host on which to subsist Drawing fife and blood fi-om the labors of their base nations is an occupation of generations. The dreams of the few became the loss of the many.
World History
