Tuesday, June 4, 2013

The Empire

"The Empire never ended" - P.K.Dick

The Empire is old; older than recorded history. We don't know where it came from or when. If that knowledge still exists, it has been well hidden. Today, the Empire covers the whole Earth, and few, even among its most recent conquests, remember a time when it did not.

The Empire is not a people or a place. It is a belief system, which gives rise to a particular social order. The Empire systematically destroys anyone and everything that is not of it. It requires that no alternative to its rule should even exist. By making itself ubiquitous, it acquires invisibility. Visibility depends on contrast, so the Empire allows none. On some level, it knows that humanity would not choose it, if humanity knew a choice existed. The Empire is anti-human, anti-nature, anti-life, and anti-love. Its hands are drenched in the blood of millions.

What is the Empire? The Empire, stripped down to its barest essentials, is the paradigm of domination and submission. Its motto is: "might makes right". It is the control system. While non-fictional references to it are as rare as hen's teeth, it appears in fiction with great frequency. Some well-known examples include: Sauron in "Lord of the Rings", the machine-mind in "The Matrix", the Borg in "Star Trek", and The Party in "1984". Philip K. Dick called it "the Empire", and described it as "a black, iron prison". I've chosen to adopt his name for it, since I have to call it something, and, officially, it has no name. I believe this lack-of-a-name is the main reason it is rarely spoken of in non-fictional terms.

The Empire is recognisable, in all its incarnations, by means of its characteristics.
1. The goal of the Empire is absolute, centralised control. The "new world order" is nothing other than the attainment of this ancient aim.
2.The Empire always portrays outsiders as uncivilised savages who must be forcibly assimilated for their own benefit.
3. Loyal citizens of the Empire always believe themselves to be "good guys" by definition. Acts that would be called crimes, if committed by its enemies, are always justified for this reason. Another name for this is: exceptionalism.
4. All social/political/economic discussion occurs within the limits of the Empire's belief-system. Alternative paradigms are ridiculed and dismissed as unworthy of consideration.
5. The Empire is founded upon a belief in the unequal value of human beings. This manifests as the class-system, eugenics, social Darwinism, and competitive economics.

Who controls it? The Empire is pyramidal in structure. It is an hierarchical system of top-down control. Whoever, or whatever, resides at the apex of the control pyramid, is unknown. The groups and individuals who openly wield power are not actually in charge. People like the Windsors and Rothschilds are high-level minions only. I strongly suspect that the Empire's true rulership is not even human. The Gnostics spoke of inorganic beings, called Archons, whose character and modus operandi are a perfect fit.
All who voluntarily accept the domination/submission paradigm are servants of the Empire. It's important to understand that domination and submission are both inseparable and relative. The Empire is not neatly divided into tyrants and slaves. It is only at the extreme apex and base of the pyramid that pure doms and subs are to be found. Most who serve the Empire submit to those above them and dominate those below.

How does the Empire rule and spread?
The Empire has employed three main tools for sustaining and expanding its power. They are: government, religion, and money. All three have been used to tangibly control human populations, but more importantly, they have served to maintain unconscious beliefs that serve the Empire. At any given point in the history of the Empire, one of the three has been dominant, while the other two have played supporting roles. At this time, it is money. This arrangement has proven very stable since, if the dominant element should fail, the others stand ready to take its place. The Empire will fall if all three are overthrown, and not until.

Government is fundamentally irrational. Once upon a time, it was justified on the grounds of divine descent, and later, "divine right", but few today would accept that as reasonable. Nowadays, most people believe we need government because humans are too selfish, irresponsible and short-sighted to govern themselves. (I don't belief that, personally, but it is the modern, majority view.) It is alleged that people have to be controlled for their own good and the benefit of society. But, who is to rule us then? Benevolent extraterrestrials? Demigods? Who else but humans? Problem is; if humans are too selfish, irresponsible and short-sighted to govern themselves, how can they be trusted to rule over other humans? Doesn't it stand to reason that giving selfish, irresponsible and short-sighted humans the power to control other humans, greatly increases the harm they can do? (like war, for example.) Belief in the necessity of government requires the belief, conscious or not, that some humans are inherently superior to the rest, and that these superior humans are, by definition, those in power. Might makes right. The evidence of centuries be damned.

Religion needs further clarification in the context of the Empire. Not all forms of religion are useful to the Empire. Its religions are of a very particular type. The controlled opposition, steering the so-called "truth movement", has done a very good job of obscuring the real nature of the Empire's cults with their bullshit astrotheology. It has endeavored to paint them as paganism-in-disguise. This reversal of truth has been aided by an exclusive focus on the Mediterranean region, during a period when the fledgling Empire had already begun to infect those societies. A clearer distinction is visible when the Empire cults are contrasted to true paganism, as found among the uninfected indigenous people of the Americas. In fact, the Empire cults are distinct from paganism in important and disturbing ways:

1. Empire religions are book-based. Their books are declared to be infallible. Their stories are believed to be literally true, thus destroying any metaphorical value they might have had. The "letter of the law" is elevated above its spirit. This in spite of the fact that the definitions of words change over time, and are always open to interpretation. In contrast, pagan spirituality has no Books. It is organic and fluid. Its stories don't pretend to be literally true. They can change and evolve over time as required by the people that they exist to serve.

2. The Empire religions define their Gods entirely differently from paganism. The gods of paganism are symbolic personifications of abstract principles and forces of nature. They were acknowledged and celebrated, but only "obeyed" in the same sense, and for the same reason, that gravity is obeyed. Nobody is going to punish you if disregard the laws of nature; but you are probably going to get hurt if you do. The gods of the Empire go far beyond such sane limits. They tell you what to eat and what to wear. They demand obedience to bizarre dictates, such as the sexual mutilation of infants. The gods of the Empire are designed to establish a divine mandate for the D&S paradigm.

3.The Empire cults are coercive. Whenever they have had sufficient power, they have made unquestioning belief and obedience mandatory on pain of death. They threaten their followers with eternal damnation as punishment for lack of "faith" or disobedience, and heaven as a reward for total submission. This sort of tyrannical control is not an essential feature of paganism.

4. Empire cults are all rooted in the belief that humans are inherently bad, sinful, unworthy, and in need of salvation from their hideous selves. If you can get people to believe this, you can abuse them to your heart's content and they will accept it. The same dynamic is seen in domestic/child abuse. In fact, if you really want to understand the Empire and its methods, study domestic/child abuse, then scale it up. Once again, this feature is absent from pagan spirituality.

5. All Empire cults debase women. The reason for this is tied to the use of money. The ability of mothers to give in response to need, without expectation of personal gain, is an absolute requirement for the survival of our species. While the Empire cannot do without this, it also can't afford to acknowledge its high social value. To do so would undermine the D&S paradigm. The solution is to despise women and any social functions they primarily embody.

6. All Empire cults are divisive. They separate the world into Us and Them. "God" loves Us and hates Them, so anyone who isn't in the Us group is either an enemy or a potential convert. Prior to the rise of the Empire cults, religious wars were unheard of. They have been continuous ever since.

Money is the Empire's dominant control mechanism at this time. It is commonly believed that money "evolved"  as a more efficient alternative to bartering. This is not true. It is a modern superstition. It's similar to the belief that the Earth was flat, in that it seems like it should be true, but isn't. According to those historians who have traced the real origins of money, it was actually created to facilitate, not trade, but tribute and taxation. Bartering is a more recent development than money. It is normally practiced by people who have been conditioned to use money, when money fails or becomes scarce. Societies who have never used money have gift economies. The indigenous peoples of the Pacific northwest, and others, confirm that this is so. This, along with their pagan spirituality, was what motivated the Empire's cultural genocide against them.

There is nothing natural or necessary about money. No other species displays anything remotely resembling value-for-value exchange. The nearest thing to it would be the symbiotic relations between different species. All social, mammalian groups function as gift economies.

The primary difference between gift and money/exchange economies is that, in the former, resources flow towards need, while in the latter, they flow away from need and towards sufficiency. In other words; if you have, you can get more, but if you don't have, you are screwed. In a monetary economy, those who have can take whatever they want, irrespective of other people's need. Once again, might makes right.

Monetary economies favour and reward those who are the best at taking more than they give. In this type of system, psychopaths prosper and rise to positions of power because they are the most ruthless takers. The social disfunction and corruption that exists today is the direct and inevitable result of using money. Money is a psychological disease.

The Empire's propagandists have succeeded in brain-washing it's subjects to believe that using money makes you free. It doesn't. The only freedom money gives you is the freedom to take without asking, and to force others to give without consent. This is the truth you didn't want to hear. No one can ever be free unless he will renounce both his own slavery AND the right to enslave others. This is precisely how the elite justify their predation upon you; they believe, and they're not entirely wrong, that you are as bad as they are. Worse, in fact, because you've sold out for far less than they did. They see no reason why they should not enslave you, so long as you are willing to see the same done to others. They're not entirely wrong, but they're not entirely right either, because while they did it knowingly, you did it because you were brain-washed, almost from birth. By them. And you did not consent to that conditioning.

Contrary to what neolibertarians and so-called anarcho-capitalists believe, you cannot have money without government. Money requires an issuing authority. Otherwise, you could just grab some paper and crayons and make your own money. And then what would be the point of using it at all? Gold and other precious metals are not money; they are only valuable commodities. Since they exist in finite supply, they could not physically replace fiat money without a massive reduction of human population, because otherwise you'd need a microscope to find your cash. A return to the gold standard would still require symbolic representation, and therefore an issuing authority. Whoever controls the money supply, controls the people. Those with the power to issue money are the government, whether official or not.

As I said before, the unholy trinity of government, religion and money, function in support of one another. If any one should temporarily falter, the other two could still maintain the Empire system. They are interchangeable in that they all serve to maintain top-down, hierarchical control. Revolutionary movements of the past have always failed because they overthrew the dominant institution, only to replace it with one of the others, or even another version of the same, while leaving the other two untouched. "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss."

The Empire will not end until enough people are able to see it for what it is (the D&S paradigm), instead of being distracted by the changing masks it wears. I don't see this happening any time soon. All I see is people criticising government while supporting money or religion. or attacking money while advocating totalitarian government. Meanwhile, those in the top tiers of the power pyramid are laughing at all your futile attempts to be free. The PTB don't feel threatened. Why would they? There is no great awakening. Not yet, anyway.

I do regret having to end on such a downer note. I wish I could say something more hopeful. Then again, if the truth was what people wanted to hear, they would have heard it by now. I begin to wonder if our attachment to hope isn't what's blinding us to what we need to see. Hope is rooted in fear, every bit as much as its compliment, despair, but they are not the only choices. One's actions need not, and should not, depend on any expected result. For myself, I don't think it matters whether I'm on the winning or losing side of history. I don't believe anyone can be called free or awake who doesn't get that. My name is not Saruman; I won't ever give the Empire my loyalty or consent. I'll resist it and undermine it as long as I live, because I'd rather die with spiritual integrity than live as a coward. I haven't found non-attachment to the result of this struggle to be a cause of despair, but rather a source of inner peace. In being true to my Self, I am free in the ways that matter most.

13 comments:

  1. Beautiful post, couldn't be more right on...!

    This was my doodle from a while back that seems to fit nicely...

    http://transcendesigns.blogspot.com/2012/08/enslavement.html

    All the best!

    :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Brad.
      Thanks for that. A doodle? Its gorgeous, and I agree, it fits perfectly. I usually add pictures to my posts, but nothing seemed right for this one, 'till now! Do you mind if I use it?
      :)

      Delete
    2. I don't mind at all!
      So glad you like!
      Keep up the great work!
      All the best...
      :)

      Delete
  2. Great stuff! Telling it like it is, and giving great insights. "Money is a psychological disease": I love it!

    The three evils - money, religion, government - yes, lets throw them all out. Gift economy, natural spirituality, freedom (i.e. anarchy) - these are what the future holds, albeit there will be some painful adjustments along the way...

    Don't worry about the Empire. It is cracked. Through the cracks we can now clearly see the nests of vipers eating each other, and the morass of maggots writhing in the decaying filth... it cannot be long now before the machine of Empire breaks down completely. Ultimately all empires fail, and all attempts to control mother nature are likewise doomed to failure.

    Divinity will always eliminate darkness, when push comes to shove.

    Keep shining your light :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Deepian.
      Good point. The Empire is not sustainable, and maybe this time it won't recover. Inertia can be so misleading when you're trying to predict the future. Small shifts, once begun, can quickly gather unstoppable momentum. I came across this video recently, that put a great big smile on my face:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y7zobJ7ZPc
      Judging by the respondents' eyes, facial expressions, body language, etc., most of them are telling the truth. A few are not, but those people will always follow the crowd for good or ill. I thought it was a great exercise in "planting seeds".
      All the best, friend. :)

      Delete
  3. Another very interesting and truthful entry. I think you are just spot-on with what you say. Thanks for sharing with us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much for your support, Ron.
      The thing I find most amazing about it all, is how hard it is to see, yet how obvious it seems, once seen.
      In Lak'ech.

      Delete
  4. Excellent article Amanda.
    If you don't mind my little addendum, I would also included the value/measuring system of "time" - far more ancient than money, but just as insidious a mechanism of slavery.
    Big up for mentioning PKD! A very astute observer and "The Man in the High Castle" is a fave of mine.
    Peace and all the best.
    Carl (The 'Guide)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Carl.
      I don't mind, but I don't understand what you mean. How does "time" anchor the domination/submission paradigm?
      I do see the Empire promoting a distorted idea about time, reducing it to a purely quantitative (and linear) function. The denial of time's qualitative aspects, makes every moment interchangable with any other, in the same way that viewing humans in that way makes them interchangable. In reality, both moments in time and human beings are unique, never to be repeated, and therefore immeasurable in value. Is that what you were referring to?
      PDK is one of my faves too. I love the way his stories question our deepest and most invisible assumptions about "reality".
      All the best to you too.

      Delete
  5. >>Whoever, or whatever, resides at the apex of the control pyramid, is unknown.

    Tolkein called it 'Sauron'. Now I know he said that LOTR is most definitely not allegory, but I do wonder what he meant when he wrote that the way to destroy the Ring (hence Sauron's power) is in the forge in which it was wrought...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Speedbird.
      Nice to hear from you. I heard that too. I can certainly believe that LOTR isn't intentionally allegorical, but many, if not most, great works of fiction offer multiple layers of allegorical meaning, often not consciously intended. The subconscious mind plays a large part in story telling. Our stories seem to share this feature with our dreams.
      I was thinking about the significance of the One Ring recently and how apt a symbol of money it is. (I'm pretty sure Tolkein never intended that.) But...
      -Gives its owner power over the will of others; check
      -Makes its wearer invisible; check
      -'No!' cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. 'With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.' His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire within. 'Do not tempt me. For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.'

      'Alas no,' said Elrond. 'We cannot use the Ruling Ring. That we now know too well. It belongs to Sauron and was made by him alone, and is altogether evil. Its strength, Boromir, is too great for anyone to wield at will, save only those who have already a great power of their own. But for them it holds an even deadlier peril. The very desire of it corrupts the heart. Consider Saruman. If any of the Wise should with this ring overthrow the Lord of Mordor, using his own arts, he would then set himself on Sauron's throne, and yet another Dark Lord would appear. And that is another reason why the Ring should be destroyed: as long as it is in the world it will be a danger even to the Wise. For nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so. I fear to take the Ring to hide it. I will not take the Ring to wield it.'
      ; check.
      Best wishes.

      Delete
  6. http://paoweb.com/sn011414.htm

    ReplyDelete