In this article, we examine the Piled Shape of all civil structures, and layout the premise that our current structure, which follows an improper and grossly disproportionate allocation of political power is functionally obsolete, and that another structure, more favorable to the masses and with better utility will likely soon replace it. This is a lead up for our thesis solution to the dysfunctional system we have now. A thesis new civil structure follows in the next in our series.
A great tool for the analysis and understanding of a political system is it’s geometric shape. In general, the shape represents, and determines how power flows in the civilization which ‘packages’ the system; it’s civil structure.
To a large extent, the shape of civil structures follows the natural order. Our current structure, given us by the US constitution, is a grossly exaggerated Pyramid with a very concave vertical slope, and although it has been argued that it was not disproportionate, nor intended to be such in its inception, it certainly is that way today.
In our opinion, that grossly disproportionate shape has come about for several reasons as we will discuss, and that chief among them is that human nature tends to allow the accumulation of power in the hands of the few of whom the society has confidence. The confidence takes many forms, but in general, it is confidence in the ability for these ‘political leaders’ to enhance the personal lives of the people over what the same believe their lives would be without those leaders, or with other less favorable leaders. In our estimation, this is a very grave mistake as the belief and the reality are miles apart. It amounts to a form of idolatry, and the formation of the cults of personality. Politicians are worshiped as if they are somehow immune to the common temptations of men.
Having said all of that, it must be pointed out that, up to late, there has really been little to no alternative to a system based on this very flawed pyramid structure. In fact, the piled shape of political structures is as old a civilization itself, and goes back even before. To reiterate what we said earlier, the shape follows, and has been ordained by the natural order, and even animal group behavior is driven by similar forces to some extent, following the natural strictures laid out by mother nature. Given all the choices for a shape for political power to flow, the systems which have allowed the highest level of survival, prosperity, and the happiness of the society have always been thus, due to the effectiveness it has on the organized human populace.
There are many reasons for this, and volumes could be written expounding on them, and probably have been, but it is not our intent to present an exhaustive treatise, but only to drill down to the very few top or cursory levels, in order to make the points necessary to present our thesis.
There are more important issues to discuss, which will completely turn this argument on it’s head, and demonstrate that what has been accepted for millennia as immutable, or never changing, is starting to break down. While the steeply concave shaped pyramid political structure has been accepted as a fact of nature, and considered unquestionably necessary for the survival of the society, we will demonstrate the premise that, that so called ‘immutable’ fact may not be so immutable.
First we need some definitions:
1) Paradigm. This word is derived from 2 Greek words, ‘para’, meaning side by side, and ‘digm’, meaning model. So ‘paradigm’ means a side by side comparison of ideals, or models. In this context, it is a comparison of models for civil structures.
2) Civil Structure; This refers to how political power flows in the society. In general, we are talking about government, or the word ‘governance’ may be more fitting for our discussion. It is very familiar to people because it is very subjective. Every person has some experience with what they perceive to be unfairness or abuse by someone in authority over them. We need to have a good grasp of this idea as we discuss this material because the civil structure, more-so than anything else, determines how that abuse or favor works; who controls it; how it is applied; and to whom it is applied. Good examples are: who pays the taxes for government; why some people seem to be treated differently by law, some more favorably and some less; what rights we have as individuals and as groups; who determines our laws, our rights, and privileges and where their authority to do so comes from; and virtually every political argument or complaint the society may have at one point or another.
First we must ask then answer why people need a civil structure in the first place, as opposed to having none? The very simple and a somewhat complete answer boils down to economics; it is more efficient for a society to live in one than not, and efficiency spells the difference between survival of the group or succumbing to the elements. How is this demonstrated?
Imagine 2 cases, one of a small group of people or even a single person, and the second group consisting of a much larger number of individuals. The survival and prosperity of either group is greatly affected by 3 economic principles in particular that are vitally important, and 1 less-so, but included here for the sake of discussion as follows:
1) Division of labor
2) Strength in numbers
3) Economies of scale
4) Trade – considered to be less important than the other 3.
The first, division of labor is important because it allows each member of the society to concentrate his or her skill set on one or 2 endeavors to produce the vital elements to sustain themselves, their families, and other members of the society, instead of them having to practice all skills themselves. Imagine you and your family are in the small group witch may consist of only you and your family, or with a few others. You must master the skills necessary for all your needs. You are having to farm or hunt for all of your family’s food, build your house, provide sufficient warmth in winter, wash clean and cook, maybe work a job, educate your children, take care of your family’s health, fix everything that is broken or wrong in your lives, etc… and you are doing all of this by yourself, with no help from anyone else. Some may argue they know people who do that, however, there are very few and when the analysis is done, they are not really operating in a vacuum, but have usually turned to others for help at one time or another; or they are greatly helped by utilizing tools and materials only produced by more complex societies.
Now consider you and the family are in the larger group. You share the larger pool of skill with all the other members so that you are burdened with just doing what it is that you are skilled at; what you have been trained for. you apply your skill in service to others in the society to supply them with what they are needing. This arrangement provides the economic basis for you to minimally or to very amply provide you and family with all the other things mentioned. If you need food, you go to a farmer or a store and buy what others have produced, if a family member is sick, you can take them to see a doctor, and the same for family shelter; you buy a house with funds provided by those skilled in financial matters. The same principle applies to most if not all of your families needs.
In which of the 2 groups; the small one or the large one, is this going to be easier and better for you and the members of your family? Which one will allow a simpler and easier pace of life with less stress and more leisure time? Which group is more likely to survive, even if only in-part, if the elements of nature become severe? Again, some would argue that the larger group scenario is fraught with more stress and a harder life, and will present more challenges for individuals if the going gets tough, however, that does not take many things into account that may not be evident on the surface.
Most casual observers will answer that members of the larger group will have an easier time living due to the larger pool of skill and practice from which to draw. The smaller group, while it may have some benefit in terms of peace and tranquility, nonetheless, the members of this group will on average work harder and longer to supply the necessities of life, and run much higher risk of early death or succumbing to disease.
With all good things, there is a price. The good life which is more accessible in the larger group comes with a tradeoff in that there is a hierarchy of power or authority with which the individual must adhere in order to maintain order and a well oiled machine. Each member of the society is asked to carry their own weight, and do their part in providing service to the whole. This involves sacrificing something, most often it is some degree of personal liberty; individuals must give up something of themselves, and may have to do things they would not elect to do otherwise. Anywhere authority is involved, there is of necessity a piled shape flow of power.
The reasons for so much being gained from the simple principle called the “Division of Labor” is as a result of the next 3 also being practiced; IE, the 2nd (Strength in numbers), the 3rd (Economies of scale), and 4th (Trade). Strength in Numbers is important when the members want to concentrate power for a specific reason such as for mutual protection like an army, or a fire brigade, or a trauma team at a hospital. The 3rd, Economies of Scale is an efficiency gained with setting up something like a production line, where each person in the production can concentrate their particular skill and making or performing something very specialized. As an example, if production is setup properly in terms of tooling and resource allocation, it saves time and labor and thus money by making material very accessible to the production. That is the reason that materials bought in larger bulk quantities are significantly less expensive than smaller quantities. The more efficient planning and operation is done, the cheaper the cost of production for each unit made. The cheaper things are produced, the more accessible they are to the various tiers of the society.
The 4th principle, Trade is mentioned because although it is mostly practiced by default amongst the members of the society as a matter of necessity for the other principles to work, there are some things which the whole will not be able to produce as efficiently as other similarly organized outside groups. That necessitates trade between societies, so that those things can be supplied by other societies who are more able to produce them. Often this is simply due to the fact that the raw material is more abundant in certain places than others, or it is more efficient to produce the products in areas where the labor is cheaper. Trade in this respect is most beneficial when it is practiced between peer nations.
There are a few other principles that are important but not mentioned with much analysis due to time and space, such as the need for competition amongst the members of the society and the trading partners; or to state its inverse, the absolute mandate to forbade, stamp out, or manage all forms of monopoly, whether economic or political. We mention monopolies due to the destructive and corrupting effect they have on the economies and thus the well being of any civilization, so much so, that we will be expounding separately on them in future presentations.
The flow of power in these societies is always piled in shape like a pyramid, sometimes with a steep and concave slope and sometimes more flat. In general, the larger and more complex the society is, the more the slope is concave. This means that the extremes of political power are concentrated in a more narrow spike with a higher relative level, meaning a relatively smaller number of people controlling the extremes of power. This generally allows more abuse and exploitation of those at the lower levels by those at the higher levels.
That is what we are seeing in our increasingly complex and failing Republic now. Power is more and more being concentrated in an ever increasing elitist group, while democratic representation of the ‘Will of the People’ is taking a back seat. Most of the increase is due to the fact that the representatives are betraying the trust they have been given by the structure, so they broker the people’s interest off to the whims of an extremely wealthy globalist agenda. In the process, the republic is failing to provide the utility for which it was commissioned. We would argue that it really never performed such according to the rhetoric and indoctrination which have been used to program our populace would suggest, however, we are not going to get into that now, as time and space are limited.
It is our thesis that the pyramid republic will soon start showing signs of break down, to become much flatter in terms of the distribution of political power, and that is a permanent trend for the foreseeable future. Let us examine why.
We start first with the premise that the old steep and concave sloped pyramid type of civil structure amounted to what we call the ‘Survival Paradigm’, meaning that it was adopted to allow the society to survive the harsh elements of nature. To make this idea simple, we observe what is necessary for a person, family, city, society, state, or nation to survive, and it boils down to 3 basic elements as follows:
1) Food and Water
Our ability to produce and distribute these elements has increased by 10 fold at a minimum, over that of a century ago. The point to take from this is that we have gained the ability to survive as persons, and as nations with much less complicated social structures than what was previously ordained, and that trend is only accelerating. This is mainly due to great advances in technology and virtuous education, meaning that we have learned better ways to organize our society from the standpoint of civil structure. An example is the level of liberty when one compares the life of medieval Europeans who lived under monarchs to those who live under democratic systems. There is an increasing trend toward more liberty and voice from the common people, and less toward autocratic rule. The implications are that the survival paradigm is in the process of breaking down. It is moving toward obsolescence, while a new paradigm is forming in its place.
The second element of a changing paradigm is a massive shift in how people get information and exchange ideas, brought about by the advent of the internet, which has collapsed the monopoly information systems required to sustain the power grip of monopoly forms of governance.
Indeed, the industry which emerged around the internet has produced the tools necessary to allow the advent of literally thousands of armchair, or weekend journalists, who compete directly with big media. Although, it is fraught with much outright deception and amateurish practice, there is also significant real truth and real information to be had once again. This medium has emerged with a quality of truthfulness and exposure unmatched in American corporate media in all its forms, which is unquestionably laden with inaccuracies, extreme bias, and unadulterated lies, since it acquired monopoly status in the 1920s, and even before.
Once again the uninformed and the misinformed masses can get real information from a myriad of independent sources of news and viewpoint. This promises the return of journalistic integrity and accuracy of media for future generations. Then consider that knowledge of any subject is now easily accessible to all members of society, whereas in generations past, knowledge was considerably more restricted and off limits to the masses.
The third element of a changing paradigm is to consider the advent of the autonomous era in-which robotics and automation replace the role that human labor plays in the survival paradigm. It means the human labor based structure becomes obsolete. On first assessment, this seems to be a negative setback for liberty and the power of the individual, but upon further contemplation it becomes apparent that it significantly changes the relationship between those who occupy tiers in the pyramid. Why? Because the survival of the individual and the group have become significantly less dependent on a superior / subordinate relationship.
Since at some point, machines will fill the role that humans once provided to produce the materials needed for sustaining a population, the humans are less dependent on a survival paradigm civil structure, thus the structure fails to be supported. The effect is to remove the dependence the bottom tier has on that of the upper tiers for ordering and disciplining the society, and when that happens the 2 upper tiers are toppled. This era is called the ‘Autonomous Paradigm’ and is outlined in the book series, “The Autonomous Economy”.
All of these significantly alter the shape of the current structure, and indeed pose a significant threat to the long term stability of the upper tiers. Speaking plainly, our dependence on a structure of top-down management of our civilization is beginning to rapidly diminish.
Until the day that the above enumerated elements begin to take a dominant role, we must still abide in the survival paradigm. So, given that the extreme concave slope to our current republic is the reason for the extreme dysfunction of our nation, then it would follow that creating a Republic with a much more convex slope, should fix all. However, that would be false. While it is true that a more convex-slope piled shape would be better, the odds that a republic would ever yield, or maintain such, are not good, as they tend toward the other direction.
In subsequent video presentation, we examine a system, more attuned to the requirements and expectations of Americans, which rejects glo-babble and the tier 1 concocted, new world order.
The system we will explore involves the decentralization of political power in a form we call, PBPS for People Based Policy Structure, which elevates individual and national sovereignty, and provides exclusively passive utility governance, which is to say, it removes the concentration of top-down, or hierarchical power from it, while still employing utility systems for governance and service, tailored much more to the interests of the common; the individual; the middle-class; instead of exclusively to the interests of the wealthy and politically connected.
Many would say that can only be done by moving hard to the left. That rationale, and that narrative only fits the narrow programming of the population by those who would preserve the interest of the top tier. We reject leftist, and collectivist ideology in all forms.
The system we speak of elevates respect for the ownership of property and wealth, and aligns the hierarchy of rights into a proper perspective, while absolutely rejecting the traditional right-left dialectic, and the leftist tendency toward re-distribution. When we say that it rejects these things that does not mean only on philosophical grounds, but it absolutely rejects them by incentives and deterrents built into the structure itself. This idea protects the society from these insidious and destructive elements.
Note: for more information about Sovereignty Project, see: