Factions and Pyramids

Factions and Pyramids

Nicholas Abson

Copyright Nicholas Abson 2012

Published at Smashwords

About the Author

Born in Devon, England in 1946, Nick Abson immigrated to North America in 1956 with his family. He was educated in New York being expelled from both High School and University before returning to the UK. He started work as a Producer/Director of music films featuring artists such as Stevie Wonder, Dianna Ross, Kate Bush and Alan Parsons. In 1980 he moved to Broadcast Television completing a departure from music. Subsequently, he Directed news and current affairs programs such as the World This Week and Public Eye. Then came science programmes such as Real World, Where There’s Life, Discovery and Equinox. Even though he was a serious factual programme director he is probably best known for Fraggle Rock and over 700 episodes of Countdown, Britain’s version of Shiffre et Lettre. In 1990 he took another change in direction developing fuel cells and building Europe’s largest fuel cell company, ZeTek with the first automated production plant. He built the first fuel cell powered taxis, a passenger carrying boat and UK. Always an innovator, he has now turned to writing putting forward advanced ideas and practical solutions to the grave political, economic and energy issues of our time. In the first of three volumes, Factions and Pyramids to be followed by Stolen Energy and Watts On he identifies the causes and remedies to our financial oppression.

FACTIONS AND PYRAMIDS

A MANIFESTO

WRITTEN BY N.M.ABSON

The world order is structured in three levels; factions, authorities and collectives. Symbolically, it is a triangle, but more accurately a Pyramid.

Factions are the power at the pinnacle, the authorities the instrument of power beneath and the collectives the builders of value at the base.

It is a feudal arrangement, little different from the past, merely of greater sophistication.

The Pyramid can be seen in International meetings, the most obvious being G7, G20, but also Copenhagen and Cancun. These meetings represent the failure of collectivism, its retention of value, voice and liberty. The existence of such meetings is the symbol of the manifestation of the continuity of feudalism. No fundamental change in world structure, revolution of the mind or rights of man is exercised. The meetings are exclusive and largely invisible.

Davos, the Economic World Forum, demonstrates the success of collaboration, albeit banal and undertaken by economic royalty. The Forum is a showplace for factions as was, the medieval joust.

If it is to be believed, the G2, G20, Copenhagen, Cancun and Davos represent the exposition of authorities meeting to map the strategy for the world of power on behalf of collectives. Davos however, is the collaboration of factions determined to ensure domination of the collectives and control of the authorities by keeping them forever as their subjects.

Despite being a demonstration of irrelevant preening and hubris, Davos demonstrates that collaboration of factions has been remarkably effective.

By contrast, authorities pursue competitive plans, using the representation of their collectives as justification for complex, formal yet largely inconsequential discussions of policies impossible to carry out without the consent of the factions.

The factions meet at Davos or other less attended venues to collaborate and impress their importance on each other while airing policies, publicly revealing to the authorities, their objectives.

The collectives have no part in these grand adventures. They are merely the swathe of humanity that reacts, believes it has some investment in the structure and waits to be oppressed. The inevitable is that no matter what is agreed, the collective is the victim. It competes with itself for the benefit of the authorities and needs of the factions. The collective has no voice, understanding or Liberty.

The fundamental to change is Liberty. Hence it is suppressed, subverted and minimalized.

Liberty and Survival

In nature, survival of the species is the driver of life. What separates man from plankton however is the pursuit of Liberty.

Novus ordo seclorum, translated as New order of the ages is on the reverse of the United States dollar bill. Above, is a Pyramid surmounted with an eye.

The eye sees the bottom of the pyramid, but the bottom cannot see the top. The top displaces the bottom, the bottom wishes to reach the top. The system works by the displacement of levels until the knowledge of all beneath, by the top, controls all. The eye is the faction of control; it has displaced the liberty of all below.

Yet, the pursuit of Liberty is within all humanity, even the factions. It is the desire for positive change. No one is exempt. The desire to improve drives the desire for positive change. At its most trivial, change is seen as improved material value, at its loftiest, spirit.

In order to achieve change, Liberty is the essential ingredient. It is the restraint or the removal of Liberty that makes change impossible. More so, those who wish change exclusively for themselves are the barriers to Liberty.

In the pursuit of exclusivity, Liberty is denied to all. Liberty is not a gift but a state of mind, the fabric of human value. Exclusivity is the driver of feudalism.

By contrast however, Liberty is understood to be bequeathed by those believed to have fought to obtain and protect it. The notion of Liberty has been passed down as a symbol of humanity and bravery. The collective supports the bequeath of Liberty in contradictory and intellectually irreconcilable ways.

The irony of Liberty bequeathed, passed down from heroes through a system to the meanest soul, is bequeathing of Liberty creates structure. The structure demands status and a strategy of organisation, which by definition becomes the tool of suppression of Liberty.

Traditionally in folk law, at the bottom of the organisation is humanity, the power at the top, God or some other invisible, intangible being.

On the US dollar bill, it is an eye at the top of a Pyramid, seeing, but unseen.

The barrier to the exercise of Liberty is ignorance and lack of vision. The eye on the Pyramid sees, but is not seen. To see it, requires a distance, removal from the Pyramid to view the entire structure. It requires knowledge of what is beneath it.

It is plain, that each face of a Pyramid is blind to the next face, but all are required to support the top.

The top requires the support and strength of the bottom without the need of its understanding or sight.

The bottom of the Pyramid cannot see the top, but the top can see the bottom and all else.

The barrier to Liberty is the sight of the oppressor, an eye unseen and unapproachable, exclusive, secret, controlling all from the point of the pyramid. Inscrutable, its very discovery will remove the power of its vision and exclusivity.

The support of the summit is made on the strength from below. The base is the strength without vision. The base, the support, cannot see and therefore has no control, no power. That is the collective.

For the collective, the paradox is the belief it has Liberty as it has been told it does. The collective believes it has been bequeathed Liberty and grants in return, its strength.

The base does not see, comprehend or regards its Liberty as illusionary; it can’t stop supporting the summit. The summit must have the trust or belief of the base to remain at the summit. It bequeaths the belief or trust of Liberty.

The paradox, the perjury is that Liberty is not a notion that can be given or possessed. Liberty is the internal understanding of the potential for an act. Upon exercising the act, it is discovered whether Liberty, is. Liberty is an experiment, like putting wheels on a soapbox and riding it down a hill. If it doesn’t kill you or the wheels don’t fall off, it is Liberty.

The summit only surrenders its Liberty when the support of its base collapses. This is usually temporary, during the early part of revolutions or change of status without consent. The summits strength is to remain invisible and consistent. It cannot run the risk to change as the potential for loss may be revealed. The survival of the summit is gained by the oppression of all that lies below and the blindness of the base.

Liberty is not a multi definable value of good or bad, it is a potential state on which, external judgements are made when acted on. The external judgement is the qualifier of whether Liberty exists or not. Thereby lies the challenge of comprehension; if Liberty is given or only defined by external actions it can’t be Liberty. A bequeath is made by an entity that can withdraw or sanction the action.

There is Liberty to steal, but the act of stealing, depending on your social position, comes with sanctions. Therefore once the theft is undertaken, it can result in the concept of loss of Liberty, by sanction. Depending on whom you are, you can be at Liberty to steal or condemned for the action, but you can’t be stopped from thinking about stealing as a potential. It is the potential that is unrestricted and internal. Internal Liberty can exist regardless of the outcome of the action or judgement. Liberty is therefore not a matter of ethics.

Beyond the potential, Liberty is understood to have rules by any above the status of the thinker. Therefore beyond potential, if Liberty is a singular act that can be sanctioned by others or rejected, it can no longer be Liberty. More so the judgements are made by supposed superior minds. The control is therefore an external judgement.

If you are told you have Liberty, it is because another either granted what is thought to be Liberty directly, or bequeathed it on behalf of others.

This notion may seem harsh, but the real understanding of Liberty is distinct from that taught by History or recounted by others. As a rule of thumb, if told you have Liberty or freedom, it is without doubt that you don’t.

Liberty granted can be withdrawn so accordingly can’t be Liberty. Liberty is a potential, the turning into action being an exercise of free will and therefore, absolute and continuous.

In considering Liberty there is confusion between the personal and collective condition.

In each extreme, there are variations of that believed to be Liberty, but not necessarily so.

In its true state, Liberty is individual, personal and absolute. It is a choice of free will. Denying or obstructing the potential by free will, rejects potential Liberty. This may be caused by an assessment of risk supplied by others, in which case, free will is influenced by them and results in its loss by cognisance. It is a condition that can only be analysed by assessing the action from the potential and verification by the effect. However, the contradiction is that such an analysis would not be an act of free will and of no value in assessing Liberty as a potential.

Collective Liberty is less complex as a label. It is not a notion defined by a group or individual but an observation or opinion. The only free will being applied is the potential of each individual making the observation. The collective does not have free will, as by definition it can only have collective will.

In the declarations of most Nations sovereignty, bestowal of Liberty is a part of Citizenship. This differs from system to system. In Monarchies the subject is said to be granted Liberty. A subject having Liberty is clearly a contradiction. But the contradiction is not unique to Monarchies.

In Republics, there is usually a phrase similar to the promise of the United States in their Declaration of Independence, Liberty and Justice for all. From the State of Maine to Alaska, every school child recites these words every morning in the pledge of allegiance, yet the pledge of allegiance is itself a contrary act to Liberty.

Collective Liberty is therefore a variable that can at a stroke be changed into Liberty but in fact the meaning is quite the opposite, as the expression of Liberty is often the same as the expression of oppression.

If the collective potential is exercised, contradictions immediately become apparent. Activation of a collective notion of Liberty deprives individual potential and accordingly personal Liberty and its potential.

Deprivation of personal Liberty is easily revealed and understood. Deprivation of collective Liberty, even when the key cause for the deprivation is considered the preservation of Liberty, is illusion.

The collective is therefore oppressed and at the command of factions. The factions collaborate to control authority, which cannot bequeath Liberty, so the collective is enslaved. The summit rules the base with the compliance of the authority.

In effect, the authority is the broker of the notion of Liberty, supplied by the faction and applied to the collective.

The Simple History of Liberty

One obvious experience of collective deprivation of Liberty was the Second Word War. Although a popular war, as all engaged believed they were fighting for what was right. The maintenance of their collective, Liberty was an illusion.

The Germans, Japanese and Italians, the Axis, believed they were treated unfairly and that mysterious forces threatened their collective Liberty. They believed others had denied them Liberty to conquer, expand and oppress. They had powerful, popular symbolic leaders with devoted followers.

Britain and France on the other hand, followed by the United States and Russia, the Allies, believed they were being threatened, by oppressive, tyrannical monsters. They wished to preserve their collective Liberty. The difference between the two sides was significant only in the stability of their respective regimes. Other than that, they offered many of the same structural obsessions.

Prior to the Second World War, a large portion of those who were to become Allies thought the Germans and the Japanese social and political ideas had merit. The obsession with collectivism in the Axis proved a potent force amongst the Allies. They were at Liberty to think that the Axis had merit and for some, at Liberty to sympathise. Even the Germans believed that those who would become their enemies could be their friends despite fundamentally considering the Allies systems of authority to be out dated and decadent. This opinion was not confined to the Germans, the Japanese for example looked upon Europe and America as role models, adopting Western manners, styles and industrial economics while retaining their own oppressive martial culture.

The Italians were the third part of the Axis and like both the Germans and Japanese, operated a one party State based on Ancient Roman principles. Both German and Italian citizens elected dictators with overwhelming majorities.

All Axis members wanted expansion in the creation of Empires. They believed they had a right to emulate other European colonial nations such as Britain, France, the Netherlands and even tiny Belgium. Italy for example adopted ultra Nationalist