Back        Global Nobles       Home




In this article I try to expose the nature of society and then provide some ideas on how we are best controlled by a government or a ruling power.


With about 5 people controlling 95% of the broadcasting networks I question the political information provided. How do I know which political candidate represents my perception of what would make our country better? How do I spend a few hours to support the soldiers who have given years of battle and sometimes their life in order to improve our quality of life?


Freedom as we know it has only existed 3 times in recorded history. Ancient Greece was the first democracy in the 5th century B.C. but it only lasted for 200 years. Early Rome developed a seemingly democratic system but it mostly served the bureaucrats. After more than 1000 years democracy disappeared until 1215 when the Magna Carta was written in England. The document codified that no man was above the law. Unfortunately, it lay dormant for 500 years until lady democracy stretched her arms and created the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment with its emphasis on reason, finally provided democracy with its philosophical underpinnings. While the extent to which it was enacted was questionable, it provided a recipe to help establish the government that took root in the United States.


Many people think the United States was founded on the religion they are familiar with. Actually, it was founded on the freedom of religion even though 83 percent of the people identified themselves as Christian. Many people who initially came here were escaping from religious persecution. There were, however, groups who came here to spread their religion, which they were free to do. Religion is an inherent attribute in most people and to practice that religion in freedom was powerful in many ways. However, there were areas where religion gained a strong foothold and abused the freedom of the people. There were those who used their new found freedom by enacting their own method of suppression by burning some young girl at the stake for having hiccups. Religion also gave us the right to take away the land from the Indians since they were not familiar with European religions. The Indians had their own religion but we applied the word Pagan to their religion and called it evil. So, while we were a country of freedom, there were religious groups who suppressed individuals in their community.


Christian is actually a very broad term. One-third of these self-identified Christians were not affiliated with any church so it is possible they claimed to be Christian in order to avoid further religious persecution. There were religious groups who made great efforts to gain national recognition or write their religion on government structures. Thank goodness, freedom prevailed. The beauty of freedom is that the more than 3000 religions in the United States can each take credit for the foundation and success of our country. Then of course freedom did not apply to blacks because they were not human beings; they were property. Yes, even Thomas Jefferson had slaves when he helped draft the Constitution. For the first century of slavery, from the early 17th century to the early 18th century, most Southern states made it a crime to baptize slaves, because slaveholders feared they would have to free slaves if they became their brothers and sisters in Christ.


     The Great Awakening set the stage for the American Revolution by undermining faith in traditional authority, particularly the authority of the Church of England and the king, who was head of the church. The first right granted in the Constitution guaranteed separation of church and state on the national level and the free exercise of religious beliefs. The authors of the Constitution provided for a secular state, one based not on religion but on toleration and liberty of conscience. Influenced by the ideals of the Enlightenment that promoted individualism, liberty, and free inquiry, as well as by the examples set by the middle colonies, the Founding Fathers committed the nation to protecting minority viewpoints and beliefs. Although religion has been influential, the United States remains a secular society rooted in the rational Enlightenment ideals of tolerance, liberty, and individualism.


Please reference Encarta encyclopedia and search for "American religion".  In doing so please keep in mind I respect the religious beliefs in our country and am only opposed to those who abuse people in the name of religion. Slavery and its remnants today are a good example. While we seldom kill people we easily destroy them in the name of some fabricated form of justice. 


So the United States initiated the most modern and successful government of freedom despite a few flaws here and there. The recipe has resulted in the most powerful nation that has existed on Earth. But the recipe for any government of freedom has been short lived as recorded by history. We have the reasons for the fall of previous governments well documented. Those same reasons are now arising in our own government. We may still have enough influence to make good choices and preserve our freedom but I question if we have enough time to really check out the available resources. With our busy lives we barely have time to watch the million dollar images projected on TV in 15 second commercials.


In my personal opinion the most serious problem we are confronted with is the inability to change the Constitution. If we had the ability to change the Constitution then that would be our most serious problem. We simply do not have the ability to redesign our Constitution to take us into the future. I also question where each candidate gets their money. Then of course how do they vote on all issues. I have never known one Democrat or Republican in my life that thinks abortion is ok but we will use the abortion issue to destroy as many political opponents as possible while separating our society into two distinct groups of people who oppose each other. Why can't we be concerned with life at all ages. What about freedom? What about a future for the children?


Here are 3 of about 50 problem examples I can offer you.


     1.      Each judge on the Supreme Court votes according to the beliefs of the President who appointed that judge. What happened to the 3 branches of government?

     2.      If one party is good and one party is evil then what happened to the freedom of choosing between two viable parties? Are we pursuing a dictatorship?

     3.      Why are there no Moderates in the presidential lineup? A Moderate is a person residing between Liberal and Conservative. Ron Paul is the only candidate in the middle between Liberal and Conservative but then he is also a Libertarian. Libertarian applies to a world much more at peace than the one we live in. Most Conservatives and Liberals do not think we are at that stage of development.  Why no moderates?


 Now if you want 75 years of research by the universities on the difference between Conservative and Liberal you can read the article posted on my web site at No opinions there, just 75 years of raw scientific research data on a college level.  And yes, I have read everything from beginning to end. I found it much easier and safer than my tour in Viet Nam. It will be easier for you to read than the task facing our soldiers in war.


Now for your test. Please answer the following questions.


Is it possible to deduce judgments of value from matters of fact?


Is it possible to deduce judgments from images?


What is the difference between democracy and autocracy? Could one or the other be an illusion? Can a Jeffersonian republic remain within the realm of democracy? How? Show your work. 


Freedom has a tendency towards a powerful nation if harnessed properly.  Therefore freedom is a relevant subject.


 At one point in time, in the United States, there was a debate over Federalism.  Alexander Hamilton designed this system where there would be a permanent national debt and at the same time an increase in the power of government. The interest drawn on the bonds for the debt would be high and guaranteed.  Then of course it would be necessary to tax the common people in order to pay for the interest on the bonds.  This method also was designed to centralize power.


Thomas Jefferson had another point of view and wanted to keep the power with the property-holding farmers who were the most trustworthy citizens.  Jefferson’s ideas were to maintain a government strong enough to protect property but not strong enough to threaten property.  He wanted to reduce the size of the military.


James Madison, Jefferson and many others thought Hamilton’s plans for a large national debt was a debt-driven, patronage-wielding duplicate of the British government against which they had just fought a revolution for.


In today’s United States we still have similar structures in our government.  Unfortunately, the terms republican, democrat, conservative and liberal are represented in ways that are contrary to what they actually are. The term “no new taxes” only pertains to the benefit of the extremely wealthy and those holding the US bonds. The middle class and the poor vote as if it represents them when it does not.  A politician offers “no new taxes” but at the same time offers many additional services that are paid for by taxes. The politician will promise limited government and less regulation which is the exact recipe for the wealthy and the formation of monopolies. The common people who could formerly vote on government controls lose control to the corporations and the wealthy that now control what the government was doing.  Power is lost in the middle class and the middle class suffers. A country like Mexico has no regulation and therefore no middle class.


I supplied the preceding information in order to ask if common man is really capable of democracy.  There are those of nobility such as William James from France who in 1876 suggested democracy does not work because the lower classes have no idea what government consists of.  William James believed Aristocracy was a better form of government and left the people happier. The people no longer dealt with who was going to be in power and became more content.  Based on a large amount of evidence he is correct.


So a Jeffersonian republic and democracy are the illusions we are presented with when actually we are yielding to Hamilton’s idea of Federalism while avoiding the term aristocracy.  As a result of the alternation between republican and democrat we create the debt with one party and pay off the interest with the other party. As long as the people buy in to it properly the wealthy will gain enormous power and control the government. To a great extent they actually own it. Our national debt is 80% privately owned. The other 20% is one branch of government owing money to another branch of government.


So our present form of government is really an aristocracy with democracy icing on it. The projected image of liberal and conservative is merely a form of exercise to expend energy in the masses and maintain control. The voting process is not a freedom but a social exercise to dissipate energy that might otherwise be harmful to the nobility.


I sympathize with those who are not of nobility but realize they could survive without the manipulative controls. Even if what I am saying is totally true and you understand it, it does not mean society as a whole can deal with it.  I do not believe the ideas presented here can be taught without a thorough understanding of government, the nature of society and the control of society on a large scale. Most people need the existing controls to maintain the expenditure of energy in controlled ways.


I guess we could ask how aristocracy deals with cross-cultural ethics on a global scale. One way is to let the nobility of other countries buy some of the wealth of our country. They too can have a piece of our national debt. Then their common people can help our common people pay the interest on the debt. Thanks to market globalization we now have global nobles. (Extremely wealthy people who control the world)


Relevant considerations are:

  •       Population growth

  •       Decrease in natural resources

  •        Increase in competition for resources

  •       Close nit nature or global communications.

  •    Integration of all countries on Earth

  •    Climate change


 We vote together to determine our leader. I never vote to determine what your religion will be. You also cannot vote to determine what my spirituality will be. You only control who my political leader is. Therefore we must have freedom of religion and separation of church and state. It becomes even more important when entering the global arena of life. So we bring our religion with us to the negotiation table as the foundation of our character but we do not place our religion directly on the negotiation table. To place our religion on the negotiation table would be to take the freedom of religion away from the other people at the table.


Separate political systems in neighboring countries have not faired well in history as there have been many wars. A common economic system may be the only way to unite the Earth. Once we have achieved market globalization we can precede with transitions towards a greener and more peaceful Earth.


The power structure adjustments are taking place but I do not see the technical and physical changes being implemented.  Instead of other countries seeing us as a respectful police nation they see us as greedy intruders. I see no significant plans to accommodate life when the oil is gone. Air pollution is causing global warming and little is being done to change direction.


There are many variables in our government and society that can contribute to what I have presented or add additional dimensions to it. Our form of government might be sufficient at present but I question which direction is it going and what it be like 20 years from now? With the increase in population and the decline of natural resources, the equation for survival becomes more difficult to calculate. In the realm of major change, the government needs good controls in order to make seamless transitions. However, narrowly centralized power or absolute power has a strong tendency towards corruption. 


An opinion from a person has no value unless you know the person. My philosophy is further defined in highly condensed form at:


Back    Home