THE FEW: SOME OF THEIR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SYSTEMS
The Few have been described and delineated elsewhere.
For the purposes of this work, they may be conceptualized and defined as those individuals who possess
most of the wealth, most of the power, and most of the control within any given social system. In all
societies, the Few control the political structures, and they create the means for enforcing that control.
Their position, directly or indirectly, is a function of the group dynamics (relative to needs) within the
social hierarchies in which they reside.
Taxonomically, humans are viewed as Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens (from the Latin for “wise man” or
“knowing man”) are the only living species, as far as it is known, in the Homo genus of bipedal primates.
Humans are classified in the family of Hominidae.
According to most theories of evolution (The Few, especially its fundamentalist component, deny the
validity of these theories.), humans originated in Africa around 200 thousand years ago. Humans may
have reached full behavioral maturity (in the modern sense, circa 2011 AD) about 50 thousand years
ago. The age of hominids (from which the genus, Homo, was diverged) is estimated to be 2.5 million
years-old. Finally, it is estimated that the “pre-hominids” branched away from a common ancestor
about 6 million years ago.
Some of the social and economic systems which have been created by humans are: (1) theocracies; (2)
democracies; (3) oligarchies; (4) capitalism; (5) socialism; and (6) communism.
To understand the similarities and differences among these systems, a number of objective criteria will
be utilized. These criteria are: (a) the source and the justification of authority; (b) the control of
resources and production; (c) the ownership of property; and (d) the control of information relative to
its degree of truth and relative to its need for dissemination.
(1) Theocracies:
A theocracy (from the Greek meaning “the rule of god”) is a form of government in which a state or a
country is understood to be ruled by a god or gods: god “himself (ves) or herself (ves)” is recognized as
the head of state. Thus, a nation, so defined, is divinely guided by and/or through a select, chosen few.
Examples of such governments are the Islamic states, the Vatican, Israel, and the Central Tibetan
Administration (the Tibetan government in exile).
Appling the above criteria, “a” is by the will of the gods; “b” is by the will of the gods; “c” is by the will of
the gods and is by the will of the chosen; and “d” is by the will of the chosen. And, the gods’ will and the
gods’ needs and the gods’ wants are interpreted, channeled, and executed by the chosen.
Why gods requires the chosen to interpret, to channel, and to execute their wills has not been
adequately explained-especially by the chosen.
Maybe the chosen cannot explain “the why” in a way that does not threaten their positions in their
social hierarchies?
(2) Democracies:
A democracy (from the Greek meaning “rule of the people”) is a form of government in which a state or
a country is understood to be ruled by “all” its citizens.
There are many forms of democracy throughout the world. An inclusive definition of this social system
may be impossible to achieve (certainly by this writer). Still, there are some necessary, but not sufficient
characteristics to this social system. These characteristics are equality (under the law and to each other)
and freedom (expression, speech, and press) and separation of powers (of the main branches of its
structure) and majority rule (no matter what its diversity) and universal suffrage (in the context of one
vote, one person) and due process (for all) and minority protection (for all) and protection from and
rehabilitation from disenfranchisement (for all) and protection of existence (for all).
One example of such a democracy is the United States of America (Its democracy may be described as a
federal, constitutional republic.).
Again, applying the above criteria, “a” is all its citizens; “b” is all its citizens; “c” is all its citizens; and “d”
is all its citizens.
All its citizens and all is noncitizens require mutual respect. At all times, both groups require protection
(under fairly, constituted laws) from those who would corrupt the social system for their personal gain
and for their other “enhancements.”
Parenthetically, a fair system is the enemy of the corruptors. Corruptors (for example, the “American”
Koch Brothers) manipulate to create and to maintain an unfair system.
Do you know that the Koch Brothers increased their reported, personal wealth by 9 billion dollars in
2010? And, still, this is not enough for them. Their goal is to re-distribute the wealth of the nation to
themselves and their friends through the willing co-operation of key elected officials (democrats,
republicans, and independents) on both the state and federal levels.
The Brothers (and their like) want to transform the nation into a de facto oligarchy before the
dramatically, increasing diversity produces a new majority which they will have a greater difficulty in
controlling. The 2010 Census, for example, shows that Latino Americans, only one of the expanding
minorities, have increased to over 50 million-one sixth of all America citizens. This is an increase of 32%
for this minority over the last ten years. Most likely, even these data are under reporting the reality.
It should be emphasized that the Brothers and their global friends understand that they are in trouble if
all the social systems of the world increase in their diversity and in their fairness.
And, they are in trouble, and they will be in trouble! The Many will frustrate the Few in their current
and future attempts to corrupt the social systems of the world. The Few realize that the change that
expanding diversity demands will put them in danger of losing their positions in the social hierarchies.
(Just look at the political information that is being presented on the internet. The Few cannot control its
flow and/or its content. The truth is the enemy of the Few and their like.)
(3) Oligarchies:
An oligarchy (from the Greek meaning “a few…to rule, to govern, to command”) is a form of government
in which a state or a country is understood to be ruled by a privileged few.
The few’s positioning, in their mutual, social hierarchies, can be due to: being in a religious order or
being royalty or being celebrity or being wealthy or being politikos (the Greek meaning “of, for, or
relating to citizens”) or being family or being a corporation or being military or being a combination of
the preceding.
(Aristotle, one of the teachers of Alexander the Great, used the term, plutocracy, to describe this form
of social system. For the Great Teacher, this term was a synonym for the rule by the wealthy. The term
of plutarchy (a combination of the English “oligarchy” and of the English “plutocracy”) is sometimes
used to mean the same thing (that is, the rule by the wealthy).
And, again, applying the above criteria, “a” is the few; “b” is the few; “c” is the few; and “d” is the few.
In a sense, many of the nations of the Middle East may be considered examples of oligarchies. In
another sense, all nations of the world are oligarchies because of the reality of the functioning of the
global, power structures. No matter how they may choose to label their social systems- the Few are a
group unto themselves. They are beyond the social norms of their societies.
(4) Capitalism:
Capitalism is an economic system “…. in which the means of production are privately owned and
operated for profit….” Theoretically, the income is “split” between the “owners” and the “workers”: the
income going to the owners and the wages going to the workers. There is no one, inclusive definition of
this economic system: although private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods and/or
services for profit in a market and the determination of prices and the determination of wages are
characteristic signs.
Although capitalism is not a social system, it can operate within one. It is the preferred system of the
Few because it can generate the economic control of the social systems in which they are found.
And, again, applying the above criteria, “a” is that it does not apply; “b” is the owners; “c” is the owners
and is the workers; and “d” is that it does not apply.
To re-emphasize, those who control the economic systems will also control the social systems. The
“owners” are, simply, the willing fronts of the Few.
(5) Socialism:
Socialism is not a social system, but it can exist within a social system. Also, it can mimic a social system
in its concepts and in applications.
Socialism is an economic system in which “the direct allocation of capital goods is to meet economic
demands so that production is adjusted towards use.” Goods and services for consumption are
distributed to markets and are distributed to income. These allotments are based upon a principle of
individual merit and/or upon a principle of individual contribution.
Again, in applying the criteria, “a” is that it does not apply; “b” is that it does not apply; “c” is that it does
not apply; and “d” is that it does not apply.
In practice, this system is difficult to implement and it is impossible to maintain due to the multiple
imperfections of human nature within human hierarchies. And, the attempts to extend its economic
philosophy to political theory and political movements have met with great disappointment.
The theoretical concept of socialism is better than its practical application. That is, a system must be
under the control of someone or some group in its maintenance and its application. In history and in
practice, those who attempt to control the economic processes of socialism rapidly undermine it.
(6) Communism:
Communism is a social system and an economic system.
As a social system, communism is a form of government in which the social structure is ruled in the
name of itself. A group or “party” acts in the perceived “interests” of the people that it controls to the
point of curtailing or eliminating personal freedoms. The social structure is viewed as “classless and
stateless.” This social system is structured upon “common ownership of the means of production, free
access to products of production, and the elimination of private property and personal wages.”
As an economic system, it is an extreme form of socialism. In fact, some theorists view socialism as a
means to becoming a communistic society. Apparently, this transition would adhere to the following
sequence: capitalism…. socialism…. communism. Theorists maintain this falsity despite the fact that
capitalism and socialism are economic systems-in their histories, they have not been viable social
systems.
Examples of such governments were 20th Centaury China, Russia, and Cuba. The current, economic
systems of these “communistic” governments (which have transformed significantly over time) are
increasing capitalistic.
Finally, in again applying the criteria, “a” is the state; “b” is the state; “c” is that it does not apply; and
“d” is the state.
The failure of the extreme, economic systems of communism was the cause of their dramatic decline
and their dramatic transformation. In essence, the communistic social systems could not match the
economic systems (capitalism) of other social systems which were operating throughout the world.
For example, China’s recent economic ascendance is due to its adoption of a more capitalistic system.
And, the Few of China would make past and present, global industrialists envious. The games that they
are playing with their currency, evaluation processes are truly remarkable and are truly fraudulent.
(Incidentally, China’s gamesmanship would make the ExxonMobil Corporation [who is “taking on the
world’s toughest challenges”] and their fellow “energy” corruptors invidious. “XOM” [and their
“energy” controlling friends] has elevated “cosmic, price fixing” to an art form. The share holders and
the management of XOM belong “in jail” along with the Few of China. But, they are above the law or
they can make favorable law due to their extreme wealth and their extreme politikos. After all, “XOM”
is one of the Few.)
Summary:
Worldwide, the Few relate to each other as a cohesive, dynamic, and connected group. They do not have
any national loyalties. They are the group which dominates their respective social systems. Thus, they
are the gods, and they are the chosen. They are the many. They are the few. They are the owners, and
they are the workers. They are the socialists, and they are the capitalists. They are the state. And, in
truth, they are none of these.
They control their global, social and economic systems. And, they are continually, and they are
constantly attempting to control the Many for the purpose of increasing their wealth and increasing their
power. And, war is the major, political strategy which they use to control each other and to control the
Many.
Fromoneofthemany