"There is, and has been for centuries, in the highest level power structure, a determination to destroy mankind's traditional way of life, that is of the village. Traditional village life is effective, timeless and impregnable. It is, above all, self-sufficient, something that American urbanization is not. Villagers have solved the problems of the necessities - food, clothing and shelter - on a modest scale, and they do not need the omnipotent paternalism of the international banker, the chemical revolution or the politics of the modern jungle."

This provocative thought is from retired Air Force Colonel, L. Fletcher Prouty, in his book J.F.K: THE C.I.A., VIETNAM AND THE PLOT TO ASSASSINATE JOHN F. KENNEDY. Col. Prouty was assigned in 1960 to the Office of Special Operations, immediately under the Secretary of Defense, where he became the senior Air Force officer responsible for the provision of military support for the clandestine activities of the C.I.A. He had intimate knowledge of the O.S.S: (later to become the C.I.A.) secret, "cold-war", operations in southeast Asia since 1943, which led to the tragic and unnecessary wars in Korea and Vietnam and ended a simple and primitive but tranquil period of village life that had endured almost ten thousand years.

What is a "village"? And, what happened to the "village community" way of life?

Webster defines it as "a group of houses in the country, larger than a hamlet and smaller than a town; a primitive type of organized farming community, regarded as the basic self-governing political unit from which the modern state developed, and characterized by communal ownership of land."

Perhaps the most idyllic examples of these "village communities" would have existed among the Essenes who briefly emerged from quiet solitude around the time of Christ. Or, perhaps, in the ancient pastoral districts of the Central Peloponnesus, the southern Greek peninsula on the Aegean Sea. Also, possibly, the Indo-Chinese in the remotest parts of Southeast Asia. Then there were the lesser known people of the Hunza Valley, who settled the highest altitudes possible in the Himalayas of West Pakistan, as well as the peaceful and contented settlements of the Cathars in the south of France around the Twelfth to Fourteenth Centuries.

These simple, rustic people probably epitomized the excellence that the "truly" civilized world had reached during these periods of history.

When we scrutinize the chaos and corruption that envelopes humankind at present, we can only wonder that, perhaps, modern society with its technology, its economics and its politics is but an anomaly, an aberration that hopefully will pass.

It does seem, in an evolutionary sense, that we moderns may have overshot the mark. Perhaps there is something to be learned from our elder races whom we like to categorize as pagan and primitive. We westerners presume, because of our complex technology and overwhelming political influence, that we are certainly the more advanced. While we may prove to be quite clever...are we really more civilized?

When we examine how we are displacing and destroying other races and other cultures in an effort to facilitate our own survival; how we are laying waste our own environment far and wide in the interest of greed and profit; how we are exploiting each other and denigrating commonly accepted human values for our own pleasure and self indulgence, we should not be surprised if we become known as the most degenerate and destructive barbarians the world has ever known. That would be quite a legacy for western man.

If each of us were to closely examine what is really happening in the world at present and sincerely wonder if it is possible that this is what we are becoming, we would be forced to ask ourselves, why are we allowing it to happen? Are we caught in some accelerating mass syndrome or compulsion? Why does western civilization seem to be spiraling in on itself at present? Are we truly living out the prophesies in the Bible? Are we in the end times....the end of the "system" of things?

Perhaps a brief review of history will help to clarify a few conditions which have, in part at least, led to the dilemma with which we now seem to be faced. It is generally accepted that what determines the level of our civilization is the scale and efficiency with which we organize the integral parts of our society. Yet, as we examine human experience historically, we also see that the better we organize our civilization the greater is the need for centralized authority to maintain it. While this might seem to serve in improving our "standard of living" it also seems to erode our "quality of life".

To put it simply: As the standard and volume of things we create to improve our life styles increases, conversely, our ability to appreciate these improvements seems to decrease. Thus, from a psychological and spiritual perspective, we are living in "poverty amidst plenty". The ancient and time worn proverb, "Everything is a sacrifice", would seem, in this case, to be true. For every achievement we gain, something else must be given up. In most cases, it would seem, we must lose a thing in order that we might discover what it is we have lost.

At any rate, when we examine, historically, the direction we have caused our "civilization" to carry us, we may begin to see that mankind is in a struggle between opposing priorities. The quest, at any cost, for a higher standard of living and material comfort, is offset by a desperately awakening need for an improved quality of life and peace of mind.

How can we have our cake and eat it, too?

Firstly, let us recognize, for the purposes of this writing, that what we mean by a "higher standard of living" relates to the behavioral aspects of life and the creature comforts thereof, and what we mean by "improved quality of life" relates to the attitudinal aspects of life and our personal sense of well being.

Then let us examine what history tells us has actually occurred. Let us try to determine how it seems to have affected us in terms of gains and losses.

Finally, let us try to assess whether and how we, as a society of intelligent, "civilized" people, can become deliberately self-determining with regard to our future on Earth....Masters of our own destiny, so to speak. We create the world we live in, whether responsibly or irresponsibly....deliberately or inadvertently. Why not create it deliberately and responsibly, with the welfare of all sentient life in the here and now as our specific and immediate goal?

Five thousand years ago the world was ruled almost exclusively by tribal cultures. Pre-state tribal society was most completely transformed by the development of agriculture. The earliest technologies were directed at the acquisition of wild foods, fishing, herding and horticulture for the sustenance of the tribe. Primitive cultures were small and quite limited in geographical influence but provided the requirements and advantages of cooperation in their economic activities, sharing of food, and tending to the sick and wounded.

Pre-state societies were generally quite primitive, in that technologies were simple, based on kinship ties and egalitarian in nature. There are two basic configurations in the pre-state form of society. The egalitarian tribal type is segmented with families, lineages and clans which are unspecialized, basically equal and linked together by kinship, marriage and descent. Generally the male dominates that family household, yet lineage elders usually have the greatest decision making powers in family affairs. People usually have common styles of housing, clothing, adornments, use the same tools, eat the same foods, observe the same rituals and revere the same gods. Social unity is based upon likeness or cultural sameness.

French sociologist and anthropologist, Emile Durkheim, stated that "while this system provided mechanical solidarity, it was weakened by the fact that it was not really integrated because the social segments were so self-sufficient. The strength in it, however, was due to the fact that if one of the segments was lost, it did not impair or destroy the society." A tribal leader did not have authority over tribal affairs, because his influence did not extend beyond his own social segment. He might, however, have authority over a specific exercise, being limited by context and duration, such as a hunting or war party.

The second configuration of pre-state society is the chiefdom or hierarchical society. This type achieves a greater sense of "organic solidarity" because there is a greater dependency of certain specialized parts upon each other. The same social segments are present, but they are different in terms of rank or status, and in their political function and economic role. Some select families and groups hold the rank of chiefs and others are regarded as commoners. In this type of organization, it is found that individuals, families and village communities will begin to specialize their enterprises - some will be farmers, some will be fishermen, still others will be craftsmen. It is this phenomena of specialization that reflects the administrative functions of the chiefs and becomes responsible for the increasingly sophisticated means of organizing society. The greater the specialization the greater the need for organization, and, subsequently, the greater the need for control, which of course, inevitably leads to increasingly greater centralization of authority and power.

Centralization of power always seems to earmark a breakdown in communication between those who rule and those who are ruled, and this inevitably leads to resistance and rebellion against authority.

Wrong-doing in pre-state societies was dealt with in a direct, face-to-face manner among people whose behavior was governed by rules of kin etiquette. Breaches of etiquette were seized upon immediately and punished by ridicule, withdrawal of support or ostracism, depending on the gravity of the offense.

Justice was often exacted by the offended or harmed party alone in a "self-help" manner, but more often people would turn to their kin group for assistance. Sometimes wrong-doing and the quest for justice would lead to feuding.

Feuding in some form or other was commonplace in pre-state societies, whereas feuding is not condoned in state societies, nor are the usual forms of self-help in exacting justice. When feuding escalates to the point of revenge and is met by counter-revenge, then a serious threat is imposed upon the organization of society.

In the segmental society, at times, those who were not directly involved in the feuding, but who could be at risk of injury if conflict continued, would intervene for the purpose of resolving differences. Eventually, however, the pre-state tribal and chiefdom systems succumbed to the advent of the "state" system.

Webster defines the state as "the power or authority represented by a body of people politically organized under one government, especially an independent government, within a territory or territories having definite boundaries", also, "the sphere of highest governmental authority and administration."

There are many theories as to how the "state" society came into being but the most popular one is the conquest theory. That is when one society conquers another and then becomes the governing class of the vanquished. As the conquered territories expanded, the need of governing them became more complex. This introduced a need for improved communication, regulation of affairs and increased warring capabilities. Thus, as civilization evolved, we also see the introduction of writing, government, law, cities, monumental architecture, art, science, metallurgy, craft specialization, commerce and large scale warfare.

Whether during ancient or modern times, the concept of a political state involves a controlling group that monopolizes the legitimate right to use force to preserve itself.

Another popular idea is the "crossroads" theory which holds that trade was the primary reason for the formation of the state. Wherever major trade routes intersected, traders from differing societies would gather and form communities. Since these people lacked common backgrounds, cultures and social institutions these communities were quite diverse internally and thus required an authority - the state - to manage their affairs.

While the "state" concept did not emerge overnight, we can see that it must have been at this point in the evolution of human affairs that the major break, away from the rugged egalitarianism of the pre-state societies, took place.

If we observe carefully, we may even discover how and when we started becoming the clever, sophisticated barbarians we seem to be today instead of the benevolent and civilized Arcadians we could have become.

It is not our purpose, in this text, to provide an in-depth study of the pre-state or state societies, but simply to provide a brief, historical outline of those factors in our advancing "civilization" which may have led us to the point where we lost our individual autonomy and spiritual sovereignty and find a way to recover it through wiser choices in the modern idiom.

If we use an allegorical overview in our examination of the evolution of society, we see that civilization is like a coiled "clock spring" that is winding up on itself, ever tightening, ever increasing in tension, and, even now, approaching its extreme point of tension. Humanity, unconscious though we may have been, is at its cause.

We have learned and experienced much on this extraordinary journey of suffering, conquest and creativity. Are we getting closer to the point where we might choose to become cognizant of where our quest has brought us? Dare we examine with insight and fortitude the "effects" all this has had, and is having, upon sentient planetary life....upon ourselves?

The sum of these "effects" are what we presently call the "civilization" that embraces our fragile lives. Will these "effects" be disastrous or illuminating? What is the power that drives this "system?" Where is the "establishment" taking us? What is "civilization" turning us into? Have we, as individuals, the power and the awareness to reverse this process, if need be, and release the tension before it may be too late? Or will nature be forced to take its course and release the tension for us, leaving those of us who survive to ponder the calamity we have wrought upon ourselves?

The key to identifying and ameliorating the conditions described in the above allegory lies in deciding the point at which, in the history of the evolution of society, the "clock spring" actually started to wind, or whether it has been winding since the dawn of human history.

Whichever case may be true, there would still seem to be specific junctures in time where noteworthy changes in human awareness took place, causing accelerated progression in society's development. There seem to be spurts of progress.

Like the hand that winds a clock, it exerts the necessary pressure to increase the tension somewhat, then rests and the tension will decrease slightly as time flows through it. Then pressure is applied once again, increasing the tension even further, and so the exercise is repeated until the tension reaches it maximum level, just short of damaging the mechanism. If we over-wind the clock we destroy its purpose and function to us.

It would appear that civilization's "clock" is rapidly approaching its maximum point of tension. Either we allow a bit more pressure to be added and risk destroying our civilization or we choose to relax this tension wherever we can by exploring and implementing practical and relevant alternatives to how we are presently living.

As stated, we have "progressed" to this state of tension over centuries of subliminal choosing, experimenting and modifying our attitudes and behavior. Always we have benefitted from our choices and always we have suffered from them as well.

Perhaps we are now approaching a time when it would behoove those who are aware in our society to draw back from the futile concept that "life is simply how it is" and we can't change it, and ask ourselves whether we, in fact, don't have some influence over the destiny of our own lives and thus, also, over the evolution of society.

We seem to have become like so much chaff in the wind, blown this way and that by the "Power Elite" who make the wind blow. Do we need to ask which way the wind is blowing? It just may be blowing up into a storm to end all storms.

Once we have ascertained the "source" of the influences that govern and direct our lives, and we realize that there is an invisible "Power Elite" who create these influences that condition and socialize us and literally force us into patterns which are predictable and controllable by their designers, we then must hope that these designs are benign and in the interests of human welfare. If we find that they are not, then they must be in their own interests and we will be forced to admit that we are simply pawns in a planetary game of chess played by an insidiously cunning group of "Masters" who see control of the destiny of humanity as the prize for their efforts.

If such a scenario is found to be true then we next must assume that one of two possible outcomes will prevail. Either they, the "Power Elite", will be successful and we will all ultimately become enslaved and oppressed, or, they will fail and we will all become free and self-determining in all our actions.

The Random House Encyclopedia has the following to say about ruling elites and their power: "Ruling elites are groups that actually control the instruments of power."

"Vilfredo Pareto, (1848-1923) the Italian engineer, economist and sociologist, argued that people's actions are often based on sentiments rather than on rational thought. Political elites, he believed, maintain their power by manipulation and coercion requiring appeals to sentiment rather than to rational interest. Elites, he claimed, are liable to be overthrown unless they are also prepared to use force. They may act in the general interest or simply in their own interest. If their power is not sustained by a dominant class, then it is maintained by control of the police, armed forces and propaganda." (ie., mass media * authors note).

"The state bureaucracies of the Soviet Union and the military regimes of several Latin American countries are examples of such ruling elites."

"The U.S. Sociologist, C. Wright Mills, (1916-62) argued that in the United States in the 1950's, power in matters of national importance rested in the hands of leading businessmen, top politicians, and soldiers."

"Power is often exercised by ruling elites in a democracy through their ability to choose issues on which the majority may vote. If a new urban transportation system is proposed for example, information and debate on the advisability of having a system at all and the effects that it will have on the area may not be much in evidence. What usually will be presented are several alternative technological schemes. The elite, often businessmen or trade unions in a city, have (already) made the most important decisions, and the majority has a choice only on secondary issues."

"Society can be represented as a human pyramid in which power and socio-economic rewards are concentrated near the top. This applies, whether the dominant group is considered to be a ruling elite or a dominant social class."

"A person’s position in society largely determines not only his level of material and social rewards, but also the power he has over others and the extent to which others have power over him. A member of a dominant group, (say) an employer, will have direct power over his employees. He also exerts more influence over local and national politics, the operation of the law, and the mass media."

Thus far we have briefly examined the historical progression of social structure from the "tribal society" to the "state society". It appears that somewhere amidst the transitional development from the "village community" to the "city-state", mankind deviated from his intended spiritual destiny and began plunging into his present "humanistic" predicament. Now we shall examine how a human frailty, the desire for power, may have caused man to deviate from his true path, fall from "grace" and be ejected from the "garden" by his own stupidity and misguided determination.

We have noted that the turning point occurred when specialization became introduced with the village community. With specialization, of course, came the need for greater organization and, subsequently, more control which, undoubtedly, aroused the desire for power in certain groups.

It is possible, I suggest, that were it not for our lapse in the development of the village community, mankind may have found the most ideal social structure ever devised, but then turned his back on it in a spurious lust for greater control and power, and it disappeared, like the Holy Grail, into the dust-laden annals of history.

The Grail, the vessel we are told was used by Christ at the last supper, and was used by Joseph of Arimathea to collect a few drops of Christ’s blood at the crucifixion, symbolizes the containment of the blood of sacrifice. Similarly, the village community may symbolize the containment of the blood of sacrifice that humanity made when they chose to pursue the personal power afforded by the city-state.

Again, to shed more light on our subject, we refer to comments made in the Random House Encyclopedia regarding the matter of conflict, power and social in-equality.

"The mechanisms by which society integrates and controls its members are never completely successful. All societies have deviants and criminals, and nearly all are subject at times in their histories to serious forms of social disorder, revolts and revolutions. Many sociologists believe that such occurrences are not just the result of failure of the social structure. Instead they contend that conflict and social division are inevitable in all social structures. Societies are unequal in their distribution of power and of material and social rewards, and it is these inequalities that generate social divisions and conflicts of interest. If uncontrolled they may produce extreme forms of social strife."

And, regarding the exercise of power: "In all societies some social groups are able to exercise power over others. Their power may result from their control over means of coercion - military or police forces - or control over material resources and social rewards."

"The German sociologist, Max Weber, (1864-1920) showed that the ability of groups to maintain their power depended on their success in persuading those subject to it that they had the authority; in other words, that their exercise of power was legitimate. Acceptance of the existing power structure by the population may be based on tradition, as in the case of a traditional monarchy; rational laws, as in a constitutional parliamentary system; or personal loyalty to a leader as in the case of Benito Mussolini." "When the exercise of power is accepted as being legitimate it usually complies with social norms. A result of this is that the norms of society tend, in varying degrees, to serve the interests of powerful groups rather than the common interests of all."

"For example, in societies where the powerful groups are owners of private property, the norms tend to emphasize respect for private property. The exercise of power always tends to generate resistance on the part of the powerless, who challenge its legitimacy. Just as people may be unaware of the extent to which their actions are controlled by the forces of society, so they may not notice the power that others exercise over them. They may have been socialized (conditioned *authors note) to want to act in ways that are in the interests of the powerful."

"Where power is based on control over material resources and the means of production, as in nineteenth century Western Europe, then power is exercised by a dominant social class. Where power is based on control of the bureaucratic and military apparatus of the state, then that power lies in the hands of a ruling elite."

It may be worth remembering that a ruling or "Power Elite" may be destroyed from within by failing to recognize certain basic short-comings, such as lack of food, which may result not only from failures in production but instead by a shortage of transportation. A lack of proper planning in the transport sector is as bad as a lack of food production as evidenced in the "Power Elites" Malthusian practices to limit over-population.

In summing up, we can see that fundamentally, in the terms of those who lead, humankind is faced with two options of leadership. The deceptive type, which is usually designed to appeal to the sentiments, and/or the forceful type, which is designed to overpower the will.

The moments in human history when we have been exposed to virtuous leadership have been so brief that, while being memorable, we, the members of society, no longer deem it to be realistically possible. Certainly it has never significantly altered the dubiously inspired destiny imagined by our elitist rulers.

Virtuous leadership is inevitably cut short by assassinations or removal by the "established" ruling elite, or non-virtuous, deceptive, power-hungry leadership.

A case in point was U.S. President John F. Kennedy, who, according to some investigators, seemed to be of questionable moral character on a personal level was, on a higher level, uncannily attuned to what was virtually best for his country, its people, and the world at large. People the world over respected him for this innate sense of virtue he possessed. This, of course, was intolerable for the "powers that be" so they destroyed him and, with him, they destroyed the hearts and the wills of the people he had aroused and inspired. In so doing, they also re-set the government stage for continuing deception and power-seeking leadership. Without the hearts and the wills of the people to interfere, it has been a relatively easy matter for the ruling elite to manipulate and coerce the masses into the seemingly inescapable socio-economic juggernaut in which we are now caught.

The "establishment" has been successfully destroying the leaders who might have inspired a virtuous society since time immemorial. Thus, it is clear we cannot rely on conventional leadership to create it for us.

It has been said that happiness and virtue are synonymous with each other. If we are going to find true happiness and have a virtuous society in the here and now, we must create it ourselves, given the guidance of what we already know will work, will foster the highest good for all concerned and will not be harmful to any other sentient life. The ideal matrix in the social sense, it would seem, is the village community concept.

The present state of our modern society would indicate a strong possibility that we may have overshot the mark because of a human weakness, the desire for absolute control. One could say we had our arrow focused right in the bulls-eye, then, upon releasing it, we jerked the bow and missed the target and failed to notice our error.

Was it ignorance? Was it lack of faith? Was it pure evil? I shall let psychologists, sociologists and religionists apply themselves to the task of pondering the questions as to cause. My purpose here is simply to ask the question: Can we get back on the path, as a species, to our intended spiritual objective? If so, how can we achieve this?

There is a saying, "The Lord helps those who help themselves." This is a very pragmatic and realistic statement when understood in the context of active pursuit, real enterprise, especially when good judgement and conscientious actions are present. Where in our analysis of human history, other than in myths and fairy tales, do we find evidence that virtue and happiness may have prevailed in our world? If and when we find such evidence, we can only assume that those whose privilege it was to enjoy it, must have been doing something right.