User:John Bessa/Capital Structure

This writing attempts to comprehensively describe the economic and political structure we live in in historical and observational contexts. Most important to this writing is that the model developed to represent the structure be applicable throughout both humanity and time; it has to be fundamentally unbiased.

This is intended as "cheat sheet" or quick reference of Capital. As it is not meant to be a heavy document, an extensive discussion analyzing and debating the meanings of Capital could make it weighty quickly. But as a purely skeletal document, it lacks relevance. As it is meant help the implementation of meaningful and beneficial economic models that could replace Capital, it is probably best expanded in context through observations that relate to, or perhaps are guided by, historical supporting material.

Supporting pages:


 * Empathy Model


 * Organismic Fate


 * Spiritual Darwinism


 * Capital Punishment: Americans kill, so what is the best way?

A goal of the writing is to describe Capital as an entity. Many people tend to think of capital (with a small "c") in terms of its minor components, such as family bank accounts and home equity, and have difficulty grasping Capital as "the big picture." And others can only think of capital in terms of economic formulas; one reader described Capital as "productive goods measured in money, as is consumption."

Also important here is defining a relationship between Capital and family capital, and I attempt to link the two by showing that the big Japanese firms developed very recently as corporate (and hence Capital) families, applying this idea as what I describe as a "clean model" of Capital over an existing structure that grew separately from traditional Capital, and hence the term "clean."

Knowing that the Web works best in bite-sized (or byte-sized) bits of information, and that beneficial changes require clear maps, I have attempted to introduce the classic structure of Capital mostly as I learned it from Lewis Mumford,  Joel Spring, and  Will Durant in the context of recent experiences that can easily be pointed to and confirmed by observation.

Components:
 * Financial and industrialized Capital
 * Education
 * Medicine
 * Immigration/Colonialism

As I began naming Capital components and developing a structure, I started to think of Capital more as a description of an entity rather than a culture of business people. And this leads me to think that the culture of Capital--there definitely are such things as financial communities--as a template. Present-day Capital culture as multiculturalism, would not then be a circle of friends, but actually a cooperative process. Capital culture is unlike, say, musical or artistic communities; it is not about community and mutual support, but, predictably, about making money. Capital culture is the structure of Mumford's "machine," and hence not a social culture at all. If you follow the evolutionary concept that community and morality spring from Darwin's idea of "natural affection" among the higher animals, then Capital culture is a reversal of natural evolution, and hence shares precious little with humanity. Mumford easily pointed to the few things Capital presents as humanity as "false charity," and no one I know thinks of capital institutions, such as financial corporations, in terms of affection.

I have found Durant's writing to be very useful in helping understand the historical roots of Capital components in Roman history, such as the historical basis for government bureaucracy. He shows bureaucracy to be beneficial in that it was designed to prevent the capital families of Rome from swallowing the state. Durant's description goes a long way to help explain corporate hate for government; I found the level of hate perplexing when I was on Wall Street. My thought back then was "where is the manual for this thing?" Well, I now think that this mysterious handbook is the Capital template that has been passed down through many generations, and hence my excitement about this writing.

Durant is helpful, also, because he is pro-Capital and pro-Roman, despite Rome's cruelty, and seemingly pro-killing in his writing about primitive man. I don't buy his rationalizations for accepting the cruelty of humanity as being ultimately positive, but I respect his research, and his pro-Capital slant helps balance the anti-Capital approaches of Mumford and Spring. (Perhaps anti-Capital is strong, but both Mumford and Spring sound socialist at times.) Durant also easily shows that we live in a well-preserved modern version of the Roman Empire. I attempt to extend Durant's perception of Capital by showing that the Capital arrangement is largely universal, and that resource exploitation systems arrange themselves in much the same way everywhere, and that denying a universal approach is culturally biased. I deny that capital development is evolutionary, because evolution is empathy-based (or affection-based, if you prefer), and there is nothing affectionate about big business!

Below is the "structure," and beneath it is the supporting and contextual material that is divided into two sections. The first is a contextual setting that attempts to describe the sources, both historical and observational, that contributed to the structure. The second section, document development, has material that was developed as the structure was created.

The supportive writing has become far weightier than planned, so I am putting it below the structure. While the structure is about 99% inserted (only needing rearranging, "fleshing-out," and linking to the supporting material), there are still un-obvious components of Capital that have yet to be "discovered," or at least need to be shown to be components of the Capital entity. Religion, for instance, is important in Capital history, but like government, it is not a direct component of Capital; Capital has used religion in colonialism to demoralize natives, or to combat efforts to limit population growth by birth control advocates. Capital punishment, another example, is another important component of the Capital entity, but as yet only referenced here.

=Capital Structure=

Family capital

 * Elite families
 * Family businesses

=Education=

Components
Aristocratic, or cultural, elite Oligarchy, or organizers Education Medicine to create
 * The original, usually violent, but later genteel dominant culture
 * Tutors, originally, that organized voilent empires to become partially "civil;" the process of civilization
 * capital manual (seminars in economics)
 * didactic means of control for the lower levels (or brainwash, from Bob Marley)
 * the only actual necessity
 * dependence
 * monopolistic control through certification by examination

Human asset factory for Capital
Dependent on recession so that companies rely on their antiquated output rather than allowing companies to learn and teach within the workforce

Medicine
Closely related to Education Both Education and Medicine rely heavily on restricted supply to create high demand. At the end of the day, we can make our own clothes, fun, housing, and food -- but not medicine. And Capital's organizers are not stupid, just anti-empatic, so isn't stupid so they created a monopoly of Medicine along with other Sciences, by establishing standardized education. This is related to the physic, as in physician, is a descendant of Neoist (or Modernist) philosophy, the Physic or Nature.

An important component of langauge with respect to Medicine, is that traditional medicine, which is preventative, is called alternative medicine when in fact the Neoist structure is the alternative to the natural evolution of medicine and education on many levels.

Medicine operates within a narrow scope dictated by the present-day Capital-controlled Roman legal system. Sub-categories likewise operate in narrow anti-multidisciplinary scopes to prevent a whole-systems approach that is anything different than meta-physical holism, that, as an alternative medicine, only represents Western medicine's absurd beginnings 2,500 years ago when Neoism began, or perhaps other Modernist metaphysics.

Psychology
Psychology, which is closely linked to the medical psychology, or psychiatry, was the last Science to leave psychology and kept alive the early Neoist ideas, such as the existence of mentally controlling biles, into the 1970s. It is vitally important for Capital to keep it contained and meaningful only to its practitioners, because, as soon as the "cat is out of the bag," the meaning of interrelation in terms of responsibility will reveal crime in the standards, and may make criminals of many of the practitioners. Medicine will revolve, the monopoly will be dissolved, and Capital will be threatened. Everyone invested in the Capital Structure will know that they have to help resist the restoration of evolutionary normality. Many will learn how to make small meaningless compromises that pervert meanings so that Capital can continue as always, so that the 2,500 year-old financial structure gives the appearance of growth even during obvious continual decline.

=Neoism=

Neoism is presented as a resistance to Social Norms. From an evolutionary (and democratic) perspective, what is considered socially normal presumably benefits people within their society. To validate the concept of an alternative to tradition, social norms have to be altered to give the appearance that normally-evolved traditions are harmful. The way to do this is to implement norms that benefit only a few, the elite, and disguise them as tradition, so that the alternative to tradition appears to be liberating alternative, and operates from cult-controlled fringes as an apparently revolutionary struggle always ready to refresh the Neoist structure should the elite allow society to revert to it's evolutionary and socially normal path.

For the West the norm was redifined was done through the conversion of Christianity's forgiveness and acceptance into the hate-motivated Christian-Roman "Inquisition."

Place-holder for Modernism
Philosophy of Capital

This has been a place-holder for what is thought of as the roots modernism, or the undying philosophy of Western Civilization: oligarchy. It is not necessarily modern, and it would be bias to say that other civilizations are fundamentally different, especially Asian, and that they have different roots.

This represents a final hurdle as it puts our present structure into the ancient empire model, which shows an early departure, or fork, from the natural tribal construct based on emotional bonds to a synthetic structure. The leap is psychological, as we need to explain any departure from what is evolutionary and natural, because what we know about psychology we know only from what is missing, or wrong. Synthetic tends to un-empathy, which is described as digital thought in the sister document, The Empathy Model. So the leap here is to the other sister document, and then back again with a psychological vocabulary to describe what we are starting to think of as proto-Capital.

Designed obstinately to promote production, the oligarchy may, in reality, exist only to create a role for those who would be otherwise marginalized as they lack the collaborative facilities to work in productive groups. Oligarchy describes a marginalized group intelligent enough to know that banditry fails in the end, but that the same types of activities can be reinforced if they are defined as warfare and supported by the nation-state, no matter how ruinous. Oligarchy, then, requires special strategies to create needs for the unthinkable, such as war, and paranoia appears to be the vehicle. And war can't be their only strategy as conflicts are often resolved.

Research into the underlying psychology of civilization followed curiosity about the words rational and reason, which, as it happens, have nearly the same meanings:  calculating thought. We think of sensible and reasonable (from the French for rational) as the same, but they have nearly opposite roots. Sense is nearly missing from the etymology of thought. Further towards the birth of civilization we find the Greek logos, an equivelent to calculating thought, and little about conceptual communication, and nothing about sense, or the higher sense that is empathy.

We are instantly confronted with Plato's Republic, which any corporate employee will instantly recognize as the system under which he labors; and Aristotle's rebellion against Plato that introduces openness and observation from which spring the Scientific Method and the ideal judicial system that takes circumstances into consideration.

Plato's Republic consists, simply, of a three tier pyramid of elite, enforcers, and productive workers; the elite and enforcers not being able to be as productive as workers. The Asian equivalent being Confucianism, we know that if it were not for Plato someone else would have drawn this map.

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle found the Lyceum, of course, a liberal model for education that designed today's normalized or didactic cognitive system. It defined nature as the physic, spawning both physics and physicians--physicians being responsible for half of today's unresolved debt.

Neoist art
Interestingly, while trying to coin neoism as modernism in the shadow of neo-Nazism and neo-liberalism, I came upon the anti-art of the same name that both satirizes and describes modernist society, which, just to clarify, is not modern, but dates back to Plato. Modern, as in Picasso, is actually post-modernist as it attempts to return to what modern artists perceive of as our emotional, natural, and sometimes tribal psychological foundation in contemporary terms as Pollock did.

Still, the politics of Neoist art play in much the same way as they do in common society where we seem post-modernism devolve into altermodern, a supposed post-modernism that reminds me of Alexander's reluctant invasion of Persia on the insistence of Aristotle*. Through globalism, post-modernism devolves into super-modernism as corporate freedom homogenizes humanity in the name of openness, in ways no different than the Soviet Empire did (notes).


 * The open and fair Aristotle told Alexander that Persians were objects to be cut down as if they were crops. Could the same person who added humanity to the legal process also be so biased as to seemingly invent racism? Or was Aristotle narcissists, and took someone else's work for his own as narcissists, such as politicians, often do?

Separation system
Pyramid: Maintain a structure that continually seeks to flatten to historical natural native family and community arrangement to support a superstructure of luxury and control

Elite

 * Capital Families
 * Families
 * Corporations


 * Intelligentsia
 * Enforcement

Productive

 * Drones

Expendable

 * Prisoners
 * Cannon fodder

=Foreignism=

Immigration
Population growth necessary to keep up with Capital construction and Elite waste

Colonialism
Contemporary: Global elite, multi-culture, that now includes the low-end from the bottom-up, stainless-steel diner example.
 * Distant exploitation
 * Capital collapses with out it allowing markets to return to stable and sustainable local economies

Slavery
"If you can't hire construction workers, capture slaves." (Bill Battle describing capital construction)

=Minor components=

Executive branch

 * Executor
 * Executioner
 * Witch killings
 * Native extermination
 * Religion

=Dependencies=

Corporate
Education

Medicine

 * Education
 * Drugs (crime)

Capital growth

 * Colonialism
 * Capital construction Capital, at the end of the day, is Capital construction. Growth is necessary to maintain Capital, and construction provides the housing for growing populations, and the capital construction necessary to operate the "machine made from human parts (Mumford)."

Family capital

 * Property annexation
 * Human exploitation Humans as assets, human capital (Spring)
 * First inside family (FGM)
 * Then outside, natives gathered as assets, first locally then extended to distant lands

Religion
=Contextual Setting=

Capital de-evolves natural society
While all life evolves, and with it society, capital is different. Capital is not life itself, or a representation of it, but a vehicle to exploit it. It grows by refining itself, and it absorbs a great deal of ingenuity, but it psycho- and sociologically de-evolves, or devolves. It reverses the meaning of evolution as it grows.

Evolution of morality
Evolution means to develop emotional communication as affection in all animal branches, and for the highest animals, the development of love and morality. Darwin's second document introduced this idea to the world, and research increasingly confirms it, especially in the twenty-first century.

Capital evolutionary rationale
An evolutionary-based rationale for Capital rests on a reversal of the growth of affection in evolution as described by a contemporary perversion of Darwin's concepts called Social Darwinism, where de-evolution is described as evolution: a reversal of life's accomplishments. It is still defined as evolution by its proponents because changes, even if they are deprecatory, none-the-less move forward through time strengthening an organism's ability to obtain resources, if immorally and usually through violence. It fits the overly-simplistic "survival of the fittest" description that is often misapplied to Darwin's conclusions, that can easily be shown to reverse the development of morality. While this strategy may work for parasites, it does not for higher thinking life, as thinking organisms can easily develop defense strategies against attack by de-evolved organisms. Or, in the cases of Capital, rebellion and revolution.

Marginalized or institutionalized
Lewis Mumford provides in his writing extensive historical support for observations of Capital activity, while Aaron Beck provides social and psychological models that can likewise be supported by common observation. Mumford specifically describes two groups that work to inflict damage: highly capitalized industry, and marginalized groups living in isolation. And Beck describes structures that protect negative groups from critical inquiry, and especially the insertion of new information that would challenge the misinformation that allows groups to operate destructively.

Capital is extremely developed and the highest capital organizations are described as financial institutions. As they provide the structure for all capital, almost as a religion, capital organizations can likewise be described as institutions. Mumford's other component, the marginalized defectives, can in no way be described as refined or well-developed, as they usually live in poverty and reject modern thought. Mumford describes them historically as people unable to join in the newly created societies of villages when humanity moved from the forests into villages. Lacking the resources of evolving society, these marginalized people have been historically forced to remain in the early human state of "hunter/gatherer," with a reliance on killing animals using contemporary weapons. Mumford further describes them as full-time killers; killing animals, each other, and forming paranoid gangs of killers that survive on brigandry, that eventually grow to provide the violent aspects of the nation-state. Capital operators and these marginalized killers are psycho- and sociologically similar, as they see their development as a negation of affection and morality so that they can more easily obtain others' resources immorally. Perhaps the only major differences between the two groups are intelligence and luck, and these differences separated them early in human society's evolution.

Observationally, Capital families and the marginalized are similar. In the United States, hunters who wander the forests with rifles and shotguns killing animals, and often other humans, are generally associated with the extreme right. Occasionally they present themselves as not being extreme reactionaries but as mainstream members of society living out a historical activity. But that is simply posturing--they enjoy killing, and the joy of killing is the only reason they hunt. Hunters who do not enjoy killing stop hunting to join normal, peaceful society.

Capital in the United States is purely conservative with only varying degrees of hatred for social evolution. It has a well-documented reliance on war, environmental destruction, and labor exploitation for its expansion, its necessary continual economic growth, necessary to offset its inefficiencies, waste, and the obsessive spending of its Capital families. Radical-ness for Capital is the liberalization laws that attempt to throttle its destructive, and hence immoral, activity that results from its desperate need for continual growth: the politics of Corporate Liberalists and Libertarians. To them, personal freedoms and human rights only mean to provide Capital operators and their families with the ability to take exactly the same types of freedoms and rights away from others; if not the right of individual self-determination, then the right to life. Mumford's marginalized killers historically support Capital political strategies with killing: the KKK, and more other reactionary racist militias. For the marginalized defectives, freedom is similar but simpler: the right to take away others' right to life.

Mumford describes the development of modern capitalized industry as a departure from classical societies, which at the time were cities guided by the protectionist guilds, to the forests where the resources for industry were: initially wood to create charcoal for industry's energy needs, then coal and iron ore. There, away from the protection of the guilds, capital operators could abuse labor with impunity, and industry operates in that mode today in industrialized societies, despite our highly socialized societies. There capital operators would no doubt meet marginalized killers, and they could bond easily into a mode of predatory cooperation to implement violence to help secure their exploitative operations, and to fight social organizations that may attempt to limit exploitation.

But Mumford leaves a contradiction open-ended; Capital, by definition, obtains resources from afar and concentrates them in central locations called capitals. Capital, a Roman word, and colonialism, likewise derived from the Roman "coloni," are accepted as Roman refinements of the Empire structure, and have been carefully preserved since the "fall" of the Roman Empire. For guilds to develop into highly-protective and mutually supporting city-states, the antithesis of Capital exploitation, they must have been able to evolve capital cities into socially beneficial environments. Likewise big modern cities have historically supported free-thinkers, such as musicians and artists who successfully challenge the greed of Capital. Capital would have to adapt, or perhaps tolerate, these tribal and natural societies within the capital cities, if only to wait for opportunity to eliminate them and devolve society back into a "greed over need" mode.

There are interchange points between naturally social society and Capital, and these interchanges allow Capital to persist, even though it is purely parasitic and should collapse like any unsuccessful parasite. There is more than tolerance for Capital by society; society expects resources gleaned from capital, usually through taxation, to develop antidotes for capital, such as welfare, public schools, socialized medicine, and the Arts (Maslow's mixed-synergy society). Capital families often insert themselves into natural society, leaving their "high society" behind, "slumming," as it were, with the lower classes, sometimes leaving less-desired family members behind when they return to their accustomed environments.

For its part, the natural society (the vast population that isn't Capital) has worked to defeat its own "natural affections" by using strong drugs such as cocaine, LSD, and "speed," to enhance its consciousness, but has inadvertently instead destroyed its affectionate neural constructs. This defines the "60s" period that abruptly ended, or perhaps crashed, in 1969. But these drugs continued, especially cocaine, which now represents Capital thinking, as in the corruption of Black culture into the cult of violent drug culture.

This is representative of the challenges of modern society. Liberalness implies tolerating less desirable social activities, and Libertarians very openly point to the complete legalization of drugs that are specifically shown to delete empathic constructs. Rumors persist that the intelligence wing of American Capital, the CIA, for many years the private domain of the dominant Bush family, built the inroads for cocaine into the United States as part of a complicated conspiracy, usually called Iran-Contra, that put the political conservatives back into power after their disastrous Vietnam war period. As you can see there are many links between all these examples of Capital. Capital is indifferent, and will expand in exactly the same ways in any environment.

Context in history
Mumford easily supports Darwin's model of natural affection when he shows how human society initially developed in a "pot luck" mode, where affectionate interactions lead to societal development. In that happy time, people who have recently emerged from the forests learn to live and work together in villages were they develop along with their domestic life: hybridized crops and farm animals. Kropotkin expanded on this when he moved to defend Darwin from the treacherous social Darwinists by showing a history of humanity's mutual support in animal communities that is no different from human society. Benedict codifies it by describing a system of social survival through generosity of Native North American society that she names Synergy.

All is good in Mumford's early villages until certain village members move to expand their "personal space" by staking out other property as their private domain from that land that is shared, or the public domain. They effectively deprive greater society of this resource which includes not only food and materials, but represents freedom. They go further; through violence they take others' personal spaces and rationalize the violence as a need to provide for their own families, yet ignore the needs of those they hurt in the process. With this bias these families display an initial decay in empathic evolution, and unlike animal society, human society is unable to limit their effect. If society attempts to marginalize violent families, as animal societies do, then it simply creates a marginalized culture that becomes more dangerous through desperation, and can even further rationalize its violence as it becomes more intelligent, but not more empathic. These violent families can be described as cunning; they have to be tolerated if they cannot be driven away, and a culture of tolerance is created for their benefit, and intellectual, if anti-emotional, version of empathy.

The public domain can be thought of as an entity as Capital is here, the original and traditional mode that Capital exploits as a resource, and replaces socially. The public domain, perhaps now the "Public Domain," is traditional, and Capital, by replacing it, is neoist. As ancient as Capital's roots are in ancient empires, it is young in the full experience of humanity, which is millions of years older than Capital, and can trace its roots in species that precede and accompany it. Along with each Capital structure's continual expansion within its own environments, comes expansion afar, which is the annexation of other lands and the absorption of people living in that land as human assets, or human capital (Spring). But prior to the development of land annexation even in its own environment is the idea of developing family members as assets, or family capital--we see this today as feminine genital mutilation, a strategy to keep children on the family farm by preventing them from joining other families through marriage.

Customary rules enforce social imprisonment within the family, rather than allowing children to leave the family to join the community, which is natural, tribal, and a cornerstone of the Constructivist model for education and human growth. Looking at family rules that would redefine family love as human capital, and enforce the imprisonment of captured humans, even in this day (and certainly within the recent history of the United States), leads to the idea that crime itself is rules-based, criminals depend on extensive rules for their predatory organization (Cosa Nostra), and that the development of society's rules have similar equally immoral roots in the control of humans as assets be it slavery or labor control.

The structure today
Following the institutional-or-marginalized approach, not all important institutions are financial, and fewer and fewer are industrial, as industry decays into disconnected production operations that are merely financial assets. When one uses the word "institution" without context, more often than not, the context is assumed to be "mental institution," and it is true that today's societal guides are often psychologists; gone are the philosophers as guides and religions leaders as moral compasses. Psychology has replaced the thoughts of philosophers, the morality of faith, and even the propaganda of rebellion. Economists and sociologists, psychologists have trickled their research conclusions upward into society to promote Capital's growth and to rationalize its necessity. Behavioral science joins with behavioral economics to assure compliance through the "idiot boxes" of modern communication media, and those who are uncomfortable with this relationship with capital are taught by cognitive practitioners to understand that their role in the system is purely beneficial. Even the humanistic social scientists contribute by tying all the loose ends to introduce a form of mass capitulation that they describe as peaceful communication: resistance to the structure being emotional hostility and defensiveness, not to mention protectionist, the very cause of world war; resistance is as suicidal as it is stupid.

To their credit Humanists worked to bend Capital to force it to contribute its gains as taxes for beneficial uses, such as welfare, education, and the Arts; what can be described as Maslow's mixed synergy. But these Humanist successes only date back to their Renaissance, a period prior to and just after WWII, and the Humanists successfully asserted their liberating influences only momentarily during the American popular rebellion to the Vietnam war, what is thought of as "the sixties." Today the successors of the original Humanists are admittedly pawns of Capital, openly seeking consulting assignments from corporations. Corporations only need Humanists to help them to provide Synergistic rationale as a cover for labor and environmental abuses.

From any direction, be it Humanist or behavioral-cognitive, psychology today directs humanity, and the fountainhead of psychology has always been the mental institution. I cannot possibly think of a worse place from which to navigate society! It is a point of this part of the writing to show that all the psychological paths are becoming irrelevant as the world's various capital structures who once were divergent and opposing each other are converging into the multi-culture of globalism to create what is sometimes referred to as a new world order, is always presented in terms of peace and prosperity--with the help of Humanists! It is biased to support one psycho- or sociological school of thought over another, despite their differences. Capital while becoming all consuming, is even more quickly becoming unnecessary--if it ever has been necessary--and the opposing psychological schools ultimately only serve to promote Capital in their distinct ways rather than showing its lethal conclusion.

For the human predator population, Capital's less-lucky cousin, there is not a lot of choice. They support a system that rejects it, forcing it to remain marginalized, while it faithfully makes itself available to Capital as a population of willing killers willing to repress the majority of normal people; or to travel to other lands to participate in foreignist activities such as annexation; or to exterminate natural animals in the forests while destroying the environment. When society's Humanist aspect does occasionally attempt to embrace the marginalized, then the hatred of the marginalized is dealt with as a disorder, and marginalized may become institutionalized in a psychological sense in the vast out-patient system called social services.

This idea of "marginalization or institutionalization" is especially true for the homeless. Many of the homeless are not just unlucky, but deliberately seek to separate themselves from society, often because society has hurt them in significant ways, such as by attempting to force them to go to other countries to kill innocent people, usually natural villagers. Or they may have become marginalized purely as a result of Capital control strategies, such as racism.

Because of the significance of psychology in contemporary society, and hence in the controlling Capital structure, then perhaps the "marginalized or institutionalized" model can even be extended to us all. Either we belong to (or in) one kind of institution or another by drawing a paycheck from a corporation, a welfare check from social services, or at very least getting "three squares a day" in prison. If we are not "institutionalized," then we are very nearly completely on our own, relying on our own survival skills, creating or trading for products such as clothes, food, and medicine, as humanity did before the development of complex societies. This is how the homeless live; and they do so successfully, but with great stress.

So disloyal is Capital that its final line of support, the marginalized predator, is forced to live in poverty and ignorance. But Capital has no choice but to do so simply because it lacks the empathy to function normally in society; it does not function to interrelate but to exploit. Therefore the violent marginalized have no choice but to remain marginalized because they lack the intelligence, and perhaps the training, necessary to emulate empathy so as to be able to live more or less peacefully in society as Capital families do.

To help the Capital families to survive in society, a vast context of rules has been created to guide them. It is likely that the idea of rules as a concept has in its roots the early annexations of land and capture of humans as assets, as prior to the formation of rules as in tribal forest or village culture, we see no rules. Over time punitive rules have transformed into to tools to balance society by moral peoples who can be thought of in terms of today's Humanists. Rules are now meant to help keep the peace, moderate capital exploitation, and implement social support to offset the damages of Capital. But the very rule-sets that have been created by Capital to secure its operations and modified by society to create balance, are continually assaulted by Capital to free itself to return to its original states of unlimited exploitation that can easily be shown to be its cause for collapse: the boom and bust cycles of the Capital markets that are consistently (and stupidly) rescued by society that we read about every day in the papers.

Capital is caught in a lethal paradox that society forever tolerates. The Capitalists; their activists the Liberalists; and their marginalized killers think of freedom as the removal of the very rules they need for guidance lacking natural morality. Ultimately freedom for them represents a return to their unencumbered ability to take freedom, or alternatively life, from others, and hence the American revolutionary meaning of "right to life." And the perversion of this phrase to mean to mean anti-abortion terror on behalf of the Christian far right by marginalized defectives rather than an implicit guarantee by society and the government to protect the very meaning of life and its self-preservation.

Perhaps the best path for society is to continue psychologically to help us understand that there are significant psychological problems in the various guidance structures, especially law-making. We also need to accept the latest research material that points to a neurological basis for this guidance problem, in that key neurons and hence neurological constructs are missing from people driven to obtain power. Can the capital structure simply and peacefully be institutionalized allowing a restoration of natural humanity?

What we know about the mind is learned not from what we have, which we tend to take for granted, but what we have lost--what we see when significant portions of the mind are missing. If it were not for the uncontrolled affection of the Down's victims, then we would not know that affection, our greatest gift, is throttled by a specific neurological facility whose design is written into our DNA code.

=Developing this document=

The contextual setting of the document seems to be concluding. Having implemented the model successfully in debate, I am learning that the idea hinges as much on the relationship between family capital and communities as it does on the relationships between capital structures, such as Capital, Education, and Medicine, and perhaps Government. The large structures have their historical basis in the family structures, as we are all human after and presumably come from families, and the underlying neurological constructs that guide normal society that are missing in Capital are key components of the family, either active or missing.

Constructivism: family and community
The relationship between family and community is best described by the Constructivists who show a child's initial growth, and learning, with in the family, but historically (and naturally) the child leaves the family at a relatively young age to join the community as a novice. Over time the child learns, or absorbs big pieces of the community's knowledge, or the community of knowledge, and at a certain significant moment, may offer new information into the community of knowledge that improves life's processes, or perhaps even its meaning. The child-novice then becomes an expert. This is not necessarily a requirement in community, as community is about caring--the goal of evolution according to Darwin. Extending the community of knowledge in a Darwinian sense is not only the caring facilities written in the DNA of the community, but also the surrounding environment in the animals with whom a traditional community has relationships. Capital, of course, seeks to either exploit or destroy this DNA, and with the Darwinian goals of evolution.

Family business contradicts community and the child's growth On the family-level, the concept of a family business contradicts the Constructivist model, which has the child leaving the family reasonably early, supporting the validity of young marriages we see in the Bible. Rather than seeing pastoral images of a secure village or a healthy tribe, I imagine scenes from the movie The Godfather that show introversion and displacement.

In the real picture, family business is hardly an issue, except in extreme cases where Capital is implemented as family abuse. Capital is widely dangerous only in size.

If the constructivist model is applied to, say, suburban society, which is so homogeneous as to be nearly generic and devoid of traditional culture, then one has to look hard for the community component that the child is supposed to join to move from novice to expert. This kind of society offers school, possibly sports clubs, and shopping structures such as malls as places to go to expand. The children are entirely within their own age group so there is no possibly of the natural progression from novice to expert, except how teachers and coaches, and even retailers, see fit. And from my experience, the parents are always there, inserting themselves into every aspect of what these limited communities may have to offer. Perhaps television, and now the Internet, replaces the traditional constructivist community for growing youth, so much so that the only path to a natural-seeming community path is often that of the street: gangs. What is most frightening about gangs is that they adhere to a family model, and are purely rules-based. An exception to this narrow path is the Church, but Churches for the most part are tightly controlled for the benefit of family--family is inescapable.

There is little hope for success for children growing outside narrow channels created purely for the benefit of Capital: human capital (Spring). In other words, stress will prevent the majority of children from completely self-actualizing, unless parents can form, or perhaps restore, what Constructivists would think of as "natural communities of knowledge." Considering that Capital functions on cycles of boom and depression, and that nearly all of our efforts are specifically focused to support Capital structure, and that material benefit is the only goal of Capital, then the formation or restoration of natural communities must be exceedingly difficult for families who seek to supply their children with natural growth path, and this is perhaps only achievable by wealthy families, who are also the beneficiaries of Capital.

Contributing ideas
It is important to show that systems that have been offered as alternatives to the Capital structure, such as communism, are actually very much the same in that fit much of the capital criteria for accumulation of capital, expansion, exploitation, and general-all-around nastiness. Some are just refinements of Capital, especially Communism (Marx really only had classical texts for reference, the naturally native tribe had not been revived yet by Kropotkin), some are re-branded capital, such as European socially democratic governments that descend from Napoleon's meritocracy, and some utilize only portions of the structure specifically for social control, such as social activism (the original organizer of Earth Day kept his wife in a trunk long after she died).

Capital structure as a model
Modeling is different from the hypothesis/testing approach to Science as it fits natural conceptions, and is the most common experimentation approach; and idea developed in to a concept, and then the concept is applied to real life. If it works, it will produce results. If there are problems, the model gets adjusted, until it provides benefits, and if the model is too far off, then it will probably be abandoned. An example is a business model, where profits easily verify a model's viability.

The idea of Capital as an entity may be difficult for some to accept, especially when the structure is not a culture in the community sense as it is built more as a machine. Capital is referred to in a social sense, such as the financial community; this perception may help some accept the structure as an operating entity and not as a simply as a social phenomena.

Viability of a model is proven in two steps: first the aggregated ideas are applied to the environment where they were developed, and then a template of the model, stripped of local labels, is applied to other similar environments. The model should be able to predict similarities between social structures we have been otherwise told are different, usually because of social biases, or because information is being misrepresented, usually to protect resource exploitation operations.

When we approach Capital structures from the perspective of a culture, we see a "cult of culture" where operators are isolated from the damaging effects of their operations by insulating barriers of misinformation manned by Aaron Beck's "self-appointed mini-guards." Virtually any information structures can be converted into a barrier by perverting its language, but the most useful to Capital have been morally developed structures, such as dominant religions. Widely implemented moral motivators are also easily converted into veils for exploitation. The Roman Church has a long history supporting colonial operations as part of its Roman descendancy, immigrant waves and colonialists in the West descend from the Roman "coloni," and Mumford explains in detail how charity greases the "machine's axles" in what he calls "false charity;" Ronald McDonald being the prime contemporary example, a clown that draws children to dangerously fatty food, and offers lodgings and counseling to their families when they become mortally ill. (Today's most common illnesses did not exist a hundred years ago.)

Since Capital structures in their final developments are huge, usually spanning continents, there are not many alternate environments to overlay with a constructed Capital structure template model.

Implementing the model in conversation
While attempting to describe Capital as a structural entity to a Methodist Pastor who has a ThD, I found that he kept returning to Capital as accumulated cash and home equity. But neither of these are Capital, they are cash and equity, and normal family savings does not usually come from annexation and exploitation, but from hard work with benefits to the community, and sometimes the world. As I slowly convinced him of Capital as a structural entity, he grasped the idea of capital as a culture, which led me to introduce the "cult of culture" ideas.

Debt
A third "family" component that goes with cash and equity is the flip-side of those two: debt. Debt is unquestionably Capital as it is the absorption of the hard work by banks into bank's accounts, in the best scenario. Using real estate as an example, the worst scenario of family debt is the absorption, or perhaps annexation, of the family home into a bank's holdings, often putting the family into the street outside the home with the support of enforcement, the executive branch.

It is important to know that at least half of unresolved debt is medical, and it is with tremendous relief that I think of the many rebellions and revolutions that have prevented Capital, in its component forms of Medicine (in cooperation with Education), from killing people in genocidal proportions by allowing them do die of preventable disease.

Extending this a little further, it is also important to know that the diseases that kill today were nearly absent a hundred years ago, and have been introduced by industrialized Capital in food and the environment. Perhaps Medicine, as a Capital component, has for the most part social rebellion by helping Capital create the linked modern diseases of cancer and heart disease, which can easily be shown to be preventable through abstinence from Capital's obsessive eating habits. Instead of helping remove the problem (and possibly Capital itself) Medicine (in cooperation with Education) works to maintain the problem by treating these diseases chemically; extending life expectancy, but with a severe loss of quality of life. Medicine is a particularly garish component of Capital as it thrives from disease, and hence has no "behavioral" motivation to help mitigate disease.

Is this greed a function of Capital as an entity, or does it reach to the levels of individual doctors in a layered approach? It can be shown that a lack of sidewalks in modern real estate and commercial developments, and further a lack of roadside shoulders, contribute to heart disease by discouraging exercise by walking. The fancy sub-division housing that many, if not most, doctors consider a necessary standard of living have no sidewalks. (Interestingly, it is debt associated with these very sub-divisions that is being blamed for the recent debt-related market crash, though they are only one component of debt, medical debt being the greatest.)

If we can return to traditional life-styles while retaining modern medicines, then old age will become the only fatal disease. Extending the effects of debt one layer beyond family and banks, is international debt. International debt is different, as there is no concept of wiping away national bankruptcy; it originates in personal and corporate debt. The only next step is to hand over the land, or prepare for invasion--but in nuclear world, preparation seems pointless. America, of course, is now entirely living on international debt as a nation, having exported all its important industries, technology and manufacturing, and replaced them with debt driven house building. I talked to a man who sometimes attends my church, who makes a good living exporting health jobs to Australia through the Internet; his response to my international debt concerns was "better we owe them, than they owe us," as if America is getting away with some kind of extreme stealing.

Testing the model internationally as a template
When I attempted to show how a template developed from Euro/American Capital could be used to predict aspects of centralized Asian culture, specifically Confucianism and its highly biased examination systems (only available in Han Chinese), and relate to how humanism is being stripped from Western culture through a switch to pure testing over research and writing (social science and human service masters programs are quickly shifting testing-only modes and away from research thesis requirements), he countered with the idea that testing and examinations are beneficial in that they help organize a central hierarchy, which, because it is centralized and beneficial.

I moved my argument further East to, to show Japan's history of modern Capital. Japan Westernized in the late 1800s after being threatened by the United States for its desire to stay isolated. The American attack was an early example of modern globalism, and resulted as a vehicle for Japan's hawkish Confucianists to dislodge the centuries-long-standing Buddhist government. The Japanese strategy became to "learn the ways of the barbarians," to use Western Capital to defeat the West, and they have succeeded, amazingly, with the help of free market capitalists here in the US, such as the former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan. (This I categorize in the corporate structural model as "foreignist.")

I was able to tie several concepts together when I thought of the Japanese idea of Capital: the corporate family, as well as the Capital entity as a well-defined structure. In their refined and highly successful Capital structure, they have brought together two phases of Capital that are usually distinct in the West, family capital and the corporation, and have been able to implement a form of loyalty to assure life-long dedication towards vertical expansion with colonialist goals--most cars made in America are Japanese.

The Capital family
This is not to say that the Capital family is not as powerful as corporations are; many families have wielded unbelievable power, such as the departing Bush family, a long-standing purely capital entity that actually invested into Hitler's war machine just prior to WWII, and joined Saudi Arabia's Bin Laden family in arms investments as recently as a decade ago.

Capital as an extension of culture: the multi-cultural template
While the idea of Capital as a structure contradicts a perception of it as a culture, there is no denying that there are capital organizations that may have cultural aspects such as the financial community. If one allows for a cultural approach within the structural model, then, as a structure, capital exists above the cultural level as an organizing template. This may help describe the multi-culture of global capital. This in a sense explains how meta-religions that absorb local religions and convert them, may actually adapt to them and absorb more than then local people, but their cultural values and attributes as well. In these cases, meta-structure is not necessarily only about control, and shows the possibility of a give-and-take relationship between controlling structures and the local communities they absorb and control. In an extreme case of give and take, social rebellions that seek to set right the wrongs caused by exploitation ultimately improve controlling structures. Capital has no way to implement societal organization, it is only able to absorb it, and if it Capital is denied the basic components of organization that natural human society takes for granted. Because Capital has no way to implement society, it has to take it; capitalists cannot even clean their homes; they have to absorb house-help, usually at great expense. Natural human society contributes to Capital in significant ways making life live-able within the Capital structure despite its exploitative nature. But by changing Capital, natural society inadvertently improves Capital’s abilities to exploit. And the goal of Capital is to finally exploit all the Earth's resources, and absorb its people as human capital with purely destructive results. Cataclysm is predicted by both Science and religion but usually in ways that attempt to describe it as a sadistic God’s will, or a natural result of humanity. This shows how Capital can influence both morally-based religion, and the constructed knowledge of Science.

The vehicle for this influence is misinformation. Contemporary Capital’s media-based machine advertises the multi-cultural as cultural unity, when it is really only a template that seeks to consolidate all of humanity into a single universal and uniform structure designed to achieve the same types of benefits Capital achieves with corporate consolidations such as mergers and acquisitions; Contemporary Capital seeks to raise its monopolistic tendency to the level of nations and regions to absorb all of humanity. But as with all mergers and acquisitions, there is a strong likelihood that attempted takeovers will be “hostile.” Conflict is nearly guaranteed, and contemporary Capital’s strategy once again reverts to the manipulation of information. It is far less likely to attempt to use religion as it has in the past, but implement the two Capital-friendly psychological schools of thought: behavioral and cognitive. Not to say that Humanism is used is well by Capital, it just wasn’t conceived as a Capital tool. But we see Humanist psychologists lining up to help Capital by adapting concepts such as Action Research and non-violent communication as tools to trick humanity into conforming to the contemporary Capital’s multi-cultural template.

Where is Government?
The component list is a comprehensively covers all of society, and within the document are structural components that link government to Capital. Certainly government shares structural design with Capital; government within it has capital institutions, and even purely socialized organizations such as unions do, and highly capitalized corporations operate in the bureaucratic mode. They can survive the expenses of bureaucratic inefficiency only because they are so large, and, of course, highly capitalized.

But Capital hates government, even though government works nearly purely to support Capital. A complaint about Obama by Capital is that his bailout program includes government participation, what Capital sees as an infringement on private rights. George Bush's supporters reported that he was deeply pained to create more government, and hence expenses for taxpayers and increased controls over business, but he went as far as to use misinformation as a rationale for an invasion of another country, and act that increased the size of the military by factors, as if the military is not part of government. Perhaps the Bush family sees the military, and with it the CIA, as part of their own family and not part of what they seem to perceive as a largely leftist government. (This possibility resembles the Roman internal conflict in Julius Caesar's time; the military fractured into pieces that followed generals representing individual capital families; Caesar forgave these families for their treachery and invited them back into the Roman fold--they killed him.)

Capital and government, between them, own the largest share of wealth, perhaps as much as 90%, and they divide it equally between them, with only a tiny share going to families, individuals, and the few community groups that have survived the recent capital expansion that is globalism. Capital argues that by reducing or eliminating the government's share, and that by giving that share to Capital, families would get larger portions, and hence rationalizes the removal of government. And when they say "families" here, they don't specify which families: average or elite.

From the perspective of families, individuals, and community groups, it is obvious that natural humanity, as a vast entity, survives on only a tiny percentage of the global wealth, capital in the purely monetary sense, and since the average person only marginally benefits from the vast wealth held by the two big "sectors," doing away with Capital, and perhaps much of government as well, as they are described here would not only make resources more available to average people, a great deal of stress would be removed from both humanity and the environment. Eliminating the two big sectors might actually bring the environment to the point where the resources it gives to humanity are sustainable. Reducing or removing these two big sectors would also remove the easily predictable "end date," that Capital, the government, many scientists, and many religious leaders claim is either a natural conclusion of human growth, or a cataclysmic event that is sadistically divine.

Even the environment is protected by the government purely from the perspective of profit; if there is no Capital basis for saving the environment, such as real estate development or hunting, then, to the government, there is no rationale for protecting it. Bureaucrats see no moral issues at all with respect to the environment, even though environmental laws are purely morally-based. Child protection laws were initially created from closely-related animal protection laws, which tend to be grouped with environmental laws. If laws are instructions, then this shift by government from social responsibility to a purely productive process can possibly be described in terms of "instruction creep," which is the idea that even the best intentioned rules will ultimately become tools for inefficiency, abuse, and ultimately self-destruction.

Much of government was created in response to Capital by the Romans, to throttle capital growth so that capital families wouldn't consume the Roman state. Roman capital families responded to Julius Caesar's synergistic development of the Roman state by stabbing him to death in the government seat. The Romans also give us most of the Capital lexicon, and in our own age of social responsibility, social support is given largely to bureaucrats. And the ultimate bureaucracy, Communism, can be simply described as state Capital.

Capital and bureaucracies are so similar that they must share a psychological, and hence neurological, basis. But there is no bureaucratic culture as there is a distinct Capital culture, and I cannot think of any bureaucratic families in the sense that I think of Capital families. Perhaps bureaucracy is simply a band-aid for the damages of exploitation, which may explain why Communism has failed to create societies significantly different than Capital societies. For one thing, communists have not been shy to implement nearly-pure forms of Fascism--ancient Rome's system of government. This is why I say that communism, and with it socialism, is simply re-branded Capital, and strongly supports the unbiased idea of psychological commonalities between all these types of large control systems.

But Capital's hatred for government, which is probably based on bureaucracy's role in preventing Capital from destroying the state, and the fact that government may simply be outside of the scope of a discussion about Capital, keeps it off the list of Capital components. Still much of government is so similar and close to Capital as to be a part of it, such as the Federal Reserve, and all huge control structures are organized in nearly the same way as Capital is. And all huge structures are controlled by the same types of control-driven people who have never been shy about using destructive and immoral strategies to obtain the resources necessary to feed their structural machinery, or to consolidate their own power, no matter what the consequences. And despite international posturing by corporations large and small, newly globalized Capital is causing environmental, social, and labor situations to worsen at an exponential rate, which is exactly the rate of Capital growth.

Capitalization of the word Capital
Showing that Capital as a template, a culture, and an entity gives it the right to have its first letter capitalized--an odd use of words! I feel that the listed components of Capital are so distinct to be capitalized themselves, but how far do we go? Are communism and socialism similar enough to enjoy the same status? Or are they simply systematic processes rather than entities? Other integral components of this writing, such as Education, Medicine, and Immigration, are likewise examined.

There is much in the lexicon of language, far more that Capital wants to admit. All terms tend to be meaningful on many levels, and Capital tends to mean very much the same thing no matter where it is used, and the effects of Capital are nearly always exactly the same.