Christopher M.

Quigley
B.Sc., M.M.I.I. Grad., M.A.



. Personal Note



Over the past 20 years or so I have been reading, studying, talking and writing about the work of my
namesake: Prof. Carroll Quigley. For forty years he lectured, finally obtaining a Professorship at the
School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington. During his Presidency Bill Clinton, a
former student, quoted Quigley extensively on such matters as history, political structure and
foreign policy. Prof. Quigley's seminal work "Tragedy and Hope" was a watershed in contemporary
understanding of the history of the West, in general, and the United States, in particular. In this book
Carroll Quigley explained his understanding of the realpolitik of power structures of the world and
many might say this cost him dearly. However, his perspective on life was that you should endeavour
to do your best, regardless of consequences. In 1976, one month before he died, he delivered a
series of three lectures on one central topic "Public Authority and the State in the Western Tradition:
A Thousand Years of Growth 976-1976. Remarkably, 32 years later, this lecture series is timely.






The Oscar Iden Series



Prof. Carroll Quigley's Last Public Lectures



Public Authority and the State
In the Western Tradition:
A Thousand Years of Growth
976-1976









Lecture 1. The State of Communities 976-1576






Lecture 2. The State of Estates 1576-1776







Lecture 3. The State of Individuals 1776-1976











Lecture 3.

The State of Individuals 1776 A.D. - 1976 A.D.
Prof. Carroll Quigley
Georgetown University 1978




This is the most difficult of the three lectures I'm giving on the history of the thousand years of the
growth of public authority. What happened in the last two hundred years is fairly clear to me, but
it is not easy to convey it to you, even those of you who have had courses with me and are familiar
with the framework of much of my thinking. One reason for this difficulty, of course, is the
complexity of the subject itself, but after all, the preceding eight hundred years were quite as
complex as the last two hundred years we will deal with this evening. A much more fundamental
reason for the difficulty is this: The reality of the last two hundred years of the history of the
history of Western Civilization, including the history of our own country, is not reflected in the
general brainwashing you have received, in the political mythology you have been hearing, or in
the historiography of the period as it exists today.

I will divide the period from 1776 to 1976 into two parts. The first, to about 1890, was a period of
expansion of industrial society; the last eighty years, approximately, have been an age of profound
crisis, not only in our own country, but in Western Civilization, which is the unit in which I carry on
my thinking on the subject. In order to deal with this period, I have to go back to fundamentals,
and particularly to the fundamentals of human values, and to do that, we must have paradigms.
The whole thousand years, as I explained in my first lecture, is a shift from a society made up of
communities in 976, to a society today, where we have states of monstrous power and atomised
individuals. I will use certain definitions: A society is an organization of persons and artefacts--
things made by people-- and it's an organization to satisfy human needs. It would not exist if it had
not come into existence to satisfy human needs. Notice: I do not say human desires. One of the
striking things about our society today is the remoteness of our desires from our needs. If you ask
anyone what he wants, what he desires, he will give you a list of things which are as remote as can
be from human needs. In our society, the process we have been tracing for a thousand years is the
growth of the state. As I indicated in the first lecture, a state is not the same thing as a society,
although the Greeks and the Romans thought it was. A state is an organization of power on a
territorial basis. The link between a society, whether it be made up of communities or individuals,
and a state is this: Power rests on the ability to satisfy human needs.

Now I will put on the board something with which former students are familiar. I always call it the
levels of culture, the aspects of a society: military, political, economic, social, emotional, religious,
and intellectual. Those are your basic human needs. The interesting thing about them is that they
are arranged in evolutionary sequence. Millions of years ago, even before men became human,
they had a need for defence of the group, because it is perfectly obvious that men cannot live
outside of groups. They can satisfy their needs only by cooperating within a group. But I'll go
further than that, and return to it again in a moment: Men will not become men unless they grow
up in communities. We will come back to that because it is the basis of my lecture tonight.

If you have a group, it must be defended against outsiders; that's military. Before men came out of
the trees they had that need. If your needs are to be satisfied within some kind of group, you must
have ways of settling disputes and arguments, and reconciling individual problems within the
group; that's political. You must have organizational patterns for satisfying material needs, food,
clothing, shelter: that's economic.

Then came two which have been largely been destroyed or frustrated in the last thousand years of
Western Civilization. Men have social needs. They have a need for other people; they have a need
to love and be loved. They have a need to be noticed. Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy because
no one had ever noticed him and he was determined that, from now on, someone would know he
existed. In fact, most of these "motiveless" assassinations are of this type. Someone went up to
the top of the University of Texas tower and shot something like seventeen people before they
caught him. That was because no one had ever noticed him. People need other people. That's the
social need. The basis of social relationships is reciprocity: if you cooperate with others, others will
cooperate with you.

The next is emotional need. Men must have emotional experiences. This is obtained in two ways
that I can see: moment to moment relationships with other people--moment to moment-- and
moment to moment relationships with nature. Our society has so cluttered up our lives with
artefacts-- TV sets or automobiles or whatever-- and organizational structures that moment to
moment with nature are almost impossible. Most people don't even know what the weather
outside is like. Someone said recently that until September we had a great drought here in
Washington, and four or five people standing there said, "That's ridiculous." We had a shortage of
about eight inches of rain. Because they're in buildings, it doesn't matter to them whether it's
raining or not.


The next is the religious. It became fashionable in Western Civilization, particularly in the last
hundred years, to be scornful of religion. But it is a fact that human beings have religious needs.
They have a need for a feeling of certitude in their minds about things they cannot control and
they do not fully understand, and with humility, they will admit they do not understand them.
When you destroy people's religious expression, they will establish secularised religions like
Marxism.

Now, on the intellectual level: people have intellectual needs. I used to tell students that Marilyn
Monroe had profound intellectual needs. And when no one would treat her as an intellect or even
as a potential intellect, for obvious reasons, she was starved for intellectual experience. That's
why she married a man like Arthur Miller: she thought he was an intellectual.

All right, those are human needs. Power is the ability to satisfy those needs. And someone who
says that power is organised force, or that power is the outcome of an election, or that power is
the ability to cut off our oil supply, has a completely inadequate way of looking at it. My
experience and study of the destruction of civilizations and the collapse of great empires has
convinced me that empires and civilizations do not collapse because of deficiencies on the military
or the political levels. The Roman army never met an army that was better than it was. But the
Roman army could not be sustained when all these things had collapsed and no one cared. No one
wanted to serve, no one wanted to pay taxes, no one cared.

The other part of this will require you to put these things together to some extent. Persons,
personalities if you wish, can be made only in communities. A community is made up of intimate
relationships among diverse types of individuals--a kinship group, a local group, a neighbourhood,
a village, a large family. Without communities, no infant will be sufficiently socialized. He may
grow up to be forty years old, he may have made an extremely good living, he may have
engendered half a dozen children, but he is still an infant unless he has been properly socialized
and that occurs in the first four or five years of life. In our society today, we have attempted to
throw the whole burden of socializing our population upon the school system, to which the
individual arrives only at the age of four or five. A few years ago they had big programs to take
children to school for a few hours at age two and three and four, but that will not socialize them.
The first two years are important. The way a child is treated in the first two days is of vital
importance. He has to be loved, above all he has to be talked to. A state of individuals, such as we
have now reached in Western Civilization, will not create persons, and the atomized individuals
who make it up will be motivated by desires which do not necessarily reflect needs. Instead of
needing other people they need a shot of heroin; instead of some kind of religious conviction, they
have to be with the winning team.

Human needs are the basis of power. The state, as I said, is a power structure on a territorial basis,
and the state will survive only if it has sufficient ability to satisfy enough of these needs. It is not
enough for it to have organized force, and when a politician says, "Elect me President and I will
establish law and order," he means organized force or power of other kinds. I won't analyze this
level; it's too complex and we don't have time. I will simply say that the object of the political level
is to legitimise power: that is, to get people, in their minds, to recognize and accept the actual
power relationship in their society.

Next Tuesday a decision will be made as to who will be President of the United States. That will
not necessarily reflect the actual power relationships in the United States at all. If all the people
who are intellectually frustrated would vote, the result might be quite different. Many of you
come to these lectures because you are intellectually frustrated, and you want to be exposed
again to my insistent demands that you think about things. For example, we no longer have
intellectually satisfying arrangements in our educational system, in our arts, humanities or
anything else; instead we have slogans and ideologies. An ideology is a religious or emotional
expression; it is not an intellectual expression. So when a society is reaching its end, in the last
couple of centuries you have what I call misplacement of satisfactions. You find your emotional
satisfaction in making a lot of money, or in being elected to the White House in 1972, or in proving
to the poor, half-naked people of Southeast Asia that you can kill them in large numbers.

The state is a good state if it is sovereign and if it is responsible. It is more or less incidental
whether a state is, for example, democratic. If democracy reflects the structure of power in the
society, then the state should be democratic. But if the pattern of power in a society is not
democratic, then you cannot have a democratic state. This is what happens in Latin America,
Africa and places like that, when you have an election and the army doesn't like the man who is
elected, so they move in and throw him out. The outcome of the election does not reflect the
power situation, in which the dominant thing is organized force. When I say governments have to
be responsible, I'm saying the same thing as when I said they have to be legitimate: they have to
reflect the power structure of the society. Politics is the area for establishing responsibility by
legitimising power, that is, somehow demonstrating the power structure to people, and it may
take a revolution, such as the French Revolution, and it may take a war, like the American Civil
War. In the American Civil War, for example, the structure of power in the United States was such-
-perhaps unfortunately, I don't know-- that the South could not leave unless the North was willing.
It was that simple. But it took a war to prove it.

I defined sovereignty last time, but I want to run through it for the benefit of those who weren't
here. Sovereignty has eight aspects: DEFENSE; JUDICIAL, settling disputes; ADMINISTRATIVE,
discretionary actions for the public need; TAXATION, mobilizing resources: this is one of the
powers the French government didn't have in 1770; LEGISLATION. The finding of rules and the
establishment of rules through promulgation and statue; EXECUTIVE, the enforcement of laws and
judicial decisions. Then there are two which are of absolute paramount importance today:
MONETARY, the creation and control of money and credit--if that is not an aspect of the public
sovereignty, then the state is far less than fully sovereign; and the eight one, THE INCORPORATING
POWER, the right to say that an association of people is a fictitious person with the right to hold
property and to sue in the courts. Notice: the federal government of the United States today does
not have the seventh and eight but I'll come back to that later.

In the meantime, I'm still on my introduction for this evening, and I want to discuss what
happened in the last thousand years. If we go back before 976, when you had communities, the
main core of people's life and experience, which controlled their behaviour and determined their
lives--controls and rewards, I call it--was in the religious, emotional and social levels. They had
religious beliefs, they social and emotional relationships with the people they saw every day. That
was the core of their lives. The significant thing is that those controls and rewards were
internalised: they were what was acquired very largely in the first four or five years of life. When a
child is born, he is nor a person, he is a human being. He is utterly potential. When someone
becomes a personality, such as you or myself, then he has traits, which were acquired out of his
potentialities as the result of experience over numerous years.

This is why they could get along without a state in 976: all the significant controls were
internalised. I took the year 976 because, although Western Civilization had come into existence
about two hundred years before that, it began to expand in 976. By that I mean they began to
produce more goods per person per day per year. You know what I mean by expansion if you took
my freshman course: increased output per capita, increased knowledge, increased geographic area
for the civilization itself, and increased population. That began in 976, and we'll put an arrow here
at the economic level to indicate it. The economic expansion was achieved chiefly by specialization
and exchange: instead of each little group's trying to satisfy all its own needs, groups began to
concentrate and, for example, produce wool and exchange it for other things. That process of
increasing specialization and exchange, which is the basis of expansion in our civilization, I call
commercialization. As long as the society is expanding, that process of commercialisation will
continue as it has for a thousand years in our society, so that today everything is commercialised,
politics, religion, education, ideology, belief, the armed services. Practically everything is
commercialised; everything has its price.

When this expansion reaches a crisis, you get increasing politicisation. I won't go into the details of
this. It can be explained in detail, as most of you, perhaps, know. Politicization means that the
expansion is slowing up, and you are no longer attempting to achieve increased output per capita,
or increased wealth, or increased satisfactions, or whatever is motivating you, by economic
expansion, but you are doing so by mobilizing power. We have seen this going on in our society for
almost a century.

And then, as the society continues and does not reform, you get increased militarisation. You can
certainly see that process in Western Civilization and in the history of the United States. In the last
forty years our society has been drastically militarized. It isn't yet as militarized as other societies
and other periods have been; we still have a long way to go in this direction. Our civilization has a
couple of centuries to go, I would guess. Things are moving faster than they did in any civilization I
ever knew before this one, but we probably will have another century or two.

As this process goes on, you get certain other things. I've hinted at a number of them. One is
misplacement of satisfactions. You find your satisfactions--your emotional satisfaction, your social
satisfaction-- not in moment to moment relationships with nature or other people, but with
power, or with wealth, or even with organized force--sadism, in some cases: Go out and murder a
lot of people in a war, a just war, naturally.

The second thing that occurs as this goes on is increasing remoteness of desires from needs. I've
mentioned this. The next thing is an increasing confusion between means and ends. The ends are
the human needs, but if I asked people what these needs are, they can hardly tell me. Instead they
want the means they have been brainwashed to accept, that they think will satisfy their needs.
But it's perfectly obvious that the methods that we have been using are not working. Never was
any society in human history as rich and as powerful as Western Civilization and the United States,
and it is not a happy society. Just this week, I looked at a book called "The Joyless Economy", by an
economist, Tibor Scitovsky, who diagrammed some of these things.

In the final aspect of this process, controls on behaviour shift from the intermediate levels of
human experience--social, emotional and religious--to the lower, military and political, or to the
upper, ideological. They become the externalized controls of a mature society: weapons,
bureaucracies, material rewards, or ideology. Customary conformity is replaced by conscious
decision-making, and this usually implies a shift from your own conformity to someone else's
decision. In its final stages, the civilization becomes a dualism of almost totalitarian imperial
power and an amorphous mass culture of atomized individuals.

All of this is for the sake of establishing a few paradigms.

What happened in the last two hundred years? In 1776, Western Civilization was approaching a
revolutionary situation. A revolutionary situation is one in which the structure of power--real
power--is not reflected in the structure of law, institutions, and conventional arrangements. Law
and legal arrangements, including constitutional structures, were not legitimate in much of
Western Civilization in 1776. They were not responsible because they did not reflect power.
Whether it was the English Parliament, which had a legal right to rule America; or the nightmarish
constitution of France, which no longer reflected the structure in French society in any way; or,
east of the Rhine, the enlightened despotisms, the laws of the polity did not reflect the power
structure of Europe at all, as Napoleon very soon showed them. This, therefore, is a revolutionary
situation.

Let's look a little more closely at these.

In England, the laws of the polity established control of the country in an oligarchy of landowners,
the Whig oligarchy. Members of the House of Commons were sent to Parliament by pieces of land,
and anyone who owned a piece of land with the right to send a member to Parliament, could do
so whether anyone lived on the piece of land or not. It was not a reflection of the power structure
of England to say that pieces of land were powerful. I do not have to demonstrate to you that the
legal arrangements by which the British Parliament made rules to govern life in the United States
were equally unrealistic.

I'll leave France for a moment and go east of the Rhine. In Central Europe we had what was called
Enlightened Despotism: small principalities ruled by despots who had a legal right to say, "This will
happen; that will happen; something else will happen." In the period from 1776 onward, for about
twenty-five years, they tried to establish a more rational life in their principalities, but they
couldn't do it. Their system of weights and measures--I won't attempt to describe them to you--
were absolute, unholy chaos. They had a different weight or measurement for every commodity
and those measurements changed as you went from village to village or from district to district.
They also had been changing in size for hundreds of years, because the power of the creditors was
so great that, if you owed a bushel of wheat to your landlord, all the landlords together, over
generations, could make the bushel a larger measure.

I discussed Eastern Europe adequately in my last lecture. I'll simply point out that in this period
Poland disappeared, because the Polish landlord class would rather keep their serfs than be
politically independent. They were unwilling to organize a modern army with modern weapons
and modern military training to defend Poland against outside enemies, such as Prussia, Russia or
Austria. As a result, those three got together and divided up Poland in 1795, so Poland no longer
existed. Under Napoleon there was a Grand Duchy of Warsaw, but Poland did not exist again until
1919.

In France, as I described to you last week, the polity had reached a condition of total paralysis. The
government did not have sovereignty. It did not have the taxing power; it did not have the
legislative power; it did not have the incorporating power; it did not have the judicial power; it did
not have most of the eight aspects of sovereignty I've mentioned to you. And in 1776 the
government became aware of this, when they tried to abolish the guilds and could not do so,
because under the law they could not be abolished unless their debts were paid. The government
could not pay their debts because it did not have the taxing power. And it didn't have the taxing
power because it didn't have the judicial power: if it took someone to court, the judges would say,
"No, you have no right to examine his income. You can ask him what he has been paying for the
last couple of hundred years on that piece of property or whatever it is."

The result was the explosion of the French Revolution, which produced, by the time of Napoleon,
let's say 1805, the most sovereign state in Europe. Notice: Napoleon was an enlightened despot,
the last one in Europe. Anyone who says, as Robert Palmer, for instance, that France was leading
the parade in 1789 in terms of government and public authority, just doesn't know what he's
talking about. In 1789 France was bringing up the absolute rear as far as public authority and
sovereignty were concerned. That is why France gets its enlightened despot so late. He wasn't
even a Frenchman; he was an Italian; and he imposed an Italian government on France. Because it
was so rational, so powerful, so well-organized, and the new sovereignty was embodied in a new
entity, the nation, it had a power which made it possible foe Napoleon to conquer almost all of
Europe. He was, however, ultimately defeated, as most conquerors of all Europe have been
throughout history: William II in 1918, Hitler in 1945, Phillip II in the sixteenth century, Henry V of
England the early fifteenth century, and so forth.

By 1820, after the Napoleonic system had been replaced, all four of these geographical zones I
have mentioned were unstable, but they were much more stable and much more legitimate then
they had been in 1776. Now, although I say that in 1820 they were fundamentally not that stable,
we know there was political stability in Europe for at least three generations after that date, until
at least the 1860's. There was a brief war in 1866 but I won't go into that. The stability of Europe
from 1815 to 1855 is something on which we now look with nostalgia. The reasons for this
apparent stability had nothing to do with the structure of the state, except the degree to which
the structure of the state had become sufficiently rationalized and sovereign through the period of
revolution from 1776 to about 1820. With additional events, the situation looked like stability, and
these additional events produced a new Age of Expansion.

The first of these was the expansion of technology, including the Agricultural and Industrial
Revolutions. The Agricultural Revolution of about 1720 and onward made it possible to produce
more and more food from land with less and less labour. The Industrial Revolution began about
1750 and was the application of inanimate energy to the production on a large scale. (Incidentally,
1776 is a very significant year, and this is not just because the American Revolution began during
it. Watt's patent of the steam engine was in 1776; Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was published
in 1776; the failure of the French to reorganise their political system occurred in 1776, and so
forth.) The disruption of communities, the destruction of religion and the frustration of emotions
were greatly intensified by the Industrial Revolution: railroads, factories, growth of cities,
technological revolution in the countryside and in the growing of food, and so forth.

The appearance of stability in the nineteenth century Age of Expansion was also due to the
externalisation of rewards and controls. This eventually brought on an acceleration of the main
focus of the main focus of the activities of the society downward again to the levels of culture,
from the areas of internal controls to the areas of external controls. If you can be bought, with a
higher salary, to go to San Diego and give up all your friends and associations, that is an external
control. If you can be forced to go there by the draft, that is militarization.

Another thing which became very obvious in the nineteenth century was the increasing role of
propaganda for the purpose of changing people's ways of looking at society, and the success of
this propaganda helped to create an impression of stability. At the beginning of the lecture, I
offended some of you by saying you had been brainwashed. This is not an insult; it's a simple
statement of fact. When any infant is born and socialized in a society, even if he is to become a
very mature individual, he has been brainwashed. That is, he has been given a structure for
categorizing his experience and a system of values applied to that structure of categories. But in
our society, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, this has now become a propagandist
system in which emphasis is put on the future: Think only of the future. This is the ideology
against which the young people of the 1950's and 1960's rebelled. Future preference: plan; study
hard; save. All the things I used to hear from my maiden aunts: "Wise bees save honey; wise boys
save money," and they each secretly gave me a dollar as I was leaving. "A penny saved is a penny
earned." "A stitch in time....." Everything that's in "Poor Richard", the Benjamin Franklin
propaganda machine.

Another aspect of this nineteenth century propaganda system is the increasing emphasis upon
material desires. If you had the material things you wanted --a nice house in the suburbs, a
swimming pool, a couple of big cars, a place in the country, a motor boat, a trailer to take it back
and forth--you should be happy and satisfied. Now it's endless--a pocket computer, citizens' band
radio, whatever you want.

A third idea we were brainwashed into believing was that the only important thing was
individualism. They called it freedom. There is no such thing as freedom. There is something called
liberty; it's quite different. I'll not spend much time on this. If you're interested, read Ruggiero's
"History of European Liberalism", Oxford University Press, 1927, particularly the first couple of
chapters. That's the English translation of an Italian book. Freedom is freedom from restraints.
We're always under restraints. The difference between a stable society and an unstable one is that
the restraints in an unstable one are external. In a stable society, government ultimately becomes
unnecessary ; the restraints on people's actions are internal, there're self disciplined, they are the
restraints you have accepted because they make it possible for you to satisfy all your needs to the
degree that is good for you.

Another thing that they have brainwashed us into believing in the last 150 years is that
quantitative change is superior to any qualitative attributes. In other words, if we can turn out
more automobiles this year than last, it doesn't matter if they're half as good. The same is true of
everything. We are quantifying everything, and this is why we are trying to put everything on
computers. Governments no longer have to make decisions; computers will do it.

Another thing they have succeeded in doing is to give us vicarious satisfactions for many of our
frustrations. It is unbelievable to see how the American people are hung up on vicarious
experiences: television, movies, mass spectator sports. You have no idea what the small towns of
America are like on Friday nights, like this, when the local high school football or basketball team
is engaged in competition with their neighbour eighteen miles away. And what a gloomy place the
chapel or church is Sunday if they lose-- it won't matter if it rains. People need exercise; they do
not need to watch other people exercise, particularly people who already had too much exercise.
Another vicarious satisfaction is the sexy magazines; this is vicarious sex. To anyone rushing to buy
one, I'd like to say, "The real thing is better."

The brainwashing which has been going on for 150 years has also resulted in the replacement of
intellectual activities and religion by ideologies and science. It is hardly possible to discuss the
problems of the historical past without running up against Marxist interpretations. I have nothing
against Marx, except that his theories do not explain what happened, and this, to me, is a fatal
defect. The very idea that there is some kind of conflict between science and religion is completely
mistaken. Science is a method for investigating experience, and religion is something quite
different. Religion is the fundamental, necessary internalisation of our system of more permanent
values.

Another thing they have tried to get us to believe in the last 150 years-- and the idea is now dying
in front of us-- is the myth that the nation as the repository of sovereignty can be both a state and
a community. This is the great ideological innovation of the French revolution, you see. The nation
can be the repository of sovereignty. But suppose weapons in a society are such that it is possible
for a government to impose its will over an area a thousand miles across. And suppose that in that
thousand mile area there are a number of nations, such as the Bretons, Catalonians, the Welsh,
the Lithuanians. These are as much nations as the ones that somehow or other became the
embodiments of sovereignty in the nineteenth century. Why did the English, the French, the
Castilians, the Hohenzollerns, and others become the repository of sovereignty as nations: (notice:
they missed out in the whole Balkan and Danube areas.) They did so because, at that time,
weapons made it possible to compel obedience over areas which were approximately the same
size as these national groups I have mentioned. As a result, they were able to crush out other
nationalisms, such as the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish, the Catalonians-- who had a much longer and
more cultured history than the Castilians-- the Provencals, and many others. In other words,
nationalism is an episode in history, and it fit a certain power structure and a certain configuration
of human life in our civilization. Now what's happening? They all want autonomy. The Scots think
they can get their independence and control oil in the North Sea, and then England will become a
colonial area for Edinburgh. And so forth.

In 1820, thus, the state was essentially unstable, in spite of appearances. It was not fully
sovereign. For example, it did not have the control of money and credit in most places; it did not
have control of corporations in most places. It was not stable because the nation is not a
satisfactory community. The very idea that, because everyone who speaks French is in the same
nation and, in the nineteenth century, in the same state, they must therefore be in the same
community, is just not true. The nation or the state, as we now have it in terms of the structure of
power, cannot be a community.

Another thing which may serve to point out the instability of the power system of the state: the
individual cannot be made the basic unit of a society, as we have tried to do, or of the state, since
the internalisation of controls must be the preponderant influence in any stable society. Even in a
society in which it appears that all power is in the hands of the government --Soviet Russia, let's
say-- at least eighty percent of all human behaviour is regulated by internalised controls socialized
in the people by the way they were treated from the moment they were born. As a result, they
have come to accept certain things that allow the Russian state to act as if it can do anything,
when it obviously can't and knows it can't. Notice the new Russian budget announced this week:
as a result of our pouring our food surpluses into Russia, they are now going to increase the
consumption of their expenditures.

Also related to the problem of internalised controls is the shift of weapons in our society. This is a
profound problem. I have spent ten years working on it throughout all of history, and I hope
eventually to produce a book if I can find a publisher. There will be endless analyses of Chinese
history, Byzantine history and Russian history and everything else, and the book is about nine-
tenths written. I'd say in the last ten years the shift of weapons in any civilization and, above all, in
our civilization, from shock weapons to missile weapons has a dominant influence on the ability to
control individuals: individuals cannot be controlled by missile weapons. Notice that if you go back
several hundred years to the Middle Ages, all weapons were shock, that is, you came at the enemy
with a spear or a sword. Even as late as 1916, in the First World War, you came at the Germans
with bayonets after a preliminary barrage with artillery. But we have now shifted almost
completely to missile weapons. Missile weapons are weapons that you hurl. You may shoot, you
may have bombs dropped from an airplane, you may throw a hand grenade: these are missile
weapons. The essential difference between a shock weapon and a missile weapon is this: a missile
weapon is either fired or it isn't fired. It cannot be half-fired. Once you let it go, it's out of your
control. It is a killing weapon. But a shock weapon--a billy club or a bayonet-- can be used to any
degree you wish. If you say to someone, "Get up and get out of my room," and you pull out a
machines gun, or you call in a B-52 bomber, or you pull the pin in a hand grenade....But with a
bayonet you can persuade him.

In our society, individual behaviour can no longer be controlled by any system of weaponry we
have. In fact, we do not have enough people, even if we equip them with shock weapons, to
control the behaviour of that part of the population which does not have internalised controls.
One reason for that, of course, is that the twenty percent who do have internalised controls are
concentrated in certain areas. I won't go into the subject of controls. It opens up the whole field of
guerrilla resistance, terrorism, and everything else; these cannot be controlled by any system or
organized structure or force that exists, at least on the basis of missile weaponry. And, as I said, it
would take too many people on the basis of shock weaponry. We have now done what the
Romans did when they started to commit suicide: we have shifted from an army of citizens to an
army of mercenaries, and those mercenaries are being recruited in our society, as they were in
Roman society, from the twenty percent of the population which does not have the internalised
controls of the civilization.

The appearance of stability from 1840 to about 1900 was superficial, temporary and destructive in
the long run, because, as I have said, you must have communities, and communities and societies
must rest upon cooperation and not on competition. Anyone who says that society can be run on
the basis of everyone's trying to maximise his own greed is talking total nonsense. All the history
of human society shows that it's nonsense. And to teach it in schools, and to go on television and
call it the American way of life still doesn't make it true. Competition and envy cannot become the
basis of any society or any community.

The economic and technological achievements of industrialization in this period were
fundamentally mistaken. This could get quite technical; I'll try not to. The economic expansion of
industrialization has been based on plundering the natural capital of the globe that was created
over millions of years: the plundering of the soils of their fertility; the plundering of the human
communities whether they were our own or someone else's, in Africa or anywhere else; the
plundering of the forest. In 1776 the wealth of forest in North America was beyond belief; within
150 years, it has been destroyed and more than ninety percent of it wasted. And it had in it three
hundred years of accumulated capital savings and investment of sunlight and the fertility of the
soil. (And now our that our bread is going to have five times as much fiber by being made out of
sawdust, we're going to have to go on plundering the forests to an even larger degree; this, I am
sure, is one of the reasons why two days ago President Ford signed the new bill allowing clear
cutting in the National Forests. We need that roughage or fiber in our bread, we have taken out all
the natural fiber of the wheat, of course, and thrown it away.)

The energy which gave us the Industrial Revolution--coal, oil, natural gas--represented the
accumulated savings of four weeks of sunlight that managed somehow to be saved in the earth
out of the three billion years of sunshine. That is what the fossil fuels are. This is not income to be
spent; this is capital to be saved and invested. But we have already destroyed into entropy--a form
of energy which is no longer able to be utilized-- eleven or twelve days of that accumulated
twenty-eight days of sunlight. And we have wasted it.

The fundamental, all pervasive cause of world instability today is the destruction of communities
by the commercialisation of all human relationships and the resulting neuroses and psychoses.
The technological acceleration of transportation, communication and weapons systems is now
creating power areas wider than existing political structures. We still have at least half a dozen
political structures in Europe, but our technology and the power system of Western Civilization
today are such that most of Europe should be a single power system. This creates instability.

Medical science and the population explosion have continued to produce more and more people
when the supply of food and the supply of jobs are becoming increasingly precarious, not only in
the United States, but everywhere, because the whole purpose of using fossil fuels in the
corporate structure is to eliminate jobs. "Labour saving," we call it, as if there were something
wrong with working. Working is one of the joys of life. And if we created a society in which
working is a pain in the neck, then we have created a society which is not fit for human beings. It
will be obvious to you that I have enjoyed my work, although at the end of my career I have no
conviction that I did any good. Fortunately, I had a marvellous father and a marvellous mother,
and we were taught you don't have to win, but you have to give it all you've got. Then it won't
matter.

To get back to sovereignty and the structure of the state, another cause of today's instability is
that we now have a society in America, Europe and much of the world which is totally dominated
by the two elements of sovereignty that are not included in the state structure: control of credit
and banking and the corporation. These are free of political controls and social responsibility, and
they have largely monopolized power in Western Civilization and in American society. They are
ruthlessly going forward to eliminate land, labour, entrepreneurial-managerial skills, and
everything else the economists once told us were the chief elements of production. The only
element of production they are concerned with is the one they can control: capital

So now everything is capital intensive, including medicine, and it hasn't worked. I'll give you just
one example. No one has a more capital intensive medical system than the United States and
many of you may be well satisfied with it. I simply want to point out a couple of facts. When a
baby boy is born in the United State, his expectation of life is less than in nineteen other countries
in the world. And it's that good only because our infant mortality rate is better than our adult
mortality rate. In other words, in infant mortality we are about ninth or tenth; these figures date
from about 1972, I think. Now let us look at a ten year old boy in the United States today. His
expectation of life is less than that in thirty other countries, according to the United Nations
statistics. We pay more than the people in any of those thirty countries for a capital intensive
medical system devoted to keeping people who are almost dead alive a few more days, instead of
making people grow up healthy by teaching them that work is fun, by teaching then that they
don't have to be gluttons--in the United States, more than half of our food is wasted, maybe
because it isn't that good. Exercise, moderation and so forth-- it's all the old stuff we used to get in
Sunday school. It just happens to be correct.

Our agricultural system is another cause of instability. It used to be a system in which seed was
put into the earth to create food by taking sunlight, rain and the wealth of the soil, but we have
replaced it with an agricultural system which is entirely capital intensive. We have eliminated
labour and have even eliminated land to a considerable extent, so that we now pour out what we
call food, but it's really a chemical synthetic. We have done this by putting a larger and larger
amount of chemical fertilizers and pesticides made from fossil fuels into a smaller and smaller
amount of soil. To give you one figure: Every bushel of corn we send to the Russians represents
one gallon of gasoline, and then they tell us that, by selling our grain to the Russians, we're getting
the foreign exchange that will allow us to pay for petroleum at fourteen dollars a barrel. No one
has stopped to ask how many gallons were used to grow the grain and send it to the Russians.

In the thirty years from 1940 to 1970, three million American farms were abandoned because the
families who worked them could not compete with the corporate farmers using the new chemical
methods of producing crops. Thirty million people left these abandoned farms and the rural areas
and went into the towns and cities, millions of them to get on relief. In 1970, the last year for
which I have reliable figures, two thousand farms a year were going out of production. These are
the farms on which we brought up our grandparents, the people who won the civil war, indeed,
the people who fought in the First World War, and, in many cases, even in the Second War. Will
the tractors be able to fight the next war when there are no farm boys to fight? (Of course,
whether there are farm boys or not, they won't want to fight.)

In a similar way, by urban renewal and other things, we are destroying communities in the cities.
Much of the legislation of the last forty years in this country has been aimed at the destruction of
families, ghettos, parishes and any other communities.

All these processes create frustrations on every level of human experience and result in the
instability and disorder we see around every day.

Now I come to a topic of delicacy: the United States constitutional crisis. The three branches of
government set up in 1789 do not contain the eight aspects of sovereignty. The Constitution
completely ignores, for example, the administrative power. The result is that the three branches
of government have been struggling ever since to decide which of them will control the
administrative power. The growth of political parties was necessary to establish relationships
among the three branches. I used to tell my students that the important thing in any election is
the nomination. And when you come to the election, it doesn't matter who votes, what's
important is who didn't vote. Elections in the United States are increasingly decided by people
who didn't vote because they're turned off for various reasons.

As a result of the way the three branches were set up, each has tried to go outside the sphere in
which it should be restrained. For example, walking over here with Dean Krogh and Professor
Brown, I spoke briefly about the Boston Latin School I attended. It is the oldest school in the
United States, founded in 1635 as a preparatory school. Harvard was created the next year as a
place for Latin School boys to go to college, and in my day, 1929-1930, it was the largest single
source of supply for Harvard, although Harvard was doing all it could to cut down on the number
of Latin School boys. The chief method they used to keep us out was to raise the entrance
requirements, but we could handle that. Today that school is controlled by a Boston judge who
has taken it upon himself to tell the school who will be admitted. And he has said they must have
so many girls, they must have such a percentage of blacks, they cannot have entrance exams, and
if people fail they can't throw them out. And what was once an absolutely incredible preparatory
school is now being destroyed. It had many drawbacks--it was murderous. But it could get
students through any competitive system of entrance exams in the country.

Another aspect of our constitutional crisis can be summed up in what young Schlesinger--that's
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.-- called the Imperial Presidency. When I look at the President of the United
States, what I see is Caesar Augustus. He is commander-in-chief; that's what Imperator, Emperor,
means. He's the head of the executive branch. He's the head of state, which means he is the
representative of the United States government in all foreign affairs and all ambassadors are
accredited to him. Fourthly, he's the head of his political party. Fifth, he's head of the
administrative system, which is increasingly making all the decisions as to what will be spent and
who will spend it. Do you know who is making the decisions in our Bureau of Management and
Budget as to who will get how much? And the president is also the symbol of national unity, the
focus of our emotional feeling regarding our country. This is why it is so difficult to get rid of an
incumbent President either by election or impeachment.

We have today a general paralysis of government in the United States, especially in the
administrative power, by the very thing we praise most: the so-called rule of law, which should
rather be called the rule of lawyers. Let me give you one example. It is perfectly clear in the
Constitution that a President can be impeached by a vote of Congress: indictment by the House,
conviction by the Senate. This does not require common law procedures; it does not require
judicial process. It is not a judicial action at all. It is a simple political action. If you have the votes,
he can be removed, simply by counting them. The horrible thing about the whole Nixon business is
that impeachment will never again be used in the history of the United States, because every
member of the judiciary Committee has to be a lawyer, and the Judiciary committee has to
recommend impeachment. And they require all kinds of procedures you would use in a court of
law if you were accused of holding up a bank. The result is that never again will anyone try to
impeach a President. It would take years and be indecisive, when you could simply have taken a
vote and had the whole thing done in one morning.

There are a lot of other things in the Constitution which are perfectly obvious, but you can't get
any constitutional lawyer to agree with one of them. It's perfectly obvious, for example, that if the
three branches of government cannot agree to do something, it shouldn't be done. That was the
theory behind the Constitution. No--we have someone supreme: the court will make the ultimate
decision.

I'll just touch on something else: secrecy in government. Secrecy in government exists for only one
reason: to prevent the American people from knowing what's going on. It is nonsense to believe
that anything our government does is not known to the Russians at about the moment it happens.

To me, the most ominous flaw in our constitutional set-up is the fact that the federal government
does not have control over of money and credit and does not have control of corporations. It is
therefore not really sovereign. And it is not really responsible, because it is now controlled by
these two groups, corporations, and those who control the flows of money. The new public
financing of the Presidential elections is arranged so that they can spend as much as they want:
voluntary contributions, not authorized by the candidate, are legal.

The administrative system and elections are dominated today by the private power of money
flows and corporation activities. I want to read you a summary from James Willard Hurst, "The
Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States from 1780 to 1970". He
points out that there was powerful anti-corporation feeling in the United States in the 1820's.
Therefore, it was established by the states that corporations could not exist by prescription: they
had to have charters. They had to have a limited term of life and not be immortal. Corporations
today are immortal: if they get charters, they can live forever and bury us all. They had to have a
limited purpose. Who is giving us this bread made of sawdust? ITT: International Telephone and
Telegraph, the same corporation that drove Ivar Kreuger to suicide in Paris in April 1931, when it
actually was an international telegraph corporation, controlled by J P. Morgan.

I won't take time to read all these things, but certain thin regulations were established in the
United States regarding corporations: restricted purpose and activities especially by banks and
insurance companies; prohibition on one corporation's holding the stock of another without
specific statutory grant; limits on the span of the life of the corporation, requiring recurrent
legislative scrutiny; limits on total assets; limits on new issues of capital, so that the proportion of
control of existing stockholders could be maintained; limits on the votes allowed to any
stockholder, regardless of the size of his holding; and so forth.

By 1890 all of these had been destroyed by judicial interpretation which extended to corporations-
--fictitious persons-- those constitutional rights guaranteed, especially by the Fifteenth
Amendment, to living persons. This interpretation was made possible by Roscoe Conklin, known
as "Turkey Strut Conklin," who told the Supreme Court that there were no records kept by the
committee of the Senate that had drawn up the Fifteenth Amendment. But he had kept private
notes which showed they had the intended word "person" to include corporations. It was most
convenient. The corporation that was hiring him to do this suitably rewarded him.

Now I come to my last statement. I regret ending on what is, I suppose, such a pessimistic note--
I'm not personally pessimistic. The final result will be that the American people will ultimately
prefer communities. They will cop out or opt out of the system. Today everything is a bureaucratic
structure, and brainwashed people who are not personalities are trained to fit into this
bureaucratic structure and say it is a great life--although I would assume that many on their death
beds must feel otherwise. The process of coping out will take a long time, but notice: we are
already coping out of military service on a wholesale basis; we are already copping out of voting
on a large scale basis. I heard an estimate tonight that the President will probably be chosen by
forty percent of the people eligible to vote for the forth time in sixteen years. People are also
copping out by refusing to pay any attention to newspapers or to what's going on in the world,
and by increasing emphasis on the growth of localism, what is happening in their own
neighbourhoods.

In this pathetic election, I am simply amazed that neither of the candidates has thought about any
of the important issues, such as localism, the rights of areas to make their own decisions about
those things affecting them. Now I realise that if there's a sulphur mine or a sulphur factory a few
miles away, localism isn't much help. But I think you will find one extraordinary thing in this
election: a considerable number of people will go to the polls and vote for the local candidates,
But will not vote for the President. That is a reverse of the situation fifty years ago.

Now I want to say good night. Do not be pessimistic. Life goes on; life is fun. And if a civilization
crashes, it deserves to. When Rome fell, the Christian answer was, "Create our own communities."

Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen.




Source:
Public Authority and the State in the Western Tradition:
A Thousand Years of Growth 979-1976

Professor Carroll Quigley,
Oscar Iden Lectures,
Georgetown University Libraries, 1978

Lecture 1: "The State of Communities"

Lecture 2: "The State of States"

Lecture 3: "The State of Individuals"

Note: All three lectures in the series may be viewed on www.scribed.com
or in my library on YUDU.Com

A copyright dispensation to quote from this publication was granted to Christopher M. Quigley
By Georgetown University Library on Tuesday May 13th. 2008

























[email protected]