Here is another snippet of the introduction I am working on for a future book on freedom. I received 10 copies of the final version of the LeaderShift book yesterday and I am so pumped. It looks great and it is going to have such an impact. I am loving LIFE and ready to help move the Power Pendulum back into concord! Here is a couple of paragraphs describing the Power Pendulum.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

Mankind’s quest for concord (peace and harmony) within society is as old as human civilization. Concord, the ideal balance between force and freedom, lies between the extremes of chaos and coercion. The freedom and force movements in every society between chaos, concord and coercion is remarkably similar to a pendulum’s trajectory. As a result, the author developed the Power Pendulum to track the trajectory between force and freedom within society. Society is defined as a community of individuals who combine together to pursue common objectives. However, within any working society there must be a power strong enough to ensure justice internally and externally. To meet this responsibility, society forms a government (State) to apply force when any of societies members attempt injustice upon other members. While free societies secure the cooperation of most of its members through persuasion, the State is the watchman provided to protect its peaceable members from those who attempt to plunder others for personal gain. In other words, the state is given the power of coercion to ensure disobedience to laws is punished. The question becomes how much coercion is necessary to ensure internal and external peace without the government itself becoming the plunderers of its people.

In healthy societies, the Power Pendulum moves away from the radical edges (either chaos or coercion) into the center position of concord. The Power Pendulum measures the State force applied within society, ranging from too little on one side (leading to chaos) to too much on the other side (leading to coercion). The quested for resting spot of the Power Pendulum is concord – limited force applied only to maintain internal and external peace and justice. Indeed, society thrives when the pendulum is balanced in concord because sufficient power is present to ensure order-liberty, but not enough to drift the pendulum towards coercion and loss of liberties. Although the State is part of the Society, society is a voluntary organization while the State operates through coercion. The State and Society can be summarized in the following way. The State is part of society and they overlap in many instances. However, society uses the principle of voluntary cooperation, working through good will of its members. The State, on the other hand, uses the principle of compulsion, working with force or threatened force upon its members. Paraphrasing historian Ernest Barker, society’s method is elasticity while the State’s method is rigidity. But, if society is divided between methods of force and freedom, how can it remain free, especially when part of society (the State) is given a force monopoly? Isn’t this force just as likely to be used against society as for its benefit? The answer to this State/Society paradox is the key to resolving the Power Pendulum. Through ending the trajectory swings between chaos and coercion, Western Society can finally complete the 2500 year quest for concord.

Western Society has drifted from ordered liberty into increasing coercion of its members. In an article several years ago, I quoted extensively from an article by Dr. Mario Pei, who witnessed the debilitating effects of coercion upon society in Fascist Italy. Unfortunately, few seem to learn the lessons of the power pendulum’s drift out of concord into either chaos or coercion.

LeaderShift, however, can change this. It begins the educational process needed for concerned citizens to restore concord and keep Western Society free. Tens of thousands of people are rallying to the cause as many know that something isn’t right, but cannot pinpoint the root cause. Thankfully, LeaderShift has identified the cause and even proposed a fix to our present maladies.

The LIFE Business is gathering a group of citizens who are hungry to learn and serve, focuses on making a difference in society. Here is a portion of Dr. Mario Pei’s article.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

Dr. Mario Pei, who came to this country from Italy in 1908, is Professor of Romance Philology at Columbia University in New York. He is the author of several distinguished books and numerous magazine articles. The Foundation was given special permission by the Saturday Evening Post to reprint the above article. Copyright 1952 by The Curtis Publishing Company

When I first came to America, many years ago, I learned a new meaning of the word “Liberty”—freedom from government.

I did not learn a new meaning for “democracy.” The European country from which I came, Italy, was at that time as “democratic” as America. It was a constitutional monarchy, with a parliament, free and frequent elections, lots of political parties and plenty of freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly.

But my native country was government-ridden. A vast bureaucracy held it in its countless tentacles. Regardless of the party or coalition of parties that might be in power at the moment, the government was everywhere. Wherever one looked, one saw signs of the ever present government: in the uniforms of numberless royal, rural, and municipal policemen, soldiers, officers, gold-braided functionaries of all sorts. You could not take a step without government intervention.

Many industries and businesses were government owned and government run railroads, telegraphs, salt, and tobacco among them. No agreement, however trivial, was legal unless written on government-stamped paper. If you stepped out of the city into the country and came back with a ham, a loaf of bread, or a bottle of wine, you had to stop at the internal-revenue barriers and pay duty to the government, and so did the farmers who brought in the city’s food supply every morning. No business could be started or run without the official sanction of a hundred bureaucrats.

Young people did not dream of going into business for themselves; they dreamed of a modest but safe government job, where they would have tenure, security, and a pitiful pension at the end of their plodding careers. There was grinding taxation to support the many government functions and the innumerable public servants. Everybody hated the government—not just the party in power, but the government itself. They had even coined a phrase, “It’s raining—thief of a government!” as though even the evils of nature were the government’s fault. Yet, I repeat, the country was democratically run, with all the trappings of a many-party system and all the freedoms of which we in America boast today.

America in those days made you open your lungs wide and inhale great gulps of freedom-laden air, for here was one additional freedom—freedom from government.

The government was conspicuous by its very absence. There were no men in uniform, save occasional cops and firemen, no visible bureaucrats, no stifling restrictions, no government monopolies. It was wonderful to get used to the American system: to learn that a contract was valid if written on the side of a house; that you could move not only from the city to the country but from state to state and never be asked what your business was or whether you had anything to declare; that you could open and conduct your own business, provided it was a legitimate one, without government interference; that you could go from one end of the year to the other and never have contact with the national government, save for the cheery postman who delivered your mail with a speed and efficiency unknown today; that there were no national taxes, save hidden excises and import duties that you did not even know you paid.

In that horse-and-buggy America, if you made an honest dollar, you could pocket it or spend it without having to figure what portion of it you “owed” the government or what possible deductions you could allege against that government’s claims. You did not have to keep books and records of every bit of income and expenditure or run the risk of being called a liar and a cheat by someone in authority.

Above all, the national ideal was not the obscure security of a government job, but the boundless opportunity that all Americans seemed to consider their birthright. Those same Americans loved their government then. It was there to help, protect, and defend them, not to restrict, befuddle, and harass them. At the same time, they did not look to the government for a livelihood or for special privileges and hand­outs. They were independent men in the full sense of the word.

Foreign-born citizens have been watching with alarm the gradual Europeanization of America over the past twenty years. They have seen the growth of the familiar European-style government octopus, along with the vanishing of the American spirit of freedom and opportunity and its replacement by a breathless search for “security” that is doomed to defeat in advance in a world where nothing, not even life itself, is secure.

Far more than the native born, they are in a position to make comparisons. They see that America is fast becoming a nineteenth century-model European country. They are asked to believe that this is progress. But they know from bitter experience that it just isn’t so.

Milk on the Doorstep

“It is remarkable,” comments George Schwartz, an English writer, in an article in The New York Times Magazine, “how many people can see no sense in the existing order of Western society, the easiest criticism of which is that it is not order but disorder. With the milk on the doorstep every morning, the free economy is denounced as unplanned, uncoordinated, and chaotic.”

It is a valid observation. There are countries—notably Russia—that have all the necessary material resources but still can’t get the morning milk to the doorstep. Their society’s system of production and distribution is fully ordered, carefully blueprinted by government experts. But they have the plan and no milk while we have the milk and no plan.

The fact is, of course, that our economy does not exist in disorder. In the milk business, to take the everyday example mentioned by Mr. Schwartz, there are literally thousands of individuals—farmers, truckers, processors, and salesmen, and the thousands more who are their suppliers—who make the major or minor decisions that get the milk to the doorstep, and earn a profit in the process. No group of government experts could equal the input of knowledge, industry, flexibility, and efficiency that is the combined total contribution of all of these individuals.

Jeff Daniels, playing Will in his TV show, believes America is in decline. In fact, he believes this so emphatically that some of his language in the video is not children-friendly. I apologize in advance for some of the wording in this video. However, the points he makes and the discussion around it are so valuable that I decided to post it. Mr. Daniels has pinpointed the effects of the Five Laws of Decline upon American society. Nonetheless, identifying the effects and solving the issues are not one and the same thing. The Five Laws of Decline must be rooted out of our culture, ending the plunder of working citizens on both sides of the political aisle.

LeaderShift is Oliver DeMille and my proposal on how to do just that. I am posting Jeff Daniels video which states the challenge and then the trailer for LeaderShift which responds to the challenge. Yes, America, and the West, have much work to do, but what a great time to be alive and play a part in the LeaderShift!

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

LeaderShift: The Challenge & Response for Western Civilization

Here are my closing thoughts on a book describing the background research into the soon-to-be-released LeaderShift book. I am more convinced now than ever that Western Civilization cannot only be saved, but be placed in a better position than ever before when people learn the systemic principles behind the Six Duties of Society and the Five Laws of Decline. Don’t take my word for it, do your own studying and use this article and the last one as a place to start. The LIFE Business is a group who are committed to making a difference by first making a difference in their own families life.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

Incidentally, the Federalist feared the Articles of Confederation would fall into chaos and civil war like the ancient Greek society did. To avoid this scenario, they created a stronger federal government with checks against the FLD. In truth, however, what resulted was quasi-federal/quasi-state governmental structure that left sovereignty to be debated between the states and federal government. This is remarkably similar to the Roman Republic’s divided sovereignty between the Senate and People. Consequently, just as the Roman Republic’s struggle for sovereignty was settled by military force in its civil war, so too did America’s Civil War settle the sovereignty question. Furthermore, just as the Roman Republic’s pendulum moved from the chaos of civil war to concord in the early Roman Empire, followed by increasing coercion and enervation of the people of the late Empire, so too did the American Republic fall into chaos during its civil war to concord in the early American Empire, followed by increasing coercion and enervation of the people in the later America Empire. In both instances, the pendulum’s momentum carried it from chaos through concord and into coercion. In sum, the Federalist fear of Greek-like chaos caused them to propose and implement Roman-like sovereignty debates culminating in civil war and finally coercion. Indeed, the FLD predicts this sequence in theory as accurately as history displays it in fact. The author believes this is the key lesson to learn from political history: How society can satisfy the SDS without correspondingly activating the FLD.

Each Anglo-Saxon case-study will be analyzed to determine how they satisfied the SDS. All three societies grew and prospered by fulfilling the SDS; however, all three also experienced the FLD within society. What, if any, lessons did the Anglo/Saxon’s learn from their ancient predecessors? The author seeks to identify the similarities and differences between the ancient and modern methods of blocking the FLD. Each society will be summarized for what it added to the political wisdom of hot to fulfill the SDS and check the FLD. Interestingly, America’s Founding Fathers studied the history of each previous society. What conclusions did they draw from these historical examples? Moreover, what methods did they implement into the Constitution to improve the SDS and check the FLD?  Although the jury is not complete on the Anglo/Saxon societies, the currents reports are not optimistic. In many ways, the modern siblings are repeating the same systematic mistakes as the Greco/Roman societies. Fortunately, today’s political leaders, by studying the SDS and FLD, can respond to the challenge and withdraw the Anglo/Saxon societies from the approaching precipice.

Robert Mankoff: Decline of Western Civilization

The final section of the book proposes a model for society based upon feeding the SDS and starving the FLD. The proposal builds in checks upon the FLD and encourages the SDS, balancing the drift between chaos, on one side, and coercion on the other. The Quest for Concord, the middle position of the pendulum, between the equally harmful extremes, is attainable. Regrettably, concord has never been sustained for more than a generation. The author will describe how all past societies failed through systematic ignorance of the dangers within the FLD. Fortunately, when the Five Laws of Decline are understood and checked, the author believes the West can achieve its quest for concord. This book then, isn’t an intellectual perusal through the history of a lost cause. Rather, it is written in the hope of reawakening the quest for concord and pointing out the adjustment that need to me made within society in order to attain it. This book provides a step-by-step roadmap for America, and the West, to step off of the political precipice and finally achieve the 2500 year quest for concord.

Historian, Arnold Toynbee, wrote how each society faces “challenge and response” crisis that demand great leadership to solve. While many may have written Western Society’s obituary, believing it has entered its twilight years, the author, in contrast, believes the West drift towards coercion is due to the “challenge” crisis not being addressed and solved. In truth, without understanding the systemic reason for the challenge, it would be practically impossible to respond to it. This book provides the systemic framework to make a “response” possible. Western Civilization’s rebirth is within reach. Without exaggeration, if this challenge is ignored much longer, Western society will fall. The once great Western Civilization will be added to the dustbin of history as another “rise and fall” tragedy. The question is: will Western Society learn the lessons of the SDS and the FLD soon enough to divert destruction?

The following is a portion of the introduction from a book I am working on about Western Society. LeaderShift is less than a month away from release and Oliver DeMille and I are pumped about it. However, there is much more to share on this important subject than can be contained in one book. The Quest for Concord is as old as Western Societies existence and has been attempted in every society since the Greeks. The LIFE Business intends to educate people on their history so we can ensure we protect the freedoms we enjoy for our posterity. Today’s reading is not light, but I promise if you take the time to read and comprehend, it will help you understand the pressing issues going on in today’s society.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

Historical Case-Studies of SDS & FLD

With this understanding of the Six Duties of Society and Five Laws of Decline, the author can now describe more fully his chronological case-studies. The Greeks, as the founders of Western Civilization, were the first case-study society. The Greeks enjoyed a higher level of freedom than any previous ancient society. Consequently, the SDS were satisfied more fully than in any other previous society up until that time. Society and wealth grew rapidly as the Greek city-states traded with one another and confederated together to defend themselves against the Persian Empire. However, with no experience or understanding of the FLD, the stronger Greek city-states began plundering the weaker ones and the pendulum moved out of concord into chaos. Greek society divided into allied city-states (Sparta and Athens) who fought a series of civil wars, destroying their liberties and productivity. Both cities, and Greek society, were destroyed in a suicidal attempt to protect themselves from the plunder of the other. The Greek civil wars terminated when Greek liberty did with the arrival of the Roman Republic’s armies.

The Roman Republic began its leadership of Western Society and experienced great growth and prestige within society. However, it too was overcome by the temptations of the FLD when the Senate began to plunder small farmers and the provincials. The Gracchi brothers attempted reforms led to their assassinations and political wars for plunder led eventually to full-scale civil war within society. Injustice always carries within it the seed of its own destruction and the political wars eventually flowed into civil war and chaos. The political purges and civil wars of Marius and Sulla moved the pendulum into chaos. This only escalated further as the Senate and Populares fought for political leadership of the Roman Republic. The FLD killed the Roman Republic when political chaos paralyzed the rulers of Rome and opposing sides resorted to war. Clausewitz said, “War is politics by other means.” In the Republic’s case, “Politics was war by other means.”  The conservative elements (the Senate and Pompey) squared off against the reform-minded populist, led by Caesar. The end result was the destruction of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire. Even Caesar’s assassination did not restore the republic. The chaos was rooted too deeply within Roman society and Caesar’s death resulted in another round of civil wars, culminating with Augustus Caesar’s rule.

At long last, Western Society moved the pendulum from chaos towards concord. In essence, the Roman Empire early success was due to Caesar Augustus wisdom. He limited taxation, ended the plunder of the provinces, and shared power with the Senatorial class. Accordingly, the Roman peace (Pax Romana) produced concord, prosperity, and progress within society for the duration of Augustus rule. Unfortunately, wise rulers do not live forever. Predictably, the pendulum’s inertia, originally set in motion from chaos to concord, continued it momentum from concord into coercion. Later Caesars, ignoring Augustus’s example, increased their powers by further centralization, regulations, and taxes. The government’s gain in power and money was achieved parasitically, at the expense of society’s freedoms and prosperity. Indeed, by the end of the Roman Empire, the bloated bureaucracy coerced society’s wealth to feed the rapacious civil and military branches. Interestingly, when the Roman Empire fell, many within the oppressed Roman society, viewed the Gothic barbarians, not as invaders, but as liberators.

The Roman Empire, by Augustus’s restraint, solved many of the pressing issues that hindered the Republic. Consequently, society thrived under his SDS solutions and the empire expanded. The pendulum swung from chaos into concord and Roman society enjoyed the benefits through Augustus’s long tenure. Not surprisingly, however, the FLD temptation was too much for later Caesar’s with less talent and more greed. The FLD began to work its poison with the thriving society. The parasitic state ate the bowels out of the once-healthy society and the Roman Empire fell, less from external enemies, and more from internal enervation. Neither Roman society seemed to learn the key lessons offered by its Greek predecessor. In summation, the three case-studies from the Greco/Roman past, even though they shined brightly for a period of time, terminate in societal suicide. Not an impressive ending compared to its promising beginnings. All three societies met the SDS challenge and failed miserably with the FLD. Santayana’s statement, “The only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history,” regretfully, has been proven to be valid in the study of history.

The next section reviews the Anglo/Saxon societies. Beginning with England and its society formed under the Kings, Lords, and Parliament, England developed innovative ways to check any specific groups power. England’s three great liberty documents – Magna Carta, Petition of Rights, and the Bill of Rights – attempted systematic fixes to the problems inherent within mankind’s plunderous nature. England, learned through experience than Kings could not be trusted with absolute power and needed checks upon their power. Nonetheless, the Stuart Kings attempted to exercise absolute control of England without parliamentary checks. Civil war was the predictable result. After an interregnum during Oliver Cromwell’s protectorate, the Restoration brings King Charles II to the throne. Like his dad before, Charles II believed in the “divine right of kings” and the House of Lords and Parliament battled to protect the people’s rights. Finally, when his brother James proved even worse, the Lords and House joined forces and invited William and Mary to England. King William agreed to sign the Bill of Rights and England believed its liberties were secure. However, plunderers have never allowed mere words on scraps of paper hinder them in their quest for power and plunder. When King George III took the throne as the third Hanoverian king, he attempted to rule as absolutely as any of the Stuart, proving the FLD cannot be checked by contracts or constitution, but only forces capable of resisting plunder.

King George III takes us to the founding of the United States and its two intriguing case-study societies. The first society was structured under the Articles of Confederation during the American colonies civil war against its parent England. It consisted of thirteen independent colonies who confederated together for protection. Interestingly, this model is similar to the Greek model where independent city-states confederated together against the Persian Empire. Although there were strengths and weaknesses of this society, it never had the opportunity to move through the “rise and fall” cycle. George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and others desired a stronger federal government than the Articles offered. The federalist feared the potential chaos ensuing from independent states warring politically, financially, and militarily if a stronger central government were not formed.

Accordingly, in 1787, the Articles of Confederation were scrapped and replaced by the Constitution. This document attempted to limit the actions of the federal government by clearly delineating the actions permissible. However, history reveals plunderers ignore words in the quest for power; therefore, the general welfare clause was twisted into a “catch all” phrase, permitting the federal government to do whatever it felt necessary. This tenuous arrangement between “sovereign” states and a “sovereign” federal government did not last long. Not even a century had elapsed when the increasing political wars finally spilled over into the predictable civil war. History may not repeat exactly, but the ill-effects of the FLD surely do. On one side, the Greek, Roman, American societies each experienced civil wars when the pendulum moved into chaos. On the other side, Rome, modern-day England, and modern-day America are experiencing the pain and enervation of the pendulum drifting into coercion. Chaos leads to civil war while coercion leads to lethargy.