The success of any given idea or general culture within society is a function of the logistical support which sustains and allows the culture to exist and propagate. It is also bound by the power operating with that society, and what it allows and does not allow. This means power is above culture.
Drawing this out, this means that all culture is subject to its logistical support, its value to whoever is supplying the logistical support, and the power within whose realm it exists – and not a direct function of its truth value.
When approaching the question of politics and sociology proper, the general underlying assumption is that the exact opposite is the case. Further to this, another underlying assumption is that political structures themselves are neutral, and in no way influence matters. As such, it is assumed that a state being republican or monarchical, or whatever has no influence on the culture of the society. This is especially the case with republicanism, as it is assumed that this framework can be utilised to implement any political platform which one decides to develop if the people vote such a way.
The De Jouvenel insight tells us that all of this is wrong. Instead political structures through the ingrained political conflicts they incorporate create engines of culture that promote equality for no good reason beyond furthering the aims of the power center. That these systems operate over multiple generations, and with multiple unconnected actor, yet end up in the same direction should be the first indication that Jouvenel is correct.
The theory is backed up by numerous observable examples, which is something no other political theory of modernity has been able to do.
Lets imagine we found an individual who had sufficient intelligence but who had no memory or knowledge of modern society at all, a person who had suffered some exotic bout of amnesia, and was completely blank with regard to politics and history. Then imagine we supplied him with the fundamentals of De Jouvenel’s observation; He could deduce from this that society would go into unimaginable degradation and squalor, motivated by internal conflict created by systems designed to contain imperium in imperio. Such a person if then supplied with the revalation that mass immigration and multiculturalism was motivated by a desire to “rub the rights nose in it” would be unsurprised in the least. In fact he would declare it obvious. This same person schooled and proficient in De Jouvenel’s theory and the implications, would point out any society divided by republicanism and any blocks (imperium in imperio) would divide into left and right, with the left being the elite using the low within society as a means to undermine the right (the rest of society) and govern as their position in society dictates. This same person would point out that such a left would tend to extreme excess in a laser like focus to defeat the right who were in their way. They would also be able to predict that each generation would become more extreme, and more hysterical in the fight against the right.
Such a person could also apply this understanding to the worst excess of the Totalitarian governments and come to the conclusion that hysterical fights against internal enemies created by imperium in imperio led to ever greater degrees of violence and squalor devoid of all reason, except if viewed from a prism of internal conflict.
From all of these conclusions, this person uninfected by modernity and its insipid lies could deduce that these internal conflicts dictate what culture is within the realms in which these conflicts occur, and that this culture (which includes customs, ideas, norms) would not be underlined with anything of note except the requirements of these conflicts.
Culture in societies with imperium in imperio governmental systems would then be observably increasingly incoherent, lack underlying logic (except again with reference to the left-right battle,) and be productive of ideas that were unable to predict anything of value (except the left-right conflict.)
Societies with a control on these conflicts on the other hand would be conducive to production of cultural and ideas which were coherent, intelligent and productive. It is only when the fighting (politics) is silent that any precious reason can prevail.
Viewing what the left themselves write and explain as their motivations for their action, we see clear as day that the battle of left and right is the motivating factor behind their actions. Not value or accuracy. It simply is not viable to claim otherwise when there is such an easy to access surfeit of evidence proving this. Typically “empiricist” and “positivists” social science cannot see this. Typically these “empiricist” and “positivists” positions were created by the left (the elite) as part of their “scientific” war against the right. I am finding that there is a wealth of record proving this. So again, we have significant schools of thought created as a result of the left-right battle, and which are then immune from accuracy and reality as long as society maintains.
Once you start looking for it, it shows up everywhere. Take behaviouralism, or “empirical social science”:
“One of the most given explanations for the rise of behavioralism has been a reference to the role of foundations (2), mainly the emergence of the Ford Foundation as an important provider of funds (Dahl 1961; Somit and Tanenhaus 1982; Seidelman and Harpham 1985: 154). Many have even argued that the whole concept of behavioralism came into use only because of the policy of foundations (Geiger 1988: 329). And Bernard Berelson seems to agree:
“What happened to give rise to the term? The key event was the development of a Ford Foundation program in this field. The program was initially designated ‘individual behavior and human relations’ but it soon became known as the behavioral sciences program and, indeed, was officially called that within the foundation. It was the foundation’s administrative action, then, that led directly to the term and to the concept of this particular field of study.” (Berelson 1968: 42) (3)
The foundation money created also a self-generating process which led to the recruitment of behavioralists. Because behavioralist projects were funded better than traditional ones, there were a larger supply of behavioralists up for recruitment than others (Hacker 1959: 39-40). It is no wonder that some of the key practioners of behavioralism have been willing to admit, that “it was almost single-handedly the Ford Foundation that did so much to legitimate empirical social science” (Warren E. Miller in Baer, et al., eds. 1991: 242).
David Easton has argued that “in its orgins it may well be that the concept can be considered an accident” (Easton 1965: 12). Easton explains this accident with the convergence of the founding of the Behavioral Sciences Division of the Ford Foundation and the story of some congressmen attacking social sciences as socialist sciences (Easton 1965: 22; cf. Ball 1993).
Foundations played a key role in financing research at the beginning of the 1950s, but the Ford Foundation terminated its behavioral program in 1957. One of the reasons was the attack towards foundations. There had already been the House of Representatives Select Committee (Cox Committee) investigating tax-exempt foundations in 1952, and the foundations were increasingly criticized as being too liberal (actually it was in the hearings of Cox Committee when social sciences were termed as socialist sciences).
After the foundations began to diminish their financing of the behavioral sciences, the National Science Foundation stepped in. The original bill for the establishment of a National Science Foundation, which was given to the Congress in 1945, contained the establishment of a Social Science Division. Social Sciences came under attack from politicians, however, already then, because some congressmen saw them representing values foreign to Anmericans. Social scientists counterattacked with rhetorics stressing the values of science, neutral pursuance of truth, and distancing themselves from social reform. All the values that had helped to win the Second World War (Ball 1993). But to no avail. The National Science Foundation was established in 1950 without the Division of Social Sciences.
The Foundation began to search for opportunies to finance the social sciences, however, already in 1953. In 1958 it founded the Office of Social Sciences, which was changed into the Division alredy a year later (Lyons 1969: 272). Social sciences were accepted by politicians at last.
As these examples show, political science was deeply dependent on the state of democracy in society. A general political climate had an impact also on individual scholars and universities as organizations.”
This tells use empirical social science was funded by foundations, motivated by anti-rightwingism and fueled by zero truth. It describes nothing, predicts nothing, and is utterly worthless. Yet it prevails.
Thanks to De Jouvenel I can explain this all without reverting to mysticism about the “currents of modernity” or conspiracy theories. Imperium in imperio societies are engines of fraud and psychosis. The structure of government is as decisive as can be imagined.