[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: The Problem of the Power Elite It is the chief myth of our age that the legitimacy of government is derived by Lockean consent. Consent is the founding principle of democracy and everyone knows how sacred, beautious and alround super-desirable democracy is. Well, we do, don’t we? That’s what we are told, anyway. But it doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t matter what we think because all the noise about consent is a screamingly obvious sham. The interests of the ruling elite simply do not lie in its own submission to popular consent. They lie in securing and ever-strengthening its hold on power, infuence and wealth. The elite will, therefore, seek by any and all means the submission of the people to that end. It will manufacture consent long before it will relinquish what it loves. And where consent cannot be manufactured it will resort to more coercive means, only the most benign of which is to spin popular opinion into its opposite ("We are more tolerant oblique open to change oblique eat more chicken tikka marsala than ever") and blithely go about its business. In this essay I will explore the roots of the modern managerial power elite, that loose association of political, cultural and corporate players who, though constantly changing, are nonetheless changeless and number globally perhaps no more than a few tens of thousands. It is an alliance of interests and natures and origins. In its generality it is not a conspiracy, although at the highest, most Bilderbergian levels all the characteristics of conspiracy - exclusivity, secrecy, conversation and decision - do indeed apply. Even there, though, I wonder whether most of the 130 or so little big men who get to be ushered past “Security” really are the stuff of global dictatorship. We do well to remember that the elite is not wholly of one mind and arose, indeed evolved over a lengthy period from a multiplicity of directions and through several agencies. In all important respects that evolution was more organic than conspiratorial and more accidental than organic. The origins of the elite All political systems produce an elite because human beings differ, have their preferences from among one another and can attain their own increase more effectively in self-defined interest groups than in isolation. Elitehood cannot be prevented (sorry Perry). It can be negotiated towards the common good, but only on occasion and then only insomuch as it comprehends its dependency upon the ruled. The archaic tradition of King for a Day, whereby once a year some wretched felon would be crowned in laurel and granted every whim by his blue-daubed tribe before, at the going down of the sun, being put to death on the sacred oak, was an exquisite acknowledgement that kingly privilege was collectively lent and that continuity was never to be taken as a right. In the fullness of time it was, of course, taken anyway - and with an iron fist. The template for modern elite mores was forged the first time warfaring in the tribal interest was replaced by warfaring for the king. When William’s army marched from Senlac Field they did so as mercenaries for an elite that would slowly but surely eradicate its Saxon predecessor throughout England. They had come not to take possession of wealth, as the marauding Danes did, but to take possession of the crown and its subject people. Their separation from that people was reflected in the resentment and distrust of both sides, and in the frequent popular rebellions. Not for the only time, it now seems, the English people had no purchase on the elite that ruled over them. The history of warfare in the English-speaking world after that was the history of warring elites. It was not, of course, restricted to wars between crowns. Civil wars fought over succession, such as the thirty-two year Wars of the Roses, were transparently the product of competing elites. The theory of competing elites can equally be applied to revolutionary war. There is one great difference, though. The revolutionaries sought to sweep away not only the physical presence of the old elite but the very ground upon which it stood among the people. If successful, the resultant systemic political change was the basis for a legitimation far beyond that of mere victory on the battle field. The American intelligentsia, for example, who made themselves revolutionaries under a British monarchy became Founders and political giants under the liberal democracy that they fashioned, and bequeathed their legacy to more than American posterity. But for the most spectacularly rags-to-riches case of post-revolutionary legitimation one must look beyond the lands where English is spoken to 1930s Germany. There, a man who had served as a despatch rider in WW1 and in peacetime drifted into violent street politics was briefly raised to the status of a demi-god. So completely did the German people return his love, he could set upon their heads the near unearthly duty to tear down Yahweh’s Chosen elite and become master of the European house. It is rare, however, for systems to be authored by an elite as they were in revolutionary America and Nazi Germany. Occasionally, an extramural system might offer advantages to an incumbent elite, as in the case of Henry VIII whose motive for conversion to Protestantism was a Tudor one and only opportunistically Lutherian. But by and large, a systemic change portends a change of the elite with the same certainty that water changed for air in a goldfish bowl will portend a change in the creatures that can sustain life there. Thus even Henry’s selfish revolution eventually brought us William of Orange. It is all a matter of environment. When we come to examine the modern elite we must acknowledge at the outset the longevity and complexity of that environment. We are not dealing here with a single seminal moment in time, a single author, a single leader, a single movement or a single idea. We are dealing with many intertwined histories that are not all political, and with a sometime fractured but ultimately unifying philosophical accretion. There is a view sometimes expressed by Jim Kalb that the original Enlightenment values of reason, liberty, justice, and progress were enough in themselves to bring us to our present, insane danger. In its appeal to the organic this is an idea I find attractive - but with the caveat that one cannot extrapolate too directly. I see connected causalities elsewhere - certainly connected - but, critically, more specific to the murderous antipathy of advanced liberalism to European Man. I look at the liberal attachment to anti-Nature, at the shocks to the European psyche of 19th century urbanisation, industrialisation and 20th century World War, at the flight into a narcissistic individualism in the expectation of finding freedom there, at American cultural imperialism, at the cosmopolitanism and culture politics that stand for ethnic interest in Jewry ... I look at all this and see a deep Marxian slash - a more than Marxian slash - across the fundamentally well-meaning face of the liberalism of Locke, Mill, Hume and Smith. How much of this stuff can ultimately be traced back to those 17th and 18th century sages? Some, for sure. But some is, frankly, an accident of history and some has a parentage than is not liberal at all. In seeking to understand our elites it is essential to account for the disfigurement and for the environmental effect - the goldfish bowl effect - it has had upon them. The nature of our elite The modern elite is a revolutionary elite. It is the most revolutionary of all Western elites, and the first to seek to destroy its own people. That is the effect in question. Today, the air in the goldfish bowl - actually the air of post-WW2 liberalism - can only sustain gens proditor. How did that come to pass? Certainly, in England, which happens to be the place I know best, the old elite first saw that it would be tipped out of the bowl around 1944 when the idea began to be put about of “a land fit for returning heroes” where we could not be allowed to go back to “the old way of doing things”. The self-interest of the old elite was property-based and it sought permanence in inheritance, in family, in tradition, faith and nation. These things were the water in the bowl. The revolutionay hand upon the bowl went unseen in the extremis of war. But the deed was soon done in many connected fields and the waters of national fidelity were duly emptied out. For the evidence of that a better historian than I might look - to name but four factors - to the return to the international table with the setting up of the UN in 1945 and the Treaty of Paris in 1951, to the American antipathy to Empire, to the American-Jewish power-lock on the post-war treatment of Germany, and to the influence spreading through government of Marxist philosophy, including the first stirring of the new culture politics. Plainly, there are respects here in which the moving political spirits were not completely unlike the belief-driven, upstart revolutionaries of colonial America or the Bolsheviks of 1917. But how much less is that true of the elite today! It does not put itself at risk. It does not burn with an ideological desire to sweep away the old order. It simply inherited the new status quo and, like any wastrel son, it believes in the vanities and comforts of power well before it truly believes in philosophical ideas. Indeed, ideas are not really to be believed in but to be useful and, most importantly, compatibility with the ultimate elite loyalty: internationalism. That already implies a powerful disconnect to the ordinary people, of whom they offer a vision that never rises above economism as a means to keep the patient prosperous and sedated. But internationalism also implies a strongly progressive political bias. Modern power people have things to do: wars to end, diseases to cure, poverty to make history, hunger to banish, and all manner of little unfairnesses to ease. Help is needed. So voluntarism and minority activism are natural bolt-ons. Then, the elites love big politics. Lately, we’ve had the Blair-Mandelson Third Way, The Schroederite New Centre, The New American Century. God knows what left-of-centre rehashes are doing the rounds now. And then the elite loves new political theories. Frankly, it has what is known in certain quarters as a habit, with no “ism” too exteme. Even transsexual rights. In practise, however, new theories are usually a bit more seriously cutting-edge than that. They are soaked up from the zeitgeist or learned directly from the mouths of the real ideologues. By itself, the elite doesn’t even manage to manage the implementation of these pearls of wisdom. That, too, is learned. Probably from kinfolk of the ideologues ... the kind of helpful chaps who man the minority advocacy movements and get themselves appointed to those very well-paid posts in the voluntary and non-governmental sectors. Of course, it’s all a rather cheap and pathetic way to go on for the sons and grandsons of the men who struggled to put on a gas mask in the trenches of Northern France or quartered the northern Sahara in a tank-killing Hurricane. But the mind of Man, you should know, is highly suggestible. Never is that more true than with the soft, unnoticed enslavements of received wisdom, and that applies no less to ambitious and intelligent senior Ministers and Secretaries of State than it does to the impressionable young. Suggestible minds are defenceless minds. Cleverness and ability are not defences. That clever men who have already ingested the modern political norms may, as they rise in the world, become enculturated in ways ever more detached from and harmful to their native peoples should surprise no one. The evidence is indisputable and is with us every day. Likewise, if I say that we dissidents are the free, that we alone bear the burden of pulling down the deathworks, I mean it as no praise of us. Our freedom and wakefulness are as accidental and unearned as are the beliefs and silly prejudices that fill the heads of our opponents. So I mean no criticism of them personally in that respect. Nonetheless, theirs is clearly not quite a case of “Forgive them, Oh Lord ...” At some level these guys know what they do. They must, even if they lack the love to comprehend it. They are traitors to their people and for that they wouldn’t be dispensed much mercy by me! There are six categories of traitor that I can divine, the first truly global. A large proportion of elite members may straddle two categories, some perhaps more. Jews are present throughout, as one would expect. All members’ ultimate loyalty is - I repeat - to the internationalist outlook (Israel excepted), and that is the key to everything else. These are the categories:- 1) Transnational: The grandees of globalism, running from the ten or fifteen members of the Bilderberg Steering Committee and senior (sometimes royal) Bilderbergers down through the leadership of the major international bodies such as Nato, Club of Rome, World Bank, United Nations, European Union, CFR, Trilateral Commission, World Economic Forum, IMF, etc. 2) Political: The power loop of senior politicians of all mainstream parties, past and present, in or out of actual power, and their chief advisors and key public servants. 3) Opinion-forming: Big Media owners, “respected” journalists, and occasionally (and probably fleetingly) influential writers and artists. 4) Corporate and financial: The cost-conscious, profit-driven CE’s of Fortune 500-type companies or any major businesses operating across datelines. 5) Foundational and Charitable: The queen ants of the progressive agenda, especially the race-replacement business. 6) Intellectual: Leading economists, (mostly Jewish) exponents of Critical Theory. I don’t think I’ve forgotten anyone. But my apologies to any poor-lamb elitists who feel left out. Will 7) None of the above do? The interests of the elite All six elite categories are in some respect managerial. With a few exceptions of the ill-gotten, new-money kind, elite members are not owners of substantial assets. They manage assets, however one defines the rather flexible word “asset”. And the management of those assets constitutes their primary individual interest. Collectively, however, all these interests are congruent. Politicians like profitable businesses. Businesses like immigration. Jewish philosophers like cosmopolitanising Western societies. And they all like power and influence. Much has already been said by others - most effectively and truly by the late, valiant Sam Francis - about managerialism. As individuals, elite members all tend to their areas of competence in that sense - even the intellectuals who labour in thought to further critique and cultivate us. Their asset is our somewhat wavering progressiveness, their production line our suggestibility - just as it is for the peddler of life policies or high fashion. They are managers, manipulators too. Elite members have no stake in our future as European peoples. They are not dependent on passing on the assets they manage. What heights they achieve, what honours they win in this life will pass into nothing with their own passing. They are not, of course, inter-connected by blood or even by class but by networks. As befits internationalists they are huge consumers of air-travel and move pretty much constantly between the main centres of international life: New York, London, Tokyo, Singapore, Paris, Berlin, Rome and, now, Shanghai. We are the unseen, earth-bound orders over whom they pass on their way to another rarified encounter with some psychologically deracinated soul they have known since their days at the Sorbonne. We, though, are nobody. We do not matter. Our Nature-given interests do not matter. The life-experience of putative elites does not admit to itself our loves and loyalties. It is a process of enculturalisation in elite dissonance. It is both spiritually impoverishing to them and spiritually insulating. So, can we formulate a case with Sam Francis that a permanently ingenue managerialism, being profoundly contrary in interests to the loyal old elite whom it once replaced, is enough in itself to explain the treachery of the modern elite mind? Is a lethal cocktail of internationalism, progressivism, profit and plain human suggestibility the reason for that awful post-WW2 disfigurement to the liberal face ... the grave step from a politic that, while still liberal, at least respected the natural lineaments to one that would, if it could, sweep them all away? Well, I struggle with it. I know it must be true in large measure, and if one throws in the Pavlovian horror that attends all mention of Third World reality and the Pavlovian horror of a regnant nationalism and the Pavolvian horror of hearing the word “Holocaust” adjacent to the word “myth” and the promptings to Pavlovianism that stream non-stop from Organised Pavlovry, well yes, the argument has legs. But I still have to keep reminding myself of all of the above, so fantastical does it seem that my own kind - men of like background and tastes - truly desire to nullify our common blood for ... what, really? A stride or two on the world stage? Political fun? I’m still working on it, then. If you’ve got an answer, let me know.
Poster Comment: I call them the Cosmodemonic Transnational Megacorporations.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Turtle, christine, Wudidiz, TwentyTwelve, Rotara, HOUNDDAWG, bluegrass, Skydrifter, farmfriend, CadetD, all (#0)
Very sophisticated disinformation. There is one small definable group running the show. The rest of the mentioned elites are strictly second and third tier in the pecking order, and will be disposed of as needed by the actual self appointed elites which are: The Rothschilds (and their kin and vassals - Warburgs, Harrimans, Browns, etc., ...) The House of Windsor The Dutch Royal House The Danish Royal House The Rockefellers (and their kin and vassals) The Psychiatrists who produce their philosophy and sick rationales - while developing mind control programs for the degraded dumbmasses. That is it. Basically all of the others are owned by the above. The major corporations, the media, etc, .... It is a PLUTOCRACY with Aristocratic elements which is seeking to forge a global totalitarian state with them at the top of the power pyramid.
"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
...Presumably because it didn't finger a single identifiable group of malignant souls suitable for cluster hanging from hastily erected gallows. I dare say that many who abetted the process of "manufacturing Lockean consent" required no motivation remotely resembling the carefully cultivated matrilineal organizational lust for ethnic dominance, but instead they were acting on natural greed coupled with the intoxicating and addictive endorphin releases that accompany their ability to manipulate the masses, for good or evil. And, however neglected or "disinformationed" that issue may be this article is still a very fine, thought provoking analysis of the subject, and it in no way permitted "one small definable group running the show" to escape ultimate responsibility or in any way attempted to mitigate individual or collective guilt. Therefore, the hasty labeling as "(v)ery sophisticated disinformation" only to be followed by the one trillionth (or thereabouts) fingering of ol' Mr. Yehudi as the culprit (which was not really the intent of the article, its purpose being an arguably higher tangential focus in an area needing attention) seems a teeny bit reactionary and harsh. It would be nice to see you acknowledge a brilliant treatment of a subject seldom so well ironed out flat for ordinary human consumption (and more importantly, comprehension) without a quick visit to the ego cookie jar for yourself. It's no more "disinformation" than was The Gettysburg Address for its "failure to condemn the institution of slavery." Even though understanding the true power elite's true motivations is as necessary as understanding the real reasons for The War Of Nawthern Aggression those reasons were not essential to this article or Lincoln's battlefield cemetery dedication speech. And Lincoln's "oversight" or this author's "deliberate disinformation attempt" did nothing to detract from either in my view. Otherwise we could be forced (through the same process of subtle coercion) into a limiting and counterproductive point of view that any dissertation no matter how cerebral that fails to blame "the goddam joos" is "disinformation" for having flubbed the chance to kick the Christ killers yet again.
You mean like fancy bullshit? I wonder if it's intentional or just as a result of the writer being misinformed and ignorant.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||