First of all, it must be recognized that it is natural and
necessary for society to have an elite. Murray Rothbard wrote
about the ideal of "natural aristocrats", who “live in freedom
and harmony with their fellows, and rise by exercising their individuality and
their highest abilities in the service of their fellows, either in an
organization or by producing efficiently for the consumers.”
A free society needs such “natural aristocrats” because they are
its main drivers and inspirations. Major entrepreneurial initiatives are generally
taken by people who are particularly far-sighted and motivated, willing to make
more sacrifices and take more risks than the average person. The whole of
society indirectly benefits from the initiatives of these people.
The problem, therefore, is not the existence of an elite per se,
but the fact that it is no longer composed primarily of "natural
aristocrats". Today it is composed of what Rothbard called "artificial
aristocrats"; "those who governs by means of coercion", that is,
with the help of the state. The “Machiavellian” thinkers were
the first to describe this oligarchic elite in a systematic way; they referred
to the “organized and ruling minority”, in opposition to the disorganized and
controlled majority.
As Gaetano
Mosca, the most eminent member of this school of thought, wrote in his work,
The Ruling Class; "public power has not been and will never be based on
the explicit consent of the majority because it has been and will always be
exercised by this organized minority who has had or will have the means, to
impose his supremacy on the multitude".
Indeed, when it becomes oligarchic, the ruling minority uses
coercion to influence political decisions and even social values, in its own
economic and ideological interests. However, it is not all-powerful and
omniscient; its power never fully acquired, and it does not always exercise its
influence very skillfully.
As elsewhere, Western societies have always had "organized
minorities", but these have evolved over time. The political power of this
elite has constantly increased, together with the expansion of the state and
the crony capitalism that it facilitates. As Mosca wrote: "To the extent
that the state absorbs and distributes a greater part of public wealth, leaders
of the ruling class have more means of arbitrary influence over their
subordinates and more easily escape anyone's control."
It must not be assumed that the introduction of
"democracy" has reduced the influence of this ruling minority on
society, for this political system has inexorably been accompanied by a
considerable development of state power. Indeed, even in a "liberal
democracy," the disorganized and generally uninformed majority has
virtually no influence over, for instance, the foreign, monetary, defense,
immigration, and health policies of their governments.
Three Phases
of Development
It is possible to identify three phases in the evolution of the
ruling minority. During the 19th century, this minority was quite close to the
ideal natural elite described by Rothbard above. In the absence of strong
states and supranational institutions, the ruling minorities (in plural), were thus
initially more national than international in outlook, sought economic rather
than political power, and were more industrially than financially oriented. In France,
the Count
de Saint-Simon wrote about the "industrialists", whom he
described in an open letter to king Louis XVIII as "the natural and
permanent leaders of the people."
These minorities have naturally always thought of their own interests
first (although they were also
philanthropist). Nevertheless, the increase in prosperity enjoyed by the
West during the "long" 19th century is largely due to the investments
of these ruling minorities.
The relationship between these elites and the rest of society was
thus rather symbiotic, despite real tensions related to the social conditions
of early industrialization; tensions successfully exploited and amplified by
the socialist groups of the time. For example, until World War I, these ruling
minorities were committed to deflation and free trade, and preferred to
maintain a certain level of monetary control via the gold standard.
The modern ruling minority then consolidated, with the development
of financial capitalism in the late nineteenth century, around the growing and
increasingly political power of "international bankers" and their
extended families. The historian Carroll Quigley listed them as follows: "Raring,
Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg, Schroder, Seligman, Speyers, Mirabaud, Mallet,
Fould, and especially Rothschild and Morgan." He
described them thus:
“These banking families remained different from ordinary bankers
in distinctive ways: (1) they were cosmopolitan and international; (2) they
were close to governments and were particularly concerned with questions of
government debts; (3) their interests were almost exclusively in bonds, since
they admired "liquidity"; and (4) they were almost equally devoted to
secrecy and the secret use of financial influence in political life. In all
countries they carried on various kinds of banking and exchange activities, but
everywhere they were sharply distinguishable from other, more obvious, kinds of
banks, such as savings banks or commercial banks.”
In this second phase, the Western ruling minority emerges,
international, politicized and mainly financially oriented. This description of
the core of the Western ruling minority is still the same today, despite major
changes in the financial system over the last half century. Around this
nucleus, of course, need to be counted political leaders and senior civil
servants, as well as publishers and editors of mainstream media, as well as the
heads of many Western multinational companies.
As mentioned, this politicization of the ruling minority is
closely linked to the rapid expansion of the role of the state in society from
the end of the 19th century, which first increased its control over production
(state control over key industries), then over money (giving up the gold
standard), then over consumption (introduction
of price controls). As Albert Jay Nock wrote, "It is easier to seize wealth (from the producers) than
to produce it, as long as the State makes the seizure of wealth a matter of
legalized privilege”.
In this second phase, the Western ruling minority began to be harmful
to society, even if the impact was not always so visible. Nevertheless, its irresponsible
financing of the
Russian Revolution as well as
Nazi Germany, described in detail by the historian Anthony Sutton, probably
had a major influence on the course of History...
Phase 3: Messianic
and Nefarious Globalism
With the Second World War and the rise of Keynesianism, monetary
inflation – this artificial
scourge upon the majority – became an important tool for the enrichment of
the large banking institutions. With the financialization of the Western economies
in the 1970s, the interests of the ruling minority began to clearly diverge from
the interests of the “real” production-based economy in which the majority
participates. The Western oligarchic elite then entered its third phase.
In this phase, the list of extended families belonging to it has
changed little. However, some names have lost influence, and new ones can be
added, such as: Soros, Gates, Goldman Sachs and obviously, Rockefeller.
In recent decades, this Western ruling minority has become much
more ambitious and aggressive than it once was. It is now fully imbued with an
ideological mission, even a messianic one, to change the world. As an assistant
to the Rockefellers said : "In our dreams we have limitless resources and
the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands.”
This ambition existed already at the beginning of the 20th century
but remained mostly latent. Today, return on investment and control of
resources are no longer the only or even the most important objectives; the
current ruling minority has a technocratic desire to shape societies; to
control and direct their evolution. Indeed, its purpose today can be summed up
in one word: control. It's about controlling everything; people, finance, food,
energy, health, and even nature.
This means weakening the nation-states by accelerating the
transfer of national sovereignty to supranational authorities. Indeed, this
globalist oligarchy has long felt itself restrained by a multitude of national
jurisdictions. In order to convince the majority that political globalism is
the only hope for mankind, crises have been fabricated, and presented as
insoluble at the level of the sovereign state. The three main crises created
for this purpose are the climate "crisis", the pandemic
"crisis", and the immigration "crisis". The latter also
serves to dilute ethnically homogeneous nations, and thus to diminish natural
social and cultural resistance to political globalism.
The United Nations and the governmental institutions and NGOs that
orbit around it all play a key role. To name of few examples, the WHO must be
given the power to introduce a
digital health tool that will allow the control of populations under
pretexts of public health concerns. The European Union must impose
obligations and restrictions on the behavior of European individuals and
companies (see
CSRD, the
Digital Services Act and the
Green Deal). The introduction of
digital currencies by central banks will allow the control of
all individual economic transactions. The
digital wallet will allow the introduction of a system of social credits,
Chinese style. All these initiatives are coordinated by the World Economic
Forum.
The Western oligarchy is now openly showing its neo-fascist and
anti-liberal conviction; economic control consists in openly pushing the model
of “public-private partnership"
and stakeholder
capitalism. Moreover, it wishes to force the majority, and if possible
convince it, to give up
private property (renting
instead of owning)
thus increasing the financial dependence of the population on the major financial
institutions.
All these initiatives are progressive steps towards the
establishment of a world government under the control of the Western ruling
minority. Indeed, it has been dreaming about such planning for a century,
supposedly for the good of humanity. This idea is encapsulated in the following
revealing words
from Nelson Rockefeller: "I am a great supporter of planning – economic,
social, political, military, total world planning."
An Enemy of
the People
These nefarious plans of the Western ruling minority obviously
represent a significant threat to individual freedom on a global scale. Unfortunately,
they have already been partially implemented. It is nothing less than a
betrayal by the Western ruling minority of its own societies.
This is a new phenomenon. A
priori, a national elite has no interest in seeing its own society decline,
in seeing the majority it leads become poorer. But the Western ruling minority
has long been cosmopolitan, and its interests are now transnational and
therefore unrelated to its cultural and geographical origins. The Western
ruling minority has become over time an enemy of the people, which the
majorities have no choice but to oppose.
Libertarians in particular, and all who defend the fundamental
right of non-interference by political authorities in the life of the
individual, cannot but react with horror to these dystopian plans. Fortunately,
there is some opposition to these globalist initiatives, but it is still timid;
it is a political battle that is far won.
A
Political Fight for Freedom
The struggle against this tyrannical globalist agenda requires efforts
to increase the political consciousness of the majority in order to counter the
propaganda disseminated by mainstream media. The process of political globalism
can be reining in by exposing the three crises mentioned above as artificial.
It is necessary to return to the situation that prevailed during
part of the 19th century, when the Western ruling minority was mostly an economic
elite. That is, the ruling minority should be composed essentially of Rothbard’s
"natural aristocrats", or of "industrialists" to use
Saint-Simon's term.
It is possible that the plans of the modern ruling minority will
not succeed, or only partially. They may prove to be too ambitious and too illiberal
to be fully accepted, even by a largely apolitical, disorganized and
disinformed majority. But it is not possible to passively expect this. When
freedom is at such risk, these words of Ludwig
von Mises come to mind:
"Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one
is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a
safe way for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore
everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the
intellectual battle. No one can stand aside with unconcern: the interests of
everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into
the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has
plunged us."
No comments:
Post a Comment