Posted by: CS | January 16, 2014

Have Western Elites Failed? Or Have They Betrayed Us?

Martin Wolf, in the Financial Times, says that failing elites threaten our future. Failure has occurred, says Wolf, in three areas: financial regulation; the disregard for national interests that compete with the interests of the globalist elite; and the failed monetary policy of the European Union that has resulted in prolonged unemployment for tens of millions:

Financial Times, January 14, 2014: First, the economic, financial, intellectual and political elites mostly misunderstood the consequences of headlong financial liberalisation. Lulled by fantasies of self-stabilising financial markets, they not only permitted but encouraged a huge and, for the financial sector, profitable bet on the expansion of debt. The policy making elite failed to appreciate the incentives at work and, above all, the risks of a systemic breakdown. When it came, the fruits of that breakdown were disastrous on several dimensions: economies collapsed; unemployment jumped; and public debt exploded. The policy making elite was discredited by its failure to prevent disaster. The financial elite was discredited by needing to be rescued. The political elite was discredited by willingness to finance the rescue. The intellectual elite – the economists – was discredited by its failure to anticipate a crisis or agree on what to do after it had struck. The rescue was necessary. But the belief that the powerful sacrificed taxpayers to the interests of the guilty is correct.

Second, in the past three decades we have seen the emergence of a globalised economic and financial elite. Its members have become ever more detached from the countries that produced them. In the process, the glue that binds any democracy – the notion of citizenship – has weakened. The narrow distribution of the gains of economic growth greatly enhances this development. This, then, is ever more a plutocracy. A degree of plutocracy is inevitable in democracies built, as they must be, on market economies. But it is always a matter of degree. If the mass of the people view their economic elite as richly rewarded for mediocre performance and interested only in themselves, yet expecting rescue when things go badly, the bonds snap. We may be just at the beginning of this long-term decay.

Third, in creating the euro, the Europeans took their project beyond the practical into something far more important to people: the fate of their money. Nothing was more likely than frictions among Europeans over how their money was being managed or mismanaged. The probably inevitable financial crisis has now spawned a host of still unresolved difficulties. The economic difficulties of crisis-hit economies are evident: huge recessions, extraordinarily high unemployment, mass emigration and heavy debt overhangs. This is all well known. Yet it is the constitutional disorder of the Eurozone that is least emphasised. Within the Eurozone, power is now concentrated in the hands of the governments of the creditor countries, principally Germany, and a trio of unelected bureaucracies – the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The peoples of adversely affected countries have no influence upon them. The politicians who are accountable to them are powerless. This divorce between accountability and power strikes at the heart of any notion of democratic governance. The Eurozone crisis is not just economic. It is also constitutional.

But what if such failures are not failures at all, but the necessary and anticipated consequences of state policy. And what if, as Aangirfan asserts, reaction to such failures are staged events, designed primarily to test systems for the control and containment of the masses?

And what if widely held assumptions about Western democracy are delusional?

What if, today, we have only a fake democracy, where leadership is dictated, not by the popular will, but by organs of the deep state, which in turn are controlled by the money power?

The emergence of democracy in Western Europe and North America at the end of the nineteenth century was an anomaly. During all prior historical time, societies were controlled either by an aristocracy (for example, Athens from 508 to 322, or Rome in the time of the Republic) or an autocratic monarchy.

The democracy that emerged in the Western world during the nineteenth century was a consequence of the industrial revolution, which made total war — involving the mobilization of an entire society — possible for the first time in history.

During the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, mobilization for major wars required the deployment of increasingly large armies of relatively unskilled soldiers and the reorganization of a mass of low-skilled industrial workers to supply the military with huge quantities of clothing, ammunition and relatively simple weapons — rifles, bayonets, grenades, Gatling guns, and horse-drawn artillery.

Thus it became impossible, as the Russian Prince Yevgeny Trubetskoy remarked just before World War 1 “to rule against the people when it is necessary to turn to [the people] for the [national] defense.”*

The solution was to create governing assemblies of elected representatives, the majority of whom were drawn from the elite class. Thus, during the 1885 election, Lord Randolph Churchill campaigned for the Tory party on the slogan “Tory Democracy,” which he explained privately, meant a democracy in which everyone voted for the Tories.

Nevertheless, the reform was not without practical significance. It was necessary for aristocrats and plutocrats on either side of the parliamentary chamber to offer something for the benefit of the masses. The result was genuine popular reform promoted by aristocrats such as the young Winston Churchill (newphew to the Duke of Malborough) who, as President of the Board of Trade in the 1908 Government of Herbert Asquith, opposed huge expenditures for the construction of battleships, and introduced Britain’s first minimum wage law, set up labor exchanges to assist the unemployed find work, and assisted with legislation providing for unemployment payments and old age pensions.

But times have again changed. Huge conscript armies of poorly trained men are no longer effective in warfare. A single nuke can eliminate a mass army. States now rely on small professional armies of increasingly well-trained technicians operating complex weapons systems. The military are well-rewarded to ensure their loyalty to the elite, without the need for concessions to the masses. Moreover, automation, computerization and robotization are rapidly eliminating the need for a mass army of civilian clerical and industrial workers.

The mass of humanity are now seen by the elite as an unnecessary consuming, polluting blight on the landscape to be quietly eradicated. This genocidal process depends on a fake democracy, a program to undermine fertility, and publicly funded abortion services.

At the same time, mass immigration to the West serves two functions. First, it destroys national culture and the sense of national ethnic and religious coherence, thus undermining the capacity of the people to assert their interests effectively.

Second, it serves a eugenic function: immigrants being among the more energetic and intelligent members of the poor societies from which they originate, perform many essential technical functions more efficiently and with greater subservience to the powers-that-be than most members of the indigenous population.

The supposed failure of Western elites can thus be seen as aspects of an elite project to: (a) impoverish the masses, thereby freeing up resources for the international plutocracy; and (b) undermining the fertility of the masses who are to gradually fade away. Ultimately, population densities worldwide are to fall to those comparable to that of Elizabethan England.

Well it’s going to be great for those who are still around, maybe. But for the democratic nations of the West, extinction is imminent.

* Quoted by Margaret MacMillan in The War That Ended Peace. Allen Lane, 2013. as difficult to rule against the people when you might need to ask them at any time to fight and die for their country. The rise of a vast urban proletariat in the great industrial cities created further difficulty in ruling without any regard for the interests of the masses.

See Also:

Aangirfan: Failing Elites?

Aangirfan: Democracy an Anomaly


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: