It is common nowadays to hear talk of ‘the elites’, especially ‘the global elites’. On the one hand, these phrases seem to refer to Bill Gates, George Soros, Larry Fink, Klaus Schwab and other Bond villains, plus the figures who play Oddjob to Goldfinger – accredited sidekicks and secretaries like Joe Biden, Ursula von der Leyen, Anthony Fauci, Tedros Ghebreyesus and Gary Lineker. One the other hand, they refer to the entire higher educated class of professionals, teachers and administrators, the class of ‘nowheres’ as distinguished from ‘somewheres’ (David Goodhart) or ‘uppers’ as distinguished from ‘downers’ (Ferdinand Mount), or ‘democrats’ as distinguished from ‘deplorables’ (Hillary Clinton). This is confusing, but it makes sense. There are extremely powerful figures operating at a high level of influence. And then there are the enforcers. And then there are the jobsworths.
There is a hierarchy of elites, then – an uncelestial hierarchy – running from the conspiratorial through the corrupt and the colluding to the compliant. We all know this; but we tend to think about it sociologically rather than politically. For the edification of the one or two sceptical Cobbetts still in existence, I thought I’d sketch out a short conjectural historical explanation of the politics of ‘The Thing’, as A.J.P. Taylor referred to the ruling class: in other words, A History of the Global Elites.
In our history we have several ancient visions of a centralised world order. One was the Roman vision: Empire! And the other was the Christian vision: Papacy! These were fused by Constantine, but split again, in the West, though not in the East, and in the West maintained a high rivalry for a thousand years. However, this rivalry had nothing to do with ordinary life in medieval England, say, or France, where there was no centralisation, no state, no sovereignty and only lordship: in particular, feudal lordship. Feudal lords, as everyone knows, were in effect private, not public: and they existed in reciprocal relations of local service. The vassal owed the lord service; and the lord owed the vassal protection. Our medieval kings were just the first lords amongst many. Everything was a matter of practical subsidiarity: decided at the appropriate level. But into this working system stole the Roman lawyers of Bologna and other universities, who started speaking to the imperialists, and the Roman Christians who sought to turn Christian practice into ecclesiastical world order using selections from the Bible and Aristotle and also Roman law. They disagreed about much, but they agreed about the importance of central domination.
To cut a long story short, feudal struggles between rival lords were resolved by the kings, who, as the pre-eminent lords, forged high alliances with the centralising Roman-Christian-Greek theorists and forged low alliances with the people – especially the somewhat unattached mercantile people: those people who in the 14th Century associated in guilds and in the 17th Century in clubs and companies. The kings used their alliances to establish themselves at the apex of the novel thing called a state, armed with a doctrine of sovereignty (which meant supremacy): and this threw up new ideas such as raison d’état, the idea that everything should be done for the state, and absolutism, the idea that everything should be done for the state absolutely.
Is this clear? The centralisers of the first stage were the emperors and popes, with their claims about being dominus mundi, lord of the world, or vicarius Dei, vicar of God. The centralisers of the second stage were the European kings of the 16th Century and afterwards, with their claims to rule as supremely as the emperors and popes had done, but only within their own territories, now called states.
If you are interested, I take the first half of the story from a letter Lord Acton wrote in 1861, which Michael Sonenscher found so impressive that he printed it entire as an appendix in his recent book After Kant. And I take the second half from a book by Reinhart Koselleck from 1959 called Critique and Crisis.
The second half of the story is that there was were reactions against the sovereign kings, against raison d’état and against absolutism. Overt reactions against it– like those of egalitarian Protestant sects – failed. But one reaction which succeeded was that of the Freemasons. Descended from obscure traditions (Cabalistic, Hermetic, Rosicrucian, Templar), the Freemasons were in fact businessmen who were appalled by the absolutism of Louis XIV and Frederick the Great. They formed secret corporations to defend a certain sort of freedom, and they protected themselves with elaborate and arcane rituals but also by emphatically asserting that they had no interest in politics.
Koselleck’s particular point is that asserting-that-they-had-no-interest-in-politics was a highly effective way of being political. The Freemasons disliked the absolutist state. They disliked states. They disliked politics. They liked business, they liked freedom, and they were convinced of the superiority of their mercantile cosmopolitanism and their capacity to solve the problems of the world by using moral arguments rather than using crude political expedients. But this was to become a politics of its own.
The suggestion here is that it was the Freemasons who were responsible for the politics of the ‘global elite’. We can skate over the 19th Century because even Marxism was no more than a spirited sideline in a much grander story. Freemasonic politics was, and is, overtly antipolitical. It dislikes states. It also dislikes democracies. It dislikes limits. It is technocratic. It likes science. It is very sure of itself. It generates a vast network in which one gets on as one boosts one’s signal. It wants freedom, for the members of the arcane cult: those who adopt the neo-masonic beliefs (nowadays about diversity, migration, climate, pandemic) as badges of honour, and adopt quasi-masonic rituals to go with them (wearing masks, taking the knee, protesting that one is an ally of this or that community, assembling in Davos and wherever COP is to be held next year). It assumes that this science, this morality – technology plus appropriate belief – is enough to solve the problems of the world: and that what usually passes for politics is in fact inferior folly and distraction. It is very much in favour of the hypothesis of ‘The Anthropocene’, since it can pose as the St George that is going to slay the dragon of Machiavellianism, now that the Machiavellian state has proven that it has no ‘solutions’ to the problems of the world.
The neo-masonic global elite believes in solutions. Politics, as we know it, is a dirty business: and involves silt and sediment and scum– things that do not dissolve (like Donald Trump and Nigel Farage): but politics as the global elite knows it is, or should be, clean: it only approaches a problem if it involves a solution: dissolving something in some magnificent new solvent, to be designed by a corrupt scientist somewhere and signal-boosted by the colluding and compliant systems of the states that no longer work because they have been Gramscianly buggered-up by the long march of masonry through the institutions. The states no longer work because their old Machiavellian étatiste capacities have been eroded by the universalist, globalist, unpolitical, gentle progress towards a service state which is in fact a world state – except that it won’t be called a ‘state’, because the word ‘state’ is a tainted word.
I wonder what they’ll call the ‘world state’ when it comes? It won’t be ‘world state’. It’ll be Gaia – or Govenia, or Gretaria, or something equally vapid. Or it won’t even have a name. Someone should write a dystopia about how the Chinese and Islamic worlds will come to a grand world-historical compromise whereby Islam will supply the religion and China will supply everything else. All we will do, probably, is supply the name. We are good at advertising and doublethink.
Well, there are people in our civilisation, thinkers and theorists, who try to defend ‘politics’, and talk positively about Hobbes and Machiavelli. But those people – I read their books – also seem to have injected the neomasonic antipolitical gene therapy into their cerebral cortices, so it remains to be seen whether any of them of them will wake up and realise that they are doomed if they don’t realise that the state has been weakened too much by the masons.
I am not defending the state. But it is important for us to recognise just how much the history of politics reveals that the state has been undermined by the clever machinations of the centralisers of the third stage, the neomasonic global elites. They are worse, probably, than the old centralisers. They see no limits to their empire. And they are more certain of their right to rule than even the Romans and Christians.
The only hope, as the great political theorist Bertie Wooster put it, might be to restore a bit of the old feudal spirit.
One thing I did not mention earlier on is that one of the other reactions to absolutism, and a successful one for a time, was distinctly English. It was constitutionalism. 1688 and all that. This constitutionalism was also adopted by the Americans, who abstracted from English models while rejecting English rule and English traditions. Constitutionalism worked well between the 18th and 20th Centuries. It certainly preserved liberty by insisting on balance. It was responsible for that remarkable thing, liberalism. But it is possible that constitutionalism, too, has been twisted beyond repair by the masonic elites: to become just one more method by which they impose their antipolitical protocols on us.
Dr. James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-recommends-pre-flight-testing-passengers-china-wastewater-testing-airports-2023-01-04/
…and on another note if anyone has booked a holiday to Thailand, it is resurrecting the vax pass.
Happy holidays…
https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2476069/proof-of-covid-jabs-for-all-visitors-revived
A very good new 45min documentary, The New Constitution, which consolidates much of Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt’s research, translating it into plain English so that it’s easier to grasp, of how the US laws have gradually been changed over the years. This has been integral for the criminal elite’s plans and, amongst other things, the film explains how the US government is now totally impotent as the secretary of the HHS has full authority, therefore if he declares a ‘public health crisis’ they have no power to stop it. These new pseudo-laws now mean that the criminals can act with impunity as they have full protection. It’s a bit depressing actually as it means, if this is correct, DeSantis is destined to get nowhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9cmYNRgXXg&ab_channel=BookofOurs
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/01/05/irelands-dangerous-experiment-in-self-id/
When I looked at this article it seems to me that there is a failure to differentiate between sex and gender. I feel the two terms should be clearly defined and seen as very different and not inter-related, changing your gender should not be seen as changing your sex.
I Work in nature conservation and observing nature you can see that sex, breeding and reproduction are one of the top priorities and indeed springtime is approaching when nature bursts into a frenzy of reproduction and babies to ensure the continuation of the species.
To my mind your sex relates to how you fit into breeding and reproduction and can never be changed. Your gender relates to the style, appearance and mannerisms you present to the world. Previously the two have been closely linked but they are very different and in the light of current social concerns need to be seen as such. And so I have 2 questions;
1, Is there a word in the English language to describe an adult human being with a womb, ovaries and mammary glands, who is capable of conceiving, bearing and suckling a child?
2 Is there a word in the English language to describe an adult human being who has testes and is capable of providing sperm to facilitate the fertilisation of a human egg and the creation of a new human life?
It is no coincidence that activists have obfuscated (or flatly denied) the difference between biology and a lifestyle choice. The deliberate confusion is the key to understanding the whole issue (and it was just beginning when I studied social psychology in 1972-3).
I would imagine that Keir Starmer and his motley crew would have great difficulty in providing a truthful answer.
Is the answer to 1 not “female adult” and to 2 “male adult”?
It might have been in the past but now that it seems possible and to some extent and in some places legal to change your declared sex this no longer seems to be the case. Consequently we now have some adult human beings with testes and the ability to produce sperm declared and accepted as female. Consequently I no longer know what term to use when referring to people by virtue of their binary and unchangeable biological reproductive potential?
Oh, I hadn’t realised that. I thought it was just the terms “woman” and “man” that had been changed to include the trans version of each. But what you are saying is that the terms “male” and “female” have also been similarly broadened.
“Wikipedia”
Character assassination and de-credentialling on Wikipedia has been going on for years. For example, challengers of orthodox Neodarwinism, whether Intelligent Design proponents or secular critics like James Shapiro tend to find their PhDs and awards disappearing and “pseudoscience” labels being attached to them. The same is true of those questioning materialist science in other ways, like Rupert Sheldrake. It’s not a question of critical analysis of their views, but of poisoning the well against examining them dispassionately at all.
Those cases seem to have been orchestrated by cabals of anonymous “pro” editors broadly following the old New Atheist ideology, working full time so that if you corrected your biography in the morning, it would be doctored again by midday.
Well, now the Twitter files confirm that deep state operators have been at exactly the same game – at taxpayers’ expense – making Wikipedia, on issues where there is controversy, just another branch of state propaganda. Think about that not only when you look up Malone or Heneghan, but also when you’re after a quick biography of Vladimir Putin or an overview of the performance of wind turbines.
The political left seem to have more energy and spare time than the right. They are all over Wikipedia – it’s pretty much a lost cause as far as political bias goes.
I didn’t know anyone still used Wikipedia much, certainly not as a trusted source. Like you, I noted the defamations/character assassinations etc years ago which ramped up immediately the plandemic hit. The quickest defame I spotted was Dr Peter McCullough, practically within hours of his first address to Senate!
Yes, I remember reading the piece on Richard Littlejohn about 15 years ago, because I wanted to check on something related to his latest book. The Wikipedia article bordered on being defamation. On the editor comments, someone pointed this out. In essence, the reply was that Littlejohn was such a scumbag that he deserved it and could cope with it. I never used Wikipedia ‘seriously’ again.
It’s very useful to check on where I am on my seven-season US Mission: Impossible TV series Blu-ray set, to make sure I get to the right episode quickly after a couple of weeks’ break. Even then, the information and write-ups for movies and TV shopw are often stolen from fan sites.
Wikipedia is useful to find episode synopses and transmission orders of old TV episodes. For anything important, it’s a load of extremist-manipulated tosh.
More useful background from JC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26zP0YhEdmg Great Western Hosp records over the last few years on heart problems.
The church of England has become a farce religion that doesn’t even believe in its own beliefs! Simple,Christians, just stop going until they learn to believe again. Preaching to an empty church is the future their looking at!
Sorry to repeat this but I’ve only just read the story of the Finla Coffee shop this morning and was moved by their stand. They’ve lost the business but still have fines to pay. Fines! The response to their crowdfunder has been fantastic though and a true reflection of real community in action. So far, they’ve managed to get over £11,000 towards their £17,000 goal. If anyone missed it and is moved to donate, please visit the story above where the link to the crowdfunder is.
It’s well worth a repeat.
https://donorbox.org/supportfinlacoffee
Well done tof.
Great news. I’ve just checked the crowdfunder website and they’ve surpassed their target. It currently stands at nearly £20,000 and rising. Many thanks to Toby for highlighting this family’s desperate plight.
This Jeff the Fact Checker story doesn’t surprise me. Anyone who rally knows their facts would probably not deign to lower themselves into the gutter for such verbal prostitution. It’s this mentality of sitting at desks and playing god that gets me. Less successful ‘journalists’ with zero scientific or medical qualifications with a brief to edit out anything that goes against the scriptures. Well done to Texas Lindsay for her Twitter thread in highlighting this.
As I posted a few days ago, anybody who admits to referring to ‘fact checkers’ is really saying – “I’m fik.”
A more blatant way of exposing one’s stupidity would be difficult to find.
Morning all…I’ve been busy this week and haven’t been able to follow everything….so apologies if this has already been posted…
An interesting article from John Dees Almanac, looking at the appearance and disappearance of flu over the centuries….and how it spreads regardless of distance….and how this is not a new phenomena……this is part 1….
.
https://jdee.substack.com/p/flip-flop-flu-part-1?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
https://expose-news.com/2023/01/05/pfizergate-disaster-excess-deaths-mortality-rates/
Imagine if a vaccine was administered to a large number of people in every age group. Then just a few months later there were millions of excess deaths.
Whilst at the same time, official figures showed mortality rates per 100,000 population were significantly lower among the unvaccinated in every single group than they were in the vaccinated.
This would be a significant cause for concern. Because this scenario would suggest that the vaccine was causing harm to those who received it, rather than protecting them from illness or death.
It would in fact be a catastrophic event that would require a thorough investigation and response.
An excellent ‘roundup’ article of where we are…
Perhaps consider sending this to Prof Heneghen.
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/01/05/we-lost-our-cafe-and-got-fined-42000-because-we-refused-to-comply-with-covid-restrictions-can-you-help/
Another bump for this article. They deserve our support. I can’t imagine what they have and are still going through.
Brave, decent people.
https://expose-news.com/2023/01/04/bill-gates-gives-ukaid-tens-of-millions/
Very interesting but deeply alarming. Billy is developing the:
International Barcode of Life (IBOL)
To complete this project he will genetically modify every plant and animal on the planet and once that is achieved he OWNS every plant and animal on the planet.
Is their an element of genetic modification in some of the clot shots?
I believe the shots have not yet been fully identified. Maybe the shots are a mixture of “varieties.” Some are maim and kill and others will have behavioural implications not yet manifested.
We really have not yet fully grasped the cess pit that is the mind of Lord Bill of the Gates of Hell.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-01-05-food-company-france-reduces-production-80-percent.html
More worrying developments on the food front and the culprit is the cost of energy.
As predicted a manufactured food crisis.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-01-05-wef-eliminate-care-ownership-walk-share-happy.html
This explains how car ownership is to be reduced and ultimately eliminated.
Those lovely people at the WEF.
Another definition of “Safety”? https://www.gbnews.uk/news/police-chief-claims-london-is-fantastically-safe-despite-885-murders-in-last-seven-years/419060 Perhaps Rowley is in the same club as those that claim C-19 jabs to be safe. You can do the sums, but if a murder rate of about 0,01% is tolerable, it looks like being in the same range!
https://off-guardian.org/2023/01/05/how-global-strikes-play-right-into-the-great-resets-hands/
Kit Knightly at Off-G warning as I have been doing repeatedly that striking unions are a threat to us all and not for the usual reasons.
Reset?
“You’ll have nothing and be happy
”
Cluse Adolf hitler swchwb will be the first to give up ALL his worldly goods to prove his total belief in his own statement?