It seems that the current state of American society can’t escape the political forces of the so-called left and the neo-con right. Both are addicted to the power of the state to satisfy all their desires for all the dreams they have, and they are willing to force people into this “good world”.
The use of the state for groups, religions, cults and such are nothing new. Jesus himself was trapped by the religious leaders of the day into the state’s snare, and as an innocent man was executed for it. This should give each one of us pause, as it has been said:
“Showme the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”
Lavrentiy Beria, head of Joseph Stalin’s secret police
In the history of the United States there has been many times where groups have convinced the state that certain people or groups were to be violently purged from the “union” violently.
Before Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860 there was a fringe group that the Republican’s courted for votes but they gave little traction to, the abolitionists. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that slavery of any type is proper, however, the method by which you employ to remove this condition from people best be the one that works the best for the oppressed themselves, not for the political operatives themselves.
These abolitionists waged a moral war (in their minds) as early as the 1830s in the attempt to get the South to free the negro slaves. The problem was, these people would NEVER want these 3-4 million Negroes in the north, no sir, no ma’am. They wanted to remain apart from the fray that would follow and not want to have any skin in the game themselves. These Yankees always felt better when they could put other people down. It was this attitude early on that actually caused the southern efforts to emancipate the slaves to slow down, stall and then stop. Constantly ridiculed for never doing enough to right the situation yesterday, the single digit percentage of southerners who actually owned slaves just attempted the status quo while the slave industry was dying a slow death on its own.
Just a few years into the war to force the eleven southern states back into the union (actually, Abe would never say that, he just was ending an insurrection .. as VIOLENTLY as possible), Lincoln was fighting for his political life, and with the vision to “save the Union”:
.. failing to continue to motivate politically and emotionally, he turned toward emancipation to rescue his war effort. (It should be noted that this emancipation freed ONLY the slaves that Lincoln had no control of. All the slaves in the areas the Union Army had control of would have to wait until a constitutional amendment was passed in December 1865 to be free) Lincoln mentioned to an associate that this was only in fact, a “war effort”. Violence to the tune of almost 800,000 soldiers dying and many more maimed physically and emotionally for life PLUS tens of thousands of civilians killed and the rest experienced ravaged farms, property and businesses either by Union troops OR by the Reconstruction years that followed. The South would be “dirt poor” for decades. The najority of the Negroes stayed in the south and were hurt by the very means of privation that the north forced on the south, as penance for wanting to leave the “marriage”.
Today, there are another couple groups that are attempting to use the state for their sword of righteousness yet again, similar to how the progressives zealots of the 1920s rolled in prohibition. From this Lew Rockwell article by Thomas DiLorenzo comes some truth-bombs of today’s reality:
The nonstop avalanche of hatred spewing from the hearts of the leftist and neocon political classes in America has the appearance of religious fanaticism on steroids, the kind that must have fueled the Spanish Inquisition. It is not real religion, of course, but the “religion” of statism, that has replaced religious faith in the minds of these nonstop spewers of hate because their “sainted” Hillary Clinton lost the election. To them, Hillary Clinton is more “moral” than the Pope, Mother Theresa, or any other religious figure because to them, “morality” stems not from faith in God or living by the Ten Commandments but from one’s support for leftist ideas, rhetoric, and policies. For socialism, in other words — even if they refuse to call it socialism.
The drive for this utopia has been tried for ages, and still is found wanting. I have yet to find an example of any people group / nation / country that took this road and allowed the common man, woman or child to flourish as a result.
Thomas DiLorenzo continues:
When this first cropped up, about five minutes after Hillary Clinton’s non-concession concession, it reminded me of a run-in I once had a decade or so ago with an acquaintance who I’m sure has been exploding with Trump hatred for the past two years now. He was a senior vice president of a television network and a lifelong Washingtonian. A typical D.C. liberal who lived in Chevy Chase, MD all his life, well inside the Washington orbit. All of his friends, neighbors, and co-workers were just like him, politically speaking. I made the offhand remark that I don’t vote because it “only encourages them” and besides, most of what government does is blatantly unconstitutional (not to be found in Article 1, Section 8). Therefore, voting just helps to legitimize this unconstitutional regime.
The man went completely nuts, shouting that I had attacked his most cherished of all beliefs — voting and “democracy.” He really, really lost it and had no interest whatsover in any civilized discussion of the matter. As far as he was concerned, anyone who expressed such views should be imprisoned for treason, if not hanged. I had attacked his “religion” which, to a lifelong Leftist who has spent his entire adult life declaring his moral superiority over any and all non-Leftists, this was the ultimate insult. To him and millions of other Leftists, Trump’s first inaugural address in which he denounced the entire Washington establishment, as most of it sat right next to him, was a declaration of war on their “religion.” And, in the spirit of their patron “saints” Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, they demand unconditional surrender.
Both the left (who desires another X decades in power so they can “help the poor” some more) and the neo-right (who desires another X decades of military spending) need the one thing that the “right” won’t give them, legally anyway, and that is some good drugs to calm down (as theey desire another X decades of the war on drugs and corporate welfare).
You see, this political turmoil is being brought into every home so all eyes can be on the State, which every religion earnestly wants, to make people dependent on their every move.
Demonstrators wearing Yellow Vests (Gilets jaunes) walk past the Arc de Triomphe (Arc of Triumph) in Paris on November 17, 2018 (Photo by STEPHANE DE SAKUTIN / AFP) / ALTERNATIVE CROP
What brings protestors to state monuments and state capitals? The feeling that they have been done wrong by the state. Was this inevitable? Of course, every state can’t possibly follow through on all the promises its politicians make, ever. There will come a time when the people have had enough of this parasite activity.
The state itself is not being questioned here, just the state’s actions (over time sparked by recent actions as in this case, a gas tax). I question the state because it actually always comes up short on their end of the deal. I think Jesus would agree, when He could have received justice, He got the cross. He knew that would happen, however, it is something we should ALL know, that the state can mean DEATH!
From The Burning Platform, in an ongoing dialog with Doug Casey reflecting on the 1st amendment to the US Constitution that has in it a fourth provision stating the right of assembly:
I’m opposed the very existence of the State. I’m opposed to it on moral grounds, because its essence is coercion. I’m opposed to it on economic grounds, because it’s more a threat to everyone’s property than a guardian of it. On practical grounds, since it’s necessarily inefficient in doing what it’s supposed to do, and does everything it’s not supposed to do. On aesthetic grounds, since it inevitably draws the worst kind of people to its employment. On evidential grounds, since its main products are wars, taxes, regulations, inflation, pogroms, and the like…
… I’ll just say that it speaks poorly of the average person, that he not only thinks the State is necessary, but enthusiastically supports it. And a constitution—whatever its positive aspects—enshrines and legitimizes the idea of the State.
I favor individuals cooperating as individuals, not as cogs in the State’s machine.
Doug Casey – Transcript from Interview with “JB” on The Burning Platform
I contend that while the US police forces, under direction of the federal government in times of crises (“insurrection”) may put up with peaceful assembly that does not destroy property (especially the destruction of state property in their eyes), in time they will remove this right (we still have the natural right, just that the government will not protect us to have this right) as they have done with all the others.
In the future, if the economy gets as bad as I expect, there will be serious riots—which are always a danger when the hoi polloi assemble. There are now means of crowd control much more effective than tear gas. There are beam weapons that, when directed at you, make your skin feel it’s on fire, and will absolutely make you run away and hide. Directional sonic weapons that will make you cover your ears, and run away. Ultra-slippery chemicals that make it impossible to walk. And of course they have means of identifying people in crowds, both with facial recognition and gait recognition. It may not be against the law to assemble, but the “authorities”—if they choose to– can certainly make it unpleasant.
Doug Casey Transcipt in Interview with “JB” on The Burning Platform
Beyond this, there is the whole marginalization scheme that technology has afforded centralized government in measuring individual’s adherence to state policy and narratives and thereby giving them a score that reflects on what a good citizen they are. This then plays a role in what interest rate you might be eligible for or IF government benefits are due you, or not.
There’s no question that the Chinese Social credit system will be adopted in the U.S. You can tell by the way people cherish their Experian and credit scores, even now. Although you’ll theoretically have a right to protest and gather, you could put yourself at risk by doing so. Freedom of Assembly is on its way to becoming a dead letter, if only because of technology.
Doug Casey Transcipt in Interview with “JB” on The Burning Platform
So what is there to know about the recent efforts in France toward making a case that their government has gone to far or failed to uphold their part of the “social contract”? For a more global view of these events in context I will refer to two sources (that I do not always agree with), Eric Margolis via Lew Rockwell and Moon of Alabama:
The storm that is hitting France came out of what looked like a clear blue sky. The angry demonstrators, known as ‘gilets jaunes’ (yellow jackets), for the warning vests all motorists must keep in their cars, inundated Paris last weekend in peaceful protests over the government’s planned increases in fuel prices, which were already among Europe’s highest. As too often in France, violent vandals known as ‘the breakers,’ infiltrated the demonstrators and sought to put the most beautiful parts of Paris to the sack. I watched with horror as the magnificent Arc de Triomphe, France’s premier war memorial, was befouled by spray-can graffiti. The majestic Champs Élysée was ravaged by hoodlums, who smashed showroom windows, burned cars, looted luxury stores and set scores of fires.
As is often the case, a movement, peaceful at first, gets hijacked by those with no principles. This is the hardest way to get government to retract and to do the right things as usually the revolution gets you something worse than what you already had. France’s history has proved this before! (Us in the US should know this as well, for how many of us would willingly go back to the British Empire’s tax rate of 3% that was effective in the American Colonies before the Revolutionary War?)
In a France24 report from a small town in the country side shows extraordinary solidarity between the people. Police passing through an occupied toll road entry sign the protesters petition, other pass by and gift food to the middle-aged protestors. One woman makes an good point. Yes, the violence as seen in Paris last weekend was not nice. But only after last weeks protest went violent were the yellow vests really noted by the media and by the otherwise tone deaf politicians.
Moon of Alabama
It is too bad that the politicians are not close enough to kick in the butt when they misbehave and squander tax revenue for their pet projects and also enter into alignments with other countries that the people do not always appreciated (i.e. EU) This is the very fact that makes me think secession into smaller republics, states, city-states is the peaceful way forward. Having to use violence against private and public property carries its own negative long term unintended consequences.
From Mint Press, who I use to get a more unbiased view (at least not a US Empire centric MSM view) of world events:
The Yellow Vests held their first demonstrations on Saturday, November 17, on the Champs-Elysées in Paris. It was totally unlike the usual trade union demonstrations, well organized to march down the boulevard between the Place de la République and the Place de la Bastille, or the other way around, carrying banners and listening to speeches from leaders at the end. The Gilets Jaunes just came, with no organization, no leaders to tell them where to go or to harangue the crowd. They were just there, in the yellow vests, angry and ready to explain their anger to any sympathetic listener. Briefly, the message was this: we can’t make ends meet. The cost of living keeps going up, and our incomes keep going down. We just can’t take it any more. The government must stop, think and change course.
This is the “sound” of tax slaves that are at the end of their rope. 50% plus income taxes in addition to all the other taxes in place or proposed makes for a life for those on the margins a very tough go with no hope for the future!
There were young women who were working seven days a week and despaired of having enough money to feed and clothe their children. People were angry but ready to explain very clearly the economic issues. Colette, age 83, doesn’t own a car, but explained to whoever would listen that the steep raise of gasoline prices would also hurt people who don’t drive, by affecting prices of food and other necessities. She had done the calculations and figured it would cost a retired person 80 euros per month.
The very real failure of socialism is on display here as it has been in Venezuela for several years, the state in the long run will never live up to its propanganda of utopia!
A significant and recurring complaint concerned the matter of health care. France has long had the best public health program in the world, but this is being steadily undermined to meet the primary need of capital: profit. In the past few years, there has been a growing government campaign to encourage, and finally to oblige people to subscribe to a “mutuelle”, that is, a private health insurance, ostensibly to fill “the gaps” not covered by France’s universal health coverage. The “gaps” can be the 15% that is not covered for ordinary illnesses (grave illnesses are covered 100%), or for medicines taken off the “covered” list, or for dental work, among other things. The “gaps” to fill keep expanding, along with the cost of subscribing to the mutuelle. In reality, this program, sold to the public as modernizing improvement, is a gradual move toward privatization of health care. It is a sneaky method of opening the whole field of public health to international financial capital investment. This gambit has not fooled ordinary people and is high on the list of complaints by the Gilets Jaunes.
In the end, the state is a parasite, and efforts however novel (i.e. US Constitution), will fail time and again in this broken world.
Putting your trust in the state is madness IF you research it long enough. Do not forget history, even if the state indoctrinates you to.
‘Democracy, the God that Failed’ is an epic book by Hans-Herman Hoppe that suggests that a monarchy is better than democracy [which is better than socialism, marxism and communism, but are all collectives in nature].. at least with a king, they want to give their heirs a better kingdom .. but as 1 Samuel 8 shows, even God says there are some significant drawbacks to having a king:
“.. Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king.He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots.Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants.He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use.He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day. ” – 1 Samuel 8:10-18
SF1 in an e-mail sent out this past week
So if God’s view is that even monarchy is never ideal, what is?
Most US educated people will no doubt prefer a “democracy” because that is what has been taught to them by government schools for well over a hundred years. Most people also dislike monarchies but seem to love “kings” by other names (i.e. presidents, politicians, rock stars and celebrities). Most dislike theocracies since they associate them with Islamic extremists and not the Israel of Hebrew people they might have heard about from the Bible. Most will also be confused by the term ‘federated republic’ and would absolutely nix the term “confederated” (even though the colonies had a weaker form of government governed by the Articles of Confederation). Anarchy is also a scary term for most since they think this means chaos or no rules, but they fail to understand that the local Farmer’s Market is essentially anarchy in action:
It does seem that while anarchy does yield the most freedom for responsible individuals, most will opt for the safety from some other form of government servitude and eventually want and get “democracy”, which is always a stepping stone to socialism, marxism and eventually communism.
One of my favorite writers is Hans-Hermann Hoppe who wrote a book a few years ago called “Democracy: The God that Failed“. (The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order (Perspectives on Democratic Practice)).
The core of this book is a systematic treatment of the historic transformation of the West from monarchy to democracy. Revisionist in nature, it reaches the conclusion that monarchy is a lesser evil than democracy, but outlines deficiencies in both. … Informed by his analysis of the deficiencies of social democracy, and armed with the social theory of legitimation, he forsees secession as the likely future of the US and Europe, resulting in a multitude of region and city-states. This book complements the author’s previous work defending the ethics of private property and natural order. Democracy – The God that Failed will be of interest to scholars and students of history, political economy, and political philosophy.
While this is a rather intense read, it is an extremely valuable exercise in understanding not just cause and effect, but unintended consequences as well. To whet your appetite, try this YouTube video where Hans shares about this book in under ten minutes:
If there is one quote from this book that I would share at this time it would be the following:
“… Thus, privilege and legal discrimination — and the distinction between rulers and subjects — do not disappear under democracy. To the contrary. Rather than being restricted to princes and nobles, under democracy, privileges come into the reach of everyone: Everyone can participate in theft and live off stolen loot if only he becomes a public official. Likewise, democratically elected parliaments are, just like any absolute or constitutional king, not bound by any superior, natural law, i.e., by law not of their own making (such as and including so-called constitutional law), but they can legislate, i.e., they can make and change laws. Only: While a king legislates in his own favor, under democracy everyone is free to promote and try to put into effect legislation in his own favor, provided only that he finds entry into parliament or government…”
Furthermore, even worse than monarchies:
“In sharp contrast, the selection of state rulers by means of popular elections makes it essentially impossible for a harmless or decent person to ever rise to the top. Presidents and prime ministers come into their position not owing to their status as natural aristocrats, as feudal kings once did, i.e., based on the recognition of their economic independence, outstanding professional achievement, morally impeccable personal life, wisdom and superior judgment and taste, but as a result of their capacity as morally uninhibited demagogues. Hence, democracy virtually assures that only dangerous men will rise to the top of state government.”
This last quote shows how easy it is for the SWAMP to grow .. the fact is, this swamp started growing even before the thirteen sovereign colonies emerged from the American Revolution / secession from the British Empire in 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed.
But it gets even worse:
“Worse: Under democracy the social character and personality structure of the entire population will be changed systematically. All of society will be thoroughly politicized. During the monarchical age, the ancient aristocratic order had still remained somewhat intact. Only the king and, indirectly, the members of his (exclusive) court could enrich themselves — by means of taxation and legislation — at other people’s and their properties expense. Everyone else had to stand on his own feet, so to say, and owed his position in society, his wealth and his income, to some sort of value-productive efforts. Under democracy, the incentive structure is systematically changed. Egalitarian sentiments and envy are given free reign. Everyone, not just the king, is now allowed to participate in the exploitation — via legislation or taxation — of everyone else. Everyone is free to express any confiscatory demands whatsoever. Nothing, no demand, is off limits. In Bastiat’s words, under democracy the State becomes the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else. Every person and his personal property come within reach of and are up for grabs by everyone else.
Are we seeing this in full force today or what? But I digress.
I do hope to share more about this book in the weeks to come. In the mean time, check out the video above or buy the e-book, paperback or hard cover BUT know, when a book commands $40 for paperback and $440 for hardcover .. you know it is a good one!
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” – H. L. Mencken
Having picked up (not literally, just looked at my dozens of Kindle books and decided which one of my partially completed books I would like to read this beautiful December morning) this book I discovered I had already highlighted some great quotes in the middle of this thirteen chapter book.
After reading a page .. and then another page, and another page and sharing with a couple of my sons I finally came to the conclusion that I MUST eventually review this book as it does render much insight into the broken nature of our “democracy” (a word that Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson rightfully hated because it was so destructive to a people/nation/country).
So .. in no particular order .. here are some quotes from Hans that sparked my interest (followed by a couple images of quotes from Franklin and Jefferson and even one from Marx that drive this point home) :
“… Thus, privilege and legal discrimination — and the distinction between rulers and subjects — do not disappear under democracy. To the contrary. Rather than being restricted to princes and nobles, under democracy, privileges come into the reach of everyone: Everyone can participate in theft and live off stolen loot if only he becomes a public official. Likewise, democratically elected parliaments are, just like any absolute or constitutional king, not bound by any superior, natural law, i.e., by law not of their own making (such as and including so-called constitutional law), but they can legislate, i.e., they can make and change laws. Only: While a king legislates in his own favor, under democracy everyone is free to promote and try to put into effect legislation in his own favor, provided only that he finds entry into parliament or government…”
“Theoretically speaking, the transition from monarchy to democracy involves no more (or less) than the replacement of a permanent, hereditary monopoly “owner” — the king — by temporary and interchangeable “caretakers” — by presidents, prime ministers, and members of parliament. Both, kings and presidents, will produce “bads,” i.e., they tax and they legislate. Yet a king, because he “owns” the monopoly and may sell and bequeath his realm to a successor of his choosing, his heir, will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values. As the owner of the capital stock on “his” territory, the king will be comparatively future-oriented. In order to preserve or enhance the value of his property, his exploitation will be comparatively moderate and calculating. In contrast, a temporary and interchangeable democratic caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his own advantage. He owns its current use but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. Instead, it makes exploitation shortsighted, present-oriented, and uncalculating, i.e., carried out with no or little regard for the value of the capital stock. In short, it promotes capital consumption.”
“In sharp contrast, the selection of state rulers by means of popular elections makes it essentially impossible for a harmless or decent person to ever rise to the top. Presidents and prime ministers come into their position not owing to their status as natural aristocrats, as feudal kings once did, i.e., based on the recognition of their economic independence, outstanding professional achievement, morally impeccable personal life, wisdom and superior judgment and taste, but as a result of their capacity as morally uninhibited demagogues. Hence, democracy virtually assures that only dangerous men will rise to the top of state government.”
This last quote shows how easy it is for the SWAMP to grow .. the fact is, this swamp started growing even before the thirteen sovereign colonies emerged from the American Revolution / secession from the British Empire in 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed.
In this next rather large clip is the reason a society’s character changes as a natural result of democracies:
“Worse: Under democracy the social character and personality structure of the entire population will be changed systematically. All of society will be thoroughly politicized. During the monarchical age, the ancient aristocratic order had still remained somewhat intact. Only the king and, indirectly, the members of his (exclusive) court could enrich themselves — by means of taxation and legislation — at other people’s and their properties expense. Everyone else had to stand on his own feet, so to say, and owed his position in society, his wealth and his income, to some sort of value-productive efforts. Under democracy, the incentive structure is systematically changed. Egalitarian sentiments and envy are given free reign. Everyone, not just the king, is now allowed to participate in the exploitation — via legislation or taxation — of everyone else. Everyone is free to express any confiscatory demands whatsoever. Nothing, no demand, is off limits. In Bastiat’s words, under democracy the State becomes the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else. Every person and his personal property come within reach of and are up for grabs by everyone else. Under a one-man-one-vote regime, then, a relentless machinery of wealth and income redistribution is set in motion. It must be expected that majorities of have-nots will constantly try to enrich themselves at the expense of minorities of haves. This is not to say that there will be only one class of haves and one class of have-nots, the rich and the poor, and that the redistribution — via taxation and legislation — will occur uniformly from the rich onto the poor. To the contrary. While the redistribution from rich to poor will always play a prominent role and is indeed a permanent feature and mainstay of democracy, it would be naïve to assume that it will be the sole or even the predominant form of redistribution. After all, the rich and the poor are usually rich or poor for a reason. The rich are characteristically bright and industrious, and the poor typically dull, lazy or both. It is not very likely that dullards, even if they make up a majority, will systematically outsmart and enrich themselves at the expense of a minority of bright and energetic individuals. Rather, most redistribution will take place within the group of the non-poor, and it will actually be frequently the better off who succeed in having themselves subsidized by the poor. (Just think of “free” university education, whereby the working class, whose children rarely attend universities, pay for the education of middle-class children!) Indeed, many competing parties and coalitions will try to gain at the expense of others. In addition, there will be a variety of changing criteria defining what it is that makes a person a have (deserving to be looted) and another a have-not (deserving to receive the loot) — and it will be the intellectuals who play a major role in defining and promoting these criteria (making sure, of course, that they themselves will always be classified as have-nots in need of ever more loot). As well, individuals can be members of a multitude of groups of haves or have-nots, losing on account of one characteristic and gaining on account of another, with some individuals ending up net-losers and others net-winners of redistribution. In any case, however, since it is invariably something valuable, something “good” that is being redistributed — property and income — of which the haves supposedly have too much and the have-nots too little, any redistribution implies that the incentive to beget, have, or produce something of value — something “good” — is systematically reduced and, mutatis mutandis, the incentive of not getting, having, or producing anything valuable — of not being or not having anything “good” — but relying instead on and living off redistributed income and wealth is systematically increased. In short, the proportion of good people and good, value-productive activities is reduced and the proportion of bad or not-so-good people and of unproductive habits, character traits, and types of conduct will increase, with the overall result of impoverishing society and making life increasingly unpleasant. While it is impossible to predict the exact outcome of the permanent democratic struggle of all against all, except to say that it will lead to ever higher taxes, to a never ending flood of legislation and thus increased legal uncertainty, and consequently to an increase in the rate of social time-preference, i.e., increased short-term orientation (an “infantilization” of society), one outcome of this struggle, one result of democracy can be safely predicted, however. Democracy produces and brings about a new power elite or ruling class. Presidents, prime ministers, and the leaders of parliament and political parties are part of this power elite, and I have already talked about them as essentially amoral demagogues. But it would be naïve to assume that they are the most powerful and influential people of all. They are more frequently only the agents and delegates — those doing the bidding — of other people standing on the sidelines and out of public view. The true power elite, which determines and controls who will make it as president, prime minister, party leader, etc., are the plutocrats. The plutocrats, as defined by the great but largely forgotten American sociologist William Graham Sumner, are not simply the super-rich — the big bankers and the captains of big business and industry. Rather, the plutocrats are only a subclass of the super rich. They are those super rich big bankers and businessmen, who have realized the enormous potential of the State as an institution that can tax and legislate for their own even greater future enrichment and who, based on this insight, have decided to throw themselves into politics. They realize that the State can make you far richer than you already are: whether in subsidizing you, in awarding you with state contracts, or in passing laws that protect you from unwelcome competition or competitors, and they decide to use their riches to capture the State and use politics as a means to the end of their own further enrichment (rather than becoming richer solely by economic means, i.e., in better serving voluntarily paying customers of one’s products). They do not have to get involved in politics themselves. They have more important and lucrative things to do than wasting their time with everyday politics. But they have the cash and the position to “buy” the typically far less affluent professional politicians, either directly in paying them bribes or indirectly, by agreeing to employ them later on, after their stint in professional politics, as highly paid managers, consultants, or lobbyists, and so manage to decisively influence and determine the course of politics in their own favor. They, the plutocrats, will become the ultimate winners in the constant income and wealth redistribution struggle that is democracy. And in between them (the real power elite staying outside the limelight), and all those whose income (and wealth) depends solely or largely on the State and its taxing power (the employees of the always growing state apparatus and all recipients of transfer payments, its “welfare clients”), the productive middle class gets increasingly squeezed dry.”
Finally, here is another clip that shows how total and constant war becomes natural with democracies:
“Not least, democracy has also a profound effect on the conduct of war. I already explained that kings, because they can externalize the cost of their own aggression onto others (via taxes) tend to be more than ‘normally’ aggressive and war-like. However, a king’s motive for war is typically an ownership-inheritance dispute brought on by a complex network of inter-dynastic marriages and the irregular but always recurring extinction of certain dynasties. As violent inheritance disputes, monarchical wars are characterized by limited territorial objectives. They are not ideologically motivated quarrels but disputes over tangible properties. Moreover, as inter-dynastic property disputes, the public considers war essentially the king’s private affair to be paid for by himself and as insufficient reason for any further tax increase. Further, as private conflicts between different ruling families the public expects, and the kings feel compelled, to recognize a clear distinction between combatants and non-combatants and to target their war efforts specifically and exclusively against each other and their respective personal properties. Democracy radically transforms the limited wars of kings into total wars. In blurring the distinction between the rulers and the ruled, democracy strengthens the identification of the public with the State. Once the State is owned by all, as democrats deceivingly propagate, then it is only fair that everyone should fight for their State and all economic resources of the country be mobilized for the State in its wars. And since public officials in charge of a democratic state cannot and do not claim to personally “own” foreign territory (as a king can do), the motive for war instead becomes an ideological one — national glory, democracy, liberty, civilization, humanity. The objectives are intangible and elusive: the victory of ideas, and the unconditional surrender and ideological conversion of the losers (which, because one can never be sure about the sincerity of the conversion, may require the mass murder of civilians). As well, the distinction between combatants and non-combatants becomes fuzzy and ultimately disappears under democracy, and mass war involvement — the draft and popular war rallies — as well as “collateral damage” become part of war strategy. These tendencies will be still further strengthened by the rise of the new ruling elite of plutocrats. For one, the plutocrats will quickly realize the enormous profits to be made by arming the State, by producing the very weapons and equipment used in war, and in being awarded most generous tax-funded cost-plus contracts to do so. A military-industrial complex will be built up. And second, unlike most people who have merely local or domestic interests, the super-rich plutocrats have financial interests also in foreign places, potentially all around the globe, and in order to promote, protect, and enforce these foreign interests it is only natural for them to use the military power of their own State also to interfere, meddle, or intervene in foreign affairs on their behalf. A business deal in foreign countries may have turned sour or a concession or license may be won there — almost everything can be used as a reason to pressure one’s own State to come to their rescue and intervene outside of its own territory. Indeed, even if this intervention requires that a foreign country be destroyed, this can be a boon for them, provided only they receive the contract to rebuild the country that their weapons had before destroyed. Finally, the tendency already set in motion with the war of kings of leading to increased political centralization, toward the building of empire, is continued and accelerated through democratic war.”
