Peter R. Quiñones wrote the following brief reflection recently, and it mirrors my own sentiments as well. As an idealistic youth I voluntarily joined the peacetime US Navy just after Vietnam in 1976, in the hopes that America had learned her lesson about fighting wars abroad that had nothing to do with keeping America “safe”.
The greatest message you can communicate to anyone you encounter on Memorial Day is that it is a holiday that should not exist. The excuses for the men and women who have died in “service to this country” are numerous, but only in the rarest of circumstances does it have to do with protecting American lives or liberty on this piece of soil.
I’m only going to address the 20th Century here so we should start with World War 1. Was the United States homeland in danger of being invaded by anyone? Of course not. Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s great book, “Democracy: The God That Failed,” conveys to me that WW1 was fought to destroy any remaining trace of historic monarchies in Europe, and to institute democracy instead. Even the countries that kept their royalty saw them become only symbols in a parliamentary system rather than a one family rule.
What about World War 2? PEARL HARBOR!!! HITLER DECLARED WAR ON US!!! WW2 is the war that is consistently sold as the “good war.” Fortunately, many good historians have shot multiple holes in the assumed fact that the US had to enter WW2 on either front. I interviewed one here.
What about Korea? Vietnam? Iraq War 1, 2, 3 and 3.5? Afghanistan? Somalia? Libya? Syria? I could go on and on (unfortunately). The bottom line for all these is this; the “honorable” and “patriotic” reasons given for American men and women dying on battlefields across the world are strained when you begin to look at them more closely. The hundreds of thousands who sacrificed their lives believing they were fighting for American freedom were mistaken. Overwhelmingly they were duped. But it’s not their fault. With the draft in effect for most of the 20th century (ended in 1973 when the US pulled out of the Vietnam War), many had no choice but to fight. Many others were convinced to enlist by war propaganda.
On Memorial Day I weep for the fallen. Not because of their sacrifice, but because they were sacrificed.
Routinely, the American government has squandered the innocence of our youth to do exactly what Robert E. Lee warned about:
In my previous post I covered a lot of ground towards truths that could (I rarely say “should” as I believe you don’t typically “should” on you real friends 🙂 ) open their eyes to the true character of their evil government. The so-called American Exceptionalism is pure myth. Just ask other people around the world who have experience our “help”.
There is, however, even in these days much to be hopeful for. We can continue to plant the seeds of truth with those who will listen about the lies that seem to bombard us each and every day in our world. This unwrapping of truth could very well lead this nation, or preferably, parts of this nation, to reflect on core truths that might bring about a new season of liberty and freedom in the regions that hold these truths to their hearts.
Maybe this American Government holiday can be used to help people question the very nature of their government, their politicians and the evil cabal that backs an evil agenda in this land all for power and money.
Roman Empire – Religion (Pharisee) 1st Century power/control partnership (the state)
I was not always aware of the entity that sees me as the enemy. I did not one day just decide that it was my enemy. Over my six decades I have seen more clearly what was hidden by those with evil intentions. Evil prides itself as being seen as a friend, providing benefits even if they have to rob someone else to achieve that. This entity has no ethics, no principles and is selfish to its core. This enemy is the state.
In my youth I knew of this entity, and saw how it dealt with those that would not bow down to it (i.e. JFK assassination in 1963). I saw how corrupt this entity was that sent tens of thousands of young men to Vietnam based on lies that it told (i.e. the domino theory of Communism and the Gulf of Tonkin incident) and following this the details laid bare by the Church Commission in the mid-1970s that showed to the people just a tip of the iceberg called government corruption.
In spite of this I joined the US Navy when the 1960s policy of Affirmative Action made college aid non-attainable. For over six years I learned the inside of one arm of the state, the military-industrial complex and the federal government itself. I then understood how the US Postal Service, Amtrak and other government entities could never become “customer-centric” and would always soak the taxpayer as it ran services in the most inefficient and ineffective ways. Yet, I thought that this disease had not spread to other areas of government “safety-nets” like Social Security and Medicare, but I was wrong.
By the 2000s, with the War on Terror effort to scare Americans into a new world order and the 9/11 Commission’s inability to come to grips with the real truth behind the scenes, I finally saw things coming together. I saw and understood how other nations like Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria are treated by the American Empire, like 2nd class citizens of the world that could be made into refugees as their communities, societies and nations were destroyed based on lies.
Domestically, the Federal Reserve helps to make self-sufficiency and saving money impossible with the constant printing of money to offset the government’s spending of trillions of dollars with no thoughts towards honoring their debts to the Military-Industrial Complex’s effort to ensure their pockets get filled in the years of potential peace after the Cold War, the people of the United States are viewed as tax cattle OR more appropriately in 2020/2021 called tax sheep (slaves) that can be scared into total submission and total slavery in this new era of bio-terrorism.
The 2019 Event 201 / Covid-19 Plan-n-Case-demic PLUS the Great Reset has been Coup d’tat 9.0 in this nation’s history. (The US Constitution in 1787 was Coup d’tat 1.0) The peak of freedom and liberty actually being enjoyed by the pioneers that escaped Europe mainly in the mid-1700s for the British American colonies. The relative minor clampdown on these liberties with the Stamp Act, Sugar Act and the like triggered the common man (men and women and children) to see the British Empire as their enemy. The entity of the state had made itself known from the Egyptians to the Greek and Romans and then matured (sarcasm) into the modern state where monarchy (royalty and religion) ruled. Sure there were alternative efforts that reduced the state’s direct control of their populations by the Dutch Republics from 1550s-1750s approximately as well as the Swiss Confederation of cantons. But the majority structure to control the masses was the king.
It was in this context that American colonists attempted to create a novel solution to what they had seen go bad in every monarchy. In each American colony there were micro-efforts that preceded the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. A federated republic were words that mattered, and carried with it an idea that government needed to SERVE the people wisely in the limited areas that they were chained down to.
In order to understand the enemy, even one that is chained down, requires understanding the birth of the state (no, the state is not eternal, it neither was historically always there, nor will it live forever) as well as the health of the state.
In search of understanding my enemy (which my own government has declared blatantly over the past year or so) I have started reading a book ( Chaining Down Leviathan) authored by a European that targets a thorough review of the attempt to chain down the state here in America from 1776-1865.
This is a study of American political thought between the secession from Britain and the War Between the States. This period was a struggle between the Jeffersonian and the Hamiltonian visions of America. The Jeffersonians favored a highly decentralized federation of sovereign states, whereas the Hamiltonians favored a highly centralized state with a veto on state legislation. This sort of polity has been called “the modern state,” which was a creation of European monarchs. When the monarchies were overthrown, it took on the form of mass democracy and national elections, both of which greatly expanded central power beyond anything the monarchs could have imagined.
When Britain tried to incorporate the colonies into a British version of the modern state, they resisted and won their independence. Most of the founders did not want an American version of the same planted in America. But some did. Hamilton and others seceded from Britain not because they opposed the modern state, but because they wanted to create an American version and govern it themselves. They failed. The Jeffersonians, though contested, dominated from 1776 to 1861. Lincoln inherited this Hamiltonian tradition and launched an invasion of the South, not to free slaves, but to prevent secession and securely plant a modern style European state in America where none had existed before.
In the balance of my years I desire to know my enemy so I can prepare myself, my family and my friends for the road ahead. We need many more wise students of history to take of the research necessary to help us all understand not only what the colonists faced with the British Empire in the 1770s but also what Jesus-followers faced with the Roman Empire in the 1st century.
Hope for liberty and freedom is an idea that has never been needed more than now in today’s American Empire. Keep the flame alive for the next generations!
Since early 2020, the world has experienced a series of catastrophic events―a global pandemic caused by what appears to be an engineered coronavirus; international lockdowns and border closings causing widespread business closures, economic collapse, and massive unemployment; and an unprecedented curtailment of civil liberties and freedoms in the name of keeping people safe by locking them up in their homes.
We are now living in a world that is increasingly ruled, not by our democratic systems and institutions, but by public health fiat, carried out by politicians who rule by instilling fear and panic.
In The Truth About COVID-19, Dr. Mercola and Cummins reveal new and emerging evidence that:
The SARS-CoV-2 virus was, indeed, lab-engineered and emerged from a negligently managed bioweapons lab in Wuhan, China
The global pandemic was long anticipated by global elites who have used it to facilitate and hide the largest upward transfer of wealth in human history
PCR testing, case counts, morbidity, and vaccine safety and efficacy data have been widely manipulated and misrepresented
Obesity, diabetes, and heart disease are known to worsen COVID-19 outcomes, but the junk food industry continues to push its agenda at the expense of public health
Safe, simple, and inexpensive treatment and prevention for COVID-19 have been censored and suppressed to create a clear path for vaccine acceptance
Effectiveness of the vaccines has been wildly exaggerated and major safety questions have gone unanswered
The good news in all of this is that we can take control of our health and that, together, we have the power to unite and fight back for our health, democracy, and freedom.
No matter how accurate you think Dr. Mercola and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are in their research, there is bound to be a lot of information that is spot on. Their distrust of the state is not just a way they gain popularity, believe me, being a proclaimed enemy of the state is not the easy way forward, but a required one for those whose hearts are burdened for the generations that follow. In this regard, these two men have indeed “stayed the course”.
Be like these men and rise to the challenge to do the same!
For far too long Christians have traded principles for safety. Even in the time of Israel’s ruling Judges as a theocracy, the masses clamored for a king. Trust in a God that “seems” distant when fickle people don’t get the life they had hoped for goes low and trust in monarchy, democracy and even totalitarianism goes high on the dreams these systems offer to the masses.
History shows vividly how all these earthly efforts fail, not only not panning out on the dreams of utopia, but in the end resulting in the murdering (outside of war) of 200M innocent citizens of some of these wicked totalitarian governments in the 20th century alone.
What follows is a rather long and hard to read clip from an article that announces the emerging new wave of grassroots Christianity that can impact this world in the months and years to come as it becomes obvious that governments are a cancer on the people dressed up to be their safety net.
Due to the new hostile sociopolitical realities, the third millennium is a time as well of new beginnings; it is a time of the clan and the small-faith community of families; and it a time when a new Christendom will be built (to the extent that it is built) solely on Christ an those clans and families. If any new Christian sociopolitical entities, even new countries, are to arise, they must arise anew and outside and beyond the demarcations of the past; outside and transcendent of the current sociopolitical powers-that-be; they must arise outside and in contradistinction to the world, the flesh, and the devil. This dawn of the third millennium requires the advent of a new Christian culture comprised of individual pastoral, that is grassroots, shoots that have made their way up among the ruins of an anti-Christic, dystopic world.
It is now, in this the third Christian age, that the lay faithful are called to grow up and out of the childhood of ages past. These faithful, these so-called “commoners” and “citizens,” are called to rise up fully mature, no longer holding onto props of the world, no longer dependent or subservient to powers and principalities, but only holding onto, dependent upon, and subservient to the Holy Cross. The third millennium is truly the age of the laity. It is the age of the laity because it is the age of the family and the imago Dei individual (the image of God as free rational-volitional beings) that comprises that family. And it is the age of the family and imago Dei individual because that family is being destroyed and the individual enslaved as never before; for in God’s economy “where sin abounds grace abounds more” (RM 5:20), the truth and good arising in direct contradiction to the prevalent falsehood and evil.
This is where the real value of Jesus-followers in the world demonstrate their value to those around them, by loving others selflessly but wisely. Wise as serpents, harmless as a dove. Being made in the image of God involves flipping tables in public places as well as protecting others from harm with swords bought with the proceeds of selling one’s cloak.
A new Christendom entails not the divine rights of elite kings and royal families, but rather the divine rights of the common man and the nuclear family. And these divine rights of the common lay faithful are absolute, for they derive from the faithful’s absolute right to do their duty to God, that is, their duty to abide by both natural and divine law, and indeed divine inspiration. But make no mistake, those that so abide by natural and divine law are outlaws to the Satanic State; a State that as such must be militantly engaged for “the whole salvation of the Church of Christ,” and most specifically and urgently for the salvation of the domestic church that is the family.
The toxicity of the anti-Christic third millennium requires that Christian piety and devotion no longer be squandered on a supposed but baseless duty to king, flag, or country. No longer should a romanticizing of a country’s past Christian heritage evoke allegiance to that country’s anti-Christic present. And no longer can a Christian justify a particular nationalism against a larger internationalism, for internationalism is but nationalism writ large. Rather, in the third-millennium, Christian piety, patriotism, loyalty, and devotion must be given to that which a person can truly know and so can truly love; and it is the Faith made tangible in the family, and the community of families, that one can truly know and love. It is neither countries, nor royal lineages, nor constitutions that God has immutably ordained, but rather it is the Holy Faith in grace and the sacrosanct family in both nature and grace that is God-ordained.
Christian’s must not give their hearts to a State. Again, they are called to be patriots only in so far as they are called to be pious. A Christian’s allegiance should be both familial and universal, not national and political. For familial allegiance is grass-rooted, as charity begins in the home; and universal allegiance justly transcends nations, as all men are created in God’s holy image (and indeed all men have families as well). But when a people’s allegiance is national and political the flower of their own nation’s familial foundation is inexorably conscripted and exterminated, while the families of opposing politics or nations are likewise afflicted.
Politics and nationalism are a scourge on society no matter how addicting the message is from these forces. In the end, it is never about the individual, it is about the collective.
Lastly, this is what a new disorganized, non-centered but grassroots effort to live life in and around the emerging police-military state that grows stronger by the day:
From home-grown produce, home-schooling, and cottage industries to Christian corporations, neighborhood militias, and patriarchal governing, the family and the extended community of families can in this technologically enhanced third millennium achieve a degree of self-sufficiency, independence, and perfection that was never before possible. But again, this will only be actualized if responsibility is assumed by fathers as the God-ordained leaders of natural and Christian society; it will only come to fruition if mothers are enthroned as the God-ordained center and heart of natural and Christian existence; and it will only thrive if individual Christians uncompromisingly exert their absolute right to dutifully heed their God-ordained conscience informed by natural and revealed truths.
People of character, given just in time courage directly from God, can and will give hope to those marginalized by the centralized and global evil forces that are in motion around this planet. God’s direct comms, His still small voice, will be heard by His children in these days.
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.”
