Inherent in every human being lurk the qualities that make us capable of indelible and enduring good, or astounding and catastrophic evil. Many of us struggle with these natural inborn psychological dualities every day of our lives. With the help of conscience; the ever present voice of the unconscious which guides us towards balance, many of us survive the internal battle without inflicting too much damage on the innocent bystanders around us.
I used to believe that all people endured this same struggle equally, that everyone wanted to eventually achieve that ever elusive self awareness that cuts through the fog of life and makes us feel whole. I believed that all men who committed terrible crimes and injustices against others did so out of ignorance and blindness. Surely, they had lost their way, and did not fully understand the implications of their actions. This did not make them any less responsible, but could they not be redeemed? Had they not let their own shadows run wild in the daylight without knowing the consequences? Weren’t all of us, even the worst of us, deep down still striving to do what was right?
In this belief I must now admit, if I am to remain true to my conscience, I was terribly mistaken…
What I did not comprehend when I was younger was that not all men struggle against the dark corners of their own hearts. Some men revel in them. Some men embrace their failings, their hatred and their envy, their vicious desire for control over their environment and those in it, and they do it deliberately, completely aware of the imbalance and pain they are inflicting on others. Where I see weakness of character, they see untapped strength; the strength of cold and unrestrained malevolence. They were not “victims” of their own ignorance. These men had traversed the River Styx and glimpsed the mythological gates of hell, the psychological barrier between saints and madmen. They stood at the edge of reason and truth, looked out into the nightmarish abyss at the back of their own psyches, and liked what they saw!
If there was ever anything closer to the definition of “evil,” I have not heard of it.
This methodology, this philosophy of embracing one’s darker nature, is ever present in an organized group of people we have come to label “Global Elites.” They have existed in various forms for centuries but their goals have always been the same. In this article, we will examine some of the early influences that gave birth to the elitist philosophy, as well as some possible explanations as to why they do what they do.
Plato: Catalyst For Elitism
Elitism has existed perhaps as long as man has existed, but was not implemented on a broad social scale until the formation of empires such as Babylon. It later blossomed into a full fledged brand of “spiritualism” under the watchful eyes of the Greek aristocracy and the tutelage of Plato, or as elitists sometimes dub him, “The Divine Plato.”
It is hard to say so many centuries later what the real intention of Plato’s Dialogues were. Did he mean them to stand only as metaphorical sociological examinations, as questions designed to promote healthy debate? Or, did he write them as a blueprint for society expecting them to be translated literally and then implemented in the real world? Whatever he originally intended, his views on social structure became the underlying foundation for the monstrous organized brand of Global Elitism we now know today. These views are most prominent in Plato’s “Republic,” however, they are present in nearly all of his works.
Plato had a very low opinion of the majority of the human populace, often stating that the concept of Democracy; rule by the common man, was far less than ideal. In one of Plato’s famous arguments, he proposes that it is better to be ruled by a bad tyrant, than be a part of a bad democracy, since in a bad democracy, all the people would be responsible for the terrible deeds of a nation, rather than one individual (of course, Plato fails to realize that by letting a “bad tyrant” come to power in the first place, the people are still ALL responsible for any terrible act that tyrant commits). Instead, he believed, there were several levels in which society could form itself, and he listed them in order of significance:
Aristocracy (rule by the best)
Timocracy (rule by the honorable)
Oligarchy (rule by the few)
Democracy (rule by the people)
Tyranny (rule by one person, rule by a tyrant)
Plato seems to see no threat in the idea of Aristocracy, and the possibility of a group of men labeled “best” reverting to tyranny appears to have never dawned on him. This is even more evident in his idea of the “Philosopher Kings”; a “guardian class” who are so steeped in knowledge and wisdom as to be nearly infallible and ideally suited to rule over the lives of others. The elites of today salivate over such concepts, because they provide an easy avenue for the justification of their own political ideals of feudal rulership. In fact, Plato and his Philosopher King scenario were often expounded by University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss. Strauss’ teachings went on to become the political linchpin for what we now call “Neo-Conservatism:”
Strauss promoted many of Plato’s more questionable tenets, including the idea of the “Noble Lie.” In his book “Persecution and the Art of Writing”, Strauss outlines why secrecy is necessary. He argues that the wise must conceal their views for two reasons – to spare the people’s feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals (reprisals they likely deserve). He also believed that the only true balance in human nature was the will of the strong; the idea that morality is built upon the views of those who are strongest. The weak had no choice but to adopt the implicit morality of the strong.
Strauss often talked of the need for a moral imperative and even a benevolent God, but interestingly, Strauss was not only an atheist (according to some of his own colleagues), but also a moral relativist. Young and naïve students of Neo-Conservatism often argue that Strauss was a promoter of high morals because he mentions them so often in his books, but they do not seem to understand the context in which he uses them. Strauss felt that a moral framework was a useful tool in manipulating the masses, and nothing more. He was in no way a man of conscience. Religion or any other system that focused on the development of conscience was meant for the lowly serfs, while the elite “Philosopher Kings” would rule with their own set of virtues, virtues to which the commoners were supposedly not equipped to mentally grasp.
What Plato accomplished, and Strauss later expanded on, was the mutation of elitism from a mere political movement with many undesirable consequences, into a full fledged philosophy bordering on cultism. Elitists were no longer simply an overprivileged class of tyrants and sadists making the lives of common men miserable, now, they were “necessary” to the very mechanics of society. They were “guardians” with the godlike responsibility of molding and directing the course of all humanity. Without them, we would be “lost.”
The weaknesses of this methodology are numerous and obvious. It promotes the concept of “equality as illusion,” which may have some legitimacy since all people are born with inherent and unique qualities. However, men like Strauss take this fact and twist it, claiming that because we are all different, this means that some of us must be naturally “better” than others, and therefore, elite. This is an extremely childish interpretation of inborn dynamics.
According to the archetypal discoveries of Carl Jung, we are all born with the same psychological constructs, however, each person has a unique relationship to these constructs, meaning, the way in which we embody the archetypes we are born with is particular to each individual. This means that while every person may develop a different brand of intelligence, unless there is a physical brain impairment, we are ALL capable of being intelligent. The elitist philosophy extolled by Plato and Strauss claims that some people are simply born far more intelligent than others, and that these people, being so naturally advanced, should be given free reign to make our decisions for us.
Who is qualified to categorize human beings into such narrow labels? Who decides what intelligence truly is? While one group may focus more on intellect and critical thought, prizing logic above all else, another may see intuition and emotional advancement as true brilliance. How can one determine if a person is hindered rationally and emotionally to the point of being incapable of progress? Does the theory of Plato not limit all men into static states of being? Have people not proven century after century, generation after generation, that we have the ability to change, adapt, and grow?
Some may argue that the lack of intelligence in the average man is blindingly apparent if one only looks around himself. But this way of thinking is based on an invalid assumption; the assumption that because a man acts unintelligent, he is therefore incapable of ever being intelligent. One contradiction I find most interesting about elitists is that they often preach about the natural stupidity of common people, yet, they place most of their massive resources into keeping the public unaware and “out of the loop.” If the average man is so “naturally inept,” then why have elitists put so much energy into trying to keep us stupid? Why do they keep information, data, the truth of the world, to themselves? Are we not so mentally handicapped that we would not understand the truth even if we knew it?
The fact is, they KNOW we are intelligent, why else would they feel the need for secrecy and lies?
While given the appearance or the dressings of wisdom, the elitist ideal is actually a mish-mash of highly flawed theories and biases flung together so that they may absolve themselves of their crimes against conscience and against mankind. By the standards of logic alone, they have proven themselves to be far less intelligent than they wish others to believe.
Machiavelli: The Methods Of Control
If any historical figure wholly embodies the elitist ethic, it would have to be Niccolo Machiavelli. Most famous for his political treatise entitled The Prince, Machiavelli was an aristocrat extraordinaire, counseling numerous monarchies on the best methods for controlling their respective populace. He was also a military advisor and writer of strategies on war, giving his ideas for social manipulation a cold and violent edge.
Some historians argue that Machiavelli’s works on political subversion and tyranny are actually a form of satire, because no one would reveal his secrets of control in the way Machiavelli did unless he was trying to expose the horror of elitism. I find this theory highly unlikely. Machiavelli was an advisor to kings, not a revolutionary with any desire to rock the boat he had been sitting in his whole life. I think it much more likely that he was simply an egomaniac, perfectly willing to speak openly about his disdain for the masses, as many elites are.
The most important (and dangerous) philosophy Machiavelli put forward was his view on good results accomplished by evil deeds. Machiavelli lived at the edge of the Renaissance, and perhaps saw before many that the world was changing. In the past, elites could easily abuse the people through force of arms, and there was no need to paint a kinder picture on their own despotism. However, a sense of revolution, a hatred of monarchy was growing in the populace. The need to manipulate the public through rhetoric instead of only violence was becoming more evident. The people now had to be tricked into going along with their slavery, and Machiavelli was perfectly willing to devise strategies for this eventuality.
He did this by promoting the idea of “the end justifies the means.” That is to say, if elites wanted to remain in control of the public, they had to convince the public that evil deeds were necessary in order to achieve a “greater good.” This was the first truly cognizant formation of what would be later called “Moral Relativism,” although, Machiavelli was more of the opinion that rather than being amoral, all men were inherently bad. Here are some quotes from Machiavelli on these points:
“Men never do good unless necessity drives them to it; but when they are free to choose and can do just as they please, confusion and disorder become rampant.”
“As all those have shown who have discussed civil institutions, and as every history is full of examples, it is necessary to whoever arranges to found a Republic and establish laws in it, to presuppose that all men are bad and that they will use their malignity of mind every time they have the opportunity; and if such malignity is hidden for a time, it proceeds from the unknown reason that would not be known because the experience of the contrary had not been seen, but time, which is said to be the father of every truth, will cause it to be discovered.”
“The people resemble a wild beast, which, naturally fierce and accustomed to live in the woods, has been brought up, as it were, in a prison and in servitude, and having by accident got its liberty, not being accustomed to search for its food, and not knowing where to conceal itself, easily becomes the prey of the first who seeks to incarcerate it again.”
Among other things, Machiavelli taught that a tyrannical ruler must offer up a proxy, a sacrificial lamb to the public in order to maintain their complicity. In his time, rulers would execute former leaders, councilmen, advisors, and others who were expendable in order to satisfy the public’s need for justice, while at the same time maintaining control over them. This strategy has been honed to perfection in the U.S. political system, in which the elites control both major parties. By sacrificing the public image of George W. Bush, the elites were able to stave off the growing discontent among Americans over the government. They then replaced him with Barack Obama, a man whose policies are nearly identical to Bush’s. In this way, Machiavelli has influenced the cultures of today.
The problem with the “ends justify the means” argument is that it treats the “means” as a sine qua non.
Say my goal is world peace, but I use lies, war, genocide, and oppression to achieve it. Then, I make the claim afterwards that all this death and destruction is vindicated because world peace was in fact achieved. My assumption here is that world peace could not have been achieved without the destruction. What grounds do I have for this assumption? The answer is none, because no other method was attempted to achieve peace. I have also assumed that there are no new methods for achieving peace, methods which I had not thought of. Therefore, the “ends” DO NOT justify the “means,” because there are many means to an end, some far more honorable than others.
So, what point of reference do we have to determine whether means are justifiable? The answer is conscience, something we will discuss greatly in the next section.
The Marquis de Sade: Do What Thou Wilt
Many people have a tendency to become preoccupied with the elements of sexual perversion when examining the work of the Marquis de Sade, but this is really a side note to the bigger issues at hand. The real root of the Marquis’ message is one of corruption, dominance, and amorality. His sexual escapades were merely a means by which he expressed these “values.” He said:
“There is nothing either fundamentally good, nor anything fundamentally evil; Everything is relative, relative to our point of view.”
From this single rationalization, all the horrors of Global Elitism can be attributed. Through the philosophy of Moral Relativism, any crime, any injustice, any infliction of pain or death on others, can be easily placated as “natural” to the specific viewpoint or circumstance of the man committing the terrible act.
The Marquis de Sade’s nihilist worldview can be summed up as follows:
(1) God’s nonexistence reduces the universe to a purely materialist Nature, a self-running mechanism; “the perpetual motion of matter explains everything.”
(2) People are determinist machines, which annuls moral responsibility. You cannot help it, then, if you are sexually perverse or depraved.
(3) There is no afterlife, so your conduct does not matter.
(4) Merely the child of local custom, morality is relative to culture and geography, and therefore fictive.
(5) Nature is our only ethical guide; humans are no more significant to Nature than insects. And since Nature uses matter from dead life forms to create new ones, crime, destruction, and death are necessary and pleasing to her. Therefore murder is good, and the mass murderer is the highest human type.
(6) Born isolated, the individual is solely important, with obligations to nobody and only selfish motivations. Each individual is pitted against all others. His only maxim is to “Enjoy myself, at no matter whose expense.”
(7) Man tends naturally to dominate others and inflict pain, which he enjoys.
(8) Ordinary people are utilitarian objects, the playthings of the wealthy, powerful and godlike libertines, who are utterly unloving.
(9) Beauty and innocence inspire only diabolical cruelty. Since materialism makes pleasure proportional to stimulus, the greater your cruelty, the greater your pleasure.
(10) Maximum selfishness and cruelty are therefore the proper course.
The key to the entirety of Moral Relativism is the belief that we are born as “blank slates,” and therefore our belief in right and wrong is completely dependent upon our environment, meaning, morality is an empty product of cultural taboo. This is, of course, entirely false, and has been proven incorrect by numerous scientists and psychologists. Watch the film linked below for an in-depth analysis of the failings of Blank Slate Theory:
Setting the debate over the existence of God aside, the psychological reality is, all human beings have an inherent archetypal sense of what we call good and evil, and this sense is common to every culture regardless of environmental conditions, proving The Marquis de Sade’s conclusions false. Conscience is the messenger, or the interpreter if you will, of the archetypal sense of balance.
Although the Marquis’ philosophy is logically impractical not to mention psychotic, it does illustrate very well the elitist mindset.
A rapist, for instance, often does not derive much pleasure from the sexual act itself, but the control involved over others. Thinking of elitists in such a way helps in understanding the warped reasoning behind their actions. Like the Marquis de Sade, elites are so possessed by their unlimited desire for power and control that they themselves fall into their own pattern of self created determinism. Finding that they will never have enough control to satiate their desires, and discovering that such power over the environment is unreachable, they turn towards thoughts of complete destruction. For them, destruction is the pinnacle of control.
What we also find is that the egotism of elites causes them to strive for what they feel is “true individualism.” They see conscience as psychological bondage, a will imposed on them by society, or the universe itself. By breaking free of conscience, they believe they have achieved ultimate freedom, and elevated themselves to a plane beyond the common man. This is called “transcendence through evil.”
But by disowning their inborn qualities, they have actually lost everything that gives them individuality, as well as humanity. They have essentially made themselves inwardly dead, soulless dolls driven by nothing but base desire. Instead of self-destructing under the weight of such ambition, they have focused it all into a single collective goal….
The New World Order: Destined For Failure
The New World Order which the Global Elites speak of so often is not just a political shift, or a social reformation; it is an attempt to subvert the human psyche. It is an attempt to defy nature. Controlling the lives of the masses is not enough. What they want most, is to transmute the human heart and bend it in any manner they wish until all traces of conscience and individualism have vanished from the species. Such an act could take centuries, perhaps millennia, and even then it may still be impossible.
When examining the shift towards the NWO, I often take into account the elitist fascination with the game of chess. Zbigniew Brzezinski makes this fascination laughably obvious in his book “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives.” I am an avid chess player myself, and I understand the game well.
In order to win consistently in chess, one must above all things become exceedingly ruthless. There can be no momentary lapses of compassion. This is something the elites strive for. You must also be willing to sacrifice any piece in order to meet the greater objective; another elitist trait.
In the game of chess, the greatest players do not win so much by attacking their opponent; they win by forcing their opponent to move in the way they want, until, in effect, the opponent defeats himself. This is a fulcrum point for the strategy of Globalism. They set the noose upon our necks, but it is our aimless struggling that tightens it until we suffocate.
The problem is, life is NOT a chess game. People do not follow straightforward patterns laid out beforehand. Some of us walk off the board entirely. Some of us make our own rules. Sometimes, the pawns change the entire dynamic of the game, and this is why the elites will fail. We aren’t playing anymore.
The elites often boast of possessing an unparalleled wisdom, an awareness that supercedes all others. If they had attained any wisdom, however, they would have already realized the futility in attempting to control the destinies of other men. Such power is in itself an illusion, for the only power over us is that which we give away. Therefore, the elites only have power over us in so much as we give them explicit consent. All it takes is for one man to say “no,” and the entire web begins to unravel. Control of the world is a fantasy, a cartoon, a cabaret, a childish whimsy that those with legitimate wisdom grow out of. The farce can only continue so long as everyone submits to deception.
Here humanity waits, standing still in the long solemn dark, poised to step from the cold cast shadow into daylight. The great threat to elitism has been and always will be the so called “common man.” We are the honest and faithful explorers of the soul, unhindered by presumptions of superiority or fixations of malice. We are the antithesis, the counterweight, the opposing force, for we seek no power, no dominance, no control over the world; only understanding. We are the future, not the elites. Their time is nearly over, and with their passing, may we see all the horrors they have wrought undone, until life can be lived the way it desperately needs to be lived; with wide eyes, with honor, with sincerity.
Strength, real strength, comes not from the exile of conscience, or surrender to the murky waters of amorality; it comes from trust in one’s own heart. It comes from that intuitive knowing, knowing without calculation or observation. It comes from the utter invincibility of truth; a force against which even the most depraved of elites cannot stand.