tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post5520268912122258266..comments2024-03-29T02:03:49.151-04:00Comments on History Unfolding: The Global AristocracyDavid Kaiserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05020082243968071584noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-28394328337944929342018-06-21T22:14:57.870-04:002018-06-21T22:14:57.870-04:00Professor
To change the subject a moment, I tried ...Professor<br />To change the subject a moment, I tried to watch your presentation back in 2012 I think, at a symposium on the Kennedy Assassination, published on C-Span. You opening 20 minutes was almost totally deleted it seems. Maybe I did something wrong in viewing it.<br />All the bestBozonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18078858723231122013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-15059641082653317932018-06-18T12:06:25.388-04:002018-06-18T12:06:25.388-04:00Well, I enjoyed this blog post, and mostly agree. ...Well, I enjoyed this blog post, and mostly agree. <br /><br />I think it is worth looking at the world (in terms of commerce, finance, policy) as dominated by multi-nationals.<br /><br />Here is a curious thing: Most people are irritated if "outsiders" attempt to influence a sovereign state election, ala Russia and the USA, or China recently in Australia. <br /><br />But multinationals, which have fiduciary obligations to global shareholder bases that trump any sort of nationalism or patriotism, can pour unlimited funds not only into US political campaigns, but PR campaigns, think tanks, foundations, academia, and media.<br /><br />While the term "deep state" may be a bit loaded, surely we can agree there is a "perma-state" in DC, and that it is globalist in perspective. PR from the Pentagon often refers to "global security," as easily as our forefathers advised avoiding foreign entanglements. <br /><br />It is also not too much to posit that there is an rough alliance between multi-nationals and mercantilist nations, such as China, or oil companies and OPEC. <br /><br />We see this in the framing of "free trade" debates in the US. In theory, there is much to support free trade. In practice, there is much to ponder, such as stagnant US wages but exploding house prices. Something about the Detroit story challenges triumphant globalism. <br /><br />In this regard, Trump may be something of a maverick. <br /><br />It is to be much regretted that the figurehead of an anti-globalist, or even just a questioning-globalism, US movement is Trump, and not someone earnest and reliable.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Benjamin Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14001038338873263877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-81355730887056907812018-06-17T14:56:56.035-04:002018-06-17T14:56:56.035-04:00This is truly disheartening but it's inevitabl...This is truly disheartening but it's inevitable that the swing of the pendulum is back in the favor of the very greedy. The only thing that will equalize any of this is plague, just like during the dark ages. In the meantime, we do what we can to elect some people who's hearts are in the place of fairness.tintin66https://www.blogger.com/profile/03675291675504035661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-76751392999013763572018-06-16T22:50:40.579-04:002018-06-16T22:50:40.579-04:00Just another point, on the aristocracy theme, to s...Just another point, on the aristocracy theme, to sort of play the devil's advocate regarding the concept, or else to flush out traitors. <br /><br />As some of us know, this country was founded in opposition to the concept of a nobility or aristocracy. The prohibition is reiterated at several places. It even prevents states from granting titles of nobility.<br /><br />My view is that certain organizations institutions and individuals, assuming the interpretation you are putting on your term aristocracy, have been violating the US constitution for a long time now. They are assuming, de facto, noble status while avoiding the embarrassment and liability of a title, and are actually functioning as nobles, if I catch your drift. <br /><br />One can make the argument, and I think you are in fact making it by implication, that not only very wealthy individuals but also institutions like the CFR, Davos Conference, etc., and their members and attendees, often wealthy but not always, are a stealth aristocracy in everything but name, including American citizens for whom such a status is prohibited by the Constitution. I think the term for this, under these circumstances, is: traitors.<br /><br />Maybe this doesn't clarify the topic, but it adds certain dimensions.<br /><br />All the best Bozonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18078858723231122013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-64203613951529034622018-06-16T05:53:27.900-04:002018-06-16T05:53:27.900-04:00It is a fascinating historical comparison. The rig...It is a fascinating historical comparison. The right always focuses on Soros and other wealthy jewish Americans pushing liberalism and/or israeli interests but gates, koch all can do more than be classic philanthropists funding museums and universities in Carnegie mode. I wonder if the billionaires from both left and right cancel each other out or will simply use us as pawns to acheive their ends. Council on Foreign Relations and similar who supply journalists, presidents, cabinet members, Bilderberger and similar feed conspiracy theories like in Xfiles tv series. To get past partisanism and conspiracy theory on all of this to see clearly who really owns and controls countries and policies may be beyond all but CIA, FSB (russian post KGB). In the end democracy is a mug's game controlled by the wealthy/nobility and kings are just puppets. Rational policy by enlightened kings( I have been read4ing Greek history example of Pericles long reign) in objective national interest is probably rare. Alkibiades caused Athens demise out of personal power lust. I think America is going same way as oligarchs on both sides destroy American democracy. Putin is what we need, 30 years of concentrated rule for the nation against oligarchs, otherwise other countries will exploit the systemic weakness of the constant infighting in the West to create a new system to their advantage. <br /><br />If billionaires get rich through bloated military and healthcare which are ineffective and destroy the nation through that(opioid crisis, prpetual wars) then America will be sick, bankrupt and have only enemies( adventurism/war for profit not for rational interests). This seems to be at all levels. State and city governments dole out pensions which bankrupt them, leave infrastructure, public services in ruins. These are all classic decline signs. A true crisis might help but as America is so strong and physically islated it seems it will have to destroy itself as invasion is impossible. Hannibal had difficulty invading Rome. We are at stalemate with continental powers of Russia/China economically/miltarily so weakest will collaps inwards like USSR on debt/overstretch. This would be a blessing for USA. Russia has experienced a true rebirth since 90s. Oligarchs, banks, debts could be wiped out and a new civic spirit of cooperation post global policeman and without <br />CIA, NSA. We could focus inwatds on concrete projects to stabilize what remains. Perhaps decentralization of power, economics would help. Globalist billionaires hinder local, individual responsibility leading to individual despondency, inaction. Most recently google, facebook control internet power globally. Before that big 3 auto companies. Money center banks are TBTF. This is like a dangerous monoculture easily destroyed by a virus. When local cultures are destroyed resilience is also. We are living through a cheap sci fi film with a bad outcome. Ed Boylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01753383765150492163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-41816688170685736982018-06-15T23:55:33.038-04:002018-06-15T23:55:33.038-04:00Professor
Great assessment. it has been building f...Professor<br />Great assessment. it has been building for a long time. <br /><br />My own preference is to characterize economic elites using some term or terms other than aristocrats. Plutocrats? Moguls, Davos people, whatever. <br /><br />One reason is that I still think of the term aristocrat, for analytic and historiographical purposes, in the context of the Old European Order; and in that order there were various complex shades of gray regarding levels of aristocracy, nobility, gentry, etc., and there were important distinctions, including hereditary and dynastic interconnections, other than that strictly of amounts of money, although wealth, usually calculated in land ownership (with a lot of other social legal and religious implications) rather than money, figured in those distinctions as well.<br /><br />It makes sense to me to distinguish what you call a global aristocracy from the term aristocracy as it has until recently (past 100 plus years only) been used.<br /><br />There are other important distinctions to be made in connection with thinking about a global aristocracy as a political entity cutting across and dominating national boundaries cultures and civilizations. <br /><br />While I agree that such a group has been coalescing, and I think you share my view that such a development is not at all a good thing for most anyone, I think it is not so helpful to use the term aristocracy for this new new thing. <br /><br />For just one minor reason, it implies a legitimacy and authority, or an autocracy, however one looks at it, to call it an aristocracy.<br /><br />All the best<br /><br />Bozonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18078858723231122013noreply@blogger.com