Monday, October 27, 2008

The Trans-National Elites and the Populist Response

Recently, Winds of Change put up a post asserting that Obama's probable victory in the race for President signals a new model for electoral success. Boiled down to it's essentials, the post argues that trans-national elites have become fed up with America, American patriotism and populism, and are making themselves heard by telling America what to do, how to do it, in an auction available to the highest bidder. This is similar to posts by "Wretchard" at the Belmont Club arguing the same thing.

The essentials are proposed as this:


  1. Media Support that suppresses any reporting of illegality in fundraising or anything else by Obama.

  2. Vast Monetary advantage by tapping the global pool of (illegal) foreign contributions from trans-national elites, including Saudi, Pakistani, Hamas, and Hezbollah/Iranian money.

  3. Government funded vote fraud and mass-rallying organizations (ACORN).

  4. Intimidation and bullying ala The Coming Thugocracy



This model, that of a trans-national elite, taking steps to control the US Presidential election, does seem to describe what Obama's campaign really is. There are other data points. San Francisco columnist Mark Morford describes Obama as a "Lightworker", a near-parody of the WB series "Charmed" "White Lighter" characters.

Here's where it gets gooey. Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.


There could be nothing more trans-national than this statement above. A more stunning repudiation of nationalism, America, and populism could not be imagined.

Then there is the Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Jonathon Valania, who argues, seriously, that White people should not be allowed to vote because they are "racist" and won't vote for Obama. Or Barack Obama, who noted:

I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me.


You could not invent the more perfect, elitist, yuppie, trans-national statement, hostile to the people and where most of the majority population lives.

This is standard stuff in Europe. Where trans-national elites run most of Europe, save for Putin's Russia, and parts of Eastern Europe, and Italy. In places like the UK, or France, or Spain, or Germany, or Sweden, elites suppress nationalism, nationalist feeling, any measure of populism, and push the agenda of the trans-national elite, who form a sort of new "Medieval Priesthood" who try to tear down national institutions and national feelings, not to mention the national peoples themselves, to construct a new trans-national "peoples of the World." It is why you see considerable effort to replace native European populations with that of North African or African populations, and Dutch or Swedish politicians stating that they eagerly await the day when natives are a minority and Islam rules the land.

In most places in Europe, even places like Spain or Ireland, this sort of trans-national elitist politics works, because transfer payments from places like Germany and the UK allows trans-national elites to dispense various goodies, usually in the form of welfare payments or "free" government services to enough voters to assemble a winning coalition. This is why, even as European nations become overwhelmed with immigrants, who have declared de-facto independent states where natives dare not tread and the law does not apply (such as the UK's decision to allow Sharia Law to have the full force of Common law in Britain), governments responsible get elected and re-elected. While trans-national elites disparage unifying symbols such as flags, national symbols, national history, voters don't punish them. They have their goodies, and for now, that works.

Obama's probable victory is merely a transfer of the successful EU model, of trans-national politics, to America. However, the elites who make up the trans-national elites do have weaknesses, ones that make them vulnerable, and likely to create a world-wide backlash.

First, it's useful to note where trans-national elites do not hold sway: Italy, Austria, Russia, and parts of Eastern Europe. Russia was simply too corrupt, violent, and inherently nationalistic for the trans-national elites to hold sway. It's laughable to think that someone like Mark Morford, or Jonathon Valanian, much less Barack Obama, would face down a hardened KGB killer like Vladimir Putin, or any of his crew. In places where violence rules, and guns trump money from afar, trans-national elites are like Medieval Priests confronting marauding Vikings. Helpless.

Eastern Europe was of course, too poor, corrupt, disorganized, and chaotic for trans-national elites to give enough patronage money for local elites to build electoral alliances. The same holds true for Austria and Italy. Italy is quite instructive — notoriously corrupt, plagued by inefficiencies, no one expects anything from the government, and tax evasion and payoffs are a way of life. Indeed, the Lega Nord and other right oriented political groups are successful there, as in Austria, because people are concerned about influxes of immigrants. In Italy, the flood of North African, and Balkan (mostly Roma/Gypsy) illegal immigrants, has not been balanced by successful payoffs or patronage/welfare payments to enough voters to create a winning coalition. Meanwhile, Italians, Austrians, Poles, Bulgarians, etc. are not about to abolish their nations for some hazy notion of "citizenship of the world" and certainly not without lots of money flowing to lots of voters and people.

This was the same problem facing the Catholic Church's Medieval priesthood. While most of the educated, literate, and money-controlling people in Europe were Priests, Bishops, and Archbishops, they could not form patronage networks to rival that of the Kings, at the head of feudal patronage organizations. Significantly, the Priests could field no direct armies, or put men under arms themselves. The history of Europe from the 1100's onwards is a steady consolidation of power by Kings creating nations, and a long slow recession of international power by the Catholic Church.

The Kings of Medieval Europe could not match the production of wealth that the Catholic Church's Monasteries produced. The Kings could not produce the large amounts of educated, loyal to Rome, and absolutely required functionaries that the Church alone provided. But the Kings could create alliances to seize said Monasteries and distribute the wealth among themselves and barons, such as Henry the VIII. Or found universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, and the University of Paris, to create their own, loyal, literate functionaries. Because while the Monasteries were a huge source of wealth, they could not be defended. Defending the wealth required men under arms, something the Church was never able to produce.

In the same manner, the "Obama Model" of media in the tank, illegal foreign money (not reported by said in the tank media), voter fraud, and thug tactics has a weakness.

By moving entirely outside the media, through building grass-roots organizations, populists can control their message and use it create wedge politics, particularly through using nationalism and populism. This would include such things as various social events, private insurance, entertainment events, and so on. Particularly as the global economic crisis makes the ability of trans-national elites to provide welfare payoffs to broad slices of the electorate very questionable. In addition, populism and the notion that trans-national elites are "traitors" to the nation, putting the interests of illegal immigrants and various minority groups ahead of the nation and native majority have proved quite successful. Italy's Berlusconi, to use one example, used precisely this message to win election and stage a comeback after having been written off as politically dead.

The more that Harold Myerson of the Washington Post writes about how America must "Abolish Whiteness" by such gems as this:

In a year when the Democrats have an African American presidential nominee, the Republicans now more than ever are the white folks' party, the party that delays the advent of our multicultural future, the party of the American past. Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year's GOP convention is almost shockingly -- un-Americanly -- white.


The more the trans-national elites take this direction, the more they can be attacked with impunity as the enemy of the nation, it's traditions, and most importantly, it's majority. When Barack Obama's favorite Catholic priest Father Pfleger calls 401K plans "racist" and Obama's advisors write of plans to tax 401Ks to pay for "redistribution" of wealth, from Whites to Blacks, as part of a "reparative" measure to atone for slavery and segregation, this is a golden opportunity for identity politics. As per the 2000 Census, the population breakdown is 75% White, 12% Black, and 13% Hispanic. Now, while Whites may have declined relative to that Census, it will be only marginal, and the majority of the nation is still overwhelmingly White. It is not good politics to attack the White Majority, without offering ala Britain or France, lots of "free" services and transfer payments to make those attacks palatable. It's worth noting that both France and Britain are having political problems now that their budgets are being stretched by too much resources devoted to minorities, and not enough to the natives.

In some ways, the McCain campaign is the last gasp of the "old" Republican Party, before the coming wave of identity politics. It is unlikely that future Republican nominees will play "nice." Explicit appeals to identity politics and questions of fairness will be the rule. The new populists, in the US and elsewhere, will remind the White majority that the alternative favors immigrants and minorities in spending decisions, and policies. The media, in the tank for the trans-national elites, because they are trans-national elites themselves, will be bypassed. In favor of grassroots organizations. Offering entertainment, social events, celebrations of national traditions and holidays, parades, and likely insurance, and other "benevolent association" benefits that tie people to the populist organizations and offer an alternative from government run programs that will by definition be oriented towards trans-national elites and minorities.

Moreover, it's easy to point to all the foreign money and paint the trans-national elites and the media as traitors to the nation, and enemies of the majority of the people. It is a simple matter to show the intimidation and thugocracy of minority-oriented governments, be it an Obama thugocracy, or that of a Sarkozy, or Gordon Brown Sharia-compliant regime, and make the case that the majority, made second-class citizens or worse in their own nation, have no other alternative but the populists. Even more effective, offer money "seized" from Affirmative Action programs, or minority-oriented programs, to be spent on the majority. One such proposal would be to end Affirmative Action and guarantee any citizen (but exclude foreigners) "free" College tuition for a "B" average in High School.

This is the equivalent of the Kings and Barons seizing the Monasteries. There is a lot of money and property that the trans-nationals have, and they don't have much power to defend it. While their power, like that of the Medieval Priesthood is considerable, it is not unstoppable. And it is likely to produce a Nationalist, Populist backlash all around the West as the opposition sees the "rules" and devises an end-run around them, taking advantage of the weakness.

23 comments:

sestamibi said...

Even though I've been active on and off in GOP politics for many years, I think you are absolutely right in seeing the handwriting on the wall. The Republican party is in its death throes, which should play out over the next 10-20 years. Before it dies, its last incarnation will be as an party which will explicitly stand for white interests.

To no avail, however. Once we are all socialists and all thoughts to the contrary are ruthlessly suppressed, political battles will therefore no longer be fought over theoretical concepts such as what we now call "liberalism" and "conservatism". Under an all-powerful central (world?) government, it will be only a matter of interest groups (identity politics) nakedly fighting for power and a greater share of a shrinking pie.

a_c said...

While the ascendant liberal elite may have a transnational worldview, I think you have yet to substantiate your claims that they are directly bribing the electorate. I find it quite plausible that they simply happen to hold all of the media power, and 51% is falling in line due to cultural factors.

Unfortunately this makes it harder to combat as well, since if it's just bread and circuses the elites will run out of funds eventually. A war of ideas, in which the idea-flows are largely held by the enemy, is much harder to win.

Arius said...

What irony! This is supposed to be the 'information age', but can you say that the electorate is 'informed'?

The election of Obama begins the tragic decline of America into national socialism and dhimmitude.

Arius said...

Get you money out of the USA! This election is as big a transition point in America's history as the elections of 1932 and 1965, and this time the Democrats are much further on the Left. Expect anything this time around.

Dymphna said...

This was an excellent post.

I excerpted from it, and suggested a change in the term "populist" -- one I learned from the book I link at the bottom of the post.

Thanks for this. Most intriguing analysis and comparisons.

Whiskey Gives Us Hope

I'm hoping my title will make people come over to read it.

OilAlternatives said...

My only question about this is, should this really be viewed as whites vs. everyone else? What about Asians? By Asians I mean actual East Asians (Japanese, Chinese, etc.). When I was in school there were already job postings for computer science department jobs that said "Women and underrepresented minorities are encouraged to apply". The "underrepresented minorities" meant non-Asians. I bring this up since Asians in America aren't benefiting from the multicultural worldview of the trans-national elites. As a result they make a good ally.

Sillie Lizzie said...

Nice post, but I think you've missed the fact that what you suggest is already in "action" at the grassroots level.

Christians paved the way in Education "creating their own, loyal, literate functionaries". Millions of families are bedeviling the government school racket by educating their children at home or in private schools.

Churches are defying the Hollywood moviemaking monopoly, with such grassroots "entertainment events" as "Fireproof", "Facing the Giants".

And what is more "populist" than the blogosphere? Its putting the ObamaLibtard Media to shame, and soon, out of business entirely.

There are more examples out there.

laine said...

Sadly for Whiskey's thesis, up to date census data shows that the voting white majority will be over within 30 years or so, not much time to unite or galvanize whites who are not just divided half and half but probably irrevocably polarized. Half of whites think becoming a minority in their own country is a good thing and work to hasten the day. They're the liberal Obama voters who are joining the near monolithic Hispanic and black vote.

"Whites will become an ethnic minority in the United States in a generation as surging Hispanic and Asian populations transform the leader of the Western world.

The US Census Bureau projects that whites, now 66 per cent of the population, will make up less than half the total in 2042 — eight years sooner than previously predicted.They will be outnumbered by those who identify themselves as Hispanic, black, Asian, Native Indian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander. It will be the first time that minorities have made up the majority in America since the first US census in 1790, when some 64 per cent of people counted were white.

Driving the demographic shift are the higher birthrates of immigrants and their descendants, as well as an expected increase in the annual number of new immigrants from the current level of 1.3 million to more than two million a year by mid-century. Because of the growing number of non-white babies, the shift will start with children, among whom non-whites will become a majority by 2023. The US workforce will become majority non-white by 2039".
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4535138.ece

Whiskey said...

Laine -- the problems with that projection is built-in assumptions.

One is continued mass immigration from Mexico (or Asia). Politically unpalatable historically, in recessions.

Then, there is the odd pattern of Mexican immigrants birth patterns. First generation American born have lower birthrates, and second-generation born have higher birthrates, than US Anglo counterparts. No one really seems to understand this.

Indeed you can argue that as Whites become less numerous, the pain of Affirmative Action for more numerous Hispanics (and/or Asian immigrants) becomes higher, and lucrative issues for populists.

Indeed, the threat of being a minority, and officially discriminated against minority, in one's own country is a great populist issue, in Europe as in here.

"Flipping" from Majority to Minority has real costs: far less marriage/dating opportunities (most date/marry within races), discrimination in the job market, discrimination in education, etc. Given the Democratic Party (and that of European elite-oriented parties) orientation against the native majority -- there is little that elites can offer long-term particularly given budget constraints in recessions.

T. AKA Ricky Raw said...

Great post.

Anonymous said...

sestamibi has it about right.

The GOP will die. I think before 2016 and without incarnations.

It has not been a true majority party since the 1920s. Only the migration of the religious conservatives allowed them to ever win after 1960.

The religious conservatives switched to the GOP because they had no voice at all within the Democratic Party. Abortion was key issue.

Southern and rural whites overlap heavily with the religious conservatives. So it is hard to say if they went to the GOP because of race or religion.

What will replace the GOP? IMO there will be no replacement.

The odd say 2009 is the first year of the one party state.

We will have no more meaningful elections. This one is it. The Democrats don't intend to permit an opposition any longer.

Anonymous said...

Another great post,Whiskey. Thanks.

PA said...

What will replace the GOP? IMO there will be no replacement.

Single-party states tend to be unstable, typically propped by military force, like the old Soviet Bloc or some Asian regimes today. Even Gaza/West Bank have a two-party situation.

The Democratic party will probably split into the populist Hugo Chavez faction and the SWPL Barack Obama faction.

The former will push full speed ahead toward mass nationalization of industries and Communist-scale redistribution, while the the latter will yelp meekly, "sure, but not so fast please" and wull probably hold on to a few boutique issues, such as gay marriage or whatever.

All together now: "O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave!"

Or, perhaps we truly are brave and free men, and a wholly unexpected reactionary turnaround will occur. After all, it is often a fool's gamble to bet on current trends.

Nine-of-Diamonds said...

I agree with Lizzie - this election is likely to be the last hurrah for Mainstream journalists. They have successfully obsucured Obama's role in causing the credit crisis. They've managed to convince the public of the Messiah's "intelligence". The bias has been naked and relentless. If I'm not mistaken about 60% of McCain's coverage has been negative. And the public buys it, thanks to the credibility that "brand name" news organizations still have. Currently I'd give 0bama about a 60% chance of winning, and at least a 70% chance of winning the popular vote regardless of how the EC turns out.

Nevertheless I'm reasonably confident that this will be a Pyrrhic victory for the MSM. in the coming years 0bama will be perceived (correctly) as a candidate they manufactured. Without their softball questions 0bama's lack of intelligence would have been exposed long ago. To say nothing of his radical associations, campaign finance violations, etc etc. As things get worse in the coming years people will wonder who the Media installed at the helm, and why their judgment was never questioned. Spengler & several commentators say that the real fun is set to begin circa 2009-2010. Various & sundry 3rd World pestholes will start reeling from low commodity prices. Putin & friends will smell opportunity. Nothing like a jaunt through the Ukraine or Poland to distract your population from economic turmoil, eh? Plus, the crisis at home will no doubt continue until early 2010. I'm predicting major buyer's remorse within 6-12 months as the Messiah's Magic Negritude starts to bore the moderate/liberal whites who swept him into office. As Whiskey has mentioned before, humans have a natural hierarchy of needs. In good economic times, voting for an Affirmative-action poster child costs you nothing and helps soothe your guilt over what your great-great-great grandparents did to the Poor, Noble Minorities. Come 2009, melanin-worship will be out of style, to say the least - you'll be too busy worrying about developments abroad or looking for work and food to much care about a black Messiah. If 0bama was a Democratic pragmatist in the tradition of Bill Clinton he might succeed - however, he is too radical, too inexperienced, and not too bright (except for his brilliant ability to cultivate the right friendships at the right time). As his incompetence becomes more obvious, people will wonder just what the media got us into.

The handwriting is already on the wall. When asked about basic tax issues during the Democratic debates 0bama at first didn't seem to know what the moderator was talking about - and then said he would raise Capital Gains for the sake of "fairness" even if it brought in less revenue. Despite proclaiming himself a "law professor" he makes laughable errors when trying to cite USSC precedents. Recently an adoring contingent of Europeans invited him to participate in economic talks (which, coincidentally, would have revealed the extent of his economic knowledge). Not surprisingly, 0bama declined, claiming to be "too busy".

In short, 0bama will perhaps be the president least suited to the historical challenges of his era since Andrew Johnson. In fact, he even seems to posess many of the very same faults as Johnson (racism, vindictiveness, and a childhood dominated by identity issues). Just as Johnson doomed Reconstruction, 0bama will torpedo any chance of economic recovery within the next four years. Hopefully this will lead to a backlash against the MSM that will destroy them as an agenda-shaping force for the forseeable future.

Anonymous said...

test -

Anonymous said...

Commenting seems to work again.

nines: Andrew Johnson had his faults but dooming reconstruction wasn't one of them.

He was followed in 1868 by Grant who was a vigorous advocate of reconstruction and of keeping federal troops in the South in case southern whites disagreed.

But by 1874 Congress was tiring of the cost and Grant couldn't persuade them to stick with the program.

A lot of the original hard line Republicans were gone by then - people didn't live as long.

And the Democrats both northern and southern had gained strength in Congress.

Grant complained but in 1976 his term was done and so was reconstruction.

Anonymous said...

pa: One party states do tend to become unstable. But history shows many working for decades.

We don't have a good choice in this election.

Obama is opaque, I am unsure what he intends and have no reason to believe what he says he intends.

If ever a campaign consisted of smiley faces and happy talk it was Obama's.

McCain has no firm program except hanging tough on terrorism. He will get no cooperation from Congress.

So we can have a muddle through President facing a total economic disaster because of our insane debt.

Or we can elect a dynamic guy who will certainly change matters. I think for the worse.

My firm principles both say vote for McCain.

First principle. Vote for the guy likely to die first. It will reduce the payout for Presidential pensions.

Second principle. Vote for the guy with the less active wife. She will waste less money flying around the world visiting leaders and advocating good causes. She won't be on TV as much either.

It was a tough choice in 1996. Hillary and Elizabeth Dole were both yakking all the time and equally active.

Bill was younger than Dole but Bob didn't smoke cigars. (turned out Bill wasn't smoking them either)

Nine-of-Diamonds said...

Wonderful. The results are in. We just traded the Republic for a $500.00 check from Uncle Sam.

Sometimes I hate being right.

Anonymous said...

Well, I get paid for imagination.

The Eden which Obama promises sounds boring. Rainbows and Happy Faces hold my interest only a short time.

But the transition period should be exciting.

Will the reeducation of America be gradual as Mussolini imposed Fascism on Italy?

Will it be thrilling as Lenin took and consolidated power in Russia.

Or systematic as the Khmer Rouge purified Cambodia.

Or, most likely, something new and truly horrible such as the Harvard faculty will advocate.

Obama's new order shouldn't get around to me for months. Assuming they are rational about prioritizing their killings.

They will note I am quite old and likely to depart anyway. And being old and not rich there will be little estate to confiscate.

OTOH if they want to change America fast the easiest way is to be rid of old people. We own more, draw social security and pensions, and run up medical bills which burden Medicare.

Certain old people would get immunity permits. They would resemble diplomatic passports.

And like those papers they would allow the holders to motor through the bombed and shelled redneck states without concern.

I think RICO could be applied to my small suburb. No doubt our precinct went for McCain. Proof the whole area engaged in a criminal conspiracy or syndicate.

But using RICO requires a Justice Department. DOJ will be closed by zero budgeting. No money, no DOJ and no FBI.

And without them no violations of federal law. And no trials.

The federal courts will be nullified in the same way. Let those old bastards sit with their gavels in hand and grumble. w/o telephones, water, electricity, and toilet paper they won't get much done.

Being fair, always a top priority for Democrats, they probably won't impeach and remove our fine judiciary. They can starve it.

Meanwhile new parallel legal entities will be created and staffed with compliant new hires. The Social Justice Department with bureaus of Economic Justice and Street Justice.

We won't have to wait long. Congress will go back into session late this month and vote Obama twenty billion or so in transition funds to prepare for his inaugural.

Bush will sign and try to add a 20% tip to the bill.

Twenty billion should be enough to arm street gangs before Obama is sworn in. Congress will then federalize all local police to hold them idle until they can be disarmed.

At the same time Congress will federalize Obama's gangs and authorize them to replace the local police in their onerous duties. The Bureau of Fair And Balanced Surveillance.

Bush and Cheney will watch as Obama and Biden are sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts. Roberts will mysteriously vanish and never be seen again.

Bush will be found the next morning hanging from the top of the Washington Monument.

Cheney will be hanging from a minaret of a mosque. Congress will pass a resolution stating this somewhat atones for our treatment of the Muslim World.

Said resolution will also disavow all knowledge of how Cheney came to be on the spire.

An autopsy will find Cheney died of heart problems. But just in case the second amendment will be suspended by unanimous consent.

Washington was a slave owner. His monument will be renamed the Ayers & Winfrey Tall Thingy.

The city will be renamed ACORN. The UN will move its world headquarters onto the mall.

Washington State will be renamed Michelle. The NYT will change its motto to "it can't be bad when we feel so good."

The secret ballot will be outlawed. This will ensure that all ballots can be verified by the new federal counting commission. Fraud will thus be eliminated.

To verify "unusual" ballots it may be necessary to visit some voters in their home. Fortunately the new security agencies will have the necessary equipment including battering rams.

Reno will be granted the title of "Victor At Waco". Albright will be "First Hero Among Equals". Carter's will be so sacred it cannot be named.

Forgive any mistakes. I can't get everything right. That is now to be done by rulers.

Nine-of-Diamonds said...

You made a very good point in the middle of your satire, Anonymous. One thing that chills me about the Magic Negro's election is the implications for elderly Americans. Health care is still skyrocketing while wages & savings remain the same - or decrease. People are busier than ever - hence, not many extended families where the elderly survive under adult relatives' care. Older Americans are consuming an increasing share of government resources. As the Democrats' bright shiny future fails to materialize, they are going to be frantic for ways to save money. Minority and Gay activists are generally able-bodied & vocal, so the Democrats dare not cross them. Instead, the most helpless members of society will get a raw deal, in the worst way possible.

To put it bluntly, we may be a decade or two away from having a mandatory Euthenasia program. Before anyone laughs, consider this - the Democrats already have extremist anti-Life tendencies. They look to Europe for moral guidance, and the Euro's are notorious for legalized suicide as it is. I've heard that in some places 1/2 of handicapped infants' deaths are actually homicides committed by doctors and nurses - with the full approval of the state. Additionally, many adults are euthenized abroad WITHOUT consent.

I was a student of Peter Singer a couple years ago and was exposed to his Mengele-esque views on the value of human life. He and other foreign elites are precisely the kind of people 0bama and his party look to for moral guidance; consequently, if the time comes when eliminating unproductive citizens becomes politically palatable - and I'm sure it will - the Left in this country will not hesitate to do so.

Anonymous said...

Yes, writing extreme nonsense clarifies thoughts.

In vino veritas and from the mouths of babes, etc.

You are right. If we are willing to kill enough people our financial problems vanish. And killing the old would fix things the fastest.

I always wondered if my MBA and accounting training would help solve any problem for society. Now, at last, they produce a useful suggestion.

Ironically most atheists will die with faith.

As the old comrades's thoughts flicker the last will be:

"this is all a mistake, if only Obama knew this is being done"

Robert said...

sestamibi said:
Under an all-powerful central (world?) government,

Unlikely, due to these factors:
"desktop fabrication"
"homemade weapons of mass destruction"

This enables a superempowered individual to posses weapons that can allow him to easily destroy the state's army and police. Can't have a world government if its enforcers can be slaughtered in mass by single individuals or small organizations.

demosophist said...

It is great to be an elite, unless you're part of a waning elite. The assumptions of Teixeira can be confounded by noting cultural drift patterns and reproduction rates. This isn't a difficult lever to grasp, but it may take a relatively light hand. It's the sort of control we normally associate with leadership... the sort of control exercised by Grant or Sherman.

But who in the modern era? Palin is too isolated up there in the far northwest. She probably can't even see the levers all that clearly. As a rule we sociologists would call this a 'leadership vacuum.' There is something about it that's both foreboding and promising at the same time. The topic itself is forbidding in a way that excludes elites.