So Who Is THEM?
There’s an increasing swathe of people getting the truth out there – to those who have not yet understood what is going on across the globe. That’s the innocent, gullible and naïve who have difficulty joining the dots. Those involved in opening the eyes and minds of the general public on the street, refer to those who are causing mayhem and destruction as “THEY” or “Them”.
The reality is that there are laws and rules (or no law) to protect THEM.. Whilst “WE” the People, are micro managed in our behaviour; – there are consequences for “US”, severely executed by THEM – when WE are guilty of stepping out of line. When WE are perceived to have broken statutory law, and regulations put in place by THEM, without any consultation within their government or by consultation with WE the People and the rest of the public that THEY rule. Wasn’t it the PEOPLE who are supposed to rule THEM? Aren’t THEY supposed to be the public’s servants?
Political elites refer to the “Little People” (US) as those of little influence and mainly the unaware. The term goyim (referred to as The Gentiles in Jewish communities, but not relevant in that context here) , cattle or “useless eaters” (as Henry Kissinger once said.) The term can have a misleading meaning since it suggests that it is the best who hold decision-making positions. In reality, political elites are often the product of social reproduction and only those who have already substantial economic, social and cultural means can access this status.
It is possible to suspect the political elite of sharing interests specific to the privileged categories from which it mainly comes. The fact remains that the increase in the technicality of public action is increasingly leading leaders to seek the opinion of personalities from civil society (association leaders, experts, scientists, etc. and of course the global business elites), which calls for qualifying the the thesis of the homogeneity of political elites.
If THEY watch US – WHO WATCHES THE WATCHERS? WHO GUARDS THE GUARDS?
See this excellent video on this very topic by Neil Oliver – a GBTV presenter:
If the embedded video does not display in your browser, please follow this link: https://www.bitchute.com/video/gzu9s7o6saQh/
The elitist and pluralist approaches oppose each other on the question of the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the ruling class.
In Elementi di Scienze politica (1896), Gaetano Mosca uses the term “ruling political class” to describe the minority that holds power in a society. According to him, “in all societies, from the least developed and civilized to the most advanced and powerful, there appear two classes of people – an ordinary class and a ruling class, who is beyond any watchers or guards. To keep that equilibrium , the the ordinary class have to be kept in the dark, be ignorant of their role and always to be subservient and totally controlled – usually by fear. The ruling class are always the least numerous, assumes all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages it entails, while the second, the most numerous, is directed and controlled by the first, sometimes more or less legal, sometimes more or less arbitrary and violent”.
This minority, organized and conscious, forms a social class. It is therefore marked by a community of thought, of interests, of culture, of kinship, of economic power. It imposes its values and its principle of legitimacy on the majority. However, this elite remains stratified: in the centre is a core leader (“the senior leaders”) more powerful than the others (“the secondary leaders”). It is this core that provides cohesion and strength as well as commanding the whole.
The sociology of the elites shows that the ruling categories come overwhelmingly from privileged social backgrounds, but that they cannot, in a democracy, govern alone.
From a more sociological point of view, studies show that the elites are very largely from privileged backgrounds. The manifest inequality of access to elective functions according to social background leads to the introduction of a gap between the representatives of the people and society.
Some people speak of a “state nobility” to designate the phenomenon of reproduction of the ruling elite through the increasingly pressing need to obtain a degree leading to positions of power.
The elites or the power elite?
Today, the elite ends up designating the occupation of an enviable position. “The elites” in the plural, is an expression constructed by contemporary sociology to explain the political transformations of societies developed from a non-Marxist perspective. The use of the syntagm “elites” “makes it possible to embrace, under a more abstract concept, the various types of leading or dominant groups which have succeeded one another and whose dated names have changed over the course of the regimes. [Above all, it recalls] the plural form of groups in struggle in the field of power and their constantly contested legitimacy
The Marxist thesis sheds some light on the analysis of power situations in society. It is a reading based on an economic analysis, which denies the specificity of politics. The fact of holding the levers of the economic machine gives the class that holds it access to political power (in the sense of control of the state apparatus). The state cannot be an arbiter, it is only a means of political domination in the hands of the holders of economic power. Economic power is concentrated in the hands of a small number of families who own the means of production, and inherit these means and political power. The power belongs only in appearance to the elected officials, in reality it is in the hands of the business circles. All the social, economic and political hierarchies merge into a single class which, thanks to the control of the state apparatus, exploits the rest of the nation and derives from this exploitation not only material benefit but also honours and privileges.
It is against this grid that the theme of the elites was constructed. In particular, the work of Vilfredo Pareto (Treaty of General Sociology, 1917) will refute this Marxist analysis. The two postulates of Marxist reasoning (the economy governs the relations of social classes, the ideology of a society is that of its dominant class) are disputed by Pareto. He affirms that the economy does not govern the relations of social classes; he himself came to sociology precisely because economics does not explain everything… economic facts themselves cannot be explained solely on the basis of economics.
View all of BGB’s videos by visiting the BGB archive channels at:
SUBSCRIBE for free to receive automated notifications of new posts from BGB in your e-mail inbox – as they’re published. You can unsubscribe at any time you choose.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.