The attempt to form a global elite has failed, except at the surface. There are many reasons for this:
- Lack of religious cohesion
- Lack of ethnic cohesion and intermarriage except across certain lines
- Lack of geographic cohesion
- Lack of linguistic cohesion
- Lack of shared moral rules
- Lack of a functioning international legal framework (which will never happen for the above reasons)
- Inability to command loyalty at a local level
This notion that the men of Moncole Magazine and Davos can rule over seven billion people without using much force at all has not been proven. And in fact, we see betrayal and backstabbing after backstabbing occur on the global scene.
If there was a truly global elite, Russia would be part of the fold. China would not be pivoting between the US and Russia as the situation suited it. Tell-all memoirs about CIA manipulation of the German press would not be top best-sellers.
Go and ask a White student at an Ivy League college what they think of their Chinese co-students. Ask the Chinese students what they think of their cracker counterparts. At the places where diversity propaganda is the strongest, cohesion is often rather weak.
The elite-formation institutions of the West used to exist largely to form strong bonds between future male leaders. These institutions are now primarily seen as places of both meaningless and extreme competition within the elite, which typically fails to produce much appreciable excellence. Most of the most lauded leaders from the current and previous generations are drop-outs who did not need to use the now-degraded elite formation institutions.
In fact, what is a tech startup but a tiny fraternity, almost always all-male, that includes stressful bonding rituals and typical young male tomfoolery?
Inviting the world’s best students was supposed to solidify a new American century. However, China’s ambassador to the US berates the latter country in one of the leading Foreign Policy magazines. Prime Minister Modi of India openly flouts America.
Wasn’t the globalist program supposed to foster international cooperation in a new ‘flat’ and ‘global’ world? Whatever happened to that? Will there be any accountability for the failure of this strategy?
I’m going to suggest, controversially, that we do have a relatively cohesive Globalist Elite. This elite does largely share moral rules and a religious/philosophical perspective and they do congregate via established international organizations.
This elite is composed primarily of high IQ psychopaths and/or high IQ people with dark triad traits. High IQ dark triad characters are well known for their success in power concentrating fields, such as business, finance, and politics and their attraction to those fields.
They share the same moral and religo-philosophical mindset because psychopaths seem to have these perspectives built into how they view the world. All they can see and experience is a dog-eat-dog materialist world, and to them they are guiltless of all crimes. Put 5 psychopaths in a room, and a spontaneous organization near perfectly aligned will spring up, designed around screwing everyone who isn’t a psychopath. However this same perspective explains their constant betrayal, for in the absence of any incentive to remain cohesive, dark triad characters, psychopaths in particular, are happy to turn on and devour one another. So betrayal is the rule, not the exception here. But notice that while they betray one another (see the American state constantly shafting the German state) they all line up together happily when a non-psychopathic state, one outside the club, confronts them (Russia under Putin).
Finally the preferred medium of their power consists not in NGOs or the UN or nation-states, but in multinational corporations. Corporations can be ran by one party, yet owned by other corporations and individuals which can in turn own shares of others. The framework of international commerce has provided the perfect cover for a congregation of globalist elites to expand and utilize their wealth while remaining perfectly untouchable.
Some states are more globalist than others like America, and some are less, like China. But I think there is a globalist elite, and if we were to examine the behaviors of states towards one another we’d find the strangest kinds of alliances and betrayals, more in line with psychopathic dog-eat-dog tactics than realpolitik. Furthermore, were it possible to examine the ownership of major multinational corporations, I predict we’d find a massive web of cross-ownership, with corporations own numerous parts of others ad infinitum. Then we’d have our web.
Unfortunately, given the structure of the hypothetical web it would be very difficult to track down specific names as there would be so much other information. Needle in a haystack scenario. To test the hypothesis we could even make predictions regarding the behavior of nation states and corporations, but that would be pretty difficult.
I so sharply disagree with the entire psychological way of thinking that it would take more than a comment to reply. To me this line of critique aligns perfectly with ‘The Authoritarian Personality’ and the entire thrust of the left’s critique for the last 150 years plus.
Are you referring to Altemeyer’s work on Authoritarian individuals? Regardless, I’d be very interested in reading such a critique. Far as I see there is a causal relationship between dark triad characters in power and the degeneracy of a society. Namely, the triad poisons their society and infects them with their crass materialist ideology as they gain more and more power. Leftism and feminism seem to me examples of this spreading degeneracy as a result of psychopathic influences.
Again, I strongly encourage you to write such a critique.
No, Adorno. Sure, I’ll give it a shot.