Defund Police?  Defund the Thought Police: the Modern University

“Many intellectuals and their followers have been unduly impressed by the fact that highly educated elites like themselves have far more knowledge per capita—in the sense of special knowledge—than does the population at large. From this it is a short step to considering the educated elites to be superior guides to what should and should not be done in a society. They have often overlooked the crucial fact that the population at large may have vastly more total knowledge—in the mundane sense—than the elites, even if that knowledge is scattered in individually unimpressive fragments among vast numbers of people. The ignorance, prejudices, and groupthink of an educated elite are still ignorance, prejudice, and groupthink—and for those with one percent of the knowledge in a society to be guiding or controlling those with the other 99 percent is as perilous as it is absurd.

The power of the intelligentsia is demonstrated not only by their ability to create a general climate of opinion that strikes fear into those who oppose their agenda but also by their ability to create a climate of opinion which richly rewards those political leaders whose decisions are consonant with the vision of the intelligentsia.”
― Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society

If you had to put your finger on one organizing principle, or grievance among all of the riots that continue to plague America (and will be increasing), it is class, not race.[1]  Putting aside election-year grandstanding and opportunism, and as a strawman, looking at BLM, antifa, and other groups strictly as anthropological distortions—they are symbolically rebelling against (or being incited to rebel against) what they believe (or were told) is racially based privilege, elitism, preferred access to opportunity, knowledge and social capital.  But race really isn’t the direct issue of contention; it is a proxy for class economic disparity. In this way, it does indeed resemble a kind of modern Bolshevism, but with an ironic twist: the Left has actually become the party of the rich and privileged billionaire donors, indoctrinated, guilt-ridden White college graduates, and a dependent client base among poor non-Whites. But more, race has become not a source of liberation for minorities, but turned around to become a weapon of hatred and revenge that is increasingly, and dangerously, attacking Whites with a vehemence and bigotry that is turning the Civil Rights Act on its head.

Those special privileges assumed to be shared by the modern Bolshevists are today not an automatic product of birth, or inherited wealth even.  Apart from the client base of poor non-Whites, these advantages come generally from ingenuity, work and discipline, but a particularly insidious and entrenched component comes from membership in a club.  A club of information, contacts, and favors.  A club of special language, intellectual abstraction, social expectations and most of all, a detachment from laboring classes.  It is membership in the elite university club, and by extension, a private society of preferred access to capital, resources and markets.   BLM wants to be part of the club, and in some ways it is indoctrinated by it, and owned by it, but it is merely the club’s foot soldiers, their ‘front line’ who are sacrificed for the elite intellectual leaders in the rear.  BLM will never actually be allowed into the club, but it will serve the club’s interests in gaining advantages through its “creative destruction” which creates pretext for deeper government and special interest intrusion into the economy and larger society.

This special sub-society of the truly elite carefully stores and guards its secrets and access, whether scientific, legal, medical or financial.  It protects and manages its network and rations its influences.  It is an inter-locking society as well, with members drawn from business and government who reinforce the society and its privilege.

Across America’s centers of power and influence, a highly concentrated group of “insiders” tend to the society’s well-being, its growth and power, and even, or especially, its ability to produce competitive advantages among key sectors, especially technology and finance, and with a strong inter-weaving of laws and policy that reinforce and sustain these advantages.  Universities produce the intellectual “code” and social capital that together create sharp and nearly impenetrable class differences.  These differences are vital to maintaining the political currency of elitism, social abstraction (over-population, global warming, terrorism and biological safety) and top-down public policy (abortion, eugenics, distancing, isolation).[2]

The tech oligarchs seek to dominate the world financially and technologically. The clerisy in turn aim to undermine traditional bourgeois values with progressive ideas about globalism, environmental sustainability, redefined gender roles, and the authority of experts. They inculcate these values through their “dominance over the institutions of higher learning and media, aided by the oligarchy’s control of information technology and the channels of culture.” Both groups perceive a powerful central government as essential to carrying out their political, social, and economic objectives, and thus the need for an unassailable, credentialed “expert class.”  Increasing social stratification across the globe—with a small technocracy and clerisy at the top and a large…dependent serf class at the bottom—represents a new, modern feudalism. What binds these two groups together (oligarchs being the feudal lords; thought leaders, the clerics) are shared views on globalism, cosmopolitanism, credentialism, and technocratic expertise. Academia is not only exclusivist, it is the least politically tolerant group in America. Ivy League schools enroll more students from households in the top 1 percent than the bottom 60 percent. The proportion of liberals to conservatives at top-rated colleges is at least 8 to 1 and sometimes 70 to 1. Less than 10 percent of faculty at leading law schools describe themselves as conservative. The university is now an “ideological reeducation camp.” It seems to be working: 40 percent of millennials favor suppressing speech deemed offensive to minorities. To get a glimpse of the future neo-feudalist America, one need look no further than California, where a small class of fabulously wealthy and interconnected people act as a new nobility, while a massive underclass of underemployed and unemployed are reliant on the state for survival. California’s level of inequality is greater than that of Mexico, and on par with Guatemala and Honduras. When adjusted for cost of living, California’s overall poverty rate is highest in the country. Eight million Californians live in poverty, including two million children. Almost half the children in the state are living close to the poverty line. The Bay Area is perhaps the worst offender: 76,000 millionaires and billionaires live in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, while 30 percent of Silicon Valley residents rely on public or private financial assistance. And lest one think this is only an American problem, [in] China, the top 1 percent of the population hold about one-third of the nation’s wealth, and about 300 people hold about 20 percent. There will soon be more Chinese billionaires than American ones. Meanwhile China employs artificial intelligence with sophisticated algorithms to regulate society and public opinion—you know, the same systems currently used to brainwash hundreds of thousands of “problematic” Uighurs in Xinjiang Province. China has created a massive surveillance state that monitors individual citizens’ social capital, and, as an extension, access to various goods and services. Beijing is selling these surveillance tools to other nations.[3]

This is hardly a new phenomenon, as intellectual and related social distinctions have been an inherent part of society hierarchies for centuries, in nearly all societies.  What is new is the immense growth of America’s government and corporate institutions, and their capture by an elite educated governing class.  America is governed in reality by a new elite, with a massive “slave” class spread out in the vast open spaces of the rest of the country.  A handful of cities, university affiliations and intellectual and technical networks seek to control the country and have largely succeeded.  America’s elitism is intellectual, conceptual, linguistic and behavioral, much more than it is strictly financial, or even propertied, or especially, racial.  Some of it is merely symbolic; an image; a story; a carefully marketed illusion.  But it is an illusion that still divides the country into a very sharp differences of class and privilege.

Indeed, where would Barack Obama be without the one thing that made him stand apart and gave him cachet: his Columbia and Harvard degrees, and his University of Chicago Law school teaching bona fides; his claim to being a “constitutional scholar.”  The elite university is the essence of his identity.  And as Nietzsche points to, it is still an identity that thrives on its own consensus, its own insistence on a monotheism in belief, values and objectives.  It seeks to break down all others into a classless society, until there is no longer a rich garden of variety, of healthy competition and independence, but instead one group only—the obedient Hive.

Indeed, the current BLM riots have their effective intellectual base camp in several elite universities, especially Chicago.  But ironically it is a base camp that wants to maintain its borders and walls of protected privilege.  America’s working-class towns and small business may be burned and ransacked, its public spaces and even homes and churches threatened: but the elite university campuses like Harvard, Yale, Stanford and even Berkeley, are quiet, safe, tranquil and undisturbed.  How could that be?

For sure, the country’s colleges are hurting financially from reduced enrollment and the costs of altering their campuses into “ant farms” to control and direct student movement and behavior in the new biosecurity construct.  The massive student loan market—nearly $2 trillion dollars—is also a bubble threatening to burst any moment, while tuition of $80,000 a year at Chicago—the highest in the nation—is likely never going to return.  But the one thing keeping the haves from the have nots—information, knowledge and specific skills—is still being kept behind locked doors—doors that don’t open for everyone, and keep the US a sharply splintered society.  And elite intellectuals like it that way.

Tuition alone is the modern slave collar—decades of indebtedness that can’t be extinguished.  Paying money to build and grow your mind may be the ultimate insult to freedom—like charging for oxygen, sunlight and natural water.  These are all natural rights, natural resources and man’s natural privilege to procure as a free human being.  The modern elite university (and Silicon Valley Big Tech) wants instead to profit off of your own mental sovereignty, and take what is naturally yours, and keep you from it by way of their “admissions” game (as if you needed to be admitted to your own intellect), or as dribbled out in careful doses of “degrees” and diplomas.[4]  Police may imprison our body, but the modern university seeks to imprison your mind, by putting you in “education isolation” so you do not contaminate the ruling class and their privileged domain of specialized culture.  The university claims to offer its educational liberation to the under-privileged, the suppressed or disadvantaged.  What they really do is merely open the gate to a handful of the throng at its walls, in order to keep up the hope of salvation.  The rest are sent back to the educational plantations for the masses, and intellectually “quarantined” from the elite.  And now, before you enter either domain, you will be subject to new virus protocols and electronic “geofencing.” This alone turns the higher education calculus on its head: everyone inside the walls of academia may soon be stampeding to try and get out; or will they?  A new “Lord of the Flies” psychology is taking over many of our young adults, creating the welcome and the unwelcome, the safe and the unsafe, the right and the wrong, and of course the good and the bad.

Burning down small businesses, smashing windows of cars and clothing stores, threatening police officers, and looting consumer electronics and luxury goods aren’t going to create or deliver opportunity, or confer access to America’s power centers (and more is on the way).  Education—real, tangible education can.  But the access to information, laboratories, libraries, computers, tools, and the coaching and instruction that can activate their utility and extend them into social and economic networks, is controlled, metered, rationed, and restricted by an elite guard of university special interests safely retreated inside the walls of academic institutionalism—walls that seek to protect their privilege, contacts, intellectual property, and maintain the illusion that only some can qualify for the bestowing of elite higher education.  Community college for everyone?  Sure.  Yale for everyone?  That will take a new civil war (and yet the “community” college is the actual transformed, progressive manifestation of higher education; indeed, it is what “Yale” will eventually become).  The “borders” around this knowledge, information and privilege will eventually be torn down—and that terrifies the elite.  What to do?  Make the borders stronger, more pervasive: put them around an entire society and installed in the one place where they can be powerfully controlled: in the mind itself. 

Modern universities are selling the same product in the same ways for the last 200 years—a long, expensive medieval apprenticeship that is out of touch with the modern world, but its walls fortified and reinforced for self-preservation, self-dealing and self-worth. Robert Hanna, a philosophy Ph.D. from Yale, author and former university professor, escaped from the walled compound of institutionalism, and started “Philosophy Without Borders,” which challenges the elite notion that philosophical knowledge is somehow contained within and under the stewardship of academic faculty, when in fact it is within you, waiting to be cultivated in your own life as a “real” living philosopher, dealing with today’s tangible challenges.  If “BLM” wants to shake and disrupt the foundations of elitist control and enslavement, and seek “reparations” and justice, then its target is the walled compound of Harvard Square, not Times Square, nor the shopping village or town square.  It is the elite controlling campuses of the country’s intellectual complex at Yale, Chicago, Columbia, Stanford, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Brown, Berkeley, MIT, Caltech, Harvard, Northwestern, and others (like Oxford, Cambridge and the London School of Economics in the UK). These institutions create, guard and propagate the illusions of privilege and class and intellectual ownership—and charge for it, putting you in debtor’s prison.

The nation’s elite research universities are also hosting, indeed eagerly encouraging the transformation of the university campus into an effective “ant farm” of student social and behavioral engineering under the pretext of “biosecurity.”  No other universities are so intimately involved in this agenda as the “Ivy” and elite schools.  No campus culture embraces, propagates, and indeed creates the policies for a radical fundamentalist “Covidianism” more than the elite colleges.  These university administrations are obviously serving as program foot soldiers, and have abdicated their authority to a larger institutional network (e.g., the C.D.C., the Rockefeller and Gates foundations, and W.H.O.) that is “leading from behind,” with political pressure to act in lockstep. At the University of Chicago, for example, this political co-option has been especially formalized, and stems from mutual promises and favor among the Obama-Lightfoot-Sanders “triumvirate.” The University is also acting in lockstep with the Rockefeller Foundation, and certain agencies in law and intelligence.  This leaves students with an increasingly difficult but urgent choice: either submit to and comply with the university biosecurity “protocol” including the troubling “Health Pact” contract, along with personal tracing, tracking and “geofencing” or instead, reject the institutional abuse, and disregard for your own sovereignty and privacy, and walk away. At some point you have to learn how to say “No” and not merely line up at the campus sorting platform and be corralled, herded, traced and tracked (and eventually de-loused by “vaccination”).

This is where the basis of real inequality, corruption and division is hiding, and prospering, installed in its ivory tower.  It shackles all others with something far more dehumanizing than an entrapped body: an enslaved mind.

[1] Or rather, race and class are somewhat fungible, as “BLM” for example, is a claim of class victimization, through a racial narrative, as “White supremacy” is really more centered psychologically and linguistically, as “White privilege” vis-à-vis access to resources; preference for their distribution and title; and even putative utility and enjoyment of broad assets (suburban homes, transportation, luxury goods and education), labor markets and wages (higher minimum wages; broader re-distribution through tax) or membership in social groups, especially intellectual ones usually defined by elite education.  Meanwhile, it is a central cultural routine of higher education to sustain and propagate the racial-class dynamic, in part because it sustains a wide spectrum of economic objectives which include university enrollment velocity, funding, and the perpetuation of the Ph.D system.  See

[2] From a review of Joel Kotkin’s The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class, by Casey Chalk.

[3] Ibid

[4] See “The Social Dilemma,”

15 replies
  1. Tom
    Tom says:

    I hate using hippie terms since I detested those creatures back in the day, but this article blew me away with its well-written brilliance and sweeping succinctness. It’s basically a book that doesn’t need to be written because it’s all there in the article. Anyway, the way I see it; we are entering an age of overwhelming democratic tyranny wherein the state demolishes a certain percentage of private property rights, at the behest of so-called progressive elites, that could possibly protect “badthinkers” and give them an “equal opportunity” in the battle against the “goodthinkers”. The enabling foundation of all this, of course, has been the various pieces of “civil rights” legislation that force associations between people that are completely unnatural and non-instinctive. The only way to restore America to a free private society, as opposed to a democratic public and hence tyrannized society is to organize and convince people that government intrusion into private property, beyond the protection of life, is morally evil and totally unconstitutional.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      I wish I could agree. . .but such intrusions are totally constitutional. America never was a radical libertarian country. . .the Anti-Federalists told us what would happen- the Constitution, a blank check on power. Regulation of interstate commerce. The general welfare clause. No Bill of Rights for Commerce. A very high level jurist, possibly Learned Hand, remarked “The power to regulate business is unlimited.” This, in the land of limited government. From the anti-federalist view, USA and its Constitution was the land of unlimited government.

      Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution’s Shocking Alliance With Big Government Paperback – October 1, 1997
      by Kenneth W. Royce (Author), Boston T. Party (Author)
      4.5 out of 5 stars 57 ratings

      • TJ
        TJ says:

        Conclusion? The answer, from Constitution loving lawyers- is, The Constitution. The same Constitution that was royally skewered by the anti-federalists!

        Precedents for today’s lockdowns are ubiquitous [heard that word last night, decided on the spot to use it today]. Prohibition of alcohol, in the the freest country in all history. . . Coercive attendance laws of the “public schools” are a 12 year lockdown. That anyone could have endorsed Prohibition- morally or practically- says a lot about how little Americans care about freedom, and also shows the rarity of clear thought.

        If you put a major violation of rights into the Constitution, it’s still unconstitutional. . .therefore. . . An unlimited amount of double-talk, or worse- I call it psychotic stupidity. What to do with such folks? Lock them up, or lock them down? The schools are designed to make clear thought impossible- I’d blame them before blaming the American People.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      “I hate using hippie terms since I detested those creatures back in the day, but this article blew me away with its well-written brilliance and sweeping succinctness.”

      Couldn’t agree more. What a great article. Well reasoned and well written. I don’t take anything for granted these days in terms of reading quality writing online. We’re lucky to have TOO and TUR (The Unz Review), and it’s good to see TOO articles at TUR as well.

      Regarding the rest of your comment, though I disagree with some particulars I agree with the overall idea. However, the whole system would have to completely breakdown for anything to happen along the lines of what you wrote in the last sentence of your comment. Not to mention the fact that the host population, or, traditional Americans, as some refer to them, would have to learn how to defend themselves better than they seem to be doing lately.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      “As I sometimes put it, the U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.”
      —Joseph Sobran

  2. John
    John says:

    I wonder, though, whether Ivy League and other top universities are exempt from becoming controlled and ultimately controlled by BLM, Antifa, and the Left.

    In a sense they already are targets because look at their absurd affirmative action and LGBTQ programs and their renaming buildings that were named after so-called “racists.”

    Corporations have also bought in the anti-Whitey and LGBTQ craze. They are forced to give money to BLM and Antifa. Banks are forced to give mortgages to people who can’t afford to repay them.

    One wonders how long before these corporations and universities and their endowments come full under control of the Left and their fellow travelers.

    So far good Americans who are far stronger than the Left have put up with this nonsense. How long will that last?

  3. N. Joseph Potts
    N. Joseph Potts says:

    Having for decades considered myself a member of the (dissident) intelligentsia, I have now become a full-blown anti-intellectual.

  4. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    “If you had to put your finger on one organizing principle, or grievance among all of the riots that continue to plague America (and will be increasing), it is class, not race.”
    This is frankly rubbish. Jews, as a collection spread across the world’s choke-points, are the essential group. This whole piece (I spared myself the tedium of reading it all, let alone close reading) seems to have been written to avoid Jew issues. Perhaps MacDonald is senile?

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Quite obviously you have not made good on your repeated threats to depart from here altogether. Neither the staff of TOO nor any commenter would deny you the right to air your opinions here.

      Probably not speaking entirely for myself, I would prefer, that you not belittle KM again: at the very least until after you become one millionth as well-known as has he for his researched creativity.

      I too shall spare myself the tedium of not reading anything further following your handle.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      I don’t endorse your last sentence, and I can’t agree that “rubbish” is an entirely apt summation, but I think you are quite right to point to something being amiss here—and not just regarding the author’s failure to point to the Jews.

      All of Mr. (Ms.?) Solovyev’s articles thus far seem to suffer from tunnel vision, or put less censoriously, they have a hothouse quality about them—so at least it seems to me. Either he doesn’t see much beyond the specific dangers and depravities that characterize the Academy, or else he reflexively overstates their importance in the larger scheme of things, or both. Sometimes this mind-set shows itself as alarmism, other times as missing the essential point. The latter seems to be the case here.

      Of course, confusing one’s own pond with the ocean is a weakness all flesh is prone to, but I think we have been spoiled by the fact that KM most notably and several other contributors do a remarkably good job of maintaining a sense of due proportion, of keeping their eyes on the prize.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      Some think the Js are responsible for 95% of the decline of the white nations, others put the figure lower. However, whether it is 95% or 10%, it does not detract from any of the points in the article as they are all still valid, whoever is behind it all.

      I put Jewish influence lower than most commentators. In my view the Left are far higher in the pecking order than the Jews are. Jewish influence cannot be as high as some commentators believe, as demonstrated by the observation that whenever the British MSM make any current affairs program or news item about the Jewish-arab conflict in Israel, they always side with the arabs, and portray the Israelis as a wealthy elite stealing land from poor arabs. They NEVER show the size of arab lands next to Israeli land as this would suggest that the arabs already have plenty of land. This British MSM against Israel is not just mild bias, it is full-on and very consistent and noticeable. – All this anti-Israeli bias does not support the notion of Jewish control of the media.

      (And just as the Left instinctively side with the backward arabs against the civilised Israelis* in that conflict, so do the Republican voters in the US instinctively side with the other side – the ‘civilised custodians of the Holy Lands’ besieged by backward savages, and this is why the Right turn normies away from the Right by siding with the backward mslms).

      *A white foreigner can stay in one of the Israeli hotels without fear of kidnap, but would any TOO supporter of the Palestinians who went to that region dare stay in one of their hotels? Or would you arrange meetings with your Palestinian friends to take place in more civilised Israel?)

      The Jews are only able to push their agenda in those cases where the left are in unison with them. All the causes they Jews advocate to the detriment of the US or any white nation are also the causes of the left – open borders, attack the family, portray whites as evil and promote race mixing.

      When it comes to the Holocaust, the left just love this as it helps to portray whites who seek white interests as ‘evil Nazis’, so this is why the left let ((them)) get on with it and make films like Schindler’s list. But the Left will not let them make a film where the civilised Israelis are portrayed as superior to another race, where the other race is one that is clearly inferior and we all know it, as that would represent ‘superior are better than inferior’. The last such film was ‘Raid on Entebbe’ from decades ago.

  5. TJ
    TJ says:

    Soloviev is on the Jewish surname list. [avotaynu]

    Heart of Reality: Essays on Beauty, Love, and Ethics by V. S. Soloviev Indiana Edition

    Vladimir S. Soloviev (1853–1900), moral philosopher, social and literary critic, theologian, and poet, is considered one of Russia’s greatest philosophers. But Soloviev is relatively unknown in the West, despite his close association with Fyodor Dostoevsky, who modeled one of his most famous literary characters, Alyosha Karamazov, on Soloviev. In The Heart of Reality, Vladimir Wozniuk offers lucid translations, a substantive introduction, and careful annotations that make many of Soloviev’s writings accessible for the first time to an English-speaking audience. Soloviev worked tirelessly in the name of the mystical body of the Universal Church. The vast bulk of his writings can be construed as promoting, in one way or another, the cause of ecumenism. His essays also display the influence of Platonic and German Idealism and strands of Thomistic thinking. Wozniuk demonstrates the consistency of Soloviev’s biblically based thought on the subjects of aesthetics, love, and ethics, while at the same time clarifying Soloviev’s concept of vseedinstvo (the unity of spiritual and material), especially as applied to literature. Containing many previously untranslated essays, The Heart of Reality situates Soloviev more clearly in the mainstream of Western religious philosophy and Christian thought.

  6. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    Excellent article.
    “one need look no further than California, where a small class of fabulously wealthy and interconnected people act as a new nobility, while a massive underclass of underemployed and unemployed are reliant on the state for survival”

    The same scenario happened in S.Africa as is now taking place in the US over a period of decades, where a new elite takes over. In S.Africa, the the previous white elite was replaced by the current black elite, as a consequence of the white elites of the entire rest of the world ganging up on them for decades and ordering them to hand over control of their country that they had built up from nothing.

    The previous white elite in S Africa were clever, productive and honest people, where the rule of law was respected, and this enabled the nation to prosper. The wealth (the GDP that some despise) filtered through the entire nation, such that no-one starved. And neither did anyone lack access to the rule of law, a law that was not corrupt or abused by the judiciary, as those administering it applied the principles of justice, something that no longer happens in the ‘enlightened’ West, that nevertheless considers itself morally superior. So S Africa was a prosperous and successful country, and also generated huge profits for the banks and white elite, while also the poorest were still far wealthier and more protected from crime than the poor of all other African countries.

    Then a CORRUPT ELITE (black majority rule) replaced the productive, industrious and honest elite. Initially there were huge financial rewards for the new black elite as they pillaged the wealth (and much of the money taken is now held abroad including in the form of London properties). There was a HUGE RIVER of corrupt money to be had for the new elite for many years, until it began to dwindle as the economy gradually declined. But no country can function properly when the corrupt rule it, and when people are no longer appointed on merit but on political criteria, for example because they are black or have the right connections. S Africa is now at the stage of frequent power cuts, as quotas of black engineers must be employed regardless of competence. Who now wants to invest in S.Africa in a big project or farm or business knowing that it might be confiscated?

    So how did it all end up for the elites in S Africa when the new corrupt elite took over?

    – The new black elites did very well for a time, but gradually the cake began to shrink and in the end there will be almost nothing left, but the ones that did well have foreign bank accounts and houses in the West so they do not care.

    – For the outgoing white elites – the ones who arranged the process of transfer to take place – they did badly. The white politicians no longer have power, and none of the whites involved in the transition at the time had any increase in power at any stage – it was just a case of ever-dwindling white-elite power. And the Jews, the banks, and the multinationals – none of them make much any more, and they know they will make even less in future, and the important point is that it was obvious from the start that this would happen, obvious to the banks, to the Jews, to the politicians, to the multinationals – so this proves that the motive was NOT power or money, and that only motive left is that the movers and shakers were motivated by their personal inner politics – simply a dislike of rule by the superior, and strong urges to end the rule of the superior/better – even if it made them lose their own power and source of more wealth in the process.

    It is the same in the US – a new corrupt political elite of lower types (lefties) and Jews has simply taken over, which happened over many decades. It is actually the same elite that forced change on S.Africa. This elite took over due to certain factors (wealth, TV media, democracy) favouring the lefty section of the population to do well.

    The US will continue to produce vast wealth for the new corrupt elite for a while, especially as so much wealth arises from technology where it is easier to generate huge wealth in a short time without having to do much at all except write a set of computer programs (ebay, Twitter, Facebook, Google and Youtube are just computer programs, and not extra special ones either, except perhaps for Google) whereas in the past you had to actually make something to generate such wealth, such as cars or ships.

    But in the end the wealth of the elite will collapse or at least shrink drastically as in S Africa, simply because a corrupt country that promotes by race and invites over the 3rd world to join it cannot be as productive. You no longer get the best going to university, you get the wealthy and the connected going, as the article describes, and these are the decision makers, and they will make poor decisions, certainly not ones that are in the interests of the country.

    In the end, as John above suggests, the decline of the US and increasing corruption will adversely affect the wealth of the elites themselves (including multinationals and Jews and banks) and also affect their safety and quality of living, as it did in S.Africa.

    So in the end the banks and multinationals will be worse off as the economy shrinks – AND THEY KNOW IT but cannot help themselves from taking the country more leftwards, as the left tell them to do this, or they are actually run by the left themselves and want to do it. There is less money and profits to be had as the US becomes more like S.Africa. You can make more profits from order and wise rule than you can from anarchy and giving blacks power. And surely the elites know this, including the banks and multinationals and the Jews, and they also know that they will not be partaking in China’s success as the US declines, apart from the initial back handers for the few.

    As well as being worse off financially, the new white elites in the US are also busily giving themselves LESS POLITICAL POWER as they transfer it to other races, blacks in particular internally, but also the Chinese externally. They know this but simply cannot stop themselves, as their personal politics is stronger than their own self-interest, and their personal politics makes them want to bring down the US even if they suffer too.

    When S.Africa collapsed the wealthy white elite could easily flee to other white countries, but in the end this will not be an option for the current white elites if they destroy the entire West, and once day they could realise that their wealth only exists as long as we all honour the validity of the rows of digits on a bank’s computer as meaning something, whereas in reaility they are just numbers that can be changed to zero if the system collapses. So even the elites will eventually lose their wealth at a certain point if the banks collapse as the economy does, whereas this was never the case early on in white decline when the elite handed S Africa over to blacks and the white elite could themselves flee the chaos they caused. Andrew Joyce said similar once in that the elites in past centuries were tied to their own people and could not easily flee, so they were more committed to their own people’s survival.

Comments are closed.