#5 Part 1: Elite Theory

What if the power in our society is controlled not by a single individual, but by a select group of elites? In this thought-provoking episode, we explore Elite Theory and Power through the works of James Burnham and C. Wright Mills, diving into the foundations of power, the risks of speaking truth to power.

We also analyze the role of industrialization and class structure in granting access to power, examining the traditional scions of society and the grooming process for success in the elite, including preparatory classes, Ivy League institutions, and fraternities. Using the example of George Bush Sr. and George Bush Jr., we illustrate the Elite Theory of power. Furthermore, we delve into the Iron Law of Oligarchy and the implications of self-government being impossible, discussing the necessity of a managerial class and elite for societies to progress.

Finally, we shed light on the complexities of Elite Theory, democracy, and the shifting allegiances within power structures. We discuss the character traits that set elites apart from the ruled, the separate laws and norms they create to maintain power, and the idea that within the elite, there are substrata vying for top dog status. Listen in as we navigate this fascinating topic and uncover the intricacies of elite power and its impact on our society.

Twitter is @ThePanopticon84

Transcript

Speaker 1: Good afternoon. This is Nature's Gamble with the General Churchgoer. It is May 16th 2023. We are cellmates of the Panopticon. Today's topic is going to be Elite Theory Elite Theory on Power. We're going to focus on a couple authors, one being James Burnham, the other being C. Wright Mills, and then we'll bring us off potentially into other authors as well. So this is a continuation of our Power series. The last couple podcasts we have talked about what is power. We came up with a definition of power. We're still working on what the essence of power is. Perhaps we'll never figure this out, but this is a working definition which may change throughout the series. For sure we'll do at the end of the series we'll go back and look at what has changed from our perspective from then to now, or from now to then, if you will. Do you have any opening comments, churchgoer? 

Speaker 2: Yeah, i'm a little bothered by the recording issue we had in the Panopticon 2 plus 2 podcast, because now my primary uploads are slow, is what it's telling me. I think what happened was we were getting into some sensitive material and powers that be do not like that. They did not like that, so they've fucked our system, but let's hope this is going to work. Okay, you know what? 

Speaker 1: I mean Well, when you stand up to the elite or stand with the elite or speak truth to power it's always nature's gamble, did you like that? I was trying to work by name into it. It's always the gamble when you do such things. 

Speaker 2: You're such a star, I'm a sloppy poet. You're kind of like in the vein of Walt Whitman Henry. 

Speaker 1: Moore fellow. I think more in the vein of Walt Whitless, walt Dickless, walt Whitless and Walt Dickless. Well, the general Churchgoer doesn't like comedy, that's not like wittiness, doesn't like philosophy, just want us to go and listen to the preacher. 

Speaker 2: Right, yeah, they don't. You know Hoop and Holler, they don't stand out at all, they're just kind of there in the background. They're just the general Churchgoer, you know. But you do kind of them all together. You take note of them, because that oftentimes determine what church you will go to. You take note of the general Churchgoer at that particular church and you say, um, i don't know if I like the general Churchgoer in this facility, this church, let's try another one. Or you might say, yeah, i fit in with these folk, i like the general Churchgoer. 

Speaker 1: What would the general Churchgoer say about our previous host Queer? 

Speaker 2: You mean the preacher? 

Speaker 1: Well, the general Churchgoer seems that they would be in direct conflict with Queer. 

Speaker 2: Oh, definitely, definitely. However, the general Churchgoer is highly repressed. Yeah, sex for the general Churchgoer involves like eating a rye, like eating buttered toast. It's very essential to them. That's the limit. Yeah, you know what I mean. However, the organizers of the church, the preacher, the definitely that piano player, they're suckin' dick somewhere at some time. 

Speaker 1: So there's recessive, if not dominant, Queer in the general Churchgoer. 

Speaker 2: Possibly, yes, But they are so kind of disconnected to that They put it in something else, you know, like eating buttered toast. That's where all their Queer sensibility goes, or their you know sexuality at all. 

Speaker 1: What if the buttered toast is buttered with another man's penis? That is when Queer, that is when the general Churchgoer becomes Queer. Potentially No. 

Speaker 2: Well, the general Churchgoer is highly stimulated by what's the preacher, you know the priest or the performers in the production at the church on. Sunday or what have you. They're little. The general Churchgoer's little penis or clitoris is very buzz, a buzz while they're watching the production. You know that's one of the qualities about the preacher that the general Churchgoer tends to like about. You know they're transfixed. That's that. It goes back to that. What we talked about, the seductive aspect of power. 

Speaker 1: Right. 

Speaker 2: And the general Churchgoer wants to put that glossy penis of the preacher in the general Churchgoer's hand and play with it, look at it, admire it, but all the while they got to look at the eyes of the preacher too, because that's the seductive part, right. 

Speaker 1: And the preacher's in a robe, a nice silky robe. usually He's got a scarf around that robe. 

Speaker 2: He's exerting energy, he's sweating, he's hollering. 

Speaker 1: He slams the. Bible against the pulpit real hard. 

Speaker 2: Yeah, So there's a lot of simulation simulation there. There's a lot of gesticulations. You know neck veins sweating sweating. 

Speaker 1: The general Churchgoer's generally dancing. 

Speaker 2: Generally dancing, Orgyastic sort of energy ecstasy. So the general Churchgoer lives through the preacher's wild gesticulations and then goes home and masturbates while they're eating their buttered dust. 

Speaker 1: Sounds about right. 

Speaker 2: Yeah, what does the general Churchgoer wear usually? 

Speaker 1: Frumpy Levi's sometimes slacks Beige Beige slacks. Long sleeve shirt striped Right. 

Speaker 2: Sometimes the other game wears suit. And the general Churchgoer has like a no neck exposed kind of frilly if it's a female and very you know tight collar. if it's a male, Clogs The neck clogs. 

Speaker 1: Well, like leather clogs, if you could imagine, Like they're not wood clogs but just very un-stylish. 

Speaker 2: Right, No ornate like no brands. No, Yeah, they're like leather slippers indiscriminate really. 

Speaker 1: And short buzz haircut. Do they sing? Yes, because they've been working and haven't had time to shower. 

Speaker 2: What do you mean? What's the question? Do they sing? Oh, I think they stink. 

Speaker 1: I thought you said do they stink? Do they sing? Yes, but the music is horrible and their voices are horrible. 

Speaker 2: Their voices are muted, almost like whispers, because you know they can't get out of control. Yeah, they're shy, they can't sing with abandon. Some you get that one general Churchgoer. but they're no longer the general Churchgoer. if they stand out They become eccentric. They're the eccentric. 

Speaker 1: You get the one that ate them. It's always the same one that gets possessed by the devil or spirits, up front usually up front. 

Speaker 2: Up front, big hat. 

Speaker 1: But then starts shaking a lot and then falls back into the arms of other, usually the general Churchgoer. 

Speaker 2: Yeah, the general Churchgoer resents them trying to stand out Like only we only want the preacher to stand out. And we really want to stand out, but we're too afraid and repressed So no one else is going to. We won't allow that. 

Speaker 1: Perhaps the eccentric Churchgoer is. the difference is, you said the general Churchgoer goes home and masturbates, the eccentric Churchgoer is orgasing right there at the church when they're shaking and so they can't control themselves. So maybe that's why the general Churchgoer is upset because they've lost discipline. 

Speaker 2: The eccentric What unifies them all is the preacher's fucking all of them, regardless if you're the general Churchgoer or you're the eccentric men, women, boys and girls, the flock Yep. 

Speaker 1: He's a father. 

Speaker 2: Do you think he's you know that little clocker wood clocker thing, that instrument? Yes, Do you think he hits them in the head with that? 

Speaker 1: If they're sinners. 

Speaker 2: If they're dirty, if they're dirty. 

Speaker 1: So I think we've we've established the character, the attributes the persona of the general Churchgoer, even a little bit of the eccentric Churchgoer. 

Speaker 2: Yeah, they might make an appearance in the podcast later. 

Speaker 1: As long as they don't start shaking and eyes roll back and all that stuff during the podcast. 

Speaker 2: Yeah, or sing too loudly. 

Speaker 1: So elite theory, anything? anything else you want to open up with. I don't think we touched on elite theory yet. 

Speaker 2: The opening Well, you know, there's I'm still unclear about the elite theory seems to be incorporating not only the Machiavellians right, or Machiavelli and his descendants, philosophical descendants, but also Marxist theory, because Marxist theory has this top-down kind of structure, understanding of it, where the bourgeois, the aristocracy of the bourgeoisie is at the top, dominating and suppressing, controlling the proletariat. Then that's how power works. Then you've got someone like the power elite, c Wright Mills I'm not sure what category we can. To me he seems obviously his book's called The Power of Elite, the Power Elite, it seems to me, and I've read about half of it. 

Speaker 2: I've read it all before but just recently I read about half of it And it's definitely a hierarchical understanding of power, or that power is a hierarchy, but there's a lot of classifications and you know like rungs in that ladder, so to speak, whereas you know feudalism I guess you would probably speak to this there's a king and then the lords and all of that on down where there's like an ultimate power. C Wright Mills takes a more modern approach and says that well, in modern society it's like groups. It's not a king, it's groups. But I think that's more a function of or a result of industrialization. We'll get into that, but any other kind of? would you agree that Marxism is a form of elite theory? 

Speaker 1: Yes, i think so, And we have a podcast here in a couple of weeks, depending on how long this conversation lasts, where we'll focus on Marxist theory, but I definitely think it has the structure of a leitist theory. 

Speaker 2: I mean, and you could even clump in oligarchy or tyranny or authoritarian type government That might be. 

Speaker 1: I think that too. C I think in some to define elite theory is a minority, a belief or a theory that a minority of individuals rules the majority of individuals in society, and it's-. 

Speaker 1: And that power. I think that's the very basic definition is a small group rules a large group, and then depending on which theorist, then you can start adding layers to that. Some theorists believe, well, that is the inherent right, or there are certain characteristics within the small group, within this elite group, that these individuals have to be elite and therefore have the talent and the characteristics, the attributes to rule people, whereas the mass, the majority, who all they care about are basic things And even if they didn't, don't have the capabilities or the abilities or the personality traits to rule anyway. So I think that's, in some, what we mean, or at least what I mean, when we talk about elite theory Small group rule large group. Small group want to rule large group, large group want to be ruled, and each And there's characteristics for each that kind of push them to that position. 

Speaker 2: Well, to kind of use C Wright Mills to push back on that, he seems to suggest that it's less about the individual in the elite group than about the group itself that somehow fosters, you know, their grooms, their children through schools, select schools, select clubs, that it's more about the opportunity rather than the individual's own will or own intelligence or what have you Like. 

Speaker 2: It's not a characteristic about the individual that determines the elite, it's the elite as an entity, as a club, basically, that provides the opportunity. 

Speaker 2: You know that one time we talked about a very intelligent person should excel right To the top of their class, at least not school class, but what I mean, you know, class within the social structure, that if he's born or she's born in abject poverty, that with intelligence or with some innate gift, that they should be able to rise, if not to the top of their social class even higher. 

Speaker 2: And you know that sort of self-made man theory. And C Wright Mills says that's a misconception. And in fact it's not the fact that these elite people are special, it's that they are made, are given the opportunity through money, really through the fact that they all have huge amounts of money and they all come from the same schools, the same social strata. Now you can say, well, even within that small group of people who go all the way to the same schools and are groomed the same way, have the same amount of money, are all the top of the wealth, that there's hierarchy within that too, and that the most intelligent, most ambitious rise to the top of that, which would make more sense to me. 

Speaker 1: He establishes groups and one of those groups are, like the traditional scions of whatever culture we're talking about here, in this case the American culture. 

Speaker 1: But the selection of the elite he also alludes to is through the process of the Ivy Leagues and then within the Ivy Leagues there's even an upper class, if you would, of the upper class that are selected through these higher end fraternities. 

Speaker 1: You've heard of skull and bones and other things, and he said that these folks are set up even in preparatory classes, in high school pre-college, that these individuals are already set up for success or for transitioning to the elite or already in the elite. It's just transitioning and making it kind of an official process through these preparatory high schools, then the Ivy Leagues, then the fraternities. But there is a selection process and I think he acknowledges that these higher fraternities, using his structure, use to select these particular individuals. Now, a lot of it is who you are, what family you come from, but then I think he would even acknowledge that these families, although he may not have written about it in detail, have certain, and the individuals within the families have certain characteristics that are required to be an elite in the first place. So I guess I'm saying there are individual selection criteria, but there's also the structure that is established that vets and procures or ensures that these selections are as accurate to the criteria as possible, if that makes sense. 

Speaker 2: Well, I mean, we could take George Bush Sr and George Bush Jr as an example. I believe both went to Yale, right, or one went to Harvard and then Yale. Both were in Skull and Bones. Arguably, George Sr is, on another, a higher level in terms of intelligence and ambition. And all of that While you lower level in terms of intelligence it would seem but yet they're on the same level in terms of elite. 

Speaker 2: In fact, they both became president. So one was a businessman the oil businessman in the 50s was a highly decorated pilot, very intelligent, very a director of the CIA. The other owned a baseball team, was given the governorship, i would say, and was given the presidency too, meaning George W. So they're both members of the elite. Now, whatever their power was within the elite we could talk about, did George Bush Sr have more of a power position overall than his son? probably, and that was probably based on his natural characteristics, but also because of the he was kind of. Now this is what's interesting to me how far back do these? 

Speaker 2: families go in terms of see right Mills talks about, after the Civil War that really disrupted the power makeup And it allowed for industrialists, capitalists, captains of industries and financiers and bankers all to rise to the top and oust that aristocracy that had been in the country for pre-Antebellum period for so long. The Southern plantation owners, the old school blue blood money up in the East Coast, that all that aristocracy, which was based more on family and private wealth and property and all of that kind of waned as the captains of industry came up. So I'm just curious yeah, he talks about that. These families didn't necessarily weren't? we're not talking 500 years of this pedigree. In fact, the power elite he's talking about in the he's writing this in the 50s all come, most of them come from I would say the majority come from industrial corporate pedigree, the families who made billions, like the Carnegie's, the JP Morgan's. Prescott Bush, i guess, was part of that. That's the grandfather of the Bushes. You know they're Nouveau-Riche, not aristocracy. 

Speaker 1: I think so, but I think, see, go ahead. See, Wright Mills would agree with, or as in concurrence with the other elitist theories that the elite do rule, as opposed to a kind of the more democratic view of the people rule, And I think any elitist theorist would say just the opposite. 

Speaker 1: I think, when we start separating the elitist theories, it's just how the elite are selected, what mechanisms they use to rule and such and that's why it's going to be fun and interesting to get into these different see Wright Mills versus Machiavelli himself and Pareto and Michele's and others, which is the overall theories you know. To add that additional layer to the basic when I presented was that this is almost destiny and almost, you know, almost an absolute, and in fact we'll get into the iron law of oligarchy. 

Speaker 1: That we get into is that there's always going to be an oligarchy, which again goes back to what I was opening up with, is there's always going to be a small group, no matter what, where or what type of organization, whether it be a politics, whether it be a culture, whether it be a labor union or what have you that eventually, even if it starts off as kind of just an organic movement, eventually there'll be a small group that manages and rules the larger group, And it's the most efficient and best way, optimal way to do it. 

Speaker 2: And if you're, if you want to bring in the definition of power, definition of power that we talked about last time, which is the ability, one's ability to exert his or her will on other, on things, people as well but you say it more clearly What was your definition? again? 

Speaker 1: Oh, the power, the ability to impose one's will on people, places and things. 

Speaker 2: And things, and so an elite theory would we could further define that that the system is set up to facilitate the elite groups will, or the members within that group, the wills of the members in that group, to exert their power on the rest of the people and on the industries and on the government within that, within any given city or any given state. 

Speaker 1: Yeah, if I, if I could add, you know a little more for the iron law of oligarchy. This was established by political theorist, sociologist Robert Miesce, Italian. The iron law of oligarchy is built on that self government is impossible, organizations will always remain as what, as what I was just describing, and that within the organization there will always be an oligarchal or small group rule. So those are kind of the three principles of the iron law, oligarchy. And he, he presents examples that like, for example, he talks the democracy. 

Speaker 1: Democracy gets so big, countries get so big that it's impossible for you and I, as an example, just regular old folk, to participate in every single law, statute, etc, etc. That democracy requires of, or at least the government requires, and therefore we have representation that does that for us. And his argument is part of his argument is that sovereignty cannot be given away. If you once you give it away, then you're not sovereign anymore. That kind of. That kind of goes off into a different discussion, but it does fall in line with what he means by self government is impossible. And he also there's also other examples. It's not just, you know, political government, it's any organization that gets to a point where it's so big that it can't have 100% participation by 100% of the people involved in the organization. 

Speaker 1: It just becomes unrealistic and therefore it requires managers Go ahead Because there's too many people too many competing interests and too many people to conduct too many laws of that particular or to vote on particular laws, to discuss particular laws in that particular organization. 

Speaker 2: Yeah, i'm thinking of I'm just playing with the idea right now like Native American tribes right Did, were they all a garkical in structure, if you know? I don't know if you know or not. I mean, in my mind I think there's a select kind of elders group probably not all of the elders are part of that group who are making decisions and you know, deciding what to do. It's a select group and that their decisions, the true, the rest of the tribe will go along with because of the authority of those power figures. No, what do you think? 

Speaker 1: Well, i think, i think that's a hard analogy because you know the Indians, most of them, were still kind of at the at the family, tribal and clan level, which, according to a lot of these theorists, you don't need a large bureaucracy quite yet. 

Speaker 1: So you just had the chief and then you had a small group of elders. But it really started in the family that the father if it's a patriarchal society was, was the law and on all things, whether it be religion, diet, you know, you name it the father, and then it then expanded to the tribes, the clans and then the tribes. 

Speaker 1: Now, if you're going to get to a level of civilization that requires a bureaucracy, like the Iroquois Federation, the Aztecs, the Mayans and others, the Egyptians, where the, the Egyptians, where the empire begins, become so big that not not only it requires more management than just the elders themselves, it requires a professional class, a managerial class to manage all the affairs of the state or the Federation, et cetera. And so I think that's the point, the civilization or the culture has to reach a certain point in its progress from kind of the nomadic or the tribal to the state or Federation, if you will. that inherently requires some sort of managerial class and then an elite within that managerial class as well. 

Speaker 2: So, like the Roman Republic, Roman Empire would fall in line with that Dig. Enough right. 

Speaker 1: Yeah, I think so. 

Speaker 2: Had a wealth had a very few wealthy at the top, and the rest were plebs. The Senate was made up of basically wealthy men or warriors, who were usually wealthy if they were generals. Greeks, too, they definitely had, although they're accredited for coming up with democracy. Kind of similar to the founding fathers is like, yeah, but a democracy of the within the elite group, basically, yeah, so Greeks still had slaves and all that. So, yeah, it wasn't like democracy on wholesale, but okay, okay. So oligarchy, though, implies groups that have shared interests and equal power, that make up the elite. 

Speaker 1: I don't know about equal power, but certainly equal prestige and equal function, because I think it's going back to the function and the requirement of a managerial class or even an elite class that requires that is required for a state or a civilization or a culture at a certain level to function. And then eventually, those those manage those elites, those who manage and lead the empire, or establishing separate norms, mores and rules and so forth, that at times, if not more of times than not, are in direct conflict than the people that are managing the populace of the multitude, et cetera. 

Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think C Wright Mills would follow that in line with what you're just saying, that there's a separate kind of even almost legal ramifications. There's a separate ethics, a separate, separate law for the elite than for the rest. In fact, when the system of government and the laws that are passed through government, he would say they're actually set up by the elite to either maintain their power or grow their power, minimize the, the majority of the population's power, you know, to keep themselves in power essentially, their lawyers are oftentimes either appointed to the judges or their their money, their wealth, allows them to evade persecution. That would definitely fall easily onto the, the head of a normal person. You know, a plebe or someone like you and I, that we, we don't. Our power is limited in that way. 

Speaker 1: Well, i think it. 

Speaker 2: Michelle. 

Speaker 1: I think Michelle's would add on to that Is that he calls them customary rights or privilege that the elite believe are inherent rights, just by the nature of their position, that they deserve these rights in many respects, because so you oftentimes you'll see reporters run up to John Kerry, who is like the, the climate change czar, or freaking Leonardo DiCaprio, another climate activist. If you're so concerned about climate, why are you taking your private jets adding to the, the, the carbon footprint? and John Kerry was simply say well, in order for me to and I'm paraphrasing, for us to reach our objectives with respect to climate change, i have to use this private jet to get from one meeting to the next. It's not simply not practical, but what he's really saying, or really what what's once you glean from what he's saying, is going back to what Michelle's is saying is it's the nature of his position, which he calls the customary right or the privilege of being an elite, of doing elite things requires, as you were stating, or was, characterization. 

Speaker 1: See, right Mills was stating is they get to do things outside at least the law that we fall. They get to do things. They live by their own rules. So perhaps they don't, they're not above the law. They just live by a different type of law And so it's almost inherent. It is not almost, it is inherent right, a customary right to do such things that seem contradictory to us, but they live by different laws. 

Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and C Ryan Mills says that they, you know, use rationalizations, justifications for their reason, why they're in their position, that, you know, try to coerce us into believing it, or, you know, give excuses or reasons to their behavior or their power and why they're maintaining the power or why the rules are different for them and for the rest of the folks. But that, at the heart of it, they're, just at the heart of it, it's about power and then maintaining their power. It's not that, you know, they came up from the bootstraps. 

Speaker 2: They always come up with narratives, too, to justify why they have so much wealth or power and influence, and usually it's that they come from humble beginnings or you know, there's always like a human interest narrative surrounding their prestige as a way to somehow humble them in our eyes or the people's eyes, but at the truth of it is that, like you said, they view themselves as honestly as the elite, that they're entitled to that. 

Speaker 1: But, like you were saying, is, they also control the power centers See right Mills mentions it as well where the elite, the powerly occupied, dominant positions in security, economics and politics and law Michelle says the same thing is in order the leadership gradually turns to autocracy, where they control money, the press, the police force and military. So combining those two theorists, basically, if you control everything, including the law, including all the things we've talked about, you essentially control culture. You can change those as well or reinterpret those to fit what you're trying to do, which is ultimately, as you stated, to maintain and grow your power. And so I think it would be interesting to talk about the characteristics of individuals, or at least within groups of elite, versus the ones who are ruled. 

Speaker 2: Well, one characteristic is they have more freedom. The elite does, and this was what what C right Mills says is. so he's talking about the corporate rich in this chapter. he goes what does freedom mean? right, whatever else it may mean, freedom means that you have the power to do what you want to do, when you want to do it and how you want to do it. And in American society, the power to do what you want, when you want and how you want requires money. Money provides power and power provides freedom. So there's, i guess, a character a kid this be applied to a characteristic of elites. Maybe you're talking more psychological characteristics, but this is a characteristic of them And since that, they get to do whatever they want because they have the money to do that. 

Speaker 1: I was talking more, more a little bit of psychology to it, but more at the individual level. But it's also a tendency for a elite as a group to have these. So Moscow, which is another elite. this theories from Italy as well. There's the certain characteristics for admittance to the elite, and one is you have to work hard, just like anyone else. Two is ambition. History is an intuition of individual and mass psychology, which we talked about a couple podcasts ago. Confidence, and then his last one was, which is kind of a separate is or you're born into it already. But even if that is the case, i think you still have, you still need all of the above. We talked about this last week or a couple weeks ago with respect to, you have to want power. You have to one want it to, you have to have the ability to manipulate and influence within whatever organization you're in, which goes to the intuition of individual and mass psychology. 

Speaker 1: You have to know yourself well, which goes into the confidence is a little bit as well. You have to know others, and then you have to know how you relate to others and how others relate to you. So you have to be almost a master psychologist when it comes to that as well, to influence people and organizations. And then you have to have confidence in yourself. I think you can be born an elite. If you lack those things above, like hard work, ambition, intuition, you may be in the elite by name, you still may be afforded some privilege, but you're not going to have any power. 

Speaker 2: Right. It's kind of like if you watch succession. It's about this huge Rupert Murdoch type guy who's aging and dying and he's trying to decide which of his family, which of his kids there's four of them will be the next in line for power. And they're all vying for it, manipulating, trying to sabotage each other, except one, one's kind of a clown, and he's just. They all look at him as a clown. He gets to go to the parties, he gets the privileges, he gets to go to the yacht, use the money he's got the money. 

Speaker 2: He doesn't really have to worry about anything but he's not going to get power, he's not going to be the one selected, so he's like an example of that. You can be born into it. You'll always be a member of the elite And, like we were talking about, there's substratta within the elite that are vying for top dog status, probably. 

Speaker 1: Is that what? 

Speaker 2: that guy would. 

Speaker 1: I would agree. But I think it's valvable though, because then you look at someone like George W Bush. I don't know if he was ever the one groomed. I thought it was maybe Jeb Bush. They were trying to groom for president, because George Bush you never. You know you, you know his history. Back in the day He was all on coke, he was the partier, he was all shucks dumb guy. But he fell into the presidency. 

Speaker 2: So you have to quite probably because of that very reason. It could be reasons you listed, he could have been the first Cheney and them. 

Speaker 1: Well, he might have been the most recent or modern prototype for what we have today in Biden. You know the dumb they you know. Basically a suit, an empty suit. Maybe George Bush was the modern prototype of okay, maybe that's. We don't want the smart guy in the office, we want the guy to just do what he's told. Get out there in front of the camera because he was stuttering, mumbling, stumbling all over the place. George Bush. 

Speaker 2: And he was reelected and it didn't seem to affect. 

Speaker 2: He was born into the elite but it appears by all in you know observation that he was a puppet for the higher up echelon. You know the very fact that he was in Florida on 911 reading to kids storybook hour while Cheney and the rest were in Washington in the Pentagon and were making all the decisions. Really speak to that you know. So yeah, i agree with this guy you're talking about who says or basically all of them elite theory that they're substrata within the elite groups themselves. 

Speaker 1: But it also coincides like if if, if that's the case, where it's best for the elite to have an empty suit, because then they can manipulate and all that kind of stuff, and then they also take the blame, as we've stated Yes Then it goes contrary to what we all thought America was all about, and that's democracy, where our vote counts and who we vote for makes those decisions. I think for the most part now most people believe or know that's an illusion, or am I making a guess there? 

Speaker 2: where I mean, I think any, I think you're making a stretch. Okay, cause I think for at least a lot of people have faith. 

Speaker 1: They believe that the president is the real man in charge is what you're saying. 

Speaker 2: Oh, yeah, okay, i think, more than you would expect, there's a lot of people who have hate faith in this, their ability, their full believers in the system. 

Speaker 1: Yeah. 

Speaker 2: Maybe not the majority, but a significant amount enough to be disconcerting. 

Speaker 1: Yeah. 

Speaker 2: Because they, you know I've talked to some people and they look at me like I'm insane if I bring something up like this and like I'm a conspiracy theorist, a nut bag or a, you know, it's the same thing. They say How could you? a conspiracies can't happen because the secret would get out. Well, the secret does get out. In the JFK in particular, they've been talking about it since day one almost that there's something fishy about this and witnesses have died. You know the whole thing, investigations being done, the secret gets out, but maybe not in the mainstream media outlets, you know. 

Speaker 1: Yeah. 

Speaker 2: It's the that goes to the idea that the if you can control communication I mean it's about controlling communication right, and then you can get propaganda going. All of that. Well, i think, i think well. 

Speaker 1: I mean, well, we're talking about elite theory, and then the elite theory is basically a contradiction to the rule by the people. 

Speaker 1: And then I was thinking then we were talking about well, this helps reinforce that in fact, the people do not rule. When you have, when you have an empty suit as a president, that tells you democracy is not real or at least is not working. And then you look at people like Senator Federman out of Pennsylvania, who had a massive stroke to barely talk. Now you could argue that you know the regime quote unquote fortified the election there, and perhaps they did. But you can't fortify millions and millions of tens of millions of votes. There has to be people who voted generally for Federman, knowing that he was in this state, and so it kind of I was trying to kind of tie it into what you were saying that people generally think these people make decisions. But then, now that I'm thinking, how could you vote for this person, knowing he's in this mental state and actually believing he's going to be able to do the things you want him to do, when he can't? he barely knows where he's at. 

Speaker 2: Well, i think, because the propaganda is so effective on their, on either side, you know it's actually having its effect, or is you? so the people who are voting and actually listening to their news outlets, that they listen to as pure propaganda, are believing it for the most part, or they're just voting Democrat, if they're Democrat, without even really caring about what's going on. you know, it's just I'm going to go vote Democrat or they don't vote. 

Speaker 1: So I think it works, like you said, a couple of ways here. One is the shaming technique, that the propaganda works. So when people are ragging on him about his, his mental state, the regime talking, the regime outlets other people call it the mainstream media would come out Oh, you are, you're ableist, you're an ableist, which is evidently a slur on people who make fun of people who are handicapped or what have you. And it ties into what we were saying with our other podcast, with this Michael Jackson personator who had it's not him that had the 46 prior arrest, it's his mental condition. So that's one way of looking at it. 

Speaker 1: But the other way is looking at it, which I kind of lean towards, is the people. Although we are just the people and perhaps we don't have the attributes to become the lead, we're still not stupid. So I think it goes back to what alluding to what you were saying is they know he just he doesn't have the capacity to lead in any sense, but they know that the people around him, or the people he works for he works for in DC are going to give them what they want in the long term, whatever that is, if that makes sense. So I think they. They are able, the people are able, to think through certain levels of nuance, understanding that individual has no power in reality or doesn't have the capacity in reality. The elite group that he's identifying with does, and I think people understand that Like I'd rather have him in there than Oz, dr Oz, who is not going to get me what I want, whatever, whatever that is. 

Speaker 2: Right And they go along party lines rather than individual candidate. 

Speaker 1: Yes. And for the elite is they still need that legitimacy, that they still fall in the myth of democracy or they still adhere to the myth of democracy, although that's going away? I think that they still need that legitimacy, that validation from the people. So when they act, when they institute policy, they're doing it on behalf of the people, not on their own selfish greed. 

Speaker 2: So, even buying, they want the. So the elite wants to feel that they're in public service, for example, not that they're just creating more wealth for themselves. 

Speaker 1: Now I think it goes back to what you're saying, that there's more people than I would think that believe in the system still, and perhaps the elite recognize that in order to get someone like Fetterman in or even President Biden in office, they need they still need that legitimacy. They still need legitimacy And in order to do that, you have to still get votes. So perhaps they did fortify the election for Biden by getting 10, let's say, 5 million votes, or whatever the amount of votes they needed to overcome Trump. 

Speaker 1: And let's say, let's say it was just let's say it was 1 million, well, assuming the rest of the votes were not, were not fortified, that's still 29 million votes that people submitted legitimately on behalf of Biden, and so that gives them enough legitimacy to fortify quote, unquote, fortify the election. Now, if he only had, let's say, trump had 29, biden had 29,. The regime fortified it enough, gave Biden the extra million to beat Trump. Well, legitimacy, if Biden only had 3 million to Trump's 29 million, then it's damn near impossible to fortify it, short of just nullifying the election. And then you lose legitimacy, then you, then you lose that legitimacy you get. It's harder to fortify when you only have 1 million compared to 29 million. So what I'm? 

Speaker 2: saying is, biden was close to that legitimately. You're regardless fortifying, still cheating, it's still rigging, it still disintegrates, and my is the integrity of the whole process anyways, and it should for the random voter who believes it. I don't know. I mean again, it goes back to the propaganda thing. They're being fed propaganda that either represses it or spins it, or I mean even the New York Times came out with that, they fortified it right. 

Speaker 1: Yep. 

Speaker 2: So they're actually telling the people that they're doing it, even their outlets, their news outlets that's assuming any of them read the New York Times, which I would say very few do. I just don't think people really care on the whole level whether or not their side cheats. They might not, they won't admit it to the majority of them, even to themselves. Probably. They're just so so much mind fucking going on with people, with themselves too, you know. But yeah, like if the, if the, the elite has to keep that illusion up, right, because I think people might start start losing faith in it. 

Speaker 2: But even if people lose faith in it, does that matter in the long run? Possibly, i mean it could. It could start causing third candidates coming up, or independence, another Trump, you know. I mean, maybe that is why Trump got elected, because the, the, a lot of the people who actually voted for Obama, voted for Trump, were pissed off at the government. They saw that it's all a fucking sham And voted for someone who they felt was an outsider. You know, if they, if they don't keep this illusion of integrity up, then it could maybe lead to more Trump types. 

Speaker 1: Yeah, i guess. I guess part of the enlightenment phase, or at least the informing phase, for for me and hopefully for others, is if the elite control all the social forces, to include the security apparatus, both domestic and foreign. Religion, education, science, technology, land, information, economics, economics, education, you name it all, including politics, and, as you were describing earlier, the political structure that being democracy is an elite structure that is going to be tailored for and to the advantage of the elite. And so then, why would you, as a populist, believe in something like that? 

Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree. Why would you? 

Speaker 1: So there's some theorists that it kind of goes back to well, if you want things to change, if you want the structure to change, it's going to have, the structure is going to have to crumble And there's only two ways about it, and that's from internal or external, kind of like we were talking about earlier, and then just hope and pray that whatever comes out on the other side is more sympathetic to what your beliefs are and what your virtues are. 

Speaker 1: But then even going deeper is, if the elite control everything, including culture, well then there was a past elite that shaped who we are and how we see, or at least how I see, what the world should be in the first place. And I guess what I would say is then I need someone or somebody like the previous elite not the current, but the previous that shaped who I am now in the first place, because I don't think it's safe to say that the current elite is not, don't have the same values, don't have the same culture and don't have the same in state in mind as the elite of before. 

Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and Seabright Mills talks about that. He talks about the old money, the aristocracy, who were the first generations here in the US. They were tied to the land that they owned and that they ruled, so they. 

Speaker 2: Generally they was family based, like more descendants, less about merit within the groups, less more about the family and their descendants, The old money, you know, aristocracy. They didn't necessarily have an industry that they were tied to, or the innovative, industrialized sort of a business oil, wasn't it? shifted then, though, to like what he calls the new Vareesh, or the bourgeois, the new bourgeois, new money who had some sort of like industry tied to them that allowed their wealth to grow and made it to where they took overpower. They became the elite, like the oil barons, the bankers, the financials the finance industry, the war profiteers, steel barons, railroads, all those guys. 

Speaker 2: So there are shifts in who becomes the elite, but the overall structure is still kind of there where once you get to that ultimate power, you get enough money. Then you have a say in what goes on. Now so you would want someone say that part again. You want someone who's from the, not from the elite or from. I'm confused by what you had said. 

Speaker 1: Okay, if we use the premise that the elite basically dictate and control everything within a culture to include the culture itself, the laws, the mores and mores, or laws, mores and laws of any particular culture, then as their slave or their subject, i would want an elite of a different time within America in the past time that was established. 

Speaker 1: Whenever I think of what I want America to be is basically rooted in what was conditioned in me in the first place. It's hard to put a date to maybe the I don't know the 40s, 1940s, 50s, the elite of that time or what have you. I would rather have them not saying that they had our best interests in mind. I think they had at least some of our interests in mind, versus what our elite are today. Because, as I stated earlier, at least in the other podcast, was the culture of old was built around the white middle class Protestant culture, right? It seems to me that the elite today are trying to liquidate that anyway, shape or form, and so I don't want an elite that is adverse to me as a human being. At least elite of old didn't see me that way, and so my concern with the elite today are they don't want to surround. They don't want me around The elite didn't care about you back then either. 

Speaker 1: Well, that's why I'm saying. That's why I'm saying they didn't care about me. I think they didn't have all my interests in mind, but I think they had more of my interest in mind than they do now. Me, or people like me back then were tied more to the elite of then, and vice versa, than they are now. The elite has switched their allegiance to these other groups and prioritize their, their wants and desires. They've become the protective class, whereas I am not anymore, or I'm losing that, and we could argue that too, because which we have that. The elite themselves are still look very much like me, but their values are different, where they come from are different, and so forth. So you're a white supremacist, i mean, if that's how you define it. I'm not a black supremacist. I can tell you that. I'm not a minority supremacist. I can tell you that. 

Speaker 2: Well, i mean it goes again. It doesn't matter what you want, the elites always going to do what they want. I mean you could say on the, you know, you probably would have had more privileges. I would say definitely back in the fifties, small town America, or even in a city, because you're white, because you're male, but even then your power still very limited or was. You would be sent to fight the wars for these rich war profit tiers and these corporations. You would be working, you know, for them, your labor would be extracted for them. You would be probably have to go work in a mine, do those types of menial labor jobs, but you would probably say even that was better than what it is now. 

Speaker 1: I'm assuming you know, going back into the myth of democracy, and I mean we could argue or at least talk on have we ever been? or even at what level of representation has our elite had? It could be different levels. So in theory, we're all kind of trying to jockey for supremacy, whether it's racial supremacy, but more so kind of into just selfish supremacy, and we hire, by voting, representatives to speak and vote and make a law on our behalf, which is, which is, if we want to use the word supreme, or advantageous, opportunistic, or give us privilege relative to other people within that same culture. 

Speaker 1: And so what I was saying is the elite as a whole still has to pander in many ways. To as long as we're falling under this democracy myth, they still have to pander, whether it's real or not, to people, to the people, and so there's still a relationship that is required on behalf of the elite with the people in order to provide that legitimacy that I was talking about earlier, whether it's through votes or through action, because it seems as though the current elite is giving a large amount of people. Now, whether you look at the woke, whether you look at minorities, other marginalized people, they're preferencing or privileging, if you want those people now over who they've been privileging over in the past, giving the carrot, giving it, you know, increasing the minorities or the previous marginalized people, pulling them up the hierarchy, not only farther up at past, who it's been in the past, which, you could argue, is the whites. So arguing to be pulled back up on that hierarchy is not, i don't think, an argument for white supremacy, necessarily. It's just argument for selfish desires and greed. 

Speaker 1: And so that's what I mean by looking for an elite who can pull the 50 million people that voted for Trump, as an example, up on that tier or on that hierarchy past other people, doesn't have to be white, it doesn't have its self and shared interest surpassing the interests of others. You could argue this self and shared interest of the majority of the populace over the smaller minority of the populace, that being the marginalized communities, and so forth. So, as part of a group, i personally, as an individual and a part of a group, i want to be pulled up on that hierarchy, if you will, and not pushed down. 

Speaker 1: And so I think, though voting you could argue that democracy doesn't work or is counter to reality, that the elites don't care, they still need us. I think there's an argument there that the elites still need us, need the people, not all of us, just a significant amount to give it legitimacy and maintain its power, because if you have a certain I don't know what that threshold is if you have, all the people hate you, it goes back to you know, don't look left, don't look right, look up, keeping us divided and at each other's throat. So we don't unify, so we don't organize, and so we don't select a leader that will overthrow the elite. And so I think it goes back to that, and that's what I mean by the elites still need a portion or significant amount of the people to maintain their status, to maintain their power and to expand their power. 

Speaker 2: I'm just having a hard time with the race. Part of it because I think even back in the 20s, 30s, 40s, there was still the elite, still didn't speak for these people, because the majority of people, the population, because there were huge, you know, labor issues between it's like more about working class and the elite is makes more sense to me than white versus minorities, versus the elite and that the elite speaks to you. 

Speaker 2: I mean because even when, let's say, the nation was thought to be mainly white, there were still still fractions within that white quote unquote population. There were still those who were even higher. You know, like the Jews were lower, considered lower, the white working classes were lower, which was the majority. The Catholics were viewed lower. You know, there's still this disparity of power to despite race, or you know. I mean, i just have a hard time thinking that whites at the time, because they were white, felt that they had with that the, their leaders and the elite were speaking more on their behalf And that the policies that they were making were were to benefit that those people, when in fact the policies they were creating were just, were probably worse back then for white people or the majority of the population. 

Speaker 1: I don't. 

Speaker 2: I mean, it is different now, though, And so I think you're right in the fact that they're using race in minorities versus the white majority, conservative versus liberal for a reason, and I don't know what it is, i don't know why. I mean we fall back on that same argument that they're trying to divide us. They're keeping us at each other's throats rather than at theirs, and I mean, could it be that more people of my, more minorities and more foreign influences getting involved in our government through the 60s on up to now, and that that's having an impact on the division of the country and how we see ourselves, that there's there's fractions within the elite because of race and because of culture and ethnicity? I'm not sure. 

Speaker 2: Well. 

Speaker 1: I'm not sure what you're saying with respect to race actually, Like, I mean, what are you confused about with the race piece And where does that fit into it? 

Speaker 2: Well, because you're saying, you know you're almost, you're almost arguing for a return to an elite perspective. I mean sorry, you're almost pushing for a return to a white where the whites were majority and that they had more privileged privileged treatment. That's what it, that's what it feels like. But when I'm saying is that even back then, when the majority whites did not get privileged treatment in respect with respect to the elites or to the main power players, they were still, their power was still limited, In fact, even more so. probably back back in this time you're talking about this sort of golden era for white people. I just don't think that ever existed. 

Speaker 1: No, it's. Mine is more of a description of what life is, not what I want necessarily. What I want is an elite that one aren't criminals and to have look at me as an advantage for their interest over others, regardless of race, regardless of economic. You know, cast, what have you? But that's a day. 

Speaker 1: I mean making. I mean, because that's an argument like that's what opponents of make America great again or basically stay, is what you want. To go back as to white supremacy, well, well, first of all, what's white supremacy? And in order to have white supremacy, you have to have the opposite. What's black supremacy or what's minority supremacy? So are we saying here if I'm not a believer in white supremacy, then I'm a believer in whatever the opposite of white supremacy is? 

Speaker 2: Well, how about just equality? 

Speaker 1: What? what? the past is a description of what again. What was Well? equality goes exactly against what the elite theory is saying. There is no such thing as elite equality There. There's no. 

Speaker 2: So there is Yeah, but what you're saying goes, what you're saying goes over over. 

Speaker 1: You know it's basically jockeying for your interests, your self interest. If that happens to be, if just because I'm white, or Protestants or single, or what have you. If you describe that as white supremacy, well then I must describe whatever the opposite is in my terms as well. So I mean white has nothing to do with it. If the government or elites were all black, let's say, i would still be wanting them to give me what I want, which requires selfish interests or, at the very least, representation over other Other representation out there, other people, other groups. I mean, that's what democracy is supposed to be. Is your battling for privilege supremacy, what have you over other groups? 

Speaker 2: Yeah, but I think, like I said, that's you're almost trying to fit into. You're trying to. I think you're too idealistic about the system in the first place, especially if you're looking at it with an elite perspective. Elite theory perspective is like They never are interested in you there. They weren't then, they're not going to be now. And you wanting an elite that's going to treat you better is not ever going to happen. It never did happen. 

Speaker 1: Well, i think you're wrong there, because I, just like I just described, the elite still need the people and therefore, whether they believe it or not, whether they care about my interests or not, is real relevant. The key is how my interest tie into their interests. So if you're trying to raise an army, as an example, and traditionally the folks who have been supplying the soldiers to your army are the folks from the south, generally white, etc, etc. I could care less about, or the elite should care less about, what their real interests are. It's I need them to go die for me. 

Speaker 1: So that applies to other parts of society as well. is they? the elite still need the people, or a significant amount of people, which requires, whether it's smoke and mirrors or charade and act, or what have you them to at the very least, not only act like they care about your interests, but give you some of you what your self interests are. I think that's how life works and how power works. is you're, even if you're a tyrant, you still need people around you to manage your empire, and then you need the people as a whole to give you legitimacy and not cut your head off. And so well, okay, keep you do you do have your. 

Speaker 2: You do have your elite. Then right now it's the Republican Party. Do they not speak to those same interests? 

Speaker 1: How? how is the Republican Party? Well, first of all, i don't. I don't recognize that there's a Republican Party. Now, there might be a serrated there that there is. I think there's one regime, and then you have actors or you have a. You have a play or drama that plays out, a soap opera within the elite that says I'm here to represent The, you know, the old dying, whatever conservative values, which the left calls white supremacy, what have you? But that I don't. I don't, i don't find that to be a. It's an elite. The McConnell's, the, you know, the high ranking officials within the quote unquote Republican Party are part of the regime, first and foremost. And so, if your assumption is true that the lead don't care about the people, why do they spend so much time trying to manipulate what we're thinking, how we think and so forth? so they still have a very vested interest in us, or else they wouldn't spend the time to manipulate us. 

Speaker 2: I mean, this is called. 

Speaker 1: Republican Party, even the Democratic Party, the Bernie Sanders. This is all a charade. This is attempt to manipulate us into thinking or keep us tied into the myth, because if the myth or this ideal that you're talking about crumbles, and the legitimacy that the regime stands on crumbles as well. And so what I'm saying is that acknowledging that there's a hierarchy from the very bottom all the way up, and then there's smaller hierarchies within the larger ones, is, if there, there's no need to care about the issues. Care about how you're going to attain power, and these are through these, these kind of social forces, the, these power centers that we've talked about religion, economics, education, etc. Etc. So, by gaining power to these organizations, these installations, is through action, it's not necessarily through representation, but again, if the elite finds it advantageous for a certain group or groups of people, they're going to use those people and give them some carrots as well along the way. 

Speaker 2: So you want carrots, you want that little special privilege of what? 

Speaker 1: Well, what I don't, what I don't want, is the elite that wants that, hates me, that would prefer me not around and if allowed, or allowed to do what it wants in whole, that they'll get just that. That's what I don't want. 

Speaker 2: But the elite the elites never wanted you around. They've, they've. Well, that's so. 

Speaker 1: In fact, this is where the point again this is why I disagree with you is the elites have no choice on the. the choice the elites have to deal with us one way or another. So if they didn't want us around back then, then why didn't they liquidate us back then, whenever back then was 1861, 1900, 1940 and so forth? 

Speaker 2: Say that again. Why didn't they liquidate us? 

Speaker 1: well, you just, you just said the elite never wanted us around. Why are they? we still here then? 

Speaker 2: And when you say wanted, Because they need to extract your, your labor. 

Speaker 1: So need us. 

Speaker 2: Yes, they do. That doesn't mean they want you there. 

Speaker 1: Well, that's what I'm saying it doesn't matter, that is, that you have to still feed, feed the dog somehow, some way. so we get up every morning and go, go do labor, labor things. And that goes back to the carrots, the privileges and so forth. 

Speaker 2: Yeah. 

Speaker 1: I don't know. 

Speaker 2: So so you're saying so, you're? I guess I'm confused. You want, what do you want? 

Speaker 1: I just told you, you want a little bit that it gives you care. I want elite that aren't That don't want me gone, that don't want that hate, that don't hate me and that won't want me gone. 

Speaker 2: And you feel the elite right now, once you go. 

Speaker 1: Yes. 

Speaker 2: Okay, and you base that on the cultural wars going on and that the media, the fact that white male, so you're going with the whole white male, cisgendered mansplaining, all of that outrage and stuff going on since Trump got elected, is a part of that or reflects that. 

Speaker 1: I'm saying that what the elite want now they have shifted their allegiance from one group to another, regardless of race, but in particular, specifically about race. just because it's a marginal, it's about race and it's about more so, marginalization, minority groups, giving them what they want, giving them protected, protected status versus who it used to be in the past. 

Speaker 1: Which was generally the middle class majority, generally the middle class majority, the father, you go back. Yes, it was so white, but today, i would argue it's less so. And so it's about race. Race is a component of it, but it's about much, much more than just race. It's about moving, shifting from one group to another, because that group. 

Speaker 1: Go ahead. Go ahead, because the initial group that the one that they've turned away from you could argue, it's the one who voted, the ones who voted for Trump of all races and all social statuses towards more of the marginalized groups, whether it be people of color or everything that falls under that, under the LGBTQSI plus range. now Is that they've thrown this poll. 

Speaker 2: And do you think that was because Trump got elected, or was that in the cards before even Trump? 

Speaker 1: I think it was in the cards before, but at a slower tempo, i think. Brexit, as we discussed a week ago or a couple weeks ago, brexit- The election of Trump and other populist uprisings, if you will, was a warning. 

Speaker 2: What was that one called? 

Speaker 1: Occupy Wall Street. 

Speaker 2: I would say even the 2008 economic crisis. the Tea Party, because the Republicans voted the elite in and I would feel for a faction of the elite, with the Bushes and the Iraqi war, that was the Republicans, the Republican base, helping push that along. So you're saying the Brexit? what else? 

Speaker 1: Brexit as an Trump election was basically a signal to the elite that they needed to accelerate this plan. But in that day and age, just that. 

Speaker 2: White, middle class, traditional or less conservative Republicans. They still make up a huge component of the country. Why would you, why wouldn't you try to foster or have them return to the elite, to the move away from someone like Trump? rather than just wholesale get rid of them. 

Speaker 1: Well, I want to recharacterize what you're saying because again you're going back to the white middle class. It's not just the white, it's the middle class in general, I believe. But to answer your question is because that group has lost faith in you as the elite, whereas some of these other groups that you're talking about have not lost faith, or, if they even had lost faith, because the switch is amazing. You mentioned the Republican base. Used to be all about war and all that kind of stuff. Well, now it's the Democrat base. Instead of Iraq, it's Ukraine. 

Speaker 1: So, in my opinion, the elite know it's easy to manipulate us and it's easy to shift your allegiance from one group of people to another, even if that group of people the so-called liberals and revolutionaries, the Bernie Sanders of old, who, who questioned everything about the CIA and FBI now love them, is all you have to do is give them again, give them your allegiance. 

Speaker 1: Bow down, take a knee, wear your little thingies during Black Lives Matter, which is really a signal is we're with you. Now We're the new team and we're going to switch, and by even changing language or using language like white supremacy and Nazism and so forth, from a legit, from an elite perspective, something relatively new now. So they've switched their allegiance to these new groups that used to be marginalized and have flipped the hierarchy on its head. And this happens, and this has happened before in other countries and other states and other cultures. When the people get, and within armies themselves, when the people get uppity, they take the marginalized and make the marginalized the new, the new kings, the new lords or at least you know, let's just say the new lords. 

Speaker 2: Alexander did it with his army. 

Speaker 1: And his own people mutinied. He hired a bunch of Prussians I think it was made it his own like security force to stamp out the mutiny, or at least act as the force, the security force to stamp out the mutiny. The Turks Ottoman Turks hired Christians, the Husserians or something like that, who would keep their own people online And they were the most loyal because they were the most marginalized within the culture as well. So they would give them treats and so forth, and I think the United States is doing that. At least the United States elite are doing that now. 

Speaker 2: And where does the like hashtag me too come into play with this Like are they're coming for men? too, The one thing is with the me too. 

Speaker 1: It went it. They went after What I would consider regimeist instruments like Weinstein. He was Democrat, 100%, friends with the Clintons, charlie Rose and others. These were all most for the most part, non what many would consider conservative folks. So I don't that one was tricky. It was a way to purge the old guard within the regime, or at least within the entertainment propaganda area of the regime, and purge it of the old and replace it with the new, because they were for the most part again white, old, white men, Charlie. 

Speaker 2: Rose. 

Speaker 1: Weinstein? who else? who else was it? CB Leslie Moonbez, another white guy. Matt Lauer. Matt Lauer, who's another big one Another white guy. 

Speaker 2: So I mean it could. It could be that those are also warnings to everyone else in that society, or those, the celebrities and whatnot, the media, that we could come for you too, if you don't play ball, you know what I mean like you got to go along with the line, the party line, you got to do what we want, because they probably have information on all those motherfuckers, or they could target all of them just as easily if they, if they need to. So I could see where you're going with that. But on the other hand, too, it could be that they're trying to. You know, you talk about minorities. Women are generally viewed, i think, as a minority. You know what I mean When you talk about, like the 50s, 60s and all that patriarchal society. 

Speaker 2: So the hashtag me too could be part of that whole operation, is a way to. But I don't know. I just have a hard time thinking they, because in fact, i think the lines are more divided. In fact, i think the, the, the, the people that you feel the elite has abandoned, are growing stronger as a result of what they've done since 2016. I think they're getting. I don't know. 

Speaker 1: I mean I think. 

Speaker 2: I think people are well. Trump even says I don't know if you believe him or not. That he's, you know he's getting more and more his polls are showing really good. Of course, i don't really believe in polls. I mean, do you think more people are going to leaving the Democratic Party or more open to voting for Republican or libertarian independent as a result of what they're doing? Because I just have a hard time believing that they wouldn't, unless they're considering, like the future. 

Speaker 1: Okay, what's the? 

Speaker 2: demographic. Demographic outlook probability of what the population's going to look like in 50 years. Okay, well, let's go with those people. 

Speaker 1: Or you can just manipulate the future demographic by immigration, keep pumping in millions and millions of these aren't again, these aren't the white folks, these are brown, black, poor folks for the most part. So, if you're talking about demographics, if you're looking at the demographics, whether it be racial, whether it be poverty or I'm sorry economic demographics, et cetera, et cetera, instead of reading the tea leaves, you just create the tea leaves, which they have the power to do and are doing right now. 

Speaker 2: I mean, in one way you could say in Europe that's happened also. If you go along with, that argument Germany for example, gives free money to refugees for a very long time, like a lot of money monthly And there's a huge, almost like a, you would say, a Brexit type movement in Germany of usually the older white middle class or middle class who are outraged about it because the people don't have to work, they just get free money. And for what purpose? humanitarian is what it's under the guise of right. 

Speaker 2: It's humane, yeah, humane, but you're saying the greater agenda is or the hidden agenda is that they're trying to use the demographic makeup of the countries in traditionally white, middle class, west, the West right, you're saying that's a possibility. 

Speaker 1: They're changing yeah, they're changing the status quo, or what has been the status quo for quite some time, because this is their reaction to Brexit and to the Trump election? 

Speaker 1: Well, it's the acceleration of their reaction. As I told said earlier, i think this was part of the timeline, for has been part of the timeline since the current elite took control of as a significant power, and I don't know. I mean that's hard to determine because we mentioned see right Mills mentioned, didn't he say you said, the civil war when basically the agricultural elites were replaced by the industrial elite and then the industrial capitalist elites sometime in the early 1900s was replaced by the managerial elite. And you could argue now the managerial elite the managerial elite? 

Speaker 2: Are they like the corporate CEOs, the corporate heads, the financial industry? 

Speaker 1: The managerial elite are more so the groups within the large bureaucracy of this large and growing, fattening bureaucracy of the US government, but it also applies. I don't know how the CEOs of these corporations fit in, but it's more so the government and the and the tentacles of the government that I see as a managerial and I think James Burnin saw as the managerial elite. 

Speaker 2: See, right Mills, i think is more showing that it's the corporate heads of all those huge industries like whatever corporations in the financial industry working with the government and then also the military, that they're all part of it, they're all interconnected And they all make up the power elite. So that is kind of what you're saying the managerial classes, all those positions of power. In the positions in the industries that rule the people. 

Speaker 1: I would say more of a through the class, the managerial class, are separate from, like the, the business elite, but they work together. They have the same aims. They're interdependent on one another. But more you know and go back to on power is the state is starting to consume all the other kind of power centers. That was initially. They were separate although they shared the same aims. The state starting to consume even the business class or the business elite the academic elite The opposite. 

Speaker 1: Well, that's an argument to that's an argument to, but you know that if they share the same aims, i don't think it really matters for us as the people know. 

Speaker 2: More than anything, it appears to be more of a consolidation of power. As you see, the monopolies are more, worse and worse. now, businesses are merging, you know there was a report in one of the this book. State of the free press. All these mergers are happening. Privatization of water sources and you know, all these businesses merging are evidence that there's emerging also a business and government. Okay, you there. 

Speaker 1: I'm there. I'm there and I'm hearing nature's. 

Speaker 2: Did you okay? we're having serious, serious audio recording issues. Strangely enough, now that we're in the power elite section, we're getting into some good shit Many disturbances. in fact, there's a warning here that says recording nature's gambles has warnings. What's that? 

Speaker 1: mean I'm speaking warning misinformation. 

Speaker 2: Oh no, it says recording recording delayed. The fuck Weird. Life is weird. Mine says Warnings recording delayed. Wonder what that means. I wonder if that means like when it's fine, when we're done, we go back to listen to it and you're answering later. You know what I mean. 

Speaker 1: Like that, that our recordings won't be synced. Hello Yep. 

Speaker 2: What do you feel? 

Speaker 1: I feel, what do you think? I feel my voice will be heard? It might, just it might take a while to upload. 

Speaker 2: Okay, so the warnings, just maybe some glit like no big deal. 

Speaker 1: No, big deal. 

Speaker 2: Okay, all right, so let's continue, or maybe we should. We should wait till next week and continue this, because there's more I want to get into with the power elite. I want to get into the global power elite. So C Wright Mills in the power elite talks about America, the United States, and the global power elite talks more international, and so I want to see the differences there more, get more into the Machiavellians And yeah. So I think we need one more episode on this. What do you think? 

Speaker 1: All right, let's do it. Any closing comments. 

Speaker 2: Um, the glitch is fucked with me psychologically. Don't let it do that. 

Speaker 1: That's what they want you to do. They want, they want you to get confused. 

Speaker 2: Well, it worked Um, yeah, Yeah, yeah Yeah. 

Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah Yeah. 

Speaker 2: This week, anything you want to focus on. 

Speaker 1: I think we continue on with a couple more of these theorists. I want to get into a little bit. 

Speaker 2: Um. 

Speaker 1: They say they all say the same. Yeah, We can talk a little bit of Machiavelli Um the prince which you know, what do you do? I mean, these folks aren't. They may or may not be correct, there might be other ways or there might be other theories, but definitely there's. further we dive into it, the more it seems, the most realistic. I mean, they present a pretty good argument that there's always has been elite and there always will be. So I'm looking forward to the next week. Um, it'll be fun. 

Speaker 2: All right, well, until then. 

Speaker 1: Until then, I'm nature's gamble. You are the general churchgoer. See you next week.