On Rulership & Elites

“History is a graveyard of aristocracies.” -Vilfredo Pareto

In order to actually create a new social order, an analysis of current society and its power structures is in order.

Mosca observed that all societies are ruled by a numerical minority. From the ancient priesthood of Mexico, to the “right honourable gentlemen” who haunt the corridors of Westminster, they have always been a feature of society. He named this minority the political class. This means that every society could be split between two social classes: the one who rules and the one which is ruled.

According to the modern democratic narrative, there is no longer any ruler class- there exists simply the People and the individuals these People elect to make changes for them (though to regard these elected individuals as “rulers” outright tends to chafe a little against the democratic narrative).

These elected individuals, however, share a lot more in common with the aristocratic rulers of old than they do with ordinary, elected rulers. Firstly, the children of these elected rulers often go on to become rulers themselves. This model is normally referred to as hereditary rulership.

Another feature is that nobody from outside this loose knit circle of rulers and heir apparents may enter into the game of rulership. One or two “populists” may occasionally succeed, but their careers are often short-lived or marred by controversy and relentless attacks from the organ of the “free press”. This is why systemic change via entry into democratic politics is largely ineffective. The system has been in place for far longer than any one person and has built up for itself an impressive immune system with which to repel outsiders.

If you doubt there is a structure of hereditary rulership suffused throughout Western democracy, take a few moments to peruse the list of political families in the UK and the US on Wikipedia. The scale of this phenomenon is quite eye-opening (these ruling families are also known to intermarry at a high rate). Of course, there is nothing conspiratorial about this observation. It’s all there for anyone to see.

In fact, until 1999, the UK House of Lords operated on a system of hereditary peerage. Many of these “political families” conveniently descend from the previous actual ruler class viz. the landed gentry (awkwardly, notice how few of them are Jewish! That bursts that theory). These gentry are in turn often descended from the Norman nobility who invaded England in 1066. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

In reality then, a ruler class, functioning along primarily hereditary lines or organisation of wealth and connections (which can be regarded as a sort of familial network) still thoroughly remains in place today, albeit in a rather more sophisticated and obfuscated way. After all, the democratic narrative would not tolerate open hereditary rule. When the Founding Fathers wrote “no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States“, all they did was ensure ruling dynasties would be able to operate without the use of formal titles.

The general remedy for the entrenchment of the elite class has historically been revolution; this however serves only to introduce more chaos into the system, providing thus further niches within power through which new constellations of elites may enter into the game and the whole system starts over- the fact that revolution means the turning of a wheel isn’t accidental.

Understanding Elite Theory

In Machiavelli’s handbook for rulers, The Prince, he delineates two types of rulers- the Lion and the Fox.

He argues that a prince, in order to be an effective ruler, must from time to time use the nature of both men and beasts wisely to ensure the stability of his regime. He ccompares the use of force and strength to the lion, and the use of guile and deception to the fox, and advises the prince to study them both.

Vilfredo Pareto, an Italian economist and sociologist whose main works centre around the study of wealth and power distribution in society and who formulated the Pareto efficiency (that 80% of the wealth is amassed by 20% of the population), introduced a social taxonomy that included six classes, Class I through Class VI. Class I corresponds to the adventurous “foxes” in Machiavelli, and Class II to the conservative “lions,” particularly in the governing elite. Perhaps we can layer these two terms over our modern political dichotomy of Conservative and Liberal.

The most effective form of government will ideally contain an equal mixture of both; lion-men (Conservatives), capable of decisive and forceful action; and fox-men (Liberals), who are imaginative, innovative, and unscrupulous. Note however that this is the ideal model of government whilst under the rule of a princeps. Without a wise and beneficent leader to reign in these disparate wings in- the sort of ruler of which the writings in The Prince are aimed at- the whole system begins to decay. Such regimes invariably either degenerate into ossified and rigid bureaucracies, or into weak regimes of bickering lawmongers and rhetoricians incapable of decisive and forceful action. Sound familiar?

Pareto’s ideas are quite apposite to our study here as he essentially pioneered Elite Theory. (Interestingly, regarding his work on economics, the inverse of a Pareto efficiency holds true and can be applied to many other areas and to most economic observations- economics being, at its most basic level the science of human interactions. Why this is so remains one of the strange quirks that permeate our universe and which we endeavour to understand via the study of Aeonics). Pareto also argued that democracy was an illusion and that a ruling class always emerged and enriched itself. Very perceptive fellow.

Pareto also taught that the majority of social action is driven by non-logical and non-rational motives, but that we strive to give, through our personal actions a “spurious logicality” to them.
Much of human history is an oscillation between conservatism and risk-taking behaviours within the ruling elite- observing a decline from lion mentality to that of the fox, as per Machiavelli. This invariably leads to social disaster, which results in the dial being set back to the rule of lions and a dominance of conservatism. This model bears similarity to Spengler’s own view of society prior to its entering into it’s Imperial civilizational phase, ruled over by Caesars. It is also at this turning point in a society that we find ourselves on the cusp of, incidentally.

So, we are beginning to see that this unique character of modern governments is nothing more than a thickly applied ideological gloss- in the same way that previous governments adorned masked their elite rulership with a gloss of “divine mandate” or a “will of the Proletariat/Volk”.

Rule With An Iron Claw

Perhaps then what needs to be done now is not to enact some movement opposed to the System and favouring armed insurrection as its weapon of choice. There will be plenty of outliers and extremists to try this method to death, but these movements rely on, among other things, a level of popular support. Its also not conducive to one’s mental health to live in a constant state of revolutionary paranoia. We are elitists; we know that we are not like others, that we strive to possess traits and qualities of which the average person simply has no comprehension. We cultivate these traits, pride ourselves on our master-morality and make no apologies for it. What we need to do now is start acting like the Dark Nobility which we are or which we indeed strive to become.

We believe in rule by those with the ability to lead and of “proper blood”. Hereditary monarchy provides as suitable a method as any, and in this way a prospective ruler can be prepared their entire life for the responsibilities of rulership, usually under the mentorship of one already qualified in doing so. Modern democratic propaganda likes to ascribe a flavour of tyranny to the idea of monarchy (no surprise, given monarchical rulership is the prime rival of the democratic option). However, a monarchy has no need for such top-down centralised economies and blunt methods of control. Dictators need to be in absolute control- their very raison d’etre is predicated on it. However they are in control thanks to the application of force not law. And thus all it takes for someone else to assume the mantle is to remove the current dictator- and thus there are always people trying to assassinate the Dictator.

Not so the Monarch. Eliminate him and you won’t get a coup backed by other opportunists who will help you seize power. Instead you’ll get a royal guard who will summarily dispatch you into small pieces and immediately put the next in line to the throne in charge. There is no need to manage the economy in the same way controlling dictators do either. The freer the markets, the freer the people- once the proper authority has been put in place and everyone is aware of it.