The West's Dystopia: War, Fragmentation, and Perversity | Emmanuel Todd

Trump’s perversity is unfolding in the Middle East, NATO’s warmongering in Europe. [...] Such is our world as we approach 2026. The dislocation of the West takes the form of a ‘hierarchical fracture’.

» One of the fundamental concepts of the West’s defeat is nihilism.  «

The United States is giving up control of Russia and, I increasingly believe, of China. Blockaded by China for its imports of samarium, a rare earth element essential to military aeronautics, the United States can no longer dream of confronting China militarily. The rest of the world – India, Brazil, the Arab world, Africa – is taking advantage of this and slipping away. But the United States is turning vigorously against its European and East Asian ‘allies’ in a final effort at overexploitation and, it must be admitted, out of sheer spite. To escape their humiliation, to hide their weakness from the world and from themselves, they are punishing Europe. The Empire is devouring itself. This is the meaning of the tariffs and forced investments imposed by Trump on Europeans, who have become colonial subjects in a shrinking empire rather than partners. The era of liberal democracies standing in solidarity is over.

 

[...] Cutting the European continent in half economically was an act of suicidal madness. [...] The rage resulting from defeat is leading each country to turn against those weaker than itself in order to vent its resentment. The United States is turning against Europe and Japan. France is reactivating its conflict with Algeria, its former colony. There is no doubt that Germany, which, from Scholz to Merz, has agreed to obey the United States, will turn its humiliation against its weaker European partners. My own country, France, seems to me to be the most threatened.
 

[...] One of the interesting features of America today is that its leaders are finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between internal and external issues, despite MAGA’s attempt to stop immigration from the south with a wall. The army fires on boats leaving Venezuela, bombs Iran, enters the centres of Democratic cities in the United States, and sponsors the Israeli air force for an attack on Qatar, where there is a huge American base. Any science fiction reader will recognise in this disturbing list the beginnings of a descent into dystopia, that is, a negative world where power, fragmentation, hierarchy, violence, poverty and perversity intermingle.

 

So let us remain ourselves, outside America. Let us retain our perception of the inside and the outside, our sense of proportion, our contact with reality, our conception of what is right and beautiful. Let us not allow ourselves to be dragged into a headlong rush to war by our own European leaders, those privileged individuals lost in history, desperate at having been defeated, terrified at the idea of one day being judged by their peoples. And above all, above all, let us continue to reflect on the meaning of things.

Quoted from:
Emmanuel Todd (September 28, 2025)  - The dislocation of the West: what threatens us.

(from the preface to the 2025 Slovenian publication of La Défaite de l'Occident) 

Emmanuel Todd, one of the last phenotypical old-school French intellectuals, is a historian, sociologist, demographer, statistician, anthropologist and political scientist at the National Institute of Demographic Studies (INED) in Paris. A prominent critic of the US, globalization, and European integration, he is best known for predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union (La Chute Finale, 1976), After the Empire (2002) and his 2024 book The Defeat of the West. 

See also:

 Emmanuel Todd (January 11, 2024) - La Défaite de l'Occident (The Defeat of the West; Todd rejects an English edition).

The "Iron Law of Oligarchy" and the Delusion of Democracy | Neema Parvini

One of the primary issues with democracy is the "Iron Law of Oligarchy," as described by Robert Michels. Although democracy promises equality and freedom, an elite class inevitably holds power. Whether Professor Peabody, Sally Strawberry, or Pedro Orange is in office, an elite class persists. Even when one elite group is replaced by another, such as a shift from peas to strawberries, the system remains fundamentally unchanged. 

 

 Chuan Jianguo (特朗同志), Comrade Build the Nation, a.k.a. 

MAGA Traitor (MAGA 叛徒) and Genocide Don (种族灭绝唐). 

 

Michels' "Iron Law of Oligarchy" argues that the egalitarianism democracy promises is an illusion. Elites always emerge; even if the masses overthrow one, they soon create another. James Burnham, in "The Machiavellians," expands on this, asserting that any realistic political analysis must accept elites' inevitable dominance. This elite dominance reflects the Pareto principle, suggesting a natural 80/20 split between elites and society. 

» The oligarchy is a layer separated from the people. Sustained by privilege, wealth, speculation, and control of bureaucracy, it lacks a vital bond with the community. The elite directs the people's energy toward a common goal, takes risks alongside them, while the oligarchy does not. The oligarchy lives off the people's resources, manipulates them to maintain its position, and shields itself from any demand for responsibility it always avoids. Thus, the notion that the big fish eats the small one is unjust and mistaken, because the elite is the principle of life for a people, while the oligarchy is the principle of their decay. «

Francisco José Fernández-Cruz Sequera, 2025.

Plato ("The Republic," Book VI) and Aristotle ("Politics," Book IV) warned against direct majority rule, fearing tyranny of the majority and mob rule. In his "Discourses on Livy," Niccolò Machiavelli shared this view, citing the Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gaius, in 2nd-century BC Rome. Their land reforms to redistribute wealth from the aristocracy to the poor led to bloodshed and civil war. Machiavelli argued that the Gracchi erred in assuming the poor were less self-interested than the wealthy. By seeking the masses' approval, they fueled hatred between plebeians and the Senate, ultimately destroying the Roman Republic.

 

 

 Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto:

The Intractable Problem of Democracy.

 

» The heirs began to degenerate from their ancestors, and, abandoning virtuous deeds, thought that princes had nothing to do but surpass others in luxury, lasciviousness, and every other kind of pleasure. Thus, the prince, becoming hated, and fearing because of this hatred, turned to tyranny, and many of those who helped establish it became its enemies.

These, conspiring together, brought about its ruin. And so the cycle continues. «
Discourses on Livy, Book I, Chapter 2, Niccolò Machiavelli, 1531. 

Machiavelli described a cyclical pattern where democracy transitions to tyranny. A wise and just ruler, the "prince," leads initially, but his successor often indulges in luxury, resulting in tyranny. An aristocratic class overthrows this tyranny, establishing a new government, but these aristocrats also become corrupt, ushering in anarchy and renewed tyranny. Machiavelli proposed a mixed government—a republic—where monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy are institutionally represented. This form is more stable and enduring than pure democracies or oligarchies, as exemplified by the Spartan Republic, which lasted 800 years compared to shorter cycles elsewhere.

 

 

» A hundred men acting uniformly in concert, with a common understanding, will triumph

over a thousand men who are not in accord and can therefore be dealt with one by one. «
Gaetano Mosca, 1896.

Despite this mixed government, challenges persist. In the 18th century, David Hume identified factionalism as a major democratic flaw. He argued that people naturally form factions based on personal interests, often undermining the common good. Even trivial differences, as seen in ancient Greek factions or recent civil wars, can spark factionalism. Modern democracies still face factions driven by religion, politics, or personal rivalries.

 

» The more the Devil has, the more he wants to have. «

Engraving by Jacques Lagniet, 1657.

 
James Madison, in his "Federalist Paper No. 10," addressed factions, proposing two solutions: removing their causes or controlling their effects. Eliminating causes requires abolishing liberty, which is impractical and undesirable. Controlling effects is more feasible. Madison argued that large republics dilute factional harm through diverse interests, making domination by one faction harder and offering voters more choices, thus reducing corrupt candidates' influence. However, Madison's vision did not anticipate political parties, now central to modern politics, nor the impact of communication tools like radio, television, and the internet, which amplify factional organization and influence.

 

» Oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud. «
George Orwell, 1946.

 

Mancur Olson, in "The Logic of Collective Action," identified another issue: large groups with shared interests struggle to organize due to high costs, while smaller, organized special interest groups effectively influence policy, even against the majority's interests. These groups often secure their goals, disregarding the public’s benefit. 

 

» Sovereign is he who decides on the exception. «
Political Theology, Carl Schmitt, 1922.

 

For example, candidates Sunny Strawberry and Lucy Lemon, running for office, receive offers from special interest groups like the Peas, Aubergines, and Pears, seeking government funding or tax breaks. To win, Sunny might pledge favors to these groups, even if the broader population gains nothing. If she refuses, the groups may support Lucy, who offers similar deals. This system ensures special interest groups dominate policy, leaving the general population underrepresented.

 

» You great star! What would your happiness be had you not those for whom you shine! «
Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzsche, 1883.

 

The general public, lacking special interests, struggles to organize and advocate for their agenda. Consequently, their needs are often overlooked in favor of well-resourced lobbies. Madison's republic and modern democracies face significant challenges. Representatives often prioritize electoral success over the common good, and their policies may fail without consequence. These systemic issues pose serious problems for modern democracies, and while solutions are elusive, recognizing and addressing these flaws is crucial.

 

Reference:

Neema Parvini (2019)  - Elite Theory: Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto. (video)
Neema Parvini (2018)  - The Intractable Problem of Democracy. (video)

 

See also:

Neema Parvini (2022) - The Populist Delusion. 

Neema Parvini (2022) - The Liberal Political Theology.  

Ernst Jünger (1977) - The Forest Passage. (Der Waldgang) 

Imam Khomeini (1970) - Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist. (ولایت فقیه) 

 Mancur Olson (1965) - The Logic of Collective Action.

George Orwell (1946) - James Burnham and the Managerial Revolution. 

 James Burnham (1943) - The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom.

 Carl Schmitt (1922) - Political Theology. Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. (Politische Theologie)

 Robert Michels (1915) - Political parties; a sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy.

(Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie) 

Vilfredo Pareto (1916) - The Mind and Society. (Trattato di sociologia generale)  

Gaetano Mosca (1896) - The Ruling Class. (Elementi di scienza política)

 Gaetano Mosca (1896) - The Rulers and the Ruled.

Juan Donoso Cortés (1851) - Essays on Catholicism, Liberalism, and Socialism.

(Ensayo sobre el catolicismo, el liberalismo y el socialismo)

James Madison (1787)  - The Federalist Papers : No. 10. 

David Hume (1741) - Essay XXII: Of the Parties of Great Britain.

Niccolò Machiavelli (1531) - Discourses on Livy. (Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio) 

Aristotle (350 BCE) - Politics.
Plato (375 BCE) - The Republic.

 

了解你的敌人
Know your Enemies.

The Truth About American Freedom and Democracy | Shahid Bolsen

As an American, we grew up with a constant drumbeat telling us what a great country America is because it's so free and boasts so many freedoms. This is the ultimate example of a misconception: America, the land of the free. This phrase is completely meaningless. Ask an American what they mean by freedom. What do you mean by the freedom you have that others don’t? The average American citizen has less freedom than any random villager in Indonesia or Ghana or anywhere else in the Global South.

» What do you mean by the freedom you have that others don’t? «

What freedom are you even talking about? Most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. For many, missing even one paycheck means being thrown out onto the street. That’s the reality. You don’t just have one master in America when it comes to your slavery. We talk about debt slavery, wage slavery, and so on. Your employer is your master. Your student loan officer is your master. Your landlord is your master. The credit card bureau is your master. Your mortgage loan officer is your master. Your insurance adjuster, your Health Maintenance Organization, the Internal Revenue Service, your credit card company—they are all your masters. In America, you are a slave with many masters, and they all have their chains on you, each with their own lash to use on your back. So what freedom do you have?

 

» In America, you are a slave with many masters. «

You have more laws and regulations in America than in any other country in the world. The average American's daily life is governed, influenced, restricted, or determined by tens of thousands of laws and regulations—upwards of 50,000 to 100,000 rules at the municipal, state, and federal levels—not to mention the rules imposed by your employer. Most of these rules exist under the pretense of making society better and protecting you, but the truth, known by any American who is paying attention, is that these rules exist primarily to generate revenue for the enforcing bodies through fines and fees. That’s the real purpose behind most of these regulations. It's not about health, safety, or security; it is just about making money off you.

And in this so-called great democratic country, you have no say in how any of that money is spent. You have no say in how the funds collected from you are utilized. So I ask again: what freedom do you really have? What freedom is so special and unique? Honestly, none. Zero. There are no freedoms you have in America, that are not available elsewhere. And there are freedoms elsewhere that you do not have in America. But they constantly tell you how free you are, implying that every other country is an oppressive tyranny where no one can do anything. 

 

» And there are freedoms elsewhere that you do not have in America. «

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Americans never leave the country, so they don’t even know what life is like anywhere else. Western civilization has never truly believed in freedom as the highest value. That’s the reality they don’t want you to know. It’s just part of the sales pitch to convince you how wonderful your society is. If you trace back to the alleged philosophical roots of Western civilization in ancient Greece, the philosophers they tout as inspiration—Aristotle, Plato—did not subscribe to this belief in unqualified freedom. The true foundation of Western thought has always been more authoritarian and classist than liberal and democratic. They prioritized order and the security of the status quo over liberty and freedom. They always believed in power being held by the elite. If you actually read these philosophers, whether they are Greek, Enlightenment thinkers, or the so-called founding fathers, you will see the lineage of thought behind the modern Western power structure. They sell the public an idea of freedom, but anyone with common sense knows that you can’t base an organized society solely on liberty and the so-called sovereignty of the individual.

 

» The entire democratic mechanism is designed to marginalize the population. «

Anyone who thinks about it for more than five seconds realizes this. How long would such a society even last? But the government and the power structure don’t even respect the population enough to tell you that. They don’t want you to understand the real system you live in. Instead, they tell you how free you are and indulge your fantasies because they perceive you as childlike. That’s why they don’t educate people properly. The level of idiocy imposed upon the public in America is astronomical. You might point to the freedom to criticize the government or to protest. But they only grant you the freedom to protest in a 'democracy' when they aren’t actually providing you with democracy. Think about it: why would you need to go out into the streets to demand change if you have a functioning democracy? If political mechanisms exist to meet your demands, why protest? Because your government ignores you. That’s why. Your freedom to protest and to criticize the government just means you have the freedom not to be listened to. In fact, democracies have perfected the exclusion of the population from policy-making decisions. The entire democratic mechanism is designed to marginalize the population.

 » Anyone who thinks about it for more than five seconds realizes this. «

Right now, they have you focused on the election, thinking about who will win, who to vote for, or who to vote against, while real power is completely removed from that process. They have distracted you from where real power lies because they have convinced you how free and democratic your society is, which, in practical terms, means you have no power whatsoever. You have no voice. That is why it doesn’t matter when you protest in the street; it matters no more than casting a vote in a ballot box. Both actions hold equal significance regarding policy outcomes. It starts from the misconception that your so-called civilization ever believed in freedom, liberty, and democracy. Those who rule over you never believed in that for a moment. What you have is the system they intended you to have—a system where power is held by the elite and the population is completely disempowered.

Quoted from:
Shahid Bolsen (October 26, 2024) - They Never Intended For You To Be Free. (video)

 

 What a spectacle.

The Sixth Wave and 2032.95 | Martin Armstrong

Here is the Economic Confidence Model at the very high end to all the questions about how high up the fractal structure can be defined.

 Martin Armstrong's Fractal Design of Time.

We are in the grand Public Wave overall that peaks in 2032.95. This is the equivalent of the wave that picked the Peak of Rome in 175 AD. So here, too, this is a wave where the government will fight very hard to hold control, for that is the dominant 309.6 character, while the final wave on the next fractal level is a Private Wave of 51.6 years. This is the people fighting back as they lose confidence in the government. The two forces are at war right now. The worse the environment becomes for the people, the more authoritarian governments will become. Each wave of 8.6 also alters back and forth between Public and Private.

This is why I warn it is time to try to reduce the amplitude by waking up. We achieved this briefly with the Age of Enlightenment. Government then fought back and reclaimed control. We replaced monarchy with ministers. Nothing changed otherwise. We will fight the good fight once again and seek to triumph with a new age of Enlightenment. Will we win? Who knows. But we have to try. What comes after 2032 is a private wave – the opportunity to reclaim our liberty once again. Here is that chart.

 

 » It has been propaganda that we live under a democracy. The people have no right to vote on critical issues.  

Republics historically are the most corrupt forms of government. «

The last Sixth Wave marked the peak of the Roman Empire. Every historian has drawn the line to mark the beginning of the Fall of Rome took place with the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 AD. Talk about almost getting to a new age, he sent an ambassador to China. This has been revealed by books from the Tang Dynasty. The East and West knew each other. Merchants ran the trade routes. This would have been the beginning of a major global economy back in 180 AD. Marcus’ death ended the golden age and expansion of the world economy. He was followed by his crazy son, Commodus. With the death of Commodus, the Praetorian Guard actually auctioned off the position of emperor to the highest bidder. Since he was just nuts, they got to rule Rome, and it went to the heads, to the point that corruption was in the open.

 

» Our idea of managing our political-social-economy. «

I have told the story of how I used to meet with people who wanted to run for President at the behest of those in the Republican Party. Then in 1999, I was asked to fly down to Texas to meet with George Bush, Jr. I was told that this was different. They had me meet with various potential candidates to vet them out and give my opinion if they could handle the job from understanding the global economy. So what was different with Bush, Jr., was the fact they told me he was “stupid.” I was shocked. I asked why would you want to make someone stupid president? I was told he had the “name.” That is when they asked me to be the chief economist in the White House. I declined, for our business was way too global for that. They told me the plan was to surround him with good people. That is how Cheney took the role of President and moved his office in the White House.

 » The 8.6 year frequency is fractal in nature and it may indeed 

work from different dates other than the formal dates we show on the ECM. «

I have been told similar traits with Obama. He was told they would let him play with the social stuff but leave everything else to them. The bureaucracy tasted power under Bush, and they were not about to let that go. Obama missed more than 60% of his daily security briefings. Biden is, at best, a part-time president who no one believes is truly running the nation because he simply is not mentally capable of doing so. This is the Praetorian Guard running the world.

Quoted from:
Martin A. Armstrong (June 4, 2024) - The Major Fractal Wave of the Economic Confidence Model & 2032.95.

 

» By no means try to use this for a individual market unless that market lines up with the ECM. «

The Destruction of the United States as we know it | Martin Armstrong

I have studied many forms of government. I have found that Republics have always crumbled to dust because they are the most corrupt form of government one can create. Even a Dictatorship or Monarchy is never so corrupt, for they are not suspectable to bribery as Republics. The criticism of Democracy has come from the Greek philosophers who saw the people as too stupid to make decisions. Our representatives look down upon us the same way. 

 

 » If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, 

you will succumb in every battle. «
Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

Many wanted to believe that the Roman Republic was a democracy. Yet, this democracy was a total facade, for it was always under aristocratic rule – not the common people. We too live in a facade where they tell us who is the enemy and we are expected to fight and die who their pleasure. We have no right to vote should we go to war against Russia or China. Rome was the same way. The people had no real rights in this regard.

Assuming they do not take up Alexander Soros’ bold implicate to assassinate Trump so he can flood the United States with his Open Society that disregards culture, religion, and ethics, the computer is forecasting a tumultuous post-2024 election in 2025. History repeats for human nature never changes. What we will see post-2024 is the destruction of the United States as we know it.

Quoted from:
Martin Armstrong (Mar 05, 2024) - The 2024 Election – Will Your Vote Even Matter? 

 

See also:

L. David Linsky (2023) - War and Regime Change soon in the US?

The Liberal Political Theology | Neema Parvini

From the realist perspective of Carl Schmitt, there is no structural difference between the liberal state, the communist state, and the fascist state — or indeed any other state. The only difference is the extent to which a regime may obscure the nature of its power or else genuinely buy into myths of neutrality. Viewed in this way, a state wedded to liberal democracy is as ‘totalitarian’ as any other since, by its very nature, it will be unable to tolerate any leaders who are not always already liberal democrats. 

 

 

» Liberalism is to freedom as anarchism is to anarchy. « 

Ernst Jünger, 1977.

 

Should such leaders rise, the stalwarts of liberal democracy will perceive them as ‘populists’, ‘fascists’, ‘threats to democracy’, and so on. The extent of free speech, free inquiry, free thought, and so on is a liberal delusion. In fact, the range of ‘allowable opinion’ is always exceedingly narrow and the liberal democratic state is marked by its intolerance and spectacular inability to imagine any worldview that is not its own. The dominance of liberal political theology is total. Schmitt would not have disagreed with Oswald Spengler who wrote in "The Decline of the West:"

"England, too, discovered the ideal of a Free Press, and discovered along with it that the press serves him who owns it. It does not spread ‘free’ opinion — it generates it. […] Without the reader’s observing it, the paper, and himself with it, changes masters. Here also money triumphs and forces the free spirits into its service. No tamer has his animals more under his power. Unleash the people as reader-mass and it will storm through the streets and hurl itself upon the target indicated, terrifying and breaking windows; a hint to the press-staff and it will become quiet and go home. The Press today is an army with carefully organized arms and branches, with journalists as officers, and readers as soldiers. But here, as in every army, the soldier obeys blindly, and war aims and operation-plans change without his knowledge. The reader neither knows, nor is allowed to know, the purposes for which he is used, nor even the role that he is to play. A more appalling caricature of freedom of thought cannot be imagined. Formerly a man did not dare to think freely. Now he dares, but cannot; his will to think is only a willingness to think to order, and this is what he feels as his liberty."

As Edward Bernays would go on to say these "are the invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. […] In some department of our daily lives, in which we imagine ourselves as free agents, we are ruled by dictators exercising great power." The point is that viewed from the outside, liberal democracy looks just as ‘totalitarian’ as any other regime even if it relies more on subtle persuasion, nudge techniques, and other psychological tricks than coercion to obtain its results.

Quoted from:
Neema Parvini (2022) - The Populist Delusion.

The Rulers and the Ruled | Gaetano Mosca

Among the constant facts and tendencies that are to be found in all political organisms, one is so obvious that it is apparent to the most casual eye. In all societies — from all societies that are very meagerly developed and have barely attained the dawnings of civilization, down to the most advanced and powerful societies — two classes of people appear — a class that rules and a class that is ruled.

 

[...] In reality the dominion of an organized minority, obeying a single impulse, over the unorganized majority is inevitable. The power of any minority is irresistible as against each single individual in the majority, who stands alone before the totality of the organized minority. A hundred men acting uniformly in concert, with a common understanding, will triumph over a thousand men who are not in accord and can therefore be dealt with one by one. Meanwhile it will be easier for the former to act in concert and have a mutual understanding simply because they are a hundred and not a thousand. It follows that the larger the political community, the smaller will the proportion of the governing minority to the governed majority be, and the more difficult will it be for the majority to organize for reaction against the minority.

"I can certainly call myself an anti-democrat, but I am not an anti-liberal;
indeed I am opposed to pure democracy precisely because I am a liberal.
I believe that the ruling class ought not to be monolithic and homogeneous
but ought to consist of elements which are diverse in regard to origin and
interests; when, instead, political power originates from a single source,
even if this be elections with universal suffrage, I regard it as dangerous
and liable to become oppressive. Democratic Jacobinism is an illiberal
doctrine precisely because it subordinates everything to a single force,
that of the so-called majority, on which it does not set any limits."

[...] What happens in other forms of government — namely, that an organized minority imposes its will on the disorganized majority — happens also and to perfection, whatever the appearances to the contrary, under the representative system. When we say that the voters ‘choose’ their representative, we are using a language that is very inexact. The truth is that the representative has himself elected by the voters, and, if that phrase should seem too inflexible and too harsh to fit some cases, we might qualify it by saying that his friends have him elected. In elections, as in all other manifestations of social life, those who have the will and, especially, the moral, intellectual and material means to force their will upon others take the lead over the others and command them.

[...] From our point of view there can be no antagonism between state and society. The state is to be looked upon merely as that part of society which performs the political function. Considered in this light, all questions touching interference or noninterference by the state come to assume a new aspect. Instead of asking what the limits of state activity ought to be, we try to find out what the best type of political organization is, which type, in other words, enables all the elements that have a political significance in a given society to be best utilized and specialized, best subjected to reciprocal control and to the principle of individual responsibility for the things that are done in the respective domains.

"Who says organization, says oligarchy. [...] Historical evolution mocks all the
prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy."
Robert Michels, 1911

[...] Any political organization is both voluntary and coercive at one and the same time — voluntary because it arises from the very nature of man, as was long ago noted by Aristotle, and coercive because it is a necessary fact, the human being finding himself unable to live otherwise. It is natural, therefore, and at the same time indispensable, that where there are men there should automatically be a society, and that when there is a society there should also be a state — that is to say, a minority that rules and a majority that is ruled by the ruling minority.

Quoted from:
Gaetano Mosca (1896) - The Ruling Class (Elementi di scienza política).

See also:

 Robert Michels (1915) - Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie).
Vilfredo Pareto (1916) - The Mind and Society (Trattato di sociologia generale).

“Wealth will not help a pilot to navigate his ship.”

“Out of Oligarchy arises Democracy”

Plato's Republic (Book VIII - 380 B.C.E.):

[...] What manner of government do you term oligarchy? 
A government resting on a valuation of property, in which the rich have power and the poor man is deprived of it. [...] Oligarchy is more or less exclusive; and they allow no one whose property falls below the amount fixed to have any share in the government. These changes in the constitution they effect by force of arms, if intimidation has not already done their work.

[...] How does the change from oligarchy into democracy arise?
Democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power. [...] That is the nature of democracy, whether the revolution has been effected by arms, or whether fear has caused the opposite party to withdraw. [...] The people, consisting of those who work with their own hands, when assembled, is the largest and most powerful class in a democracy.