Time ▾ Price ▴ Research: Elite Theory

Showing posts with label Elite Theory. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 16, 2025

The Psychology of Revolution | Gustave Le Bon

In his 1913 analysis of The Psychology of Revolution, French physician and polymath Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931) argues that "political revolutions" are abrupt upheavals driven primarily by "affective and mystic elements" rather than "rational discourse," which he attributes to the "erosion of established traditions" and the "contagious spread of discontent."

"A revolution is effected from above, that is, by the leaders of the old regime; but when it is victorious it is rapidly vulgarised, because the people interferes and applies the only means in its power—violence. To destroy is within its scope; to reconstruct is beyond it. [...] The instinctive soul of the people is above all remarkable for its extreme mobility. Deceived by its own chimeras, it enthusiastically applauds its idols of a day, to overthrow them the next day in favour of others. No gods ever long survived its favour. This mobility renders the people credulous and ignorant at the same time.

» An individual in a crowd is a grain of sand, which the wind stirs up at will. «

Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd, 1896.

Le Bon argues that during political revolutions, individuals are driven more by inherent character traits than by intellect, with certain mentalities rising to prominence amid chaos:

[...] We have seen in all times apostles arise who have had an irresistible influence over the popular mind by cultivating its instincts and speaking its language. The people always follows them with enthusiasm, whether they be ignorant fanatics, hard and upright logicians, ferocious maniacs, or eloquent speakers. Whatever their aims, the leaders of the people are obliged to enter into reciprocity with it, to recognise its psychology, even if they do not share its sentiments. They must be in communion with it, or they will not act upon it.

» The people loves equality, but it respects titles and prestige. «

[...] When a political party triumphs, all the forces of interest, ambition, and hatred which parties contain become enlisted in its service, so that the triumph of a political revolution is always accompanied by a complete overthrow of all the institutions of a country. The chief result of a revolution is to sweep away the forces which held together the edifice of government, which was perhaps already tottering, and to substitute for them nothing but the will of the victors, which is for that reason all-powerful.

» Irresistible influence over the popular mind. «

[....] A revolution cannot change the soul of a people. This soul commands, and all must obey. It is for this reason that after a revolution the laws and institutions of a people are so often in contradiction with the interests of the new rulers, and also with the prescriptions of pure reason. But presently the laws are modified or abrogated, until they are more or less adapted to necessities. When the dogma which serves as the base of a revolution is victorious, the dissociated social elements which have resulted from the destruction of the old institutions become agglomerated under the action of new ideas."

Le Bon dissects the role of "the people" in such revolutions, distinguishing between the "conservative majority" and a "subversive minority" prone to violence. He argues that the masses are often manipulated and contribute mainly through destructive acts rather than constructive change:

"1. The Meaning of the Word 'People:' The term 'people' represents merely the superior portion of a nation. It comprises an elite: the nobility, clergy, magistrates, etc. By extension it was applied to the whole nation, and finally it has come to mean the most inferior elements of the population, the lower populace. We shall examine it in this last sense, and shall show what part the people plays in revolutions. From the political point of view the people may be considered in two aspects—as an army and as a crowd. As an organised army it plays the part of follower. As a crowd it is often revolutionary.

» To become the master of the people one must know how to dazzle it. «

2. How the People regards Revolutions: The revolutions are sometimes regarded with favour by the people, because they represent the triumph of its claims. But the people quickly becomes indifferent, and seeks only tranquility. It is always the people that suffers in revolutions, for it pays the cost in blood and poverty. It is for this reason that it often acclaims the return of a master.

"A revolution is effected from above, that is, by the leaders of the old regime; but when it is victorious it is rapidly vulgarised, because the people interferes and applies the only means in its power—violence. To destroy is within its scope; to reconstruct is beyond it.

» To destroy is within its scope; to reconstruct is beyond it. «

3. The Psychology of Revolutionary Crowds: The revolutionary crowd is formed of transitory elements, recruited from all classes, but chiefly from the instinctive and criminal categories. It is the crowd that acclaims or murders kings, and whose violence has always been the principal factor of revolutions. The psychology of revolutionary crowds shows us that they possess the ordinary mental characteristics of all crowds: contagion, unconsciousness, exaggerated sentiments, intolerance, etc. They are above all remarkable for their credulity and their docility towards their leaders.

4. The Part of the Leaders in Popular Movements: Although the people in rebellion generally begins by destroying everything, it soon grows weary of anarchy, and instinctively seeks a leader. It loves equality, but it respects titles and prestige. It was thus that all the great popular movements—those of the Reformation, the Revolution, etc.—were effected under the guidance of leaders.

We have seen in all times apostles arise who have had an irresistible influence over the popular mind by cultivating its instincts and speaking its language. The people always follows them with enthusiasm, whether they be ignorant fanatics, hard and upright logicians, ferocious maniacs, or eloquent speakers. Whatever their aims, the leaders of the people are obliged to enter into reciprocity with it, to recognise its psychology, even if they do not share its sentiments. They must be in communion with it, or they will not act upon it.

» The people always follows apostles with enthusiasm. «

[...] From the preceding considerations we may draw the following conclusions: (1) The people, by reason of its instinctive soul, accepts without discussion the ideas presented to it. (2) By reason of its sentimental soul it incarnates these ideas in leaders, to whom it often delegates the direction of its destinies. (3) By reason of its mobile soul it personifies all its sentiments in a fetich. To become the master of the people one must know how to dazzle it, be able to make it hope, and if necessary know how to deceive it. (4) Finally, the leader must possess prestige, speak in images, incessantly repeat the same ideas in different terms, and know how to act by persuasion and never by reasoning."

Le Bon further elaborates on the role of leaders and contagion in precipitating political revolutions, noting that discontent alone is insufficient without amplification through suggestion:

"The role of the leader in all revolutions is very considerable. He does not create the beliefs which provoke them, but he directs them. Without him they would often remain latent and ineffectual. Although the revolution which overthrew the Bourbon dynasty was ripe, we know from the memoirs of contemporaries that without the prestige of Lafayette it would probably have remained nothing but a local riot. Whenever a revolution breaks out in one point of a territory, we see similar revolutions breaking out in succession in all the countries which surround it, even when communication is difficult. It was thus that in 1848 all Europe was inflamed by the revolutionary conflagration, and was shaken by it in spite of the slowness and difficulty of communication."

Le Bon finally examines the outcomes of political revolutions as often involving the establishment of new power structures, persecutions, and limited social transformations:

"Contrary to what occurred in religious revolutions, political revolutions show us merely peoples adapting themselves to new conditions of existence. We have already seen that this adaptation is effected by means of slow successive evolutions, which render violent revolutions useless. [...] The results of political revolutions being merely displacements of wealth and the triumph of certain classes, we may conclude, contrary to the general opinion, that they have been without psychological significance. They strike the imagination because they are accompanied by much violence, and blood flows in streams.

» Contagion, unconsciousness, exaggerated sentiments, intolerance, etc. «

But when we look a little closer we soon find that the economic or social changes which result from them are very slight. The importance of political revolutions must not, however, be exaggerated. They sometimes cost a country very dear, although they change nothing in respect of its natural conditions. It is especially when they involve disastrous wars that their results are most pernicious."

Reference:

Gustave Le Bon (1913) - The Psychology of Revolution.

Saturday, August 23, 2025

The Game of Chess, and the Masters of the Board | The Honorable One

Chess can show you how the world is run, who is really in power, and how to break it. There are six types of people who run the modern world. First you need to understand who is at the bottom.

» Someday, someone will return and flip the board. «

Number one, the pawns—the masses. They follow orders, pay taxes, are predictable, and get sacrificed in each game. Without them, there is no game, no power, no state, no Suki system. They are the majority in every game, the foundation of all power, and yet they are too weak to realize it.

Number two, the rooks—the 20% who do 80% of the work: long hours, efficient, diligent, straight shooters. They are like machines. But they get stuck when routines change, they are not flexible enough, and they are useless on their own. They need number three:

» Everyone is afraid of the queen. «

The knights. For a long time they just sit. Then they leap over walls, surprising everyone. Their paths and creativity are unpredictable. They connect dots no one else connects. They are ahead of the curve and unplug first. They walk into uncharted terrain. But one wrong step, and they fall.

Knights need number four by their side: A good bishop to protect them. He is a quiet planner, the one who can wait. He is patient and prepared with a plan to strike months or years from now. But bishops are nothing compared to number five:

» It's their game. «

The queen can strike anytime, anywhere, in all directions. Everyone is afraid of the queen. Who are the queens of this world? Central Bankers, those who run the Suki agencies, the military—those who can take out anyone anytime anywhere. The rules and laws of pawns, knights, and bishops do not apply to them.

» Families that cannot be named. «

So why is number six, the king, in power, and not the queen? The king takes small steps in the back rows, unnoticed. Nobody fears him. He holds power through legacy. Queens wield power for decades; kings and their families hold it for centuries. Who are the kings of today's world? The families that cannot be named. They have trillions but don’t appear on Forbes lists. Money does not matter to them—they print it. Everyone plays chess, but they are the ones who provide the board. They decide how many fields the board has and how long the game will be played.

» We are the oil in your dressing, the flour in your bread, the meat on your dinner table. «

A largely unknown American family dynasty of 14 billionaires traces its fortune to William Wallace Cargill in 1865. The Cargill-MacMillan family business, Cargill Inc., became one of the world's largest private companies. With revenues of $177 billion, it controls 22% of US beef production, and its low public visibility stems from its dominance in the food supply chain, where it and three other firms handle 70–90% of the global grain trade.

It's their game, and it is hard to exit. But there is a way: You only win if you don't play. You stop paying, you stop playing. All the game is run by money—consumption, production, access, bureaucracy, taxes. If you stop the money flow, the game stops. Someday, someone who has stopped playing and walked away from the game will return and flip the board: Game over for all the kings and all their Suki helpers. Honor will come.

Reference:
The Grim (2025) - The Six Types of People who Run this World. (video)

“Suki,” Russian prison slang for traitors and bitches (сука/суки), denotes globalist elites, corporations, and establishment figures—who embody hypocrisy, manipulation, and betrayal. They uphold the “Suki system,” the oppressive order of financial dependency, surveillance, digital control, censorship, and cultural erosion. “The Grim” is the The Honorable One, and the adversary of the Suki. He stands for growth, reliability, integrity, independence, incorruptibility. He rejects victimhood, consumerism, culture of comfort, indulgence, entitlement, materialism, and resists the Suki system mentally, emotionally, financially and spiritually.

Sunday, August 17, 2025

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 are 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.