The Rulers and the Ruled | Gaetano Mosca

Gaetano Mosca (1896) - 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).

The Magic of Money | Hjalmar Schacht

Hjalmar Schacht (1967) - Man needs money and cannot exist without it. The diabolic magic of money is here clearly visible. It has helped mankind to make immense strides in economic development, and has at the same time enslaved him. Regression to a money-less condition, or the modern method of exchange by means of money any kind of money, but still money - these are the alternatives. Money plays the role of the sorcerer's apprentice - created to serve a master who cannot now rid himself of his indispensable sprite. It is the master now. 

Hjalmar Schacht (1877 – 1970), President of the Reichsbank.

[...] Modern paper money, the banknote, is backed by its creator, the State. It is true that John Law, the inventor of paper money, recommended a kind of cover based on landed property, but Law too saw that the principal security for paper money lay in confidence in the government, which has legal control over all kinds of things which would provide security. The failure which put an end to Law's measures was not so much caused by a paper money inflation, as by a collapse of speculative activity in the shares of the overseas enterprises he had founded. The value of his paper money was not based on these public companies, but only on their relationship with the state. Law rightly recognised that money, if it does not consist of tangible metal, is purely an internal affair of the national state. This remains true today.

For this reason there is no such thing as international currency. It is unlikely that it will ever come into being. International money would have to be granted the status of legal tender in all countries in which it circulates. In all these countries it would have to be possible to settle every state and private obligation in this currency. Any institution controlling this. currency irrespective of whether it is a bank or a government department would dominate the world an unthinkable situation. Currency is the most nationalistic factor in political life. Every central bank responsible for issuing it is dependent on the government of the country by whose laws it was instituted, and which makes its notes legal tender in the country's home territory.

The granting of credit is unthinkable without a central bank. No central bank can be allowed to act against the government of the country. The government is over the central bank, and influences its policies. It is thus also in a position to inflate the currency by taking up too much credit with the central bank. No international central bank could countenance such a situation. It cannot permit one of the governments with which it is associated to misuse its facilities unless every other government is in agreement. This however is a condition which cannot be reconciled with the fight of all against all in time of economic difficulty. No state will surrender so much of its sovereignty that its partners or competitors are given the power to prescribe its economic and financial policies. Standing over and above central bank and government, both of which are led and administered by changing personalities, there is a higher, impersonal, and substantially necessary law: the stability, the constancy of value, of money. This higher law has in the past granted the central banks an autonomous, independent position. Governments change, and can pursue good or bad currency and credit policies according to whether or not it is to the advantage of the party in power. 

 

Schacht in an Allied internment camp, 1945.
"Dr. Schacht, you should come to America. We’ve lots of money and that’s real banking".
Schacht replied, "You should come to Berlin. We don’t have money. That’s real banking".

[...] Even if common currency is regarded and desired as the crowning achievement of the European Common Market, it would be wrong to leave the relationship between the government and the central bank out of account. [...] The closer the economic ties between various countries, the easier will it become to reach agreement on currency policies. Whether these will ultimately lead to a unitary currency will always depend on the extent to which the participants are prepared to surrender their sovereignty. Here in fact is the Common Market's chief problem.

Quotes from:
Hjalmar Schacht (1967) - The Magic of Money

Europe All Inclusive │ Václav Klaus & Jiří Weigl

[...] comparable to the "barbarian" invasions of
the ancient world that caused large-scale
regression in the development of Europe.

Václav Klaus & Jiří Weigl (Mar 03, 2017) - When the financial and economic crisis of 2008-2009 (probably the biggest in the last 80 years) ended in a stalemate and without the usual healthy recovery, the debt crisis of the hitherto relatively stable Eurozone countries began. Its recent culmination in Greece (again lacking any solution) was another big event. Two years ago we saw the start of the long-prepared and long-expected Ukrainian crisis, often wrongly (probably deliberately) interpreted as a Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Now we witness the migration crisis, which is being tragically underestimated and played down by the European elites. This latest crisis is shaking the continent in an unprecedented way.

All these crises, despite their differences, have a lot in common. Maybe that is why one replaces the other so easily. They serve as yet another example of the irresponsible activism of the political, media and intellectual elites of Europe and the entire West, bringing further limitations to human freedom and political democracy without allowing events to run their natural course.

We are strongly convinced that the current migration crisis is not just another one of the many so-called crises. The ongoing massive migration wave, which is unfortunately still far from reaching its peak, is comparable to the "barbarian" invasions of the ancient world that caused large-scale regression in the development of Europe which it took several centuries to overcome. Later, Europe successfully faced similar attempts by Arabs, Mongols, and Turks, often at the cost of immense suffering and losses. What we see today is a similarly fundamental challenge to the future of Europe.

Unlike in the past, it is unfortunately not clear whether today the will exists to defend ourselves. We lack a consensus on whether there is a need or reason to defend anything. Europe, and especially its "integrated" part, is riddled with hypocrisy, pseudo-humanism and other dubious concepts. The most dangerous of them are the currently fashionable, and ultimately suicidal, ideologies of multiculturalism and human-rightism. Such ideologies push millions of people towards resignation when it comes to concepts like home, motherland, nation and state. These ideologies promote the notion that migration is a human right, and that the right to migrate leads to further rights and entitlements including social welfare hand-outs for migrants. Last but not least, Europe is weakened by the leftist utopia of trying to transform a continent that was once proud of its past into an inefficient solidaristic state, turning its inhabitants from citizens into dependent clients.

The current European elites are behaving irresponsibly by defending and disseminating such ideas, regardless of whether they do so intentionally or not. The consequences of such activities do not yet fully and directly affect them or their families. Their leaders probably think that will never happen because their era will not be followed by infamous Biblical floods (not caused by excessive amounts of water this time, but instead by global warming.)

The Strange Death of Europe | Douglas Murray

Immigration, Identity, Islam

"Every so often, something is published which slices through the fog of confusion, obfuscation and the sheer dishonesty of public debate to illuminate one key fact about the world. Such a work is Douglas Murray's tremendous and shattering book, The Strange Death of Europe", wrote the British Daily Telegraph. 

The 2017 book by the British journalist and political commentator Douglas Murray is a highly personal account of a continent and culture caught in the act of suicide. Europe almost committed suicide by means of the two world wars, but managed to survive both times. Douglas Murray holds that a third suicide attempt is under way. The context is rather straightforward: Declining birth-rates, mass immigration and cultivated self-distrust and self-hatred have come together to make Europeans unable to argue for themselves and incapable of resisting their own comprehensive change as a society. The intellectual and political pollution of Europe’s 20th century is a dead weight on the spirit of Europe. Communism and Nazism between them crushed beliefs, tradition, and legitimacy. In reaction to the totalitarian monstrosities, the European Union has dismantled the nation-state; its abolition of borders, its shibboleth about the free movement of labor, and its regimentation of virtue leave the continent defenseless and all doors open for whoever cares to walk in.  

This book is not only an analysis of demographic and political realities, but also an eyewitness account of a continent in self-destruct mode. It includes reporting from across the entire continent, from the places where migrants land to the places they end up, from the people who appear to welcome them in to the places which cannot accept them. Told from this first-hand perspective, and backed with impressive research and evidence, the book addresses the disappointing failure of multiculturalism, Angela Merkel's U-turn on migration, the lack of repatriation and the Western fixation on guilt. Murray travels to Berlin, Paris, Scandinavia, Lampedusa and Greece to uncover the malaise at the very heart of the European culture, and to hear the stories of those who have arrived in Europe from far away. In each chapter he also takes a step back to look at the bigger issues which lie behind a continent's death-wish, answering the question of why anyone, let alone an entire civilization, would do this to themselves? 

Germany's Merkel Regime: The Wrecking Ball for Europe

He ends with two visions of Europe - one hopeful, one pessimistic - which paint a picture of Europe in crisis and offer a choice as to what, if anything, we can do next. What is to be done? For Murray, an atheist and homosexual, the answers are clear enough politically: a closing of borders, the proscribing of Sharia, the vigilant hunting down of terrorists, the encouragement of European women to have children (which, surprisingly, they are not as averse to as one might expect). The policies that will protect a civilization that has given the world so much are hardly a mystery. But where is the will?

It seems that no number of rapes, car bombings, Jewish-school massacres, and murdered priests will silence the cry of “racist” and “racial profiling” hurled at those who attempt to stem the flow of Muslim men and women into Europe. It will take a group of politicians and citizens of very stern character and strong faith to withstand the litany of shaming that has become the common reply in media and parliaments to those who would institute immigration reform. If that character is found wanting, Europe, as Bernard Lewis has predicted, will be Muslim by the end of the century. Douglas Murray’s book is another warning of that very real possibility. See also HERE