How to Rule the World: A Guide for the “Elite”

Davos. Bildebergers. Council on Foreign Relations. Deep State. Trilateral Commission. All these are combinations on the same Punnet square—the “elite” rumored to secretly run the world. Most people have heard of at least one of these groups, and some people take it to another level with wild conspiracy theories. “The Elite” was a major theme of the 2016 election and continues to be a flashpoint in populist, nationalist, and conservative political campaigns everywhere. But whichever label you choose the use to describe the idea of secret overlords running everything with the average person having little or no say, they all seem to share the same mindset. I wanted to explore this mindset and make some educated guesses as to what motivates such people and why they are so successful in their designs. The best way to do this is to look inside your own human nature, something the elites have in common with the average person, and imagine how you would behave if you had practically unlimited wealth, vast global knowledge and connections, invulnerability to most laws, and, above all, the one thing that motivates the elite more than anything—the fear of losing what you have. What would you do if you were in such a position, with practically unlimited resources yet with everything to lose? The following is my best guess at how I would behave if I was the archetypal soulless, remorseless, arrogant elitist who believes that what I want is always correct and justified.

 

The elites run on money. Without it, they lose their friends and their position. So the first component to being in the elite is being very wealthy. Wealth brings friends (if even for the wrong reasons). Friends mean influence, a network, and eventually status. If your friends are also wealthy, you can benefit symbiotically from their influence and network as well. The more you benefit, the wealthier you become, gaining you more friends, status, and so on. There is a ceiling though—the “old money” elites who are much more established than you and for much longer. Rise high enough in the ranks, and you have to start being careful or they’ll swat you.

 

But imagine you break through the ceiling somehow and you’re in the elite of the elite. You can travel anywhere in the world you want. You have a personal bodyguard detail as well as friends in the police wherever you go. When you travel, you do so on private jets, private ships, private everything, putting you out of the reach of the average prole with his problems and tendency to behave unpredictably. Your mission is to eliminate all risks in your life except the ones you want present, such as risky investments.

 

You’re out of the reach of most laws and governments with your connections and access to the best lawyers. On top of that, through business contract patronage and philanthropy, you can control government officials and influential NGOs. Even if you got arrested for an obvious public offense, chances are you can buy your way out of the justice system in most countries, or your friends can talk to the higher-ups.

 

You influence politicians to pass laws favorable to your interests, which generally means laws that help you acquire or protect assets. This could be in the form of complex financial laws or laws that make life difficult for competitor businesses. For example, if your company can’t afford a private jet, you can advocate for legislation that restricts all businesses’ ability to use private jets, in order to level the playing field. Maybe the messaging used in the passage of such a law centers on environmental concerns.

 

As the elite, you are a globalist. This means you believe in the slow dissolution of borders, nation-states, the eradication of nationalism, and a worldwide central government that you, conveniently, will either be a part of or be in favor with. All these pesky nation-states of people fighting for their own interests injects way too much risk into your plans. So you generously fund whichever political armies promise to eliminate patriotic instincts. One way to do this is to fund and advocate expanded powers for international alliances like the United Nations, European Union, NATO, and so on. The stronger these international bodies are, the more they can bring the behavior of nation-states into line with what you as “the elite” know is the path to peace (and a larger balance sheet). Liberal international institutionalism is your favorite ice cream flavor.

 

The problem is, those annoying nation-states resist threats to their sovereignty. Fortunately, there are many tools available in the political arsenal to weaken the national resolve of a population. Enough immigration will create chaos and social dissolution. When the dust settles, you’ll have a population that can be easily ruled. Or, you can go after the most basic unit of society—the family—by promoting cohabitation, devaluing marriage, making divorce easy, promoting abnormal and dysfunctional sexual behaviors, and instituting relentless political correctness against those who cling to the classical definition of family. People without stable families have a harder time becoming educated, self-sufficient adults who can organize and resist you, or who can at least compete for wealth. You need to muck up society with mass social confusion to prevent such personalities from forming in the first place.

 

Or you can go even further and simply try to decrease the size of the population to something more manageable. You don’t want war, because that would lead to the destruction of assets that you own or could acquire. Instead, stop the population from growing and then wait out the demographic downturn, especially since automation means fewer people will be needed to power the economy. Reduce population growth by promoting abortion and by promoting feminism, which drives a wedge between the sexes, thereby preventing procreation in long-term unions capable of raising functional adults. Of course, contraception is also a prominent weapon and must be ubiquitous in order to prevent births in the first place. Promote promiscuity and pornography so that humanity’s sexual urges are misfired in directions unproductive for the growth of a healthy, intelligent, well-adjusted population who would, again, be capable of resisting you. Of course, any religious institutions that defy these tactics need to be brought down to size. Use the media to give them a negative image (more on media influence later), especially among impressionable youth.

 

Note that these strategies should only be employed against countries that are causing you problems. The countries that produce the immigration waves needed to overwhelm the countries you are trying to dissolve or depress—don’t use these social tactics against them. You need them to keep cranking out large populations so that there are enough people to immigrate to the target countries. If, at some point, those nations also become a threat to your plans, you can simply pivot your laser beam of social chaos to them instead (or as well, depending on your funds). These tactics are guaranteed to succeed if allowed time to work.

 

Another thing you need to do, obviously, is disarm any population that could organize a resistance movement against global control, or against whichever country or group you are trying to use to supress the target population. Make it so that governments have a monopoly on weaponry (except for your own security detail and mercenaries around the world whom you can hire).

 

America in particular is the most difficult pocket of resistance to your globalist, elite ambitions. Americans stubbornly cling to their Bill of Rights, annoyingly protecting them from:

  • Attacks on the religious institutions you are trying to defeat in order to muck up the social gears of society (1st Amendment)
  • Attacks on their right to free speech, which allows the resistance to get their message out, draw media attention, and organize (1st Amendment)
  • Attacks on their ability to assemble freely, with which they can mount effective, public defenses before a watching world (1st Amendment)
  • Attacks on their right to defend themselves with arms (2nd Amendment)
  • Attacks on their freedom from exactly the kind of surveillance you need in order to preempt their activities (4th Amendment)
  • Attacks that corrupt their justice system, allowing it to be used by the “highest bidder” (5th Amendment)
  • Attacks on individual states’ ability to defy the central government (10th Amendment)

And many others. America’s Constitution is unique and is the political code that obstructs your goals more than anything else in government. You will never be able to rule the world unless you can get rid of America’s Constitution.

 

You also need loose governmental control of the global economy. Without it, the markets are too prone to fluctuation and your investments are at greater risk. Globalization is your best friend—create so much interdependence that no single component’s failure can sink the whole. Global wealth inequality too produces instability and volatility, so you need to move wealth creation from countries with a lot to countries with little, to even things out. Spread American and Western wealth across the whole world. If that can’t be done, then you’ll just have to reduce the amount of wealth in the West. Social collapse is a great way to do that, but there will be collateral damage you’d rather avoid if possible.

 

You want to be a part of the governmental intelligentsia that help shape policy, or you at least need friends in that web. This is where think tanks and big-name NGOs come in handy. They have pull far above that of the average citizen, and are key to crafting policy that furthers your interests—subtly, without the public catching on.

 

These organizations also help shape military policy. America has the largest and most powerful military, which you can use to guarantee world peace. However, since America has a democratic form of government, you need to find a way to separate the use of the military from the desires of the voters. Make sure you sell new conflicts or potential new conflicts right so that the public won’t demand that their representatives pull the military back. And the worst possible use of the American military is homeland defense only. That huge military does you no good if it only defends the American homeland. That would allow rogue regimes to create chaos, and chaos usually hurts your bottom line. You need to spread the American military all over the globe to ensure peace everywhere possible. Wars can profit, but peace and a smoothly functioning economy profits more. That being said, anywhere that the American military doesn’t want to reach, use a different military, but make sure you keep it quiet and keep the atrocities out of the news. Although, if such news will cause the Americans to intervene, that works too. You may need to have your favored political candidates in various countries win elections partly through hawkish stances toward the Americans or other countries. As long as it wins, great, but just make sure they don’t actually put actions behind those words.

 

The media is your other best friend. Television, cinema, the music industry, video games, the news, and of course, social media…no matter the geography, you have multiple easy ways to condition the public with the messages you want them to imbibe. From Hollywood to Bollywood to Nashville to New York City to Silicon Valley, your friends in high places can make social conditioning happen. You also use these tools to distract people from what’s going on in society. Unless it’s something you don’t like, in which case you can blow it up in the media and social media for everyone to get outraged about.

 

Academia must also fall under your control. This is easy because academics are easily manipulated by the offer of pontificating their views to young minds while being highly paid and tenured. Fortunately, most academics live in lala-land and actually believe in all the stuff you’re promoting in order to manipulate society. Who cares…just put the academics to good use. They also go a long way in supporting and feeding talent into the many think tanks you use to shape policy. Further, they influence the ground army of socialist and anarchist street thugs whose activities and violence intimidate conservatives. Make sure law enforcement in the big Western cities—the hives of anarchist and socialist angst—are pulled back, giving these thugs freedom to create chaos until they are an accepted part of society and can easily suppress conservative expression on their “turf.”

 

Follow all these steps and you will achieve control. At that point, you only have to worry about the people on your own level or anyone left above you. There, on a plane above that of mere mortals, you will duke out your struggle for power and wealth, while the mortals below go about their lives, oblivious to all the ways you’ve have made the world a worse place by your scorched-earth march to wealth and control.

 

Oh, there’s just one problem: God sees. In fact, read Revelation 18 and you’ll see how someday, he will hurl down the elites who are happy to ruin the human race—which he made in His image—for their own selfish benefit.

The Singapore Example and the Limits of Multiculturalism in America

“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I’d run their [the British] system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them.” – Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister of Singapore 1959-1990

 

The tiny island nation of Singapore, located between Malaysia and Indonesia, consistently ranks among the top 10 countries in development and economic strength, even beating out the US in some measurements. In less than 50 years, Singapore transformed from a third-world British colony and World War II conquest of Imperial Japan to a glistening, highly-developed economic giant. Singapore is one of the “Four Asian Tigers,” powerhouse Asian economies also including Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan. Singapore’s astonishing success has been the subject of many a book and white paper.

 

Lee Kuan Yew was independent Singapore’s first prime minister. He governed for three decades, and occupied various governmental and political positions afterward until his death in 2015. He governed in perpetual fear of the collapse of the society he had built, and believed to his death that his People’s Action Party (PAP), which still governs Singapore as a virtually one-party state, needed to rigidly maintain power and often suspend democratic norms in order to keep the society together. Lee was often condemned for autocratic rule and even human rights and press abuses.

 

What was it that Lee feared so much, causing him to govern this way? Identity politics.

 

In 1963, Singapore, still loosely under British control, merged with Malaysia due to strong ties between the two nations and the hope of economic benefits. However, the first year of the new union was marred by conflicts between Malaysia’s (the name of combined Malaysia and Singapore) dominant political party, United Malays National Organization (UMNO), and Singapore’s PAP party, as well as deadly race rioting between Singapore’s Malay and Chinese populations. The central position of Malaysia’s prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, and his party was the need to fight for the rights of ethnic Malays, including those in Singapore. In fact, from the outset of the union there was considerable concern that the inclusion of the Singaporean Chinese population would alter the ethnic proportions of the voting base upon which UMNO depended to maintain dominance. Lee Kuan Yew’s consistent theme, on the other hand, was that the new Malaysia needed enforced racial equality in order to survive. Lee held a meeting with prominent Singaporean Malay organizations and leaders to assure them they would not be discriminated against, but throughout 1964 Malaysia’s PM and UMNO politicos made multiple incendiary moves and statements that increased suspicion among Singaporean Malays toward the Singaporean Chinese population. Two sets of deadly race riots broke out in Singapore that year, and negotiations between UMNO and PAP on various issues were making little progress.

 

In 1965, less than two years after unification, Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman decided that Singapore needed to separate from Malaysia to avoid further conflicts. Negotiations to achieve this went on in secrecy between the two sides, with Lee Kuan Yew and other Singaporean officials negotiating with the Malaysian government after it was made clear there was no way Singapore would be allowed to remain in Malaysia. The move to separate Singapore from Malaysia required an amendment to the Malaysian Constitution in the Malaysian Parliament, and PM Abdul Rahman introduced a resolution on August 9, 1965, which was passed by a vote of 126-0. That day, Singapore became independent and Lee Kuan Yew gave an emotional speech explaining the break-up to the people of Singapore.

 

This is the only incident in modern history that I know of in which one country has been voted out of another against its wishes. While there were economic and political issues at play, it is inescapably clear the racial conflict was a linchpin in the desire of Malaysian leaders to expel Singapore. It was negotiated and communicated in ways that made it look like something other than an expulsion, but for all intents and purposes that’s exactly what it was since Singapore didn’t want to separate. The entire episode profoundly affected Lee Kuan Yew’s political philosophy and only further strengthened his belief that Singapore could not last as a multiracial society if identity politics were allowed. Being Chinese himself, he walked the talk by making English the official language of Singapore (to this day), not Chinese which was the language of the Chinese majority (although English was actually his first language). This move earned him many critics, but he believed that giving a clear demographic advantage to one group would eventually tear the country apart.

 

There were additional race riots in 1969, but over the next several decades Singapore grew into a peaceful and stable economic titan. The People’s Action Party maintained a veritable stranglehold on national politics, as it does to this day. However, Lee Kuan Yew’s quasi-autocratic methods and the PAP’s dominance are not the reason I write this essay.

 

Multiculturalism has probably never been a more hot-button issue in America than it is right now, and I don’t see it getting better any time soon. Lee Kuan Yew’s quote about people voting based on race and religion in a multiracial society has nary proven truer than in America today. Even the most novice student of politics understands which groups vote for which political parties, sometimes in staggeringly high proportions. Blacks and Hispanics vote heavily for the Democratic Party. Most whites vote Republican, although by a lesser volume. Even different Christian denominations tend to vote for different parties. Non-Hispanic immigrants are believed (the data is difficult to decode) to vote Democrat. Asians generally vote Democrat, although there is a growing trend among Indian Americans of voting Republican.

 

Democrats have aggressively courted the immigrant vote over the years, especially in the 2016 and now 2018 election cycles. The word “xenophobia” was practically unknown to the public until Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton popularized it to mean irrational fear of immigrants, using it to galvanize the Hispanic segment of the Democratic voting base. The Democrats have carefully constructed a constellation of various ethnic groups in order to counter the steadfast strength of conservative white voters. Never before the 2016 election have the charges of racism and other, similar forms of acrimony flown so freely across the airwaves, including Hillary essentially calling Donald Trump a racist during a presidential debate televised around the world when she condemned his “racist lie” that Obama wasn’t born in the US.

 

The Hart-Cellar Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 overhauled the American immigration system by removing restrictions on national origin which had basically preferred European immigrants beforehand (think waves of German immigrants in the early 1900s). This change occurred during the height of the Civil Rights Movement era and was viewed as further dispelling racism in society. Although Senator Ted Kennedy assured the public that the bill would not substantially alter national demographics, that is what ended up happening.

 

But this essay is not about the past, it is about the future. Given the demographic changes in the US over the past 50 years and the ever-increasing tension in our society regarding race, immigration, and even religion, we must step back and look at the course we are on. How much worse will the tensions get? Is there a breaking point, and if so when is it? We’ve already seen race riots—those are nothing new. But could there be something more drastic ahead?

 

I’m of the belief that race matters way less than people think. Race is just the ways that some human bodies are different than others, but all are human bodies. Race obviously is most noticeable in the way someone looks as compared to someone else, but this is a surface level characteristic. What really matters is culture, and that’s why I titled this essay with “the Limits of Multiculturalism in America,” not “the Limits of Multiracialism in America.” Our policies toward multiculturalism are what will determine our national future probably more than anything else. Currently, we are doing an abysmal job of assimilating new immigrants. In fact, until this process is righted and strengthened, we should greatly reduce immigration because we’re accepting immigrants faster than we can assimilate them. Sure, we have a citizenship test, but that is laughably insufficient for assimilation. Since we have been doing such a poor job, we have become what some describe as a “tossed salad” instead the traditional metaphor of a “melting pot.” But unless you’re in an international airport, putting multiple distinct cultures with little to nothing in common next to each other tends to bring rivalries.

 

I say all this not because I dislike immigrants. It’s normal for a country to have an immigration policy, and every country has at least some immigration (beyond tourism). I’m pretty sure even North Korea has Chinese guest workers (could be wrong). But our system is out of control and we have no good method of assimilation. No other country except the currently beleaguered countries of Western Europe approach immigration this way. Other countries expect you to assimilate—to “become similar” to the population. Obviously you cannot racially assimilate, which is why this is not a racial issue. But you can culturally assimilate, and in other countries you are expected to do so. You are viewed as a guest in other countries, with a highly limited ability to make claims on your host country until you’re a citizen.

 

The Democrats have known for years that they are struggling to keep the white vote. There are multiple reasons for this, but one factor is the falling white birth rate. The Democrats know that the next generation will have fewer whites in proportion to other ethnicities, particularly Hispanic Americans. The black population has remained about the same proportion for years, and Asians, while a fast-growing population due to immigration, are still too small of a constituency for the Democrats to make much of a national appeal to. Their sights are firmly set on the Hispanic vote as the key to electoral dominance, which is why the Democrats fight any attempts to reduce either legal or illegal immigration. Additionally, most immigrants to America come from political traditions similar to the big-government policies espoused by the Democrats, which is another way they court the immigrant vote. The minimal-government model of our Constitution is a rare animal indeed, and were it strictly enforced there would be less draw for immigration because the government would be much smaller and could provide far fewer social services.

 

So where does all this lead? What I’m concerned about as a very real possibility is a future break-up of America along ethno-cultural lines. If, for example, the Mexican-American population becomes the majority in California, then California’s politicians could simply focus (openly) on appealing to Mexican-American concerns. Just like Malaysia’s UMNO party focused only on Malay issues, Democrats only need to pick the largest group and pander to them to stay in power.

 

Additionally, as long as the Democrats successfully conflate Trump’s tough stance on immigration with racism against Mexicans and others of Central American descent, he cannot effectively make an appeal, as Lee Kuan Yew did, for a multiracial society in which no race is given priority over another. Trump repeatedly emphasizes in his speeches that we are all Americans, not whatever the color of our skin is. He is right, and America’s experiment as a multiracial society can succeed, but only if we stop being such a multicultural one. Do I think Trump has some racist beliefs? He might. But what matters is how he governs, not what his inner beliefs are. The vision of America that he enunciates is one not of a country of “hyphenated Americans” but of all one people, known simply as Americans, no hyphens needed.

 

But imagine any one of the following scenarios. In the future, California secedes as a majority Mexican-American state that wants self-determination in accordance with its ethnic identity. I’m a big believer in self-determination and the right to secede, but although I wouldn’t miss uber-liberal California, I don’t want America to break up. Or if not California, maybe the same thing happens with Texas or a section of it. Perhaps California or part of Texas joins with Mexico, like Singapore joined with Malaysia. Or what if, a few decades from now, today’s minorities are large enough to create a permanent voting majority and dominate Congress? If they dominated Congress, could they vote out “white” parts of the country that resisted ethnic transformation out of the US, just as Malaysia expelled Singapore? Or what if the poor white regions like the Appalachian states were deemed a “drag” on the national economy while simultaneously accused of incurable racism? Or if they resisted affirmative action policies, which was another bone of contention between Malaysia and Singapore?

 

A staple of American consciousness is the belief that “it can’t happen here,” but to me, these scenarios are not as far-fetched as they sound. The Democrats are examples of politicians who will say or propose virtually anything to maintain power. They will always “go there,” wherever “there” is, if they think they’ll come out on top on Election Day. This is a sad state of affairs, because national preservation through a unifying culture, something even a country as tiny as Singapore knows is necessary for survival as a political unit, should always trump identity politics. Unfortunately, the Democrats don’t care about healing old wounds; they’re only interested in winning, even if it means ripping off bandages (sometimes while calling it “healing”).

 

I write a lot about the need to not get upset about politics. I am not writing this essay to stir emotion. When I first read about Singapore’s history and how they were expelled from Malaysia because of, among other factors, racial tensions and bloodshed, I thought I might be seeing a future break-up scenario for America. I wanted to share this because too many people in politics today don’t have a long-term view with regards to immigration and culture, and don’t focus on what all other countries know—that a divided populace means a divided country, and sometimes that division becomes literal.

 

And if you were offended by this essay, I suggest reading the previous one about how to free your mind from political correctness.

 

“I always tried to be correct, not politically correct.” – Lee Kuan Yew

 

Sources for Singapore history: Wikipedia and the National Library of Singapore website

Iceland: Petri Dish of European Secularism

In the northwest corner of Europe lies the small island nation of Iceland. Its flag, similar to other Scandinavian flags, bears a giant cross, and the country has an official church called the Church of Iceland. Don’t be fooled, though—Iceland is one of the most irreligious, secular nations in the world.

 

By now the world is used to secularism as a feature of European life. It is most prominent in Western and Central Europe, where it has essentially been chosen as the way to go by the population, but it’s also heavily present in Eastern Europe owing mostly to the decades-long grip of atheistic communism. Having lived through the brutal repression of religion during the Cold War, Eastern Europe is actually seeing somewhat of a religious revival, mostly of Orthodox Christianity. However, the decline of religious life in Central and Western Europe, especially in countries like the UK, Germany, and Sweden, shows no sign of reversing. Christianity is being slowly replaced by Islam in many areas of the above-mentioned countries, and others. While Iceland is no exception to the trend of secularism, there is one big difference that separates Icelandic secularism from that of the Continent.

 

Iceland has a population of only about 351,000 people. It’s also among the nations at the very bottom of the list of European countries that have taken asylum seekers or migrants from the Middle East. While there is some immigration in Iceland, it’s mostly from other European countries like Poland. This is a key difference between Iceland and countries like Germany, France, and the UK, which have taken record numbers of Muslim immigrants. A quick scroll through European headlines since 2015 easily reveals the chaos from terrorism and issues of non-assimilation that those countries have brought upon themselves.

 

Iceland, however, does not have this problem. Muslim immigration is so low there that there is practically no risk of terrorism. To me, there appears to be a very strong relationship between the de-Christianization of continental Europe and the importation of Islam. Viewed as two ends of a spectrum, we would see Europe (Central & Western specifically) heading toward the Islamic end of the spectrum. The midpoint where Europe is both the most secular and the least Islamic is the last glimpse we get of the effects of European secularism. Now, the picture is muddied by the growth of Islam, and we no longer see how pure European secularism plays out in the long run, beyond a desire for massive immigration into a culture that has no will to sustain itself.

 

With Iceland, however, since there is such low immigration from the Middle East, we will (unless immigration increases) actually get to see European secularism reach a non-Islamic endpoint. We will finally get to see how well the European secularist system really works. I for one am not optimistic. One noticeable characteristic of Iceland, other than its heavy secularism, is the high illegitimacy rate, which is the highest of any European country. It sounds strange, but it’s true. In 2014, 70% of births in Iceland were outside of wedlock. Americans are used to hearing numbers like that only in our inner cities like Baltimore or New York. But no, this is Iceland, a world apart, dotted with its picturesque seaside houses.

 

From what I’ve read in research put out by the International Organization for the Family, there is basically no stigma at all left for having a child out of wedlock. And this is not a brand new phenomenon; in 1980 Iceland’s illegitimacy rate was 40%, which was at the time still extremely high.  It seems as though that 1980s generation took to heart what it saw at home and perpetuated it.

 

The question is, how far will this go? What happens if the illegitimacy rate reaches 90%? There are countless studies showing the importance of the stability of a married man and woman raising their kids together. Take that stability out of the picture and what happens? We’ve certainly seen how it contributes to gang participation and crime in our inner cities. But so far Iceland doesn’t seem to have issues like that on any noticeable scale. How long will it take for the generational effects of not having married parents kick in in Iceland, and what will it look like?

 

Iceland’s illegitimacy rate and its effects on the next generation is probably the foremost social trend to watch, with dwindling religiosity coming in second, in the small island nation. There, in this snowy petri dish, noticeably absent of Islamic influence, we will finally get to see how European secularism really ends up.