Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Hubris, Thy Name Is Anglo-American Elite

(Page references are to Stead’s book.)

According to Stead, who can be considered to reflect the elite thinking of his time, the world needs a supreme earthly power, and an English-speaking union is the proper entity to exercise such power.  This alliance, torn apart during the American Revolution and injured again in 1812, came together again toward the latter part of the nineteenth century, in what is known as the Great Rapprochement – just beginning as Stead wrote.  As a brief summary of previous work I have done through this book: this reunion, of a type, did not happen by a fortuitous set of random events, but seems to have been deliberately planned by those for whom maintaining control and expanding global reach was of primary importance. (For more extensive treatment, see here and here.)

Stead cites many who hold similar views regarding this apparent need for a supreme earthly power, all justifying this need in order to bring about a certain world peace:

The world [a foreign observer wrote in the Fortnightly Review in 1894] could well afford “to place its confidence in the integrity and fairness of the Anglo-Saxon race.  For the sake of peace and disarmament it seems necessary that some superior power should be created. (Page 432, emphasis added)

Once a central bank was established in the US, along with the income tax and (to a far lesser, but not unimportant extent) the direct election of Senators – amazingly all occurring in 1913 – the stage was set for the creation of just such a “superior power.”  Such tools are necessary if state actors (or those behind it) want to display military power globally for purposes of control.

“For the sake of peace and disarmament,” of course, a few eggs had to be broken first.  It didn’t take long.  World War I – a war fought over the assassination of one man, if you believe the narrative – introduced the US onto the European stage for the first time.  Obviously a necessary step if one had global control via an Anglo-American union in mind.

Mr. A.W. Tourgée, writing in the Contemporary Review two years prior to Stead’s work, wrote:

An alliance between the great branches of the Anglo-Saxon family means the creation of a world-power against which it is not only impossible that any European combination should make headway, but it will have such control of the commercial and economic resources of the world as to enable them to put an end to war between the Continental Powers themselves without mustering an army or firing a gun…. They are the peacemakers of the Twentieth Century…. (Page 433, emphasis added)

With a hat tip to The Daily Bell, I have come to the view that the wars fought by the west over the last century have been for one reason: control.  Not control over oil or gas or other natural resources.  Control over people.  People are the single-most valuable “commercial and economic” resource on the planet.  Talk about a renewable resource!  People are the best wealth-creating-renewable-resource ever devised.

Of course, Mr. Tourgée cannot be blamed for not seeing the horrors to come between and amongst the “Continental Powers” over the next 50 years, horrors aided and abetted by the “great branches of the Anglo-Saxon family,” can he?  On the other hand, the wars of those 50 years were likely necessary to bring this Anglo-American dream to fruition.

Sir Walter Besant, in his book “Rise of the Empire,” wrote:

We want an everlasting alliance, offensive and defensive, such an alliance as may make us absolutely free from the fear of any other alliance which could crush us. (Page 433)

Besant went on, in speaking of a great alliance of six nations – Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa:

They would be an immense Federation, free, law-abiding, peaceful, yet ready to fight…. (Page 437)

Well, at least the “ready to fight” part came true.

Thomas Chandler Haliburton of the British colony of Nova Scotia, through his fictional character Sam Slick, wrote in 1853:

We are two great nations, the greatest by a long chalk of any in the world…. We ought to draw closer than we do. (Page 434)

Sir George Grey of New Zealand wrote if the reunion were but attained:

…it would mean the triumph of Christianity, the highest moral system man in all his history has known…. The adoption of a universal code of morals and a universal tongue would pave the way for the last great federation – the brotherhood of man.

As its result war would by degrees die out from the face of the earth.  If you had the Anglo-Saxon race acting on a common ground, they could determine the balance of power for a fully peopled earth.

…whenever any subject affecting us both arises, or when there is any question affecting the well-being of the world generally, we shall meet in Conference and decide upon common action. (Page 434, 435)

The benefits to all mankind are overwhelming, it seems.  Citing Sir Harrington, from “Oceana”:

What can you think but, if the world should see the Roman Eagle again, she would renew her age and her flight?  If you add to the propagation of civil liberty, the propagation of liberty of conscience, this empire, this patronage of the world, is the Kingdom of Christ.  The Commonwealth of this make is a minister of God upon earth, for which cause the orders last rehearsed are buds of empire, such as that the blessing of God may spread the arms of your Commonwealth like a holy asylum to the distressed world, and give the earth her Sabbath of years or rest from her labors under the shadow of your wings.  (Page 438)

Well, it is some kind of asylum, but not necessarily “holy.”  Christianity has been wrongly used to justify war since the time of Rome.  It is a good thing Laurence Vance has God on his side in this battle.

Not to be left out, Cecil Rhodes throws his hat into the ring:

How often have I not heard [Rhodes] deplore the insensate folly which robbed the world of its one great hope of universal peace.  Only this year he inveighed, as is his wont, against the madness of the monarch which had wrecked the fairest prospect of international peace which had ever dawned upon the world.

“If only we had held together,” he remarked, “there would have been no need for another cannon to be cast in the whole world.  The Federation of the English-speaking world would be strong enough in its command of all the material resources of the planet to compel the decision of all international quarrels by a more rational means than war.”

Nor has he abandoned the hope that even yet that great Federation may be brought about. (Page 403, 404)

The “insensate folly” was King George’s treatment and subsequent loss of the American colonies, leading to a large rupture in the dreams of empire.

Andrew Carnegie added that such a reunion would be “for the good of the world, for the English-speaking race has always stood first among races for peace, plenty, liberty, justice and law…. (Page 436)

Through much of the history of the existence of an English-speaking race there are many of a different skin color or religion or tongue that might take exception to Mr. Carnegie’s statement.  He adds:

If England and America were one they would be able to maintain the peace of the world and general disarmament. (Page 409)

Carnegie wrote about such a union, in an article entitled “A Look Ahead,” published in the North American Review.  In discussing the article, Carnegie states:

Turn up my “Look Ahead” which I published in the North American Review eight years ago, and you will find every forecast I made then is coming true…. We are heading straight to the Re-United States.  Everything is telling that way…. It is coming, coming faster than you people in the Old World realize. (Page 406, emphasis added)

Carnegie cites the overwhelming benefits and strength in such a race confederation:

The new nation would dominate the world and banish from the earth its greatest stain – the murder of men by men.  It would be the arbiter between nations, and enforce the peaceful settlement of all quarrels….

He sees for Britain (and therefore for the elite that use Britain as a tool) that there is no choice but re-union:

The only course for Britain seems to be reunion with her giant child, or sure decline to a secondary place, and then to comparative insignificance in the future annals of the English-speaking race, which is to increase so rapidly in America.

Carnegie concludes the article with the following “declaration of faith”:

Let men say what they will, therefore, I say as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely is it one morning to rise, shine upon, and greet again the reunited state of “The British-American Union.”

The elite were, of course, successful in bringing about this reunion and turning it to their purposes: not a formal political union, but a union sufficient to maintain and expand elite control.  In Britain, political leaders knew they would have to take a back seat to the inevitable outcome of superior US economic power.  In the US, political leaders had to agree to allow the US to be co-opted as the tool of the elite. Fame, power, glory and riches came to those who played along.

For those with an interest in the thinking behind such actions, Stead offers a nice peek behind the curtain.


  1. Excellent and very timely Jonathan. I also would not understand the workings of the world without the DB, including your own writings there. Never would have known to look for it, or Lew Rockwell, etc., without the decades long efforts of Ron Paul. I am not sure how much of an impact my writing there had but elsewhere they seem to only interest those who already understand. I give up. In the present situation, it is difficult enough just to try to provide for my own future security. Thanks for the care, thought and effort. Soldier on as you can. taxes

    1. taxes, thank you.

      I will encourage you not to give up on writing.

      For me, the act of writing is, in and of itself, helpful to my own mental well being. This is satisfaction enough and I need no further reason to continue.

      However, as an added bonus, we have been given this wonderful gift of the internet. If I reach only a handful of people through this, it is a handful I never could have reached otherwise.

    2. You are welcome, and thank you. I will still write. In fact, I will write more; just not primarily about government and the absurdities connected with it. The last few years have shown me politics and money but I have studied other subjects for far longer. The normalcy bias, economic motive, personal intellectual and emotional investment in the rightness of the system; these are the keys to reaching more with the message. The lies are so pervasive and so obvious that just proving them has little effect. I will spend far less time reading the "news", and more bettering my writing, and my situation. You have not heard the last of me, and in future what you hear will be better. To good writing---with purpose. taxes

  2. Please don't give up, Taxes! Having no "higher" education myself, when I started reading the DB 3 or 4 years ago (?) I had to have a dictionary alongside me just to understand what they were even writing! It took a good while to get the meaning of it all, but somehow I knew there was truth in it.
    It was the feedback that really educated me, when there was back and forth with feedbackers and staff. IOW, the discussion. You never know how many are quietly reading the same here between the two of you. I do. Discuss where you find a forum, even if it seems no one hears. It is good! Bluebird

    1. Hi Bluebird, good to hear from you, and good to hear. I have tried other places but have found it very frustrating. I have not found anything like TDB. I have meant to start a blog for years but without virus protection it seems foolish. I am writing for practice and publication. Yesterday I bought a typewriter that is probably older than I am. Yes, more frustration, my hands hurt already. I am confident that I will eventually be published, (unless I get "indefinitely detained" first) and when that happens you will know. Mr. Goodwin knows my name, and email address. I am sure that I will occasionally post here but that doesn't amount to much. We don't have much of a discussion because we agree on most things anyway. When I make enough money to matter, I will buy another computer and start a blog. I dread it though. The support and encouragement I have encountered elsewhere are incredible but so are the apathy and vituperation. Sorry, the word fits perfectly. You are not the only one who might need a dictionary for that. taxes

  3. Top billing on LRC. This article might go places. Brace yourself Jonathan, fame is often quite difficult to deal with; doubly so if it brings the ire of big money. taxes

  4. It's great to see some of the DB commnunity at this blog. My eyes were opened when I started reading the DB about a year ago. Before I started reading the DB I started following Rosa Koire on her website
    Rosa opened my eyes the evils of collectivism. I then came across the DB by accident and would read it every day. I really looked forward to the intellectual commentary more so than the articles and the commentary by the DB. Jonathon, I came over to your blog after the DB stopped publishing. Please keep up the great work. Your insight is one of a kind and has helped me make sense of a complicated world. I post as Sallybluey.
    Bluebird/Taxes - It is great to see you two are still out there. Please keep up with the comments. I differ from both of you in the fact that I have a college education. However, I have been the through the liberal brainwashing and always bought into the Keynesian philosophy until about one year ago thanks to people like you. You all are beyond what I know and understand about the world even though I have a degree. Please keep up your writing. I am now teaching my young children about the ways of Jesus and libertarianism. Thank you all and please keep up the great work.

  5. I came across a blog post that others here might find interesting.

    My Summary:

    Michael O Church occupies himself with carefully defining various types of people. I am usually quite dismissive of those who see only groups and never individuals, but based on my reading so far, I consider Michael a benign collectivist (to indulge in a bit of group-making myself).

    He brings a certain precision to the mental process of identifying common attributes among people, and the attributes that interest him are the mental models embraced by people in various parts of society.

    The article I've linked to has two basic parts: first he identifies groups and then discusses the interactions and conflicts between groups. A major weakness is his complete ignore-ance of the state and it's role in why people fit in the groups they do. This blind spot renders his economic ideas completely rickety, however, for those readers of The Daily Bell blog and others who are familiar with the idea of a global elite, there are some nice surprises in this piece.

    Michael's salvation is that he doesn't make what I call the "irrational leap" from perceiving common attributes among individuals to personifying groups and fantasizing group identities that are independent from and superior to the individuals that make up the group. Also, he doesn't confine individuals to a group, acknowledging that individuals move between groups and can belong to more than one group simultaneously. His writing shows an awareness that groups are exclusively a mental construct, though he never says so. (I can't believe I'm promoting a collectivist!)

    Anyway, here are a few choice sections for those too busy or short of attention to read his entire post:

    "Underclass (10%). The underclass are not just poor, because there are poor people on the Labor ladder and a few (usually transiently or voluntarily) on the Gentry ladder who are poor. In fact, most poor Americans are not members of the Underclass. People in the Underclass are generationally poor. Some have never held jobs. Some are third-generation jobless, even."

    "Cultural Influencers (G1, 0.05%) are the pinnacle of the Gentry. Jon Stewart is a classic example. He probably makes a “merely” upper-middle-class income working for the notoriously cheap Comedy Central, but he has the most well-regarded members of the intelligentsia on his show every night. For G1, I’m not talking about “celebrities”. Celebrities are a bizarre and tiny category that mixes all three ladders (I’d argue that they’re the upper tier of L1; most lack the power of Elites and the refinement of the Gentry)."

    "Global Elite (E1, ~60,000 people worldwide, about 30% of those in the U.S.) are a global social class, and extremely powerful in a trans-national way. These are the very rich, powerful, and deeply uncultured barbarians from all over the world who start wars in the Middle East for sport, make asses of themselves in American casinos, rape ski bunnies at Davos, and run the world. Like the Persian army in 300, they come from all over the place; they’re the ugliest and most broken of each nation."

    "For a contrast, what the Elite has been pushing for is the worst of both worlds, at least for average people. The truth of corporate “capitalism” is that it provides the best of both systems (socialism and capitalism) for the Elite and the worst of both for everyone else."

    I hope you enjoy Michael's post. If not, maybe come back here and explain why. Let's liven up the Bionic Mosquito's blog! ·earl

  6. I pointed readers to Michael O Church's article but it only took a little reading of the comments that follow the article for me to feel disgust at the results of people taking Michael's social class analysis too seriously.

    The biggest flaw of the article by far is that he exhibits no awareness of the destructive effects of progressive government on the structure of society. For Michael, The State is an unquestioned part of the environment just like air, water and sunlight.

    I refer to government as The State - as in "the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time" - because so much of the work of people in government is attempting to lock things down. The Market is in constant flux because nature and people's thoughts and actions are in constant motion, but The State exists to minimize the natural movement of life because that type of individual that is always found at the top must feel in control of everything.

    Michael O Church: "Whether you’re talking about a real person like Hitler, Stalin, Erik Prince, Osama bin Laden, or Kissinger, or a fictional example like The Joker, Kefka, Walter White, or Randall Flagg; when you get to the top of society, it’s always the same guy. Call it The Devil, but what’s scary is that it needs (and has) no supernatural powers; it’s human, and while one of its representatives might get knocked off, another one will step up."

    I'm left with the very strong suspicion that the coercion of the anti-market State is what give social classes their rigidity and the solutions that suggest themselves from viewing the society of "wiggly" individuals through the collectivist lens amplify and reinforce the destructiveness of the State.

    I now think Michael may be benign, but I'm more sure than ever that collectivist constructs never are. As soon as they are taken seriously they become malignant. ·earl

  7. Excellent article, Bionic Mosquito. I hope you will read this interesting article on the same theme.