The Eternal Aristocracy

Timothy Birdnow

In a recent post Dr. Mark Musser discussed the roots of the modern Green movement and how it came first from the old European aristocracy and transitioned through the Third Reich.

Well, we've had a discussion about that. Here it is:

By the way, the last  heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Otto Von Hapsburg, just passed away. It is interesting to note he was a member of the European Union parliament. And he was a passionate advocate for the E.U.:


Now, why would a guy like that be so enthused on the creation of a superstate/empire like the European Union?

Europe is run by the old aristocracy coupled with the nouveau  rich. While this may seem at odds with the old European order of competing powers, it really isn't that different; the old order featured the merchantilist ambition where a nation had a colonial empire to draw on for all the resources it needed. These empires were hegemonous, and always sought to control the fate of Europe. They fought each other constantly in an endless struggle for position. But the fact remains, they were all multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, and sought to elevate the ruling class above the peasants. It's important to understand; the aristocracy of these countries were often related by marriage and blood. The Russian Tsar Nicholas, for instance, was Queen Victoria's cousin. Europe was ruled by one big, squabbling family.

And while the fascist/nazi order may seem aberrational as they looked to ethnic and cultural purity, it was really not so different as both sought to impose their power over other nations in Europe itself. Hitler, for all his talk about German purity and the like, wanted to unite Europe under the Nazi banner. Most nations in Europe had Nazi parties of their own. Austria certainly did. And Hitler kept taking bites out of neighboring nations, ostensibly to colonize them with Germans, but in the end Hitler was willing to allow others into the Nazi order; he just wouldn't accept certain groups - like Jews, or Romani. 

Remember, the Progressive era was started by the educated, upper class types in both Europe and America. And American Progressives were the creators of eugenics, the "science" of biological determinism aka racism. To them, they were the bright ones (as they claim to be now) and they were applying "science" to make a better human race.

America never did take the obvious step  as did the Nazis. Here we did have some forced sterilization and other nasty little presents for the poor and weak among us, but it was always "negative" eugenics; the Nazis promoted "positive" eugenics aka genocide. They actively killed people to get rid of them.

But both sides were on the same page, and both were promoted by the same aristocracy. In Europe it was the actual old aristocracy, while in America it was the self-styled, the Ivy League-educated classes.

After the war they eschewed eugenics to a point, but still see many of those who oppose their rule as "deplorables" who must be governed sternly.

Take for example the behavioral theory advocated by Cass Sunstein, radical former Obama Administration member and husband to Samantha Powers. Sunstein came up with his "nudge" theory whereby America's betters would "nudge" the knuckle dragging public via government power to do that which the aristocracy wanted and believed was in the best interest of the populace. For instance, capping soda size would be one such "nudge" because sodas are bad for you. The idea is to not use ham-fisted legal prohibitions but rather soft-soaped incentives and punishments. Of course, there are always going to be those hard-headed types who won't take the nudge, and then...

Never does a man like Sunstein consider for a second whether he has a right to tell others how to live. He's ENTITLED.

This is Fascism 101; the idea that society is intimately involved in every aspect on the life of the individual and the individual has no independent existence outside of the social order. Mussolini was quite clear about that. It came originally from Jean Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract. Rousseau - the father of Socialism - believed there could be nothing outside of the common will.

He also disbelieved in religion, although he was a big fan of Islam, because of Islam's monism aka nothing outside of the Islamic theocracy. Rousseau liked that idea; he was diametrically opposed to separation of Church and State, something instituted by Jesus when he held up the Roman coin and asked "whose picture is this". Jesus said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" thus establishing a duality in the West, one that Rousseau and the Progressive Left have always despised.

But Rousseau saw Christianity as bunk and set out to create his own church, which was the State. The People, the collective Will, were everything; there could be no rights or duties outside of their pleasure. As a result, it was Rousseau who promoted the idea of "mystical nationalism" whereby the human need for a belief in a higher order would be satisfied by elevating the Volk and the State would be their church.

You can trace the fascist/Nazi racist roots directly to Rousseau.

I would like to point out this is what the term Nationalism means. Too many on our side use it amiss. In the Nineteenth Century conservatives were very concerned with Nationalism, because they knew what it meant. It is not just another term for patriotism, which is a clear societal good and promotes love of both God and fellow man. Natiionalism is the deification of the People and the State.

And while Socialism split into primarily two camps with Fascism occupying one branch (and "democratic socialism" being the less malignant disease of that branch) Marxism occupied the other, International Socialism. Both were present in Europe during the early to mid 19th Century. There was as yet no name for Marxism, but there was the word communism in use even as far back as then. The main difference between the two was that communism advocated a purely material vision of humanity. But it was quite popular, and communists were well represented in the French Reign of Terror as well as the Revolution of 1848.

But always, it was the Aristocracy who were pulling the strings. Socialism found fertile soil in the universities even back during the French Revolution. It was the common education of the Ruling Class even then. Instead of Harvard and Yale and Princeton it was at Cambridge and Oxford.

The settlement of America and the industrial revolution greatly roiled the fortunes of the old aristocracy, but they remained in place and plotted their return. They have now returned to power as the architects of the post-WWII era. THEY were the ones who financed the Russia Revolution. They were the ones who supported the Soviet Union during the Cold War, with loans at critical moments when the USSR was in serious economic trouble. Ronald Reagan's plan to spend them into bankruptcy could have happened at any time, but the aristocracy in America and Europe opposed that. Why? Because the Soviet Union provided them with a tool to move the West in the direction they wanted.

They have since done the exact same thing with China. China is a third world country with first world money and power. We gave that to them through terrible foreign policy. Even some of the people ostensibly on our side, like Newt Gingrich, supported this "engagement" policy with China, building them into our main competitor.

At any rate, it all goes back to the same people, the old order Ruling Class. The Treaty of Maastricht (which established the E.U.) was just another extension of the old Congress of Vienna.

The faces change and so do the names, but the core remains the same.

And this is the same fight we are fighting today, with an intrusive, entitled aristocracy demanding the right to rule and doing a poor job of it.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:25 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1495 words, total size 10 kb.