It takes a nation to protect the nation
The Power Elite is a book written by the sociologist, C. Wright Mills, in 1956. In it Mills calls attention to the interwoven interests of the leaders of the military, corporate, and political elements of society and suggests that the ordinary citizen is a relatively powerless subject of manipulation by those entities. The structural basis of The Power Elite is that, following World War II, the United States was the leading country in military and economic terms. According to Mills, the Power Elite are those that occupy the dominant positions, in the dominant institutions (military, economic and political) of a dominant country, and their decisions (or lack of decisions) have enormous consequences, not only for the U.S. population but, "the underlying populations of the world." Mills outlines the historical structural trends that led to the ascension of the power elite as involving a concentration of economic power and the cultural apparatus in the hands of a few, the emergence of a permanent war economy in the U.S. during and after WW2, the emergence of a bureaucratically standardized and conditioned (controlled) mass society and a political vacuum that was filled by economic and military elites. Due to the interchangeability of top positions within these three institutions, the members of the power elite develop class consciousness and a community of interests guided by a militarized culture, or what Mills described as the military metaphysic.
The book is something of a counterpart of Mills' 1951 work, White Collar: The American Middle Classes, which examines the then-growing role of middle managers in American society. A main inspiration for the book was Franz Leopold Neumann's bookBehemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism in 1942, a study of how Nazism came into a position of power in a democratic state like Germany. Behemoth had a major impact on Mills and he claimed that Behemoth had given him the "tools to grasp and analyse the entire total structure and as a warning of what could happen in a modern capitalist democracy".
Sociologist Christopher B. Doob maintains that C. Wright Mills' The Power Elite is limited in terms of elitist activity in society. "Mills provided little detail about the contemporary elites' activities. For instance, he never mentioned either the Council on Foreign Relations or the Committee on Economic Development, two elite-dominated, policy-making organizations that were already prominent players in his time. In addition, through no fault of his own, Mills described an era when it was still possible to analyze the power elite by focusing only on the United States. The subsequent expansion of globalization has made his theory appearanachronistic."  However, Doob does appraise Mills' work in The Power Elite, stating Mills was a "pioneer, propelling his power-elite theory into a pluralism-dominated academic world, where his novel ideas, according to G. William Domhoff, "caused a firestorm in academic and political circles, leading to innumerable reviews in scholarly journals and the popular press, most of them negative." Over time, however, The Power Elite has become a classic, recognized as "the first full-scale study of the structure and distribution of power in the United States," using the complete set of theoretical and research tools then available. Both Domhoff's andThomas Dye's theories have built upon Mill's conclusions, providing more detail about such issues as the make-up of the ruling group and the process by which policies are established and implemented. Their more contemporary works simply recent information about this powerful group's role in society." 
The Deep State Behind the Deep State - follow the money ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz9iOj4VqOc&feature=em-uploademail
Amazing how similar that analysis is to what I was putting forward in 2013. I came up with the dictum: the power elite have more interests in common with each other globally than they have with any member of the working class of the nation from which they come. And I came up with the definition of entry to the power elite as: someone having significantly more influence on the results of political decisions than any single voter has.
I've now got a couple of bookshelves on the power elite and their abuses of democracy, in readiness to write a modern book on this subject that was discussed over 100 years ago.
Why The Ruling Class Wants To Replace You ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl0Bo4GKQ-U&feature=em-uploademail
Trump entering the assassination zone ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH5IxkTFM4Y&feature=em-uploademail
Logic of revolution ; http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-logic-of-revolution.html
Rescuing the banks instead of the economy ; http://www.unz.com/mhudson/rescuing-the-banks-instead-of-the-economy/
Emeritus prof Codevilla apparently re-introduced concept of "the ruling class" in discussions of American politics in 2010. Obviously we weren't aware of this when I started to talk about "the power elite" in 2013. But it shows how ahead of the curve we were with this discussion. It was probably only in the last two to three years that these kinds of concepts spread out into much wider political discourse.
Now here's an interesting stat I heard from Radio 4 whilst I was driving yesterday (yes, eventually I had to pull in and go to sleep - the standard effect R4 has on me).
The UK has 73,000 journalists. This came from the representative from the National Council for the Training of Journalists (the representative who spoke was exceedingly posh). http://www.nctj.com/ Of these journalists, 70% have parents who come from the top 3 professions in the UK. They didn't say what these parental professions were, but I would guess: doctor, lawyer, accountant. I'd say "banker" but I guess there are too few of them to be relevant. Or maybe "journalist" was the 3rd of the top professions.
The discussion was about "diversity" in journalism. They seemed to think that class, race, and sexuality were all applicable to similar proportions of people in the UK. Never mind that by their own admission there were virtually no working class journalists in the UK (compare that to the number of non-white "journalists" one sees on BBC, ITV, Sky). They then segued into a discussion where they had a "journalist" with a Leeds accent whose name was "Robin". They acted like Robin was a working-class name just because she had a northern accent. In all my life I've never heard of a working-class woman with that name (event quite rare among middle class men and women). I mentioned this discussion to a friend, and he could think of one TV journalist who has made a thing about being working class and how rare that is in journalism. The only other who came to mind is Julie Burchill (who got there through writing about pop music back in the 1970s/1980s, when pop music was derided even by most music journalism). And as Burchill was pointing out 20 years ago: the only group one is encouraged to hate in the UK are the white working class.
Anyway, the point is: when 70% of journalists are sired from the top 3 professions in the UK, could you want any clearer evidence that journalists are the power elite's propagandists? I suspect there are more working-class doctors and lawyers than there are working-class journalists.
The progressivism/Leftism of journalists is no doubt a ruse to stop people questioning just how posh most journalists are. It's amazing how well this sleight of hand works. Just like the billionaire social justice warriors who make themselves useful to the Left - the Left then leave them alone to get on with their acquisition of further billions and their tax evasion.
Considering the role of the middle class Quislings, since violence is the future for Europe, then it's going to make it very easy to identify the targets in the future. For years I've expected gays to become targets (whether they directly had a hand in the destruction of Europe will be irrelevant). Clearly the middle class will be targets too.
Virtually the entire middle class is complicit. Before Gab was taken down I saw Peter McLoughlin state that 1 in 3 of those who buy Mohammed's Koran have probably never read a book before, as they didn't even have accounts on Amazon (it appears that Amazon provides statistics on how many people have joined Amazon just to purchase something). I also saw him say that more copies are sold to Northern Ireland than are sold to Scotland and Wales combined.
I'm also told that within Sinn Fein in Ireland that the movement is splitting into Irish Nationalists vs Communist Globalists. I would expect within the next decade we will see the nationalists in Ireland start killing the communists. I remember seeing that there is a plan that by 2030 Ireland will have the same % of immigrants that Britain has. "Sinn Fein" means "Ourselves Alone". I doubt the Irish will conclude they didn't spend centuries getting national independence only to have their culture subjugated by new invaders.
I'm not sure where to put this.
You will have seen that Sinead O'Connor went from being a lesbian Irish priest to converting to Islam. It shows the lengths the Leftist Quislings will take in order to not recognize the contradictions of their beliefs and actions.
Less than a week after her conversion, a leader of the invaders has pointed out she's mentally unstable. She in turn points out that he's saying this because she refused to allow him to use her for PR purposes. I wonder if she's going to find out that leaving Islam won't be as easy as her leaving Catholicism? We can only hope that she learns the cost of her treachery the hard way.
You can ignore reality. You can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
It seems that even by the end of the 19th century, people like Bakunin and Machajski were right in their critique of Marxism and social democracy.
Here was the real enemy of the proletariat: "the privileged employees of the capitalist order, . . . the 'intelligentsia,' the army of intellectual workers,"no less interested than the capitalists themselves in the continued exploitation of the manual workers. In Marxism, the crucial factor determining class relationships is ownership of the means of production. Machajski, however, denied the central importance of property ownership. The intelligentsia owned neither factories nor land, and yet, he observed, it bore the same relationship to the workers as the property owners did.
In every country, in every state, there exists a huge class of people who have neither industrial nor commercial capital, yet live like real masters. They own neither land nor factories nor workshops, but they enjoy a robber's income no smaller than that of the middling and large capitalists. They do not have their own enterprises, but they are "white-hands" just like the capitalists. They too spend their whole lives free from manual labour, and if they do participate in production, then it is only as managers, directors, engineers. That is, in relation to the workers, to the slaves of manual labour, they are commanders and masters just as much as the capitalist proprietors .
Although the intelligentsia did not own the means of production, it did possess and exploit a special form of "property," namely, education.
A larger and larger part of bourgeois society receives the funds for its parasitical existence as an intelligentsia, an army of intellectual workers which does not personally possess the means of production but continually increases and multiplies its income, which it obtains as the hereditary owner of all knowledge, culture, and civilization.
[...] the intelligentsia was a rising new class of "intellectual workers" using socialism to pursue its own interests at the expense of the workers [...]
By 1869 Bakunin was predicting that in the Marxist state an educated class would still rule over the proletariat, precisely what happened in the USSR.
In the popular state of Mr. Marx, we are told, there will be no privileged class. Everyone will be equal, not only from the legal and political but also the economic point of view. At least, that is what they promise, though I doubt very much that their promise can ever be kept, given the path they wish to follow. There will be no classes, but a government, and, mind you, an extremely complex one, which will not content itself with governing and administering the masses politically, as all governments do today, but will also administer them economically, concentrating in its hands the production and the just distribution of wealth, the cultivation of the earth, the establishment and development of factories, the organisation and direction of commerce, and, finally, the application of capital to production by the sole banker the state. All this will require immense knowledge. . . . There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and fictitious savants, and the world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of science and an immense ignorant majority.
Social democracies have gone on to refine this. Encouraging large minorities of the working class to think they can enter this ruling class (even taking out mortgages on their own education, telling them this is their route to wealth). They are still mostly deprived of wealth and power when they have these degrees, but now they've also paid for their own indoctrination.
Is it any surprise that despite 50 years of supposed meritocracy that 70% of journalists in the UK have parents who come from the top 3 professions? Moreover, it should be clear that when something like social media comes on the scene and usurps the propagandistic power of the journalists, then it becomes intensely policed and censored. Remember how cock-a-hoop the media was about the Twitter revolution of "The Arab Spring"?
Interestingly, the above book on Machajski was published in 1989 and is still in print. Meanwhile Burnham's Machiavellians was re-published in 1987 but has been out of print for decades. Burnham shows the means by which the elite maintain their power, yet his book has been out of print for so long.
Interestingly, the above book on Machajski was published in 1989 and is still in print.
Meanwhile Burnham's Machiavellians was re-published in 1987 but has been out of print for decades. Burnham shows the means by which the elite maintain their power, yet his book has been out of print for so long.