Since the beginning of the formation of the monetary civilization, “the powerful of this world” have not stopped at anything to achieve their goals. It can not be said that the goal does not justify the means, the problem is on a scale. And the scale has always been purely individual. The main task of most of the world’s elites has always been, is and will be to enrich itself.
And now. In America there is a colossal confrontation, as a result of which the “forces of evil” – libertarian socialists – are multiplying. They seek to achieve absolute “negative” freedom on the principle of “take everything from life and spit on restrictions.” Without realizing it, they carry out a direct political order of elites. What can the confrontation of the “tops” lead to, and why is the growth of destructive tendencies beneficial to one part of the bourgeoisie?
The US is used as a synonym for the citadel of market democracy, but modern trends indicate that American capitalism is in the deepest systemic crisis. The American society is levitating swiftly. According to recent polls conducted by Gallup, 60% of democrats have a positive attitude towards socialism, moreover, even among Republicans, there are 16% of people who share socialist ideas. This can also be seen in the media (NY Times, VOX, CNN, The Washington Post, CBS, NBC), who unanimously reiterate the need to restrict freedom of speech for the Rights.
From the stands of institutes people like Noam Chomsky and Terry Eagleton broadcast. More and more people are marching to the march of fighters for social justice. And the anti-fascists, who in fact are copying the model of the fascists by their own behavior, want to demolish monuments to the heroes of the Civil War. This influence was not spared by politics either. Remember Bernie Sanders. In the country, in fact, grown on Protestant ethics, the very appearance of such an odious figure can be perceived as a completely unique phenomenon, exposing the internal breakdown of the system.
Do not be flattered about these trends. In chess, the configuration of forces is determined not by the figures, but by the players sitting behind the board. So in politics – a popular public figure always goes where it is being pushed by a momentary problem. Those politicians who do not follow this path very soon find themselves on the sidelines of public life, forgotten in the dust. Popular politicians by definition can not have their own long-term strategy. In reality they are only pawns. But who are the players then?
In America, you can clearly distinguish two opposing clans. We define them as “old money” and, accordingly, “new”. Virtually all trends within American society are a direct consequence of their social engineering, created to achieve their own goals. In turn, people should think that this or that position is their free choice.
For example, what can we read in the NY Times: “If you are a person with a modest income or even belong to the middle class, what can you do with capitalism? The type of capitalism that our country has been practicing all these years has failed most people and deceived their expectations. ” Agree, it sounds like a naive pamphlet written by the hand of a young man who first read the manifesto of the Communist Party or looked at some documentary about Marx. Also quite brightly the struggle of “money” for their interests is reflected in the institute of lobbyism.
“Old money” is a financial elite that has survived empires, crises, wars, revolutions, preserving and even multiplying its wealth. In America, such dynasties can be identified, perhaps, the dynasty of the Astor, the brothers Koch and Rothschilds. Although the latter are not Americans, it would be absurd to deny their interest in the processes taking place at the heart of the “world-system”. They are the oldest clans, fairly conservative and closed. They hardly share mass hysteria over the destruction of the institution of the family and similar manifestations of negative freedom.
This does not mean that they are not beneficiaries, but they themselves never succumb to them. “Old money” want to reliably control all the mass moods in order to play them subtly. Or rather, to be the conductor of a social orchestra. Obviously, these clans do not particularly want to have competition, hence the confrontation between the “old” and the “new.”
However, nothing lasts forever – such logic is guided by the young American and capitalists rushing to the heights of Olympus. “New money” is difficult to call simply new faces or a new class. Rather, it is a new type of personality. Having received an elite education, they changed their interpretation of the word “triumph”. For them, just wealth and career are not criteria for success. They in their realization of the deep idea of North America go even further. They need respect and fame. One of the most vivid examples of “new money” can be called Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who graduated from Harvard and stands for leftist ideals, such as universal basic income.
However, it would be naive to believe that he is the “ruler of fate.” More interesting figure is his first investor – Peter Til. The same Peter Til, who noted the presence in the administration of the 45th US President Donald Trump.
Before returning to Thiel, we will make a lyrical digression that could shed a bit more light on the very idea of opposing “old” and “new” money. Ask yourself: could a person who openly calls black black, and white white in a country where such flowers do not exist long ago, become a head of state without anyone’s help? Some analysts believe that there are serious forces behind the Trump, the Rothschilds are a clan that is known for its conservatism.
Unlike the Rockefellers, this family almost never supported globalization. As a maximum, they tried with her help to solve their short-term tasks.
Rothschilds, Windsors, the aristocracy of southern Germany and Northern Italy, the Vatican are opposed to the “transatlantic zone”, the “tmasters” of which will be the Americans.
And now you can return to the “new money”. Peter Till from the very beginning of his journey opposed the postulates that are characteristic of the conservatism of the Rothschilds. Before investing in Facebook, Thiel created the PayPal payment system, which he positioned as a means of fighting national payment systems, a kind of step to the world currency. That is, he tried to accelerate globalization and withdraw money into the technology space to deprive old clans of leverage. However, in contrast to this argument, we can say that “Til changed, he came to Trump’s team.” But we did not just say that behind Trump, apparently, are the old clans.
The American Trotskyists long ago came up with a tactic called “entrism.” Its essence lies in entering into ideologically opposite structures that have power, for their reorientation. Actually, in this way, the wing of the neocons emerged in the Republican Party, which was completely uncharacteristic for the “elephant” before. There is every reason to believe that Till’s entrance to the team of the current head of the White House was another attempt to turn the technology of “entrism” in order to counteract the “old money” already inside the system. In addition, recently Til disappointed in Trump. This disappointment is due precisely to the fact that he failed to rebuild Trump. “New money” is looking for alternative ways of putting pressure on the “old”. ”
What does the left have to do with it?
At the beginning of the article, the total “leftist” American society was declared. Then there was a watershed between two rival factions within the American elite. It remains to take the last step and combine these facts. But before this one must make one extremely important addition: absolutely no grassroots political movement is independent, especially in the system of the American democratic spectacle.
The new elite hopes to eventually take the place of the old. There is nothing surprising. But on the way to this goal for “new money” there is an obstacle in the form of an impregnable at first sight castle of the old bourgeoisie. Acting in the best traditions of medieval warriors, the new elite uses stenobitic weapons, which are fighters for social justice. Due to the support of destructive currents, the new elite tries to beat out loyalty points among these very masses by creating the image of “their own”.
In addition, they direct the indignation of the “leftists” solely on the mores of the old bourgeoisie. This makes the “old money” throw at least some resources to fight the terrorizing left. Also, the new bourgeoisie is trying to protect itself. All the fashionable left currents have shifted the emphasis of their criticism from capitalism as a system to cultural manifestations of tradition. Thus, if the new bourgeoisie succeeds, their capitals will be beyond criticism, and to maintain stability they will only need to support the rhetoric of equality and progress.
The main problem of intra-elite struggle is that they do not disdain to use the “forces of darkness” to realize their goals. While some are struggling with others, cultural Marxists, with the full support of the new elites, destroy all the surviving foundations and traditions in society. Thus, “new money”, probably, will reach its absolutely infernal goals.