The following is an excellent post describing the most natural revolutionaries, the bankers, the ones who seem to have molded the world around them to benefit them and their balance sheet, it is a long read, but quite instructive!
Taken from Bedlam Nation
'Centuries ago, international bankers found that by financing governments who wished to make war on each other they could maintain control over them, ensure favorable business conditions and pile up enormous wealth. If they were displeased by the performance of the leaders they installed, they could finance the opposition. The international bankers want open population flows because they think of people as interchangeable parts. As long as the populace is not in a position to make trouble and are able to buy the products and services marketed to them, the financiers are satisfied.
America’s “robber barons” of the 19th century followed the same basic formula. Most of them were young men during the Civil War, which they bought their way out of. Some, like Jay Cooke, were aligned with the bankers and acted as agents in the war's financing. Others, like Rockefeller, Gould, Armour, Carnegie and many more, sought to develop the industries that would enable the country to be brought under a single hegemonic rule.
Steel, railroads and oil would unite all markets into one. The federal government dished out massive acreage for railroad use. Elected officials of both national and local scale were amenable to these schemes. Small localities could be turned overnight into boomtowns or ruined instantly by the mere location of the railroad tracks. Municipal officials were compelled by the railroad magnates to provide the financing for each section of track and other infrastructure. The railroads brought with them the possibility of huge economic benefits.
Business, trade, population and housing all boomed. The town fathers who were in on the ground floor stood to reap gigantic wealth. The Indians were wiped out, the free rangers were fenced in, the freebooters, gamblers and other unruly elements were brought under control and the territories made safe for the farmers and settlers who provided the necessary population. Eventually these places sought statehood and were brought into the federal system.
One thing about the robber barons, especially Rockefeller, that has generally escaped the notice of the popular imagination is that they hated competition. Having a lot of small operators all competing against each other in a single industry – the Adam Smith model – is messy and hampers the growth of the huge economies of scale that allowed the magnates to mass enormous wealth and power. The hype surrounding Progressive-era politics was that men like Theodore Roosevelt broke up the trusts in the interests of the little guy.
But the truth is big business became bigger than ever. As the century turned, these original magnates, whose goals and methods made them natural allies with the international bankers, faced two problems. One, an increasing need to standardize both markets and labor force; and two, to shield their wealth from the new tax laws that were coming in to buy off the threat of socialist unrest. They hit upon two solutions.
One, a public education system that would ensure a citizenry that was thoroughly indoctrinated in the right attitudes to function as both docile workers and reliable consumers. And two, a central bank, under their control, that would ensure both the bankers’ control over government in perpetuity and also enable them to manipulate credit and the money supply to keep the peasantry sufficiently able to buy the gewgaws of the ever-growing commercial sector to keep them satisfied with their serfdom, forever. The tax-exempt foundation and the Federal Reserve would enable them to accomplish these goals.
In 1953, the Reece Commission investigated the money links between the tax-exempt foundations and the socialistic elements in the educational system. The picture that emerged was one of the vast wealth of the monopoly capitalists, shielded from taxation, being used to promulgate grossly socialistic schemes. Why would capitalists fund institutions that preached the expropriation of the rich? Because they really had nothing to fear from these people, and they knew it. Once a socialist movement reached ascendancy in a country and formed a government, its leaders would need financing and would have to come to the bankers to get it. The money would come with strings attached, and once again the elements of high finance would be in control. People would have before them just the options provided them by the money power, and no more.
After World War II, the major opinion-forming bodies – the interlocking heads of the foundations and the education theorists in charge of disseminating their dictates – decided that what was needed was a “one-world citizen.” All of these cooperating branches of the propaganda machine championed the notions of freedom, democracy and international brotherhood. The media was expanded from its roots in American newspapers as the herald of commercial advertisers to a force for change in the directions dictated by the internationalists.
Newspapers, movies, radio, television and the music industry began to hammer home relentlessly the new themes: the innate goodness and deserving nature of long-suffering blacks; the need for equal rights for blacks and women; tolerance of sex and lifestyle freedoms; the virtue, frankness, openness and general goodness of the common man of mass democracy; that the world’s people were really just Americans at heart and deserved a chance to prosper and therefore should be admitted into the country at once, all of them; and the need for the churches to stop trying to bring man into redemption from sinfulness through Christ and instead to enforce love and tolerance of his fellows, which will be distorted in practical terms to mean the acceptance of ever more outrageous and vile conduct in thought and deed as normal, healthy and benevolent.
Most people remain basically unalarmed by all of this. On the one hand you have the minorities, who agree with most of these tendencies; their only reservation is that they are not being implemented fast enough. Their spokesmen and their white allies complain constantly that racism, sexism and homophobia are more pervasive than ever. On the other hand the rank and file white people are cowed into submission by the relentless brainwashing of the media. It’s just not nice to notice that most of the crime is committed by blacks and mestizos, and that wherever middle-class American culture is being debased and disparaging media images of whites abound, Jews and their anti-Christ secular allies are pulling the strings.
Working against white solidarity in the face of minority onslaught and demographic subsumation by mass immigration is that most whites simply don’t think they are vulnerable. As long as the money machine keeps working, and the system of imperial control of the world’s labor and vital resources keeps the cheap goods flowing, well, everything is all right. Another problem is that not all whites think of themselves as “white.” This goes back almost fifteen hundred years to the struggles between the Celtic Britons and Scots and Irish and the Germanic Saxons, Angles, Norse and Normans. Growing up the descendant mainly of Germans and Puritan WASPs in an Irish and Italian Catholic milieu, I noticed early on that there existed a natural animosity wherever the Saxon-Celt divide was perceptible. The Irish kids I grew up with seemed to define themselves in opposition to anything “whitebread” (Bo Sears, are you listening?).
Indeed, anybody whose people came here after 1860 tends to think of themselves as beyond responsibility for the race problem. That is, they don’t identify with the earlier American sense of the need to exercise control over alien and hostile populations. This is compounded by the fact that many of the post-1848 immigrants to America, the German socialists, the poor of Southern and Eastern Europe, were little more than serfs. They identified not so much with the blacks themselves – many had strong prejudices against them – but with their plight as menial workers at the bottom of society. What they really resented was the Anglo-Saxons who occupied the positions of power, wealth and influence in their new land. Siding with blacks was a way to get at the hated “bosses.” When World War I and II rolled around, this same impulse manifested itself as anti-German feeling. The Saxon type was seen to be doing the same thing to Europe as he was doing in America to blacks, Indians and immigrants. He would have to be dethroned. Jews lead the charge, but all non-WASP ethnics pile on heartily.
All of this eventually leads to the destruction of any notion of aristocracy beyond the money power. It’s been over a hundred years now since the last pro-white American movement against the banks, the Populists, fizzled out, co-opted by the two major parties. The Age of Mass Man has settled in.Chilton Williamson Jr., writing in the September issue of Chronicles draws the grim portrait of our modern condition:
Deprived of an authoritative aristocracy to direct its government, uphold a coherent social structure, fight its wars, and maintain high standards in learning and in the arts, Western civilization has approached near collapse, as the enfranchised rude republican of the 19th century has devolved steadily into the “empowered” mass man of the 20th and 21st , to the point where, today, democratic society exists only in the anthropological sense. The devastation is systemic, endemic, and all-pervasive, embracing government and public life, the professions, the arts, manners, morals, and religion. Modern Americans no longer recognize or appreciate civilization. They have ceased to be able to govern themselves, and they have ceased to be capable of thought, in part because mass democracy encourages thinking about everything in the mass – abstractly and statistically, according to the standards set by the social “sciences.” The mass man, Ortega said, thinks he is perfect. That is as good an explanation as any for the secularization of modern society and of religion itself, as only people who are aware of their radical imperfection can be expected to believe in the Christian God and to observe His commandments.
That man should become
standardized in his wants and needs, all material; that he should want nothing more than to live as only irresponsible aristocrats had once been able to live, in the illusion of vice, luxury and material comfort; to be self-sufficient with income from the increasingly abstract “work” of keeping the books for the transactions of the service economy, with his eye so close to one small facet of the scheme as to miss its whole import: this was the goal of the financiers and their industrialist confederates.
Feminism suits their ambitions perfectly, for it accomplishes several laudable goals. It expands the pool of both consumers and laborers; and it leads to a demographic crisis that drives mass immigration, allowing still more workers to be imported from alien countries, cultures and races. Anything that works against an ethnic national unity on the part of whites is essential to the scheme. Other races and types of men may be educated in an awareness of ethnic pride, because this can be used as a bludgeon against whites, who are increasingly shown to be the robbers of freedom of the downtrodden of the world. We must be ever vigilant against “racism” in order to prevent another KKK, another Hitler, another Wallace, indeed anyone or anything that would remind people that America was once a Protestant Christian country populated by predominantly Anglo-Saxon whites who did not want to amalgamate their country, their culture, their homes, businesses and families with Africans, Asiatics, Jews and Indians. And so the Civil Rights movement, organized, funded and propagandized by and for the interests of the money power and its international socialist wing and utterly pervasive at all levels of government, legal and academic bureaucracy, conducts an ongoing revolution designed to remake man to suit the demands of the new uniformity.
The moral cachet of the movement has been extended to the relations between the sexes and the interests of fathers within the family. The state declares that there shall be no gods before it: all allegiance to God and His created order shall hereby cease. Today’s soulless material man, propagandized under the new gods of Freud, Kinsey, Mead, Spock and Hefner, has embraced the Playboy Philosophy with relish. Sexual liberation for women, packaged in the Civil Rights wrappings, means that men can now enjoy sex without marriage.
Women, subsidized by government allotments and enabled by the cash and commodity economy, enjoy financial independence without men. Mass-market feminist magazines applaud women having sex and children without the restrictions of husbands, oppressive morals and social opprobrium. Birth control and abortion rights, no-fault divorce, custody laws and child support regimes mean that marriage and children pose too much of a financial risk for men, who can be threatened with expulsion from their families and the loss of half their income for almost any cause. For women, the risks of pinning their future and that of their children on a husband will be less attractive than delaying motherhood until an independent career can be established. Men and women will need each other only for sex and the satisfaction of their emotional needs while they pursue, almost separately even in cohabitation, their individual careers based on personal advancement and self-fulfillment.
This fragile basis for union will be strained fatally by precisely those human needs the new morality was calculated to liberate. The end result is atomized men and women hopelessly seeking satisfaction from the very things in life that are most sure to disappoint. The anxiety can be relieved only temporarily by the next round of spending on material pleasures: exactly the way the moguls want it. Your credit limit goes up as your moral condition goes down.
There seems to be no way to reclaim this culture. Anyone who wishes to escape infection must separate from it, criticize it to all who will listen, and strive to set against it an appealing and heroic counterexample. We must relentlessly campaign to weaken its basic assumptions. These notions in particular must be countered: that everybody’s equal, with material circumstances determining outcomes; that democracy is good and that everybody, everywhere in all times and places, wants it; and that material progress is the only measure of the health of a society.
At last, one by one, we must all “repent, turn to God and do works befitting repentance (Acts 26:20 NKJV).” For therein lies our hope and salvation.'
