Elite opinion going nuts

James Taub of Foreign Policy Magazine says it all: “It’s time for the elites to rise up against the ignorant masses”.

The issues are not between left and right he says, but between the wise and knowing elites and the angry know nothings who voted  for Brexit and who will he fears vote for Trump.



Given Mr. Taub’s description  of what ails the masses, it is to be expected that they are in revolt. He writes:


The issue, at bottom, is globalization. Brexit, Trump, the National Front, and so on show that political elites have misjudged the depth of the anger at global forces and thus the demand that someone, somehow, restore the status quo ante. It may seem strange that the reaction has come today rather than immediately after the economic crisis of 2008, but the ebbing of the crisis has led to a new sense of stagnation. With prospects of flat growth in Europe and minimal income growth in the United States, voters are rebelling against their dismal long-term prospects. And globalization means culture as well as economics: Older people whose familiar world is vanishing beneath a welter of foreign tongues and multicultural celebrations are waving their fists at cosmopolitan elites.

If my long term prospects were ‘dismal’, to use his words, I too would revolt.

The schism we see opening before us is not just about policies, but about reality. The Brexit forces won because cynical leaders were prepared to cater to voters’ paranoia, lying to them about the dangers of immigration and the costs of membership in the EU.

It is customary in argument to assert that the view of reality held by one’s opponents must be wrong. Usually left wingers assert that opposition is informed by wrong attitudes, ideologies, and values. It never occurs to writers like Taub that the systematic cover-up by British police and social workers of Islamic rape culture in Rotherham has come home to roost, as it were. It never seems to occur to them that the price of imposing political correctness – which is not to perceive or speak about what is in front of one’s nose – is that the pressure must build up to the point of explosion. Through miscalculation, the Tory government handed the masses a clearly worded question that asked them in effect if they wanted

  • to be irrevocably committed to unlimitable immigration and
  • the permanent subordination of their political institutions to un-elected and unaccountable foreign ones.

Despite many material advantages of the current arrangements, the people answered ‘no’. Now the elites are going bonkers. Go figure.



Bookmark and Share
Bill Elder

Dalwhinnie you beat me to this FPM elitist screed as I was texting in the comments to a previous thread – free minds seem to think alike 😉

You can get a rash from the ubermench snobbery oozing from Traub – it angers me such sociopathic scum have the insider leverage to apply undue influence on public policy. The man is a misanthropic Malthusian ponce.


Misanthropic Malthusian ponce! ooo! I am not worthy, Master. I will steal that phrase and make it my own. Great invective, Bill.

Fran Auger

What the Brits did in the vote was thumb their “lower class” noses at those in the upper echelons of society. It is tar and feather times – the peasants are revolting.


To paraphrase an old joke:
Courtier: “Sire, the peasants are revolting!!”
King: “Aren’t they though?”


Note the similarity between Taub’s arguments, and his like minded correct thinkers here in Canada. CBC had no trouble rounding up doom sayers appalled at the result of the Brexit vote; the leave faction were stupid, old, whimsical, uninformed and so on.
Yet these same elite thinkers had no problem whatever with voters choosing a ski instructor, and part-time high school teacher, with no visible qualifications to be PM. These people are fine with democracy in the abstract; they would go to the wall to support voting rights for every citizen possible. It’s just when they do not vote as their betters desire that the problems arise.
Democracy is messy, the correct outcome cannot always be guaranteed. Critics like Taub should take a valium; Britain or the USA is strong enough to survive occasional divergence from correct elite thinking.

Bill Elder

Dalwinnie- You may “liberate” my focused invective as you see fit sir – as far as I’m concerned the language is still free to the masses.

Re: the Brexit-Trump populist phenomenon – aside from populist political choices being a convergence point for ruling class scorn, it is also an indicator of their failed policies and agendas – people do not rebel against policy which does them no harm – but the last 30 years public/foreign/trade policy has damaged the once mighty middle class – they are realizing by being politically apathetic and allowing the ruling class elite to govern unhindered that it has created an atmosphere where they are much less free, less prosperous and less secure than they were at the end of true populist democracy when the globalist coup took over our western governing institutions.

Make no mistake here about the Brexit/Trump populism – it was a rejection by the MIDDLE CLASS of Globalist hegemony. People are not comfortable with the disassembling of the sovereign nation state and losing control of their economy and governing institutions to a detached elite who make policies which continue to immiserate them.

The middle class have been used by the globalist elite to finance their global power structure much like the surly junk man who hitches a tired old horse to pull too heavy a burden until it collapses in exhaustion under the strain – he then whips and curses the horse when it won’t get up and continue the back breaking servitude – this is what the current berating of the middle class by the elite is – kicking and cursing an exhausted horse for not getting up and accepting more cruel abuse.

If the populist revolt taking place in the UK and US are NOT successful and do not rll back elitist globalism, the demise of the middle class is certain and absolute – by rationalizing global living standards we will all be made equally austere rather than equally prosperous – except, of course the small globalist ruling class who will prosper.

Know your enemy-
The key concepts of “Golbalism” (AKA transnational progressivism) could be described as follows:
(1) The ascribed group over the individual citizen.
(2) A categorization of groups: Oppressor vs. victim groups, with immigrant groups designated as victims and indigenous majorities as oppressors.
(3) Group proportionalism as the goal of “fairness.” End of merit-based competition
(5) The Demographic Imperative – homogenization of cultures
(6) The redefinition of democracy and “democratic ideals.” A shift to martinet dictum
(7) Deconstruction of national narratives and national symbols and institutions.
(8) Promotion of the concept of postnational citizenship
(9) The idea of transnationalism as a major conceptual tool of business and governing


Once again I am compelled to agree with you in general, and even if I do not agree absolutely on every point, I agree on most of your points, namely: 1, 2 ,most of 3, 7, and require clarification of what you mean by 5, 6, 8 and 9.

Bill Elder

Dalwinnie – clarification on items #5, 6, 8 and 9 – forgive the verbosity but there are coaxial constructs:

(5) The Demographic Imperative.
The demographic imperative would tell us that major demographic changes are occurring in North America and Europe as millions of new immigrants from non-Western cultures and their children enter western culture in record numbers. At the same time, the global interdependence of the world’s peoples and the transnational connections among them will increase. Globalists tell us that all of these changes render the traditional paradigm of sovereign nation-statehood obsolete. According to globalist social engineers, that traditional paradigm based on individual rights, majority rule, national sovereignty, citizenship, and the assimilation of immigrants into an existing North American social/civic culture is too narrow and must be changed into a system that promotes “diversity,” defined, in the end, as group proportionalism: i.e. that alleged “victim groups” should be represented in all institutions of society roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population or of the local work force. Migrants under the cloak of “refugee” status are deemed to be another victim group of western foreign policy.

(6) The redefinition of democracy and “democratic ideals.
Since Fukayama’s treatise, – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_history
transnational progressives (AKA globalists) have been altering the definition of “democracy,” from that of a system of majority rule among equal citizens to one of power sharing among identity groups composed of both citizens and non-citizens. For example, Mexican foreign minister Jorge Castañeda stated that it is “undemocratic” for California to exclude non-citizens, specifically illegal aliens, from voting. Immigration and Naturalization Service general counsel Alexander Aleinikoff, declared that. “we live in a post-assimilationist age,” and that majority preferences simply “reflect the norms and cultures of dominant groups” (as opposed to the norms and cultures of “migrant people of color”). James Banks, one of American education’s leading textbook writers, noted that “to create an authentic democratic Unum with moral authority and perceived legitimacy the pluribus (diverse peoples) must negotiate and share power.” In effect, Banks said, existing North American liberal democracy is not quite authentic; REAL democracy is yet to be created. It will come when the different “peoples” or groups that live within a nation “share power” as groups. This is a distinctly post modern collectivist view of democracy which conflates the traditional liberal democratic majority with a plurality of minority “groups”.

(8) Promotion of the concept of post-national citizenship.
Rutgers Law Professor Linda Bosniak “Can advocates of post-national citizenship ultimately succeed in decoupling the concept of citizenship from the nation-state in prevailing political thought?” -http://www.futurecitizenship.com/bosniak.html – Bosniak along with increasing number of international law professors throughout the West, along with their UN counterparts are arguing that citizenship should be denationalized. Invoking concepts such as inclusion, social justice, democratic engagement, and human rights, they argue for transnational citizenship, post-national citizenship, or sometimes global citizenship embedded in international human rights accords and “evolving” forms of transnational in and out-migration arrangements. These globalist theorists insist that national citizenship should not be “privileged” at the expense of post-national, multiple, and pluralized forms of citizenship identities. For example, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, (a CFR organ) has published a series of books in the past few years “challenging traditional understandings of belonging and membership in nation-states” and “rethinking the meaning of citizenship.” Although couched in the ostensibly neutral language of social science, these essays from globalist academics from Germany, Britain, Canada, France, and the United States, argue for new, transnational forms of citizenship as a normative good. We see this global citizenship theory embodied in the “no borders” in-migration policies of the EU, Obama administrations and, to a lesser degree, the Trudeau government.

(9) The idea of transnationalism as a major conceptual tool of globalism.
The theory of transnationalism promises to be for the first decades of the twenty-first century what multiculturalism was for the last decades of the twentieth century. In a certain sense, transnationalism is the next stage of multicultural ideology-it is multiculturalism with a global face. Like multiculturalism, transnationalism is a concept that provides elites with both an empirical tool (a plausible analysis of what is) and an ideological framework (a vision of what should be). Transnational advocates argue that globalization requires some form of transnational “global governance” because they believe that the nation-state and the idea of national citizenship are ill suited to deal with the global problems of the future Like climate change and he migration it allegedly causes). Academic and public policy conferences today are filled with discussions of “transnational organizations,” “transnational actors,” “transnational migrants,” “transnational jurisprudence,” and “transnational citizenship,” just as in the 1990s they were replete with references to multiculturalism in education, citizenship, literature, and law. Many of the same scholars who touted multiculturalism now herald the coming transnational age which is the defacto “post-national” era (and of nations-state sovereignty). Today many globalist jurocrats and legal academics, argue that transnationalism is the wave of the future. They insist that transnationalism, combined with large-scale immigration, would redefine the meaning of North American and European citizenship. It is clear that arguments over globalization will dominate much of early twenty-first century public debate – but they will not be framed in such honest terminology to a traditionalists patriotic public. The promotion of transnationalism as both an empirical and normative concept is an attempt to shape this crucial intellectual struggle over globalization and, in a larger sense western culture and ideology. The adherents of transnationalism create a dichotomy. They imply that one is either in step with globalization, and thus with transnationalism and forward-looking thinking, or one is a backward antiglobalist and (the usual string of slanderous epithets chanted by the radical street nihilists funded by globalist think tanks).

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *