(Or, a Violently Meandering Study of Elites)

5740 words.

“Man, money ain’t got no owners, only spenders.” – Omar Little, The Wire.

The broad consensus is that despite the best efforts of Freedom Appreciators and Political Scientists alike, there remains such a group as “The Elites,” this group directs society, and in one manner or another they see themselves superior to the rest of us. Ever since the Occupy Movement many have struggled to accurately identify those who populate this group; using simple financial income we can end up targeting particularly effective engineers and surgeons, rather than the faceless executives or international arms dealers one might assume from the outset. While these people were certainly in a loftier economic and social class than the crust punks who set up camp on Wall Street, it was not obvious that these were the people with their hands on the levers of control.

While the identification of these Elites varies depending on which group you ask the most popular formation that has coalesced in our current era is two groups: the deranged tech nouveau riche, and old-money dynastic families, the latter which is typically the target of the Western conspiracy community. While everyone believes politicians and bankers occupy this space, it’s obvious not all are invited. It constitutes the modern aristocracy, and finances are but one measure.

All this is to say, while there is much conflict involved with identifying who inhabits the space, everyone understands it exists, especially in advanced progressive societies that purport to root them out. Do elites occupy a territory of influence that at all times demands to be occupied by someone? And if so, what purpose do elites serve other than being the eternal targets of the underclass?

The Mountaintop Viewed From HEaven

While it is common to investigate elites within the context of the sovereign nation state, elites also exist within ethnic groups, religions, tribes, and transcontinental empires. It is not enough to possess capital and influence to achieve membership; it must be sufficient capital and influence to stand outside of the group and, at the same time, guide its movements. The conflict between financial capital and social capital stands at the foundation of the tension between “old money” and “new money,” where new money is frequently in rebellion against the established order of social capital itself. It never succeeds, however, in disrupting it to the point of upending it.

Elites represent the core of power and influence for a group, and the nature of this identity can shift in or out of favor of the masses. While this relationship is constantly in flux, if the group or identity lacks elites, it lacks internal cohesion and a locus of power to generate acute movement towards survival. 

The behavior of these elites has been a topic of interest for centuries, one of the most popular of which being “The Prince” by Machiavelli, a political treatise written in a much older literary style of “mirrors for princes,” meaning textbooks for the aristocracy on how to rule.  It stands as a crucial pillar of “Elite Theory,” a study not of the laws the powerful purport to defend or the ideals they are charged with upholding, but rather their behavior as a social phenomenon unto itself ^​1​. How is it those in power actually interact with each other? This question grounds the study of all international relations. This network, especially internally, depicts a far less homogenous existence than would appear to those outside of it. Elites warring with their own family over favors, upward mobility capped by jealous rivals, new money vs. old money; the elites themselves have their own castes in flux, which can be manipulated by outside actors.

While ideals – and more intricate ideologies – are valid and constitute an animating force for humans, complex ideals require more social structures to codify them, which requires caretakers with not only the intellectual aptitude but also the ambition to defend them against creative enemies. This is not necessarily a bureaucracy, but an institutional substratum of clergy with wardrobe changes. While this sector may not be required on a familial or clan level, complex societies require a caste with a mind for complexity and, most importantly, a determination to protect it against the stewards of complexity that no doubt exist outside of that system. It is these groups that engage in power negotiations at the highest levels the way a hospital calls upon a skilled surgeon for a single sophisticated task.

“We believe we are disputing the merits of a balanced budget and a sound currency when the real conflict is deciding what group shall regulate the distribution of the currency. We imagine we are arguing over the moral and legal status of the principle of the freedom of the seas when the real question is who is to control the seas.” – James Burnham, The Machiavellians

The essential component of this figure is their ability to transcend their own cultural circumstances to engage in these negotiations. The most compelling sections in The Prince concern how a sovereign may be implanted within an altogether alien cultural ecosystem of entrenched power brokers and beloved elites and not only survive but thrive. At its core, so-called Machiavellianism concerns cultivating relationships that fulfill one’s self-interest ^​2​. While it is a coldly rational system, it can still function in service of nation, empire, ethnicity, class, or even ideology. The crisis we experience in the West is when self-interest becomes completely decoupled from all other identities and continues to maximize its own power.

In our enlightened era elites still exist, but what novel identities do they act in service of? If globally dominant technocrats value neither God not country, do they propose a superior system to their subjects? On the flipside, do the masses still allied to traditional allegiances of belief possess the sheer biological strength to generate their own elites?

Some illustrative examples of how these intra-elite relationships operate can be found in the corpus of John LeDonne, specifically his publications detailing the expansion of Russian Imperialism from 1600 up until World War 1, and how the Russian “heartland zone” by degrees took control over its bordering countries either by military conquest or diplomatic manipulation. Sweden and Poland stand as prime examples where Russian diplomacy achieved dominance through legalistic moves ^​3​.

Where outright war was not declared as with various flashpoints with the Ottoman Empire, subterfuge was employed to appeal to “men of power” within target empires. This was an era where dynastic families ruled more explicitly, however in our current historical period these aristocratic echoes still ring loudly.

During its period of imperialism, Russia not only exploited the elite’s conservative fears of imported destabilization but, when necessary, the counter-elites of resistance movements in the effort to destabilize their zones of interest in Sweden, Poland, Greece, and Persia. Regardless of the affiliation, the decision makers in the Russian Empire correctly ascertained that the best way to cause the collapse of a nation was to exploit those key individuals who possessed influence.

“The superiority of military power was an essential element in such a centripetal orientation of the frontier toward Russia; so was the perception of a commonality of interests between a self-confident Russian ruling class and the men of the power in the frontier zones calling for the guarantee of their ‘rights and privileges’ and the maintenance of the social status quo everywhere but in Finland on the enserfement of the population. The Russian expanded in the Western frontier under the banner of social and political conservatism.”  – John LeDonne, The Russian Empire and the World

During this period prior to the paradigm shift to Total War, the oft-ignored benefit of this matrix of elites was warfare was much more contained, peace was much more easily brokered in the short term, and there was a general understanding that warfare ought not decimate the spirit of a population. Indeed, international relations itself took shape as a way for emerging centralized governments in the 15^th and 16^th centuries to communicate with each other as a set of rules, morals, and ceremonies. Here the aristocratic class could have a universalized conceptualization of international affairs, one which was challenged by the emergence of populism, nationalism, and new forms of state authority. This will prove relevant as nationalism falls out of favour in the modern world. Total war cannot be marshaled forth except by governments treating their own population as an enemy to be coerced, and patriotism is widely received as a fool’s errand even amongst Conservatives. It is increasingly difficult to find men of action like those during the American Revolution who will grab the ancestral rifles from above their hearth and engage in guerilla warfare for their country. The best you will be able to find is ideologically possessed mercenaries, which presents entirely new problems for both victory and loss states.

As traditional identities are in flux and fewer people are willing to die for the national model, it is a new era for elites to define what their own identities are. While the plebians stare inward and tear each other apart over national, spiritual, or ethnic divisions, puzzlingly those in power appear to align over much broader religio-geo-political allegiances.

Intent Subjugates Motivation

Power looks decidedly different to those who don’t possess it, and elites commonly take on a monstrous visage when viewed from below. While ideologies are exceedingly effective at summarizing the historic, biological, and spiritual forces of the regions that generate them, their inability to universalize means they can only ever rise to the level of players in a much larger game of power where the prize is survival. Which is to say, ideologies are useful in narrow realms and find it nigh impossible to scale without mass persecution and suffering.  

Despite the non-universality of ideologies, they show extreme utility to those within the region, just like spirituality and history, both of which struggle to extend beyond their borders without application of power. The forces that promote spiritual, biological, and geographic unity between a self-defined people must don the armor of imperialism to expand beyond that group. As a result, those outside of power often believe that the same ideological superstructures guide the motivations of those in power whose charge is ensuring the survival of the superstructure itself, for benevolent or selfish reasons.

When we speak of political power, we refer to the relations of control among the holders of public authority and between those within their sphere of power and other spheres of power. Ideology, morality, and principles are often employed to cloak the true intentions of high-level power transactions. Even the divine goal of ending war itself can be interpreted as a cunning maneuver to achieve influence, territory, or resources. This is especially true if peace is brokered by a player removed from the belligerents. When we speak of power, we mean man’s control over the minds and actions of other men.

Often times, rather than the elites having a keen focus on the affairs of the average person, it seems like they pay them no mind at all. This is a common refrain from Western populations and from all political movements. In our historical period, this is closer to the truth, despite them leveraging the public for various strategies. On the other hand, in the 21^st century we often behold Elites removing the populous from the conversation entirely – speaking amongst themselves in conferences and journals – perhaps as their functional utility dwindles. Citizens are a problem to be solved rather than human capital to harness. This should be a concern of the highest priority for the vanguardist.

Geopolitical titan Hans Morgenthau describes the central driving force of interactions between nations as interest through power, which can often align with ideological goals but cannot be lead successfully through ideology. This explains why nominally ideological nations like Communist China can engage in negotiations, deals, and even alliances that conflict with their core principles as long as it helps them achieve their goals of power centralization. The apparent conflict between Communism and Capitalism did not stop Russia from allying with their Western adversaries to contain the threat of Germany.

“Intellectually, the political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere, as the economist, the lawyer, the moralist maintain theirs. He thinks in terms of interest defined as power, as the economist thinks in terms of interest defined as wealth; the lawyer, of the conformity of action with legal rules; the moralist, of the conformity of action with moral principles. The economist asks: ‘How does this policy affect the wealth of society, or a segment of it?’ The lawyer asks: ‘Is this policy in accord with the rules of law?’ The moralist asks: ‘Is this policy in accord with moral principles?’ And the political realist asks: ‘How does this policy affect the power of the nation?’” – Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations

Despite these military allegiances being short lived, it shows not what power believes but how it behaves. Faith and ideological adherence can animate but must be subordinate to the survival mechanisms ^​4​. At the highest levels of negotiations, idealism falls away and the only game being played is winner vs. loser, or growth vs. containment. Every other elite agent may have their own religious or ideological priors, but their primary concern is tallying the landscape of who owns what, who owes whom, and whose bluff was called.

Christians can stand for peace and love for all mankind but pick up a sword to defend themselves against their adversaries, or even advance their territorial interests. But what is important to note is this is mainly done by those in power, not by the population. In this rarified air, cries of hypocrisy are but a distant murmur. At this level, all that matters is survival, full stop. Those who only view power relationships through economic interests are blind to the forces that constitute the player to begin with, but those who focus only on those forces will forever be blind to how power behaves and how those who control it will operate. Even though elites will work on behalf of their metaphysics, they will always be outside of it.

While I am an outspoken critic of the book “The 48 Laws of Power,” there is great wisdom to be found in researching political flashpoints throughout world history. Robert Greene’s tome collects records of important betrayals, coups, and conquests from across the planet in an attempt to siphon life lessons that can be applied to the 21^st century psychopath. While most distillations concerning how the powerful ought to behave are contradictory and thus hardly laws at all, there are some phantom threads that can be woven throughout all of them.

In short, the secret to becoming an individual of supreme influence that even the most ambitious scoundrels are forced to orbit is to be a relationship engine that runs on empathy ^​5​. Meaning, in every exchange and in every transaction with an adversary, you are trying to think like the other person to the point you are casting them as the main character in the narrative over yourself. Many attempt to cast themselves as the dominant figure to subjugate others openly, which is an extremely low-resolution view of leadership. To defeat an enemy, you should prefer them not to feel like they have been defeated; what you are seeking to accomplish is your own interests – real interests that do not rely on the prestige given by outsiders – and the opponent is merely an obstacle. There are really only 3 laws of power:
1). Be deceptive to everyone around you
2). Appeal to people’s self-interests to fulfill your agenda
3). Assume at all times everyone around you is doing the same to you

All the 48 laws can be summarized in those 3 points, similar to Sun Tzu’s Art of War boiling down to “never let your enemy know precisely what you are doing.” The true power-wielders are allergic to predictability, occasionally employing shock and surprise simply for the sake of it. The master of control will conceal their true intentions even to those closest to them, exponentially so to those who are outside that inner circle. The dominators of their spheres of influence will exist in a fog of subterfuge at all times, their motivations hidden inside decoy motivations, their grand strategy cloaked behind principles employed sporadically. While their end goal may be to defend the realm that is in their charge, the morals holy to that realm may sit alongside cloaks and daggers. This is to ensure even your purported allies remain as such.

No matter how benevolent and divine you may see yourself, you must never lose face, you must never have your bluff called, and you must always assume you are being watched like a hawk so your competitors can build a predictive model of you in their minds.

These sorts of narrative illusions are employed to this day. In “Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon,” David McGowan investigates the hippie counterculture movement and the American music scene it coalesced around. Centered in Laurel Canyon, it tells the story of The Mamas and the Papas, Frank Zappa, The Byrds, and the various connections to scene leaders and the American Intelligence apparatus that led many to believe that the most famous counterculture movement in American history was co-opted by the very government it was rallying against ^​6​. Too many green lights were afforded to a youth movement that was allegedly a serious threat to the system. Furthermore, too many freaks were afforded the positions of figureheads. The purpose, according to some, was to route a mounting anti-war movement into psychedelic drug use popularized by cults of personality gathered around individuals tasked with distraction. Only Frank Zappa appears to have risen above what he would have assuredly described as “gay hippie bullshit.”

“As the story is usually told, the 1960s countercultural movement posed a rather serious threat to the status quo. But if that were truly the case, then why was it the ‘pillars of the establishment,’ to use Unterberger’s words, that initially launched the movement? Why was it ‘the man’ that signed and recorded these artists? And that heavily promoted them on the radio, on television, and in print? And that set them up with their very own radio station and their very own monthly magazine?” – David McGowan, Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon

The greatest targets are those who wish to be elites, or think they deserve the status through ego and sheer desire. Many of these individuals would gleefully admit to finding it extremely sexy to make a deal with the devil, so odds are that the CIA would not even need to lie about it. A 21 year old can be Heroin Jesus and James Bond at the same time? That’s not a difficult pitch in California.

If the conspiracies are to be believed, it all involved the manipulation of those who had a desperate thirst for leadership over others but were magnetized to it for wrong and selfish reasons. Driven by ego, these types are ready to make any deals with any devil they find and are given only the bombastic trappings of monarchy.

Money and fame instead of wealth and legacy. A fiefdom of fawning dregs. Those who desire fame are easily controlled by those who truly possess influence; the greatest asset an opponent can offer you is notoriety to those around you. This is the game elites play with their favoured puppets; those who believe power is static and is something you wear like clothing.

The Great Heathen Army of Context

In the world of geopolitics, one school of thought seeks to treat human societies as malleable and shaped primarily by values or ideology, while one maintains there are hard and fast rules on human behavior that create permanent demarcations that must be navigated. A popular advocate of the latter – the Realist school, sometimes referred to as Offensive Realism – is John Mearsheimer. He explains how the entire global system is anarchic and powerful nations are always defining their power in relationship to those around them, and all our time is spent gauging relativistic reactions. In fact, a significant driving force between accumulation of power at all is the assumption that a competitor could fill any vacuum that pops up. You accumulate power because you understand those around you can do the same and you cannot fully trust them ^​7​. Your survival may rely on your cynicism.

“The ideal situation for any state is to experience sharp economic growth while its rivals’ economies grow slowly or hardly at all.” – John Mearsheimer, Tragedy of Great Power Politics

Those who seek to control this energy of sovereignty are often not doing it for personal gain at all, they simply understand that vacuums must be filled, and opportunities demand to be seized. Power is contextual and the time horizons long.

One cannot even say they have power unless it is constantly flowing from them, being proven, and demonstrated. We can conclude that power is not an a priori phenomenon: you measure your power in relation to the power of those around you, the power you think they could possibly achieve, and what they would purchase with that power. Its nature is transactional, and every nation is laser focused on the ledger tracking the net balance across the globe. No nation in a globalized world– especially no advanced nation – can afford to be isolationist.

Oftentimes geopolitical conflicts are merely a balancing act to check the growth of power of one particular sphere of influence, as shown by the Cold War. If the ledger of power tilts too far to one region, many temporary alliances will emerge to at least attempt to maintain the status quo of chaos over an unquestioned single power.

In our society we idolize bursts of energy that disrupt the status quo, but this is only truly permitted in a strictly bound sandbox; otherwise the system would be self-destructive. Dreams of disruption are sold to the underclasses; those with real command spend their time searching for unprecedented ways to retain normalcy. This is much more difficult than it sounds in a world built upon the shifting sands of influence. These shifting sands constitute the contextual network of relationships that form our geopolitical existence that is hostile to all genuine disruption. What seems like a sudden change is in fact the apex of an evolution of events, and while the sudden pivots of revolutions are rarely foreseen due to the fog of human affairs, they can be understood in hindsight like one would read a map. No tree appears hovering in the air.

Let’s wander over to an example. Pioneering mathematician and cybernetic scientist Marvin Minsky reflects the contextual emergence of the human mind with that of human social configurations. The human mind is like a fractal view of human societies, and they develop through rudimentary building blocks built around simple actions (see – desire – grab) that can only form towards more complex goals (see – hunt – strategize) once these actions cluster together ^​8​. These are what K-Lines are: the contextual links between emergent behaviors that are recalled at a later date as shorthand to accomplish more complex tasks.

“The secret of what anything means to us depends on how we’ve connected it to all the other things we know. That’s why it’s almost always wrong to seek the ‘real meaning’ of anything. A thing with just one meaning has scarcely any meaning at all.” – Marvin Minsky, The Society of Mind

There is this suspicious wisdom circulating in the West that for a system to be strong, it must be disrupted with regularity. Revolutions, we believe, should be expected, or even encouraged. Even the generations of our citizenry are expected to be dawnings of new days on extraterrestrial worlds. There are no “disruptive” elements of the healthy human mind; in fact, everything is interlocked and connected to innumerable redundancies we can barely begin to understand. Our minds are not streamlined; they are formed in such a way where if one-part stops working, the rest can keep going. It lacks what we might call mechanical efficiency, but we are beginning to understand this is essential for survival. Wisdom of suspicion commonly traded on the Dissident Right tells us that any protest legitimately threatening the system would never be permitted meaning that all protests that are permitted are not legitimately threatening. There may be some truth to this.

Our mental models are layers upon layers of complex structures that are strengthened by their contextual connections to others. A K-Line is what we call the formation of this connection, a short cut our mind makes for itself to remember clusters of actions that are used in unison to accomplish a task. As higher order tasks are demanded of us as we age, k-lines multiple and weave into each other with such intricacy that the building blocks themselves become lost.  This is why you don’t consciously think about grasping, breathing, or the individual movements involved in walking; you concentrate on sprinting towards the object of desire, and let the k-lines fire away.

As our minds develop as an intermingled dance between higher order thinking and essential lower order mechanisms, so do our systems that blanket the Earth. All complex movements are interconnected and built upon micro systems we rarely fixate on anymore. Once we do, the whole begins to lose its balance and the k-line firing line gets confused. The strength of interdependence and awareness means that siloing is impossible. As the human mind scales up to the size of a civilization, we see that not only is isolationism impossible, but it is also impossible on smaller scales as well. Even Ted Kaczynski couldn’t help himself from sending mail.  

Stepping back from the tango of the human brain and mind, we can direct our attention towards the quantum realm to see another example of the contextual nature of reality. Everything is contextual, and nothing can stand apart from the context of everything else around it. For example, let’s look at electrons. Electrons cause the sensory phenomenon of colour based on their movement and frequency in relation to the nucleus. As they move between orbits around the nucleus, they cease having a position and manifestation, like a man passing between streetlamps at night. This is what is known as a quantum leap, and quantum mechanics allows us to measure the probability of the movements of these quanta when their location is unknown ^​9​.

During the transition from Point A to Point B, an electron behaves as if it is taking all possible paths at once, existing simultaneously in every possible location, before finally settling on its final location. The calculation for this is known as “Feynman’s Sum Over Paths,” where the particle temporarily exists in a massive cloud of probability. In our universe, having a precise position is only for the big things. Electrons, then, cannot be said to “exist” on their own; they only exist when they interact.

“Due to this indeterminacy, in the world described by quantum mechanics, things are constantly subject to random change. All the variables ‘fluctuate’ continually, as if, at the smallest scale, everything was constantly vibrating. We do not see these omnipresent fluctuations only because of their smalls scale; they cannot be observed at large scale, as when we observe macroscopic bodies. If we look at a stone, it stays still. But if we could see its atoms, we would observe them to be always now here and now there, in ceaseless vibration.’ – Carlo Rovelli, Reality is Not What it Seems

Existence is contextual and always in flux. From the quantum level of matter up to how we generate the machines to process the data presented by this reality, everything that is significant emerges through constantly fluctuating states in defined by its relationship with what is around it, where even what seems redundant likely serves a purpose to the whole. On the granular level it appears to be chaos, but viewed from above a holistic entity emerges. Like the human mind, its works are subject to the same gestation and also the same trends, we only get confused by the illusory staticacity of scale.

Similarly, power is not a static object you possess; it is the energy that only exists when wielded during transactions. There is functionally no difference between unused power and complete absence of power. On the lowest levels it must necessarily be composed of vital conflict and exchange, because as we scale up new contextual relationships emerge, and the eternal conflict follows as its shadow if only to prove it is exposed to the light.

Power feeds on ambitious transactions; when it has only intent, it starves and seeks out a new owner that knows how to expend it.

The Confidence of The Fluctuating Static

One of the best measures of power and influence in the 21^st century is global trade, which itself can be broken down into a constellation of metrics. By parsing through the trade relationships, disruptions, and tectonic shifts we can glimpse into the innerworkings of the elite mind.

Many laypersons think global trade works by Absolute Advantage, which describes when a nation is the best at producing a specific product and sells it cheaper than it would be for everyone to make it themselves. Many entrepreneurs understand small business this way. In reality true dominance lies within Comparative Advantage, where efficient nations of sufficient centralized power and influence exploit less efficient nations to produce to save their time. This is explored in great detail in such books as “Free Trade Doesn’t Work” by Ian Fletcher. The semiconductor production life is a shining example of this, where a multitude of nations are employed from sourcing the resources to assembling specific parts, which are finally brought together in entirely different locations. As a result, only about a third of countries on Earth actually participate in the global economy directly, the rest are largely vassal states in service of this production line ^​10​.

Economic growth is path dependent, meaning a developing country can develop the wrong industries, like Portugal investing too much into wine production, or any nation that hangs their economy on agriculture regardless of the uniqueness. Conventional free trade wisdom holds that the industries don’t matter as long as they export, regardless of what ladder externalities these sectors encourage. A ladder externality, in short, refers to an industry that grows other industries around it as it scales. In our global economy, there are a lot of influential individuals who would strategize to keep countries from industrializing in ways inconvenient to them, at the same time defending the peacefully effective status quo.

“The theory of comparative advantage is at bottom a very narrow theory. It is only about the best uses to which nations can put their factors of production. We have certain cards in hand, so to speak, the other players have certain cards, and the theory tells us the best way to play the hand we’ve been dealt. […] Unfortunately, this all relies upon these same market forces driving these factors right out of the economy. […] But because land and other fixed resources can’t migrate, labor is legally constrained in migrating, and people don’t usually try to stop technology or raw materials from migrating, the crux of the problem is capital. Capital mobility replaces comparative advantage.” – Ian Fletcher, Free Trade Doesn’t Work

It is of crucial importance, therefore, for these dominant industries to have national wellbeing in mind. However, nationalizing industries as national champions encourages a lack of competition, which on a long enough timeline atrophies the quality of these industries. With the 20^th century still under everybody’s microscope, even collectivist regions understand that they must stress test their organizations through competition to keep them healthy, albeit from positions of security.

The trade behemoths of the West such as Britain built their wealth and manufacturing dominance during periods of protectionism, knowing that being exporters of resources is a dead end ^​11​. Britain existed as a mercantilist pioneer centuries before the free trade revolution, and then even as a free trade nation it endeavored to centralize its manufacturing power through trade protectionism, forcing its industries to develop on their own before opening up its borders. But why open yourself back up to competition at all, would it not be more sensible to build everything yourself if you have the ability? The idea is to enter the world stage not just once again for balance but to ensure you strengthen your internal mechanisms and open yourself up to new opportunities. You must enter into the realm of competition and relationships once you are of significant size to maintain your power and agility.

You need to chase transactions to justify your power, power is only established through exchanges, it can never actually be static. The question we have is, how can we control these interactions more.

The problem with the dissident or revolutionary sphere is they spend so long focusing on their own weakness and ignoring their actual goals that they spend all their time in the heads of their enemies. What they need to do is figure out how they can use oppression and competition to their benefit. The pressure can be used to create a better class of people, a historically unique vanguard. Power must be understood as a phenomenon that is wielded in transactions; it cannot exist without this context, and it is neither strengthened nor weakened by hidden intent. The dissidents of today will become the vanguards of tomorrow and perhaps the elites of tomorrow still if they understand the transactional thermodynamics of power and the networking acumen required to harness it.

At the end of the day, elites are simply what allow an identity group to achieve momentum. Those groups that lack an elite that know how to work in their best interest by having its interests inexorably aligned to your own is doomed to fail. If we allow our values to be subsumed into the dysgenic and antisocial mass, we will never centralize our power this way.

The destiny of the loser is to live contextless, they live as an outsider with no relation to society. They cannot tell the difference between a leader who stands apart and an outcast. They are destined to endorse contextless things they do not understand, mistaking the inert for the eternal.

1. 1.

   Burnham J. The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom. Lume Books; 2020.
2. 2.

   Machiavelli N. The Prince . Penguin Classics; 2003.
3. 3.

   LeDonne JP. The Russian Empire and the World, 1700-1917: The Geopolitics of Expansion and Containment. 1st ed. Oxford University Press; 1996.
4. 4.

   Morgenthau HJ. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle For Power And Peace. A. A. Knopf ; 1948.
5. 5.

   Greene R. The 48 Laws of Power. Penguin Books; First Edition; 2000.
6. 6.

   McGowan D. Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon: Laurel Canyon, Covert Ops & the Dark Heart of the Hippie Dream. Headpress; 2014.
7. 7.

   Mearsheimer JJ. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton & Company; 2014.
8. 8.

   Minsky M. The Society of Mind. Simon & Schuster; 1988.
9. 9.

   Rovelli C. Reality Is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity. Riverhead Books; 1988.
10. 10.

    Fletcher I. Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace It and Why. Coalition for a Prosperous America; 2011.
11. 11.

    List F. The National System of Political Economy. 1st ed. Imperium Press; 2022.