By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://blog.alor.org/
Elite Replacement Theory By Richard Wolstencroft By James Reed
Richard Wolstencroft is my very favourite Australian public intellectual, brave and no bs, always going to the heart of the matter, and I want to be just like him when I grow up, if I grow up.
He has a theory, he dubs “elite replacement theory,” a thing of considerable intellectual beauty:
“It is my argument that an "Elite Replacement Event" may well be underway, made manifest in that seminal year 2016 with the phenomena of Trump and Brexit. Yes, these events are often characterised as populist uprisings, but that is an oversimplification, as any uprising always needs cooperation from above. There is a very real possibility that an exciting new nationalist elite is rising to gain dominance and control over our nations and, most importantly, over elite circles of power and hegemony—in short to re-grasp the very reigns of Grand History itself to take a whip-hand in its own destiny! Although I have coined the term, "Elite Replacement Theory," I don't claim to have invented the bigger theory of which it is merely a proposed component, namely Elite Theory. I am merely its humble student, relying instead upon the insights of Pareto, Mosca, Gentile, and Michels of the Italian School for most of my insights.
Here is a reasonably accurate and concise Wikipedia entry on Elite Theory, which can serve as a convenient introduction:
The theory posits that a small minority, consisting of members of the economic elite and policy-planning networks, holds the most power—and that this power is independent of democratic elections. Through positions in corporations or on corporate boards, and influence over policy-planning networks through financial support of foundations or positions with think tanks or policy-discussion groups, members of the "elite" exert significant power over corporate and government decisions. The basic characteristics of this theory are that power is concentrated, the elites are unified, the non-elites are diverse and powerless, [and that] elites' interests are unified due to common backgrounds and positions and the defining characteristic of power is institutional position. It is clear from all the available historical data that the old elites used to be much more Eurocentric, favouring Western Culture and Western Civilisation, and were much more concerned about the health and interests of ordinary European people. Of late, however, it is clear that they have stopped behaving in that way, which is why we need to amend the analytical tool of Elite Theory in a more proactive direction, towards Elite Replacement Theory. ERT is weaponised Elite Theory!
This new theory is reactionary, but it is a reaction to the threat identified by the New Right as "The Great Replacement," which needs no introduction here. Suffice to say that the present constellation of elites—at least pre-2016—is pushing towards the establishment of a global, possibly Chinese-led, one-world government, where the civilisation and interests of European peoples will be regarded as an irrelevance. Naturally there will be some resistance to this nightmare vision, and even considerable segments of the elite must be having second thoughts about it, which is probably why 2016 happened. ERT is moral and just, as it seeks to do to globalist elites exactly what they are doing to us—basically to replace them or large sections of them—and by so doing to save our own nations and homelands, as well as restoring our rightful hegemony in the world. But ERT is not just reactionary; it is also revolutionary and creative. More than simply a desire to reverse the last 100 years of globalist mischief and mayhem, it is an attempt to create a new reality and to go on the offensive, recognising the schisms in the elites and exploiting these through forming wedges and alliances. This marks it as a "New Right" philosophy rather than a sterile creature of the old dead Right.
"The Elite" should never be understood as a monolith. Its unity is functional more than essential, and underneath its most adamant surfaces runrivalries, deep cracks, and potential fissures. The toxic and malevolent part that has risen to the fore since WWII is truly parasitic and vampiric—as more layers are pealed off, its corruption and evil is revealed. This aspect has been portrayed and even parodied in mainstream media many times—by Ian Fleming in his Bond series with SPECTRE, or at the other end of the literary spectrum through William Burroughs and his concept of Interzone Inc. and Dr. Benway to name just two examples. … Truly something else is coming. All the smart political philosophers of recent times, both on the Left and on the Right, have seen it and detected it. Go to the contemporary politics section of any decently stocked bookstore and you will find hysterical books from Neo-Liberals and Neocons lamenting that the New Right is taking over, and is literally Hitler or Putin. But there you will also find a bunch of more nuanced works that examine the New Populism with a fairer eye. Viewed in total, this all speaks to Elite Replacement Theory and is a manifestation of the thesis I am presenting here: The evil elites are screaming in pain, "Don't replace us," while the authentic political movements of both the Right and the Left are answering back "No, we will replace you, you evil bastards."
Well, I would like to think that this is so, but I doubt it. The financial elites, those from Soros up in the food chain, still seem untouched by anything, and so long as the capitalist-communist-cosmopolitan system called globalism exists, there will be merely a change of complexions, maybe replacing the footmen whites by Chinese, but the Dark Lords remain as dark and as evil as ever. That is why I am a catastrophe theorist, believing that something truly dynamic is needed to finally solve the problem of the elites.