The first world war basically ended any mandate aristocracy and monarchy had. I should put together a substack article about this, because I think most people overlook that the World Wars are very significantly a matter of deciding how the world is to be governed - it is increasingly clear that the days of royalty/monarchy/aristocracy are tottering as we open the 20th century, but how and when that will change and what will or won't replace it is still very much up for grabs at that point - though of course the spectre of Communism was haunting Europe, and democracy had turned France into a Republic in a fashion that rather alarmed everyone else (eg, with guillotines and Napoleon).
Agr, these wars were clearly was a catalyst. Almost as if the changes were mounting steadily over the years, pressuring existing structures, and then the ensuing mess of war allowed all those pressures to be resolved through radical societal realignments. Certainly it caused many of these men to lose confidence in themselves and in their world, which is sad. Would be interested in any further thoughts.
I think the big picture is pretty simple, although the details are complicated. When one gives up the printing of the nation's money supply and the media to foreign interests of a different religious persuasion, over time the bloodsucking will drain that nation of all of it's strength and vigor. And this happened because the aristocratic stock of that nation adopted the God of those people and handed it over on a silver platter.
This is clearly the fundamental issue that I've missed. Do you mean the aristocracy consciously handed over power to foriengn groups (e.g. Establishment of Bank of England). Or were they out flanked through said groups buying up the odd politician. The former suggests a key spiritual weakness while the latter is more forgiveable if lessons are learnt?
William of Orange dethroned his brother James II in 1688 with Jewish moneylender financial support based out of the Netherlands, and in return William surrendered the royal prerogative of issuing England’s money free of debt and interest to them. This led directly to the establishment of the privately owned Bank of England, whose ostensible purpose was to lend King William unlimited sums at interest to enable the prosecution of war, but whose hidden purpose was to fleece the English people in perpetuity by allowing the creation of the nation’s money out of nothing at interest. Coinciding with the establishment of the bank were a large number of new taxes on citizens, including a 20% corporate and personal income tax which were needed by the government to pay interest on loans they would subsequently seek from the central bank (while the moneylenders utilized tax exempt foundations and other loopholes to avoid the taxes that the masses had to pay).
The bigger question is why this system arose in the first place. I would argue it arises directly from the fact that Christianity made the Jewish God their own, which put the story of the Jewish people central to their belief system. One may note that Catholicism banned and destroyed every other religion as “pagan” after it’s triumph over Rome, and then handed over to Jews the moneylending monopoly in Europe during the Middle Ages (and it vigorously enforced that ban against Christians doing moneylending, considering it usurious).
Thanks. Will have to think on this. It strikes me that William of Orange was primarily concerned about short term gains and happy to throw his kin/ people under the bus (a trait far too common amongst our own). Or perhaps he just didn't think things through? Either way he was either naive or just lacked a proper sense of group identity. And as for Christianity I'm instinctively reluctant to go down that road. I'd point to men like William Luther and many throughout the Catholic Church who had a healthy sense of what was subversive and what wasn't. Ofc American Evangelicals are a completely different story altogether. Overall I think Europeans just lack a healthy sense of group identity—but it wasn't always this way. Perhaps the advent of the Englighment values and a general lurch into abstraction rendered us prone to into throwing the particular and kin ties under the bus? At any rate, I agree with what you've said—the aristocrats demise was underway well before the late nineteenth century (sadly).
This is a fine article. A great follow up would be on what the aristocracy are up to now. Is their an aristocrat who could be rehabilitated and placed at the head of a new vanguard for change?
This reminds me that one day i will have to write my own post -- or series of posts -- on why/how Britain declined. Hint: it's because of the ruling class
I just watched Barry Lyndon for the first time two days ago and it’s tragic that the magic of those estates and direction of those gentlemen is now gone.
But everyone has the franchise and McDonalds so it’s better.
It's tragic — mostly bc those aristocrats, for all their failings, held onto standards and were orientated towards excellence. The class of mass men that have been engendered in their wake do nothing but consume slop and conform to societal propoganda.
Well educated but poor, many aristocrats saw Marxism as their path to power and influence! And, so, today we have Starmer! It cannot be forgotten, the monarchy did enormous psychic damage to Britain! Consider, the British secret service sent Trotsky, with a trainload of money, to Russia to topple the Czar! I think it best to consider the bankers of the City of London who prolonged WWI for three more hideous years as the villains!
The first world war basically ended any mandate aristocracy and monarchy had. I should put together a substack article about this, because I think most people overlook that the World Wars are very significantly a matter of deciding how the world is to be governed - it is increasingly clear that the days of royalty/monarchy/aristocracy are tottering as we open the 20th century, but how and when that will change and what will or won't replace it is still very much up for grabs at that point - though of course the spectre of Communism was haunting Europe, and democracy had turned France into a Republic in a fashion that rather alarmed everyone else (eg, with guillotines and Napoleon).
Agr, these wars were clearly was a catalyst. Almost as if the changes were mounting steadily over the years, pressuring existing structures, and then the ensuing mess of war allowed all those pressures to be resolved through radical societal realignments. Certainly it caused many of these men to lose confidence in themselves and in their world, which is sad. Would be interested in any further thoughts.
I think the big picture is pretty simple, although the details are complicated. When one gives up the printing of the nation's money supply and the media to foreign interests of a different religious persuasion, over time the bloodsucking will drain that nation of all of it's strength and vigor. And this happened because the aristocratic stock of that nation adopted the God of those people and handed it over on a silver platter.
This is clearly the fundamental issue that I've missed. Do you mean the aristocracy consciously handed over power to foriengn groups (e.g. Establishment of Bank of England). Or were they out flanked through said groups buying up the odd politician. The former suggests a key spiritual weakness while the latter is more forgiveable if lessons are learnt?
William of Orange dethroned his brother James II in 1688 with Jewish moneylender financial support based out of the Netherlands, and in return William surrendered the royal prerogative of issuing England’s money free of debt and interest to them. This led directly to the establishment of the privately owned Bank of England, whose ostensible purpose was to lend King William unlimited sums at interest to enable the prosecution of war, but whose hidden purpose was to fleece the English people in perpetuity by allowing the creation of the nation’s money out of nothing at interest. Coinciding with the establishment of the bank were a large number of new taxes on citizens, including a 20% corporate and personal income tax which were needed by the government to pay interest on loans they would subsequently seek from the central bank (while the moneylenders utilized tax exempt foundations and other loopholes to avoid the taxes that the masses had to pay).
The bigger question is why this system arose in the first place. I would argue it arises directly from the fact that Christianity made the Jewish God their own, which put the story of the Jewish people central to their belief system. One may note that Catholicism banned and destroyed every other religion as “pagan” after it’s triumph over Rome, and then handed over to Jews the moneylending monopoly in Europe during the Middle Ages (and it vigorously enforced that ban against Christians doing moneylending, considering it usurious).
Thanks. Will have to think on this. It strikes me that William of Orange was primarily concerned about short term gains and happy to throw his kin/ people under the bus (a trait far too common amongst our own). Or perhaps he just didn't think things through? Either way he was either naive or just lacked a proper sense of group identity. And as for Christianity I'm instinctively reluctant to go down that road. I'd point to men like William Luther and many throughout the Catholic Church who had a healthy sense of what was subversive and what wasn't. Ofc American Evangelicals are a completely different story altogether. Overall I think Europeans just lack a healthy sense of group identity—but it wasn't always this way. Perhaps the advent of the Englighment values and a general lurch into abstraction rendered us prone to into throwing the particular and kin ties under the bus? At any rate, I agree with what you've said—the aristocrats demise was underway well before the late nineteenth century (sadly).
This is a fine article. A great follow up would be on what the aristocracy are up to now. Is their an aristocrat who could be rehabilitated and placed at the head of a new vanguard for change?
This reminds me that one day i will have to write my own post -- or series of posts -- on why/how Britain declined. Hint: it's because of the ruling class
I just watched Barry Lyndon for the first time two days ago and it’s tragic that the magic of those estates and direction of those gentlemen is now gone.
But everyone has the franchise and McDonalds so it’s better.
I do agree though — we've seen nothing but improvements over the past few decades and McDonald's is, ofc, one of our greatest achievements.
It's tragic — mostly bc those aristocrats, for all their failings, held onto standards and were orientated towards excellence. The class of mass men that have been engendered in their wake do nothing but consume slop and conform to societal propoganda.
McDonald’s is the franchise
Enjoyed this
Amazing article James❤️
Much appreciated.
A good companion piece to this book would Barbara Tuchman’s “The Proud Tower”.
Will give it a look. Problem is—as ever—I have a reading list of around 20 of them I haven't yet looked at. But appreciate your engagement.
Well educated but poor, many aristocrats saw Marxism as their path to power and influence! And, so, today we have Starmer! It cannot be forgotten, the monarchy did enormous psychic damage to Britain! Consider, the British secret service sent Trotsky, with a trainload of money, to Russia to topple the Czar! I think it best to consider the bankers of the City of London who prolonged WWI for three more hideous years as the villains!