Setting the Stage for the Modern Feudal State

feudalism_then_now_2Study human history sufficiently and you will soon see that the majority of governing entities have been what could be called autocracies, monarchies or oligarchies, with many, if not most exhibiting authoritarian characteristics. Early “governments” probably depended heavily on “might makes right” unless based on purported religious authority. While there were brief flirtations with democratic systems such as the Athenian and Roman republics, the trend continued with political / military strongmen, divine rights monarchs, religious authorities and up until the 20th Century. There were two major exceptions to this; Great Britain and the United States of America.

American government split with the former trend when it adopted a new and, at the time, radical philosophy of popular sovereignty, while Britain took a gradualist course in which Parliament gradually weaned the monarchy of its authority and left it as little more than a figurehead capable only of moral suasion. Victoria was the last British monarch to hold any actual power, and that wasn’t much.

However, at the turn of the 20th Century American popular sovereignty began to erode. Some, particularly libertarians, credit President Lincoln with beginning this trend. Regardless, Woodrow Wilson was the first president to declare the U.S. Constitution outdated and opine that the courts should remove the restrictions placed the national government. As Thomas Sowell states:

Like Woodrow Wilson, our current president is charismatic, vain, narrow and headstrong. Someone said of Woodrow Wilson that he had no friends, only devoted slaves and enemies. That description comes all too close to describing Barack Obama, with his devoted political palace guard in the White House that he listens to, in contrast to the generals he ignores on military issues and the doctors he ignores on medical issues.

This points to a particularly important point. Wilson’s assault on the Constitution came via amendments. Obama has essentially stated, when it suits his purpose, that it is irrelevant. Wilson and Obama are both academics with little or no knowledge of the real world in practical terms. Both believe that everything would all fall into place if the entire nation or world danced to their tune. Both had Ivy League credentials, albeit, Wilson’s the far superior of the two, as he was a PhD and former Princeton University President.

Both of these men have asserted a smug superiority throughout their associations with others; particularly the American Public. This attitude betrays the same essential characteristics of royalty and aristocracy in past centuries. “We are better than you are and you should act accordingly.” Instead of having ancestry as the basis for this supposed superiority, it is now based on political philosophy and educational background. Thus “the fact that I went to (Harvard, Berkeley, Columbia, Stanford) and am a liberal makes me better than you in all things because my ideology is superior to yours.”

It is this attitude that shows the underlying hypocrisy of the average modern self-appointed “elite.” It is their seeming compassion for the “poor and underprivileged” that leads some to mistake their intent. Their true attitude is contempt for everyone who does not fit their personal model of social propriety. The rest are to be used, if acknowledged at all because they are not part of the elite crowd. The socialist ideology has merely been an excuse and a cloak for their authoritarian ambitions.

One has only to look at the Obama lifestyle. Sowell’s description of Wilson having only devoted slaves and enemies also mirrors the present administration. Add in the snooty attitude and the decision-making for others because they are too stupid to make their own decisions, the executive orders on matters beyond his control and the incessant lying. It is simple to see that Obama’s has more, personally in common with a medieval king or duke than with the presidency that the Constitution of was designed to create. Wilson would. Undoubtedly do the same, but he came along too early to get away with it.

Now, consider: The current U.S. government paradigm appears built on a partnership between controlling interests in the major political parties, large business interests and the investment banking (Wall St.) community and assorted hangers on who profit from political machinations; particularly those who run “not for profit” organizations that depend heavily on government largess. The national debt has exploded and the economy is largely static. Growth projections or pronouncements have become suspect due to evidence that the books are being cooked. Meanwhile, the wealthy prosper from their investments in an inflated investment market and the middle class flounders. Much of the economic stagnation is easily traced to government intervention including obamacare, and destructive regulation of the energy sector.

If the elites get their way and force the majority back into horse and buggy technology because of “global warming” will the elites accept that too? The answer is an unqualified “no.” Perhaps, bold and underlined. After all, they are too important and special to be required to make such sacrifices. Consider Al Gore, whose “carbon neutral lifestyle” is a matter of smoke, mirrors, and his own puffery.

The inner city, low-income population that has floundered under the present system, will lose the most if the economy is forced to collapse due to environmental regulation. It is too bad for them. They didn’t attend Harvard Law School.

 

But there is a method to all that is happening. If the majority of the population can be forced into an impoverished condition while the relative few maintain excessive wealth, then a situation similar to that of the old Soviet system appears. The Soviet political-economic system by virtue of its intense class based hierarchy and lack of social mobility created what was essentially a modern feudal state. And this created the ability of one generation to pass social status on to the next, as long as they were capable of performing the duties of such positions. The result was stagnation and destitution.

In modern America the “big government political” class sees itself benefiting from such a model. It will create a “divine right of political elites” who are qualified for such position because they have personally declared it so. They are experts, so how can their postion be wrong? They are totally wise, so in their wisdom they always make the correct decisions. The rest of us are simply unable to function at their level and such opportunities would be lost on us anyway. We are better off as serfs, doing their bidding without questioning their authority. Thus is born the ideal of the modern feudal state.

Can this happen? The answer is almost certainly yes, if insufficient opposition develops and sufficient force is applied to create such a monstrosity. One of the adages applied at the outset of the 2009 Obama administration was “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” At the time it seemed reasonable to posit that creation of crises in order to take advantage of them was also a possibility.

Of late, we have terroristic threats being leveled by ISIS, which the administration seems to want to promote; after all, it keeps releasing terrorist leaders from Guantanamo. Then there is the racial unrest being provoked by administration flacks and the press whenever a police officer is involved in the death of a criminal suspect that can be opportunistically turn to a political advantage. Unconfirmed reports have surfaced of new, unpublicized cases of Ebola on US soil. These are not verified, and could be a matter of disinformation to cause civil unrest, or if real, could raise the fear of an epidemic.

Add together a terrorist attack, civil unrest sufficient to overwhelm available public safety responses, the possibility of an epidemic and so on. Add in other events that we do not yet know about and consider the possible magnitude of a manufactured crisis. A federal response, which suspends the constitution and Presto! The new feudal state is in place, without the titles, but those could be added later. Who really needs them anyway when privileges are more important? And that is what the elites are after anyway; privileges that cannot be taken away.

Comments are closed.