how monolithic are the elites?

When we talk about “the elites” it’s easy to fall into the trap of assuming that we’re talking about a single well-defined entity with a clear-cut agenda and a clear-cut ideological position. But then when we look at what the elites actually do it can be puzzling. For example the elites seem to be obsessed with the vital necessity for population growth but at the same time they seem indifferent to plummeting birth rates. This doesn’t bother the far right since they assume it’s an evil conspiracy theory to replace white people with non-whites. But that’s a bit puzzling as well. The elites want globalism and the most enthusiastic supporters of the globalist project are white people. In fact the most enthusiastic supporters of all the projects being pushed by the globalist elites are white people. Globalism is a white person ideology.

I would like to suggest that maybe the solution to such puzzles is that the elites do not represent a single well-defined entity with a clear-cut agenda and a clear-cut ideological position. Maybe the elites are not monolithic.

Maybe the elites are actually divided into multiple factions all with different agendas, and are united only by their desire to maintain elite power and by their fear of losing that power.

There seem to be members of the elites who subscribe to doomsday environmentalist beliefs (OMG the planet will die unless we reduce world population by 90%!) but they’re just one small faction. The majority view within the elites seems to be that capitalism requires a continually increasing population. There are members of the elites who would like to see the UN become a world government, but there are others who want a global American Empire run entirely from Washington.

There are members of the elites who care about nothing but corporate profits. There are others who are ideologically motivated and want to socially engineer a perfect world. There are members of the elites who are True Believers in the LGBT and feminist agendas while there are others who see those ideologies merely as tools to maintain their power by divide-and-conquer tactics.

There are members of the elites who would like to see totally unfettered free markets, while there are others who favour rule by massive bureaucracies.

Maybe we’re not dealing with a single vast conspiracy but with half a dozen or more elite factions all pursuing their own goals.

Perhaps the elites never have been monolithic. To take the 19th century English elites as an example, they included some pretty nasty types but they also included do-gooders who had genuine concerns for the poor and they included cynics who recognised that it was advisable not to make the lives of the poor too miserable. Churchill is a good example. Winston Churchill was one of the most vicious, cynical, dishonest men who ever walked the Earth but he was a strong believer in social programs to help the poor because he believed that that was the only way to avoid a socialist revolution which would have ended with people like Winston Churchill hanging from lamp-posts.

I think it’s true of our modern elites as well. Some are psychotic monsters. Some are well-intentioned but misguided. Some genuinely believe their social engineering projects will make society better. Some are motivated by a desire to avoid getting lined up against a wall and shot.

The elites are a coalition of interest groups with widely varying agendas. Some of those agendas are pure evil (such as the neocon agenda), but some are paternalistic and in their own way well-meaning. Some of the elites are simply old-fashioned American imperialists. Some are sincere internationalists. Some are motivated by pure greed while others are ideologically motivated. Some are motivated by hate and some by fear. Some are egotists who want to be seen as saviours. Some are completely decadent (such as those pushing the LGBT agenda), some are idealists.

It’s just a theory of course.