The Elite Plan for a New World Social Order
by Richard K Moore
When the Industrial Revolution began in Britain, in the late
1700s, there was lots of money to be made by investing in factories and mills,
by opening up new markets, and by gaining control of sources of raw materials.
The folks who had the most money to invest, however, were not so much in
Britain but more in Holland. Holland had been the leading Western power in the
1600s, and its bankers were the leading capitalists. In pursuit of profit,
Dutch capital flowed to the British stock market, and thus the Dutch funded the
rise of Britain, who subsequently eclipsed Holland both economically and
geopolitically.
In this way British industrialism came to be dominated by
wealthy investors, and capitalism became the dominant economic system. This led
to a major social transformation. Britain had been essentially an aristocratic
society, dominated by landholding families. As capitalism became dominant
economically, capitalists became dominant politically. Tax structures and
import-export policies were gradually changed to favour investors over
landowners.
It was no longer economically viable to simply maintain an
estate in the countryside: one needed to develop it, turn it to more productive
use. Victorian dramas are filled with stories of aristocratic families who fall
on hard times, and are forced to sell off their properties. For dramatic
purposes, this decline is typically attributed to a failure in some character,
a weak eldest son perhaps. But in fact the decline of aristocracy was part of a
larger social transformation brought on by the rise of capitalism.
Unlike aristocrats, capitalists are not tied to a place, or
to the maintenance of a place. Capital is disloyal and mobile – it flows to
where the most growth can be found, as it flowed from Holland to Britain, then
from Britain to the USA, and most recently from everywhere to China. Just as a
copper mine might be exploited and then abandoned, so under capitalism a whole
nation can be exploited and then abandoned, as we see in the rusting industrial
areas of America and Britain.
This detachment from place leads to a different kind of
geopolitics under capitalism, as compared to aristocracy. A king goes to war
when he sees an advantage to his nation in doing so. Historians can ‘explain’
the wars of pre-capitalist days, in terms of the aggrandisement of monarchs and
nations.
A capitalist stirs up a war in order to make profits, and in
fact our elite banking families have financed both sides of most military
conflicts since at least World War 1. Hence historians have a hard time
‘explaining’ World War 1 in terms of national motivations and objectives.
In pre-capitalist days warfare was like chess, each side
trying to win. Under capitalism warfare is more like a casino, where the
players battle it out as long as they can get credit for more chips, and the
real winner always turns out to be the house – the bankers who finance the war
and decide who will be the last man standing. Not only are wars the most
profitable of all capitalist ventures, but by choosing the winners, and
managing the reconstruction, the elite banking families are able, over time, to
tune the geopolitical configuration to suit their own interests.
Nations and populations are but pawns in their games.
Millions die in wars, infrastructures are destroyed, and while the world
mourns, the bankers are counting their winnings and making plans for their
postwar reconstruction investments.
