Saturday, December 15, 2018

The Priority Schedule Of An Elite

     Does anyone else remember the marvelous movie Fight Club? Surely you remember the first two rules of Fight Club:

     Gentlemen, welcome to Fight Club. The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club!

     For “Fight Club” in the above, feel free to substitute “The Elite.” And now, let’s have the full list of the rules:

  1. You do not talk about The Elite.
  2. You do not talk about the Elite. (We’re selfless public servants, like the postman!)
  3. Your membership in The Elite is the supreme grace of your life. You shall place it above all other considerations.
  4. You shall not, under any circumstances, attack another member of The Elite.
  5. You shall not, whether directly or indirectly, provide aid and comfort to anyone who attacks The Elite or any of its members.
  6. You shall, circumstances permitting, defend a member of The Elite who comes under attack.
  7. The privileges and perquisites of The Elite are equivalent to membership therein. You shall defend them when they are questioned, regardless of the identity or station of the questioner.
  8. Upon failure to abide by these commandments, your membership in The Elite shall be revoked.

     An Elite is an aristocracy. Remember what I said about the nature of an aristocracy?

     A class is defined by its legal and social privileges. The aristocrats of medieval times were not distinguished by their lineages or their deeds, but by the things they were allowed to do, without penalty, that commoners were not. There is reason to believe that the majority of medieval aristocrats were fairly responsible stewards of their lands and of public order within them. That does not justify the creation of a class of men who could wield high, middle, and low justice over others, but who would normally escape all consequences for deeds for which a commoner would be severely punished.

     The American response to the failings of traditional aristocracies was the Rule of Law: the fundamental principle that the law must treat all men impartially, regardless of their identities or station in life. The old shorthand for this principle was "blind justice," meaning that the law must not see one's person, only one's deeds. In a society that respects the Rule of Law, a king would stand in the same dock as a trash-hauler, were the two accused of the same offense. All that would matter would be the evidence for their guilt or innocence.

     In the absence of a scrupulously observed Rule of Law, classes with differing degrees of privilege will emerge. The flourishing of the members of each class will be influenced, often heavily, by the class's privileges and how effectively they can be exploited. Men being what we are, we will be moved to use those privileges in our own interest, both against competitors within our class and against other classes.

     When Robert Mueller blatantly defies a court order to surrender critical documents, he is exerting an Elite privilege: We don’t have to do that. When James Comey lies to protect Hillary Clinton from prosecution under the National Security Act and the Espionage Act, he is conforming to The Elite’s Rule 6 above. And when the entire Justice Department collaborates in an attempt to prevent the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, it’s enforcing the unwritten, unspoken rule:

Only The Elite shall decide who may join its ranks.

     All these things are of the essence of an Elite.

     It’s my contention that the existence of an Elite in a republic such as ours requires the rules I enumerated:

  1. Rule 1 enforces self-protective discretion.
  2. Rule 2 implies severe penalties for violating Rule 1.
  3. Rule 3 is a reminder: This is why you want to be one of us.
  4. Rule 4 establishes the first external priority of membership.
  5. Rule 5 extends Rule 4.
  6. Rule 6 completes the enclosure of The Elite.
  7. Rule 7 extends that enclosure to The Elite’s special privileges.
  8. Do I really have to explain Rule 8?

     These rules also make plain why The Elite must acquire an unshakable grip on supreme political power and guard it against outsiders, for The Elite could not exist nor persist if it could be attacked through the law! Thus any outsider who attempts to use the law to attack The Elite, a member thereof, or any of its privileges will be immediately counterattacked with maximum force.

     Is it not “obvious” that a self-perpetuating Elite is impossible when the Rule of Law is scrupulously observed? There cannot be an Elite if the law applies to its members just as it would to a commoner. It negates the nature and purpose of an Elite: to stand apart from the common folk and above them.

     Are you thinking of Donald Trump? You should be.

     This nation was founded on an anti-aristocratic basis: the firm conviction that no one shall have privileges that allow him to defy the laws that bind the rest of us. Yet we have an Elite, demonstrably so. We have a class of persons who work most assiduously to set the law at naught when its observance or enforcement might discommode them, threaten their privileges, or violate their enclosure.

     This is wrong. It’s un-American. Others have said it. Now I have said it. But what, then, must we do?

     Time to pray.


daniel_day said...

The second rule was, Everybody fights the first time they come to Fight Club.

Francis W. Porretto said...

No, Daniel, that was the eighth rule. Here's the complete list:

"Gentlemen, welcome to Fight Club. The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: you DO NOT talk about Fight Club! Third rule of Fight Club: someone yells "stop!", goes limp, taps out, the fight is over. Fourth rule: only two guys to a fight. Fifth rule: one fight at a time, fellas. Sixth rule: No shirts, no shoes. Seventh rule: fights will go on as long as they have to. And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight."

It's at the IMDB listing for the movie, among the "quotes."


I've "engaged" a fellow Jew about Globalism; they've said "Globalist" is anti-Semitic.

Um, OK. There are Jewish globalists, and a metric f*ckton of non-Jewish globalists. (And of course, the opposite is true; there are Jews and Gentiles alike who do not support the Great Replacement.)

But the insidiousness of this is that one cannot debate or counter a movement one cannot even define. If "Globalist" has been defined as anti-Semitic, and cannot be used... what term, then, can be?

Orwell's 1984 and NEWSPEAK was meant as a warning, and the Left is - very effectively - using it as a manual.

daniel_day said...

Thanks for the correction. I read the book in about 1998. Palahniak was a local writer and had signed the copy in the Gresham, OR library. I suppose someone has long since stolen that copy.

Linda Fox said...

I'm STEALING this. When I get home I'm making a poster for the area not already claimed over my desk.

And, I plan to link this everywhere.