The comments this week coming from the so-called elite referencing the ignorant masses have manufactured an aggressive response. The mainstream media have not picked up on these comments but the alternative media have been on the cultural front lines with well strategized talking points.
It should be noted that I have often referenced the disorganized masses in previous posts. This phrase stands in contrast to what is being referenced with the term ignorant masses. Disorganized would suggest non-ignorance with a lack of focus and intent. Ignorant simply means that the masses are too intellectually inferior for advanced comprehension.
While it cannot be denied that there is a vast component of ignorance maintained within the disorganized masses, this ignorance, for the most part, is not willful and is the product of massive cultural and socioeconomic conditioning. Being that all people are not intellectually equal, it can be assumed that there are varying degrees of comprehension when it comes to socioeconomic trends and directions.
The one common trait which is shared by all demographics is the expression of self-interest. The term “Invisible Hand” was first used by Adam Smith in the lead up years to the French Revolution. The invisible hand described the unintended social benefits of individual actions. It was reasoned that individuals’ efforts to pursue their own interest may frequently benefit society more than if their actions were directly intending to benefit society.
The French population was guided by this invisible hand as the people expressed their self-interest through anger at the French monarchy in 1789.
The book, which was published in 1798, only a few years after the initial revolution, has since been minimized and disregarded as inaccurate and unproven. This typical smear tactic, which we still see in use today, has done little to address most of the facts and events discussed in the book. The work is a major announcement of the methodology which was used, and continues to be used, by international banking interests against the ignorant (disorganized) masses. I have a first printing from 1798 in my own collection and consider it to be one of my most prized possessions.
The accepted causes of the French Revolution are listed on Wikipedia as follows:
Cultural: The Enlightenment philosophy desacralized the authority of the King and the Church, and promoted a new society based on “reason” instead of traditions.
Social: The emergence of an influential bourgeoisie which was formally part of the Third Estate (commoners) but had evolved into a caste with its own agenda and aspired to political equality with the clergy (First Estate) and the aristocracy (Second Estate).
Financial: France’s debt, aggravated by French involvement in the American Revolution, led Louis XVI to implement new taxations and to reduce privileges.
Political: Louis XVI faced virulent opposition from provincial parliaments which were the spearheads of the privileged classes’ resistance to royal reforms.
Economic: The de-regulation of the grain market, advocated by liberal economists, resulted in an increase in bread prices. In period of bad harvests, it would lead to food scarcity which would prompt the masses to revolt.
These are all the same causes which John Robison also attributes to the French Revolution. The difference is that Robison does not accept that idea that these conditions materialized as a natural process of socioeconomics. For Robison, the intentional manufacturing of these conditions by powers outside France was obvious.