Keep this in mind the next time you go to vote:
The public are "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders [who] must be put in their place." Decisions must be in hands of the "intelligent minority [of] responsible men," who must be protected "from the trampling and roar of the bewildered herd." The herd does have a function. Its task is to lend its weight every few years to a choice among the responsible men, but apart from that its function is to be "spectators, not participants in action." All for their own good. We should not succumb to "democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests." They are not. We are: we, the responsible men. Therefore attitudes and opinions must be shaped and controlled. We must "regiment the minds of men the way an army regiments their bodies." In particular, we must introduce better discipline into the institutions responsible for "the indoctrination of the young." If that is achieved, then it will be possible to avoid such dangerous periods as the 1960s, "the time of troubles" in conventional elite discourse. We will be able to achieve more "moderation in democracy" and return to better days as when "Truman had been able to govern the country with the cooperation of a relatively small number of Wall Street lawyers and bankers."
These are quotes from icons of the liberal establishment: Walter Lippmann, Edward Bernays, Harold Lasswell, Samuel Huntington, and the Trilateral Commission, which largely staffed the Carter administration.
This shriveled conception of democracy has solid roots. The founding fathers were much concerned about the hazards of democracy. In the debates of the Constitutional Convention, the main framer, James Madison, warned of these hazards. Naturally taking England as his model, he observed that "in England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place," undermining the right to property. To ward off such injustice, "our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation," arranging voting patterns and checks and balances so as "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," a prime task of decent government.
You can read the rest @
This is very similar to what I posted earlier:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. … It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
You can read the rest @
The concept comes from at least as far back as the ancient Greeks:
The idea that the “wise” should rule is as old as politics itself. The ancient philosophers Plato and Aristotle preferred what, in Greek, would be termed “the rule of the best.” Such a regime, however, seems to collide fundamentally with the egalitarian principles enunciated in our founding documents and the democratic sensibilities about government held by many, if not most, Americans. We like to think that in America anyone—even the descendant of an East-African goatherd—can become president. Anyone, nowadays at least, who has gone to Harvard.While a government of elites may appear obnoxious to American democratic impulses, for the most part the supposed intellectual quality of the Obama administration elicits praise and not blame. For in America, the aristocracy—at least, as it considers itself—is in fact a meritocracy, since the contemporary arbiters of prestige—the elite universities—are open to anyone with a record of high achievement. Obama, eschewing party hacks and otherwise unenlightened loyalists, has issued in a new era of American meritocracy—where SAT scores and not cronyism will figure most decisively.
Source - http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2008/12/8/rule-of-the-wise-the-aspiring/
Take heed - the "wise" and the rich will always do what is right for themselves. When they decide that We The People are truly useless and (what is even worse) a danger to the health of this planet, they will find a way to get rid of us.
Mark my words.