Discover more from Lev's Lens
Have Today's Elites Degraded?
Does the question of multi-generational goals VS jumping on social fads matter if the power players themselves are a shadow of their predecessors (for better or worse)?
Last week on my livestream Break The Rules, esoteric Twitter personality Drutang came twice in a row to speak about “The Elites”.
The 1st episode had to do with whether the problematic actions we see undertaken by some within the upper crust of society are a result of blind obedience to the spirit of the times or something more intentional, while the 2nd one concentrated on the alleged spiritual practices of these same elites.
What makes these episodes so special is that in both cases Dru was paired up with people who were not just from completely different social circles, but who were far more familiar with these subjects than 99.9% of the entire world.
Today I’d like to focus on the 1st episode where Dru spoke with Vladislav Davidson, writer for such publications as Foreign Policy and Tablet Magazine. Vlad is also a Fellow of the Atlantic Council, an organization which promotes “Atlanticism”, or support of closer relationships between Northern America and Europe.
Among the more reactionary dissident circles on Twitter, Atlanticism is seen as a blight on sovereignty and tradition that some unfortunately imagine Russia to represent.
On the other hand, many of the non-reactionary mainstream circles, like Vox or The New York Times, dismiss the social problems and criticism of the elites as conspiracy theories or made to look as the ravings of racists and bigots against being on the right side of history.
This is where a self admitted elite like Vladislav stands out among many of his social circle in openly leveling the same criticisms that the aforementioned publications would associate with their reactionary strawmen.
Personally knowing Ukrainian President Vladmir Zelensky and having had lunch and dinner with 3 members of the British House of Lords last week, Vlad has had a far greater experience associating with the most influential spheres of society than most. It is with this good deal of experience that Vlad went on to say:
Lev's Lens is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
“In the elite structures of the Western world, Western elites are not what they used to be. There’s been a noticeable and serious degradation of Western elites over the last 25 to 30 years.”
For Vlad, the laws of history and internal social structures guide the big decision makers rather than any plan formulated by a wealthy ruling family. For Dru, institutions like Yale’s “Skull and Bones Society” whose alumni included both Bush presidents, help to “make sure that the ideology and the generational goals stay relatively consistent”.
It would appear upon a second viewing, that Vlad and Dru are not that far apart in this as might first appear, if whichever mutually reinforced beliefs within Skull and Bones count as one of these “internal social structures” Vlad mentioned, albeit a more intimate one. But the more important question for today is whether there’s that much of a brain remaining inside of the skull, and whether the bones have enough marrow in them to produce a sufficient amount of blood.
Examples of intentional malfeasance pointed out by Dru include the Rockefeller Foundation funding Nazi Eugenics and John D. Rockefeller III later on funding The Population Council whose "Involuntary Fertility Control" publication is sure to raise eyebrows of the most hardened skeptic, but the history that follows this creepy piece appears to be more nuanced than a coordinated plan.
Bernard Berelson who authored this piece was president of The Population Council at the time and indeed had the “king’s ear” when it came to John D. Rockefeller, but by the 1974 World Population Conference in Bucharest, Romania, there was a political discontentment that came from “anti-imperialist” radicalized youth and representatives of 3rd world nations who did not take too kindly to Western hegemony.
From the early 1970s onwards, there was much verbal abuse thrown at American delegates from countries who were quite happy to receive US foreign assistance back in the 60s.
Now the leaders of these developing countries had an axe to grind when it came to an inequitable distribution of wealth and income among nations, and had already called for the World Population Conference to contribute to their “Declaration of the Establishment of a New International Economic Order” back at the 1974 UN General Assembly.
And when it came to population control, a poll at the 1974 World Population Conference itself revealed that 21 nations thought their population growth rate was too low, 8 (including the US) were “satisfied,” and 42 admitted to being excessive.1
The People’s Republic of China, well known for their support of human rights, said that the purpose of the conference was “to carry on and develop the militant spirit of combating the imperialism and hegemonism of the superpowers” instead of finding means to reduce birth rates.
Even the Vatican’s delegation proclaimed “The egoism of the rich plays a greater part in the formidable social inequality of today than the fertility of the poor.”
The predicament America (and by extension Rockefeller) found itself in was well stated by an observer of the conference in an aide-memoire:
America’s promotion of global control of population growth, given a studied unwillingness of United States diplomats to admit that their nation is by far the greatest per capita consumer of world resources, and in light of the decidedly smug American presentation at Bucharest, smacked of hypocrisy to many delegates.
In the extreme view, America was championing population control as a means for maintaining a world where Americans could continue their high consumption patterns.
At the same time, it was alleged that the United States was attempting to divert the attention of leaders in the developing nations from such things as economic development, increasing industrial and agricultural productivity, and international monetary and trade structures that are presently advantageous to the United States.
And it was in this heated anti-Western environment that Rockefeller turned things around, delivering a balanced and resoundingly successful speech where he declared:
“I now strongly believe that the only viable course is to place population policy solidly within the context of general economic and social development in such manner that it will be accepted at the highest levels of government and adequately supported”.
So out with the focus on sterilization and in with the “wagey-cagey” as 4channers are opt to say, especially when it came to Rockefeller emphasizing “the role of women as a vital characteristic”.
More time for work means less time for kids, and the emphasis on economic development rather than reducing fertility no doubt contributed to this speech’s success among the developing nations, some of whom could probably imagine becoming a superpower themselves one day.
But the aforementioned Mr. Berelson did not take kindly to Rockefeller’s focus on the role of women, and his bitterness towards the speech was very likely the result of being edged out as counselor to Rockefeller by Joan Dunlop and her group of hip newcomers. He went on to say:
“John’s understanding of population was not nearly as sophisticated and soundly based as the professionals in the field. He tended to be inhibited by his experts, so the only way he could shift gears was to get new advisers. He got tired of the old ones. He needed change. It just happened that Joan Dunlop was his latest adviser.”2
I present this personal foible in order to show that even back in the early 70s when creepy involuntary sterilization programs were being proposed, the proposers of such programs were not in a united front with their benefactors, but just like the rest of us, experienced jealousy in competition with other ideas.
As for Mrs. Dunlop’s motivation, she supported abortion (which Rockefeller supported as well) due to her own experience in getting one which was illegal at the time, and this again strikes me as human beings forming their reality through their personal experiences rather than a long term master plan.
That being said, nothing here can prove whether John D. Rockefeller III was adapting to new circumstances out of a genuine desire to lift the world out of poverty, or merely following in the ways of his eugenics supporting predecessors through a progressive mask of female empowerment.
But the most important point was that there were outside players who had an effect in the direction policy went.
While you can say this policy shift was a trifle inconvenience for the master plan or maybe even an intentional move by Rockefeller who did not really need any of these all-too-human advisors in the first place, we can only go by the information we have.
Speaking of information, there are also interesting relationship connections that Dru mentioned in his Twitter megathread which speak to more organized interests today among people like Bill Gates & Ted Turner on population control, but contrary to the aforementioned 1969 Population Council Publication, there is only the emphasis on voluntary population reduction at least in terms of sound bites from those like Mr. Turner.
Even though this being a far cry from early 20th century forced sterilization does not rule out some machinations in the shadows, the desires of population reduction as described in the Georgia Guidestones does not in itself speak to a successful forceful implementation of this dream and neither does the current emphasis of the Population Council.
While both homosexuality and women’s rights were promoted as fertility reduction methods by former Planned Parenthood Vice President Frederick Jaffe in a 1969 letter to our aforementioned friend Mr. Berelson, this does not take away the agency of thoughtful individuals during a more liberalizing time to make their own decisions on these matters, regardless of whatever any organization would have been pushing.
And while well funded organizations certainly would have helped push through certain policies, I agree more with Vlad’s observation that even these policy makers and think tanks are in the same “spirit of the times” as what they’re promoting.
If excluding the possibility of someone like Rockefeller being a “true believer” in the causes of someone like Mrs. Dulop, I propose a middle ground:
Organizations like The Population Council may find certain social movements as matching up with the end goals of their personal ideology and would thus empower them further. But at the same time, I sincerely doubt it means that without the existence of these organizations, such movements would not find support among the masses.
It is even more interesting to consider that were John D. Rockefeller III not to have advocated his more moderate approach in 1974, there was a rouge’s gallery of West-hating radicals ready to evangelize “economic equity” to those who felt like the USA only cares about itself, including its own contrarian citizens.
And if I were to, for the sake of argument, assume that these forced depopulation plans are still in place and there are enough pieces of evidence to prove it, this brings me to the most important point…
Do you find yourself and your community of like-minded individuals being strong enough to not just withstand any disempowering propaganda you suspect the think tanks are throwing your way, but also smart enough to react in the right way when any coercive measures are enacted upon you?
If we were to go with Vladislav’s perspective on the elites as being the shadow of their former selves, it follows that whatever attempts may be under way are not being led by such brilliant operators as former CIA director Allen Dulles, so you may have more of a chance than you realize.
Sure, a counter-argument could be made that the dull elites Vlad met were just puppets pulled by higher powers worthy of being future Break The Rules guests, but I’d like to meet them at their underground Antarctica base before accepting this to be the case.
What is more realistic at this time, however, would be to take a look at the world’s Covid response, especially the “Zero Covid” mass imprisonment in Communist China, as signs of contemporary misuse of authority that can be tripled down on in the future if we do not protect against them being implemented.
Whether they’d be implemented by an organized cabal with a thousand year plan or by deluded wokes all the way up doesn’t change the need to be vigilant against the abuse of power itself.
But in the last few years, we saw people voting with their feet towards states more favorable towards liberty in response to the economically destroying Covid regulation, and the 2022 US Supreme Court Bruen Decision further solidified the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. This decision not just affects New York State, but also opens a challenge to arbitrary “may-issue” gun regulations in California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.
This is all to say that much like there is a tendency on part of the online dissidents to attribute the power of action towards the “Atlanticists” while taking agency away from malevolent actors like Vladimir Putin, there’s an equal tendency to ignore the checks to power we currently have while elevating the power of these “elite puppet-masters” to that of a Final Fantasy final boss.
This kind of thinking can be a good excuse for inaction or dropping out altogether when you think that the game is so rigged it's not worth playing. I would argue that this mentality is exactly the kind of fatalism that I would encourage more people to have were I a part of this theoretical puppet-master cabal.
And to further show that we are not alone in our criticisms, Vlad mentioned towards the end of the stream that:
“You two gentlemen would have all sorts of people in Washington, D.C. who don’t like certain parts of the pervasive culture of the progressive managerial elites… you would have surprising allies. There would be all sorts of interesting people who would not necessarily come on your show but would not disagree with you on a lot of things”
To all you D.C. people reading this, consider becoming a Patron of Break The Rules if you want to see these much needed conversations between separate worlds to fill in the gaps in our knowledge so we can actually take on the problems at hand.
That Vlad and Dru got along famously is a very encouraging sign of what can be accomplished here, and this is just the beginning.
“The Rockefeller Conscience: An American Family in Public and in Private” by John Ensor Harr and Peter J. Johnson - p. 431
“The Rockefeller Conscience: An American Family in Public and in Private” by John Ensor Harr and Peter J. Johnson - p. 434