Tocqueville’s Analysis

It must be understood that it took Belloc a whole series of historical surveys, which were in fact books of political theory, to deconstruct in modern men’s minds their ridiculous ideas of monarchy, that is, those with which they had been bombarded both at school and in the cinema. Needless to say, he considered the Constitutional monarch a mere puppet. From these three principle elements, Belloc prophetically recognised that a society controlled by an unelected and untouchable financial elite, while it would construct a benign social environment for the enslaved masses, would of its absolutist nature find itself obliged to own the earth itself. He was writing this almost a century before the advent of the land-owning Corporations who were to set up the genetic modification of crops. In ‘The Servile State’ Belloc warns:

‘…If we do not restore the Institution of Property, we cannot escape restoring the Institution of Slavery; there is no third cause.’

A century before him Tocqueville wrote:

‘Is it not extraordinary that English feudalism led precisely to that theory of extreme democracy which has germinated in the head of the modern socialists and has led exactly to the same formula: the State is the sole landowner. The landowner is only a life-tenant.’

In a profound orchestration and vindication of Belloc’s political critique and vision, Joel Cornette, professor of modern history at the University of Paris VIII-Vincennes-Saint-Denis, in his study on sovereignty, ‘Le Roi de Guerre’, defines the inner tension and dynamic which requires that the territorial limits of the kingdom should coincide with the domain of suzerainty claimed by the feudal king – dominium – and the domain of sovereignty claimed by the ruling king – imperium, the latter being the depository and interpreter of that public matter which is the State. To put it plainly, the removal of monarchy was not the removal of an outmoded tyranny as explained in the now standard version. The removal of the king, revolution itself, was to destroy the dominium, one, in fact, which set the king as the protector of the common people and guaranteed that the imperium would fall into, no, not the governance of some ‘democratic’ people, but rather into the hands of the Money-power, which today we call banking. With the removal of monarchy, land passed from the people to the banks.

This permits us further to define Tocqueville’s analysis. Once the dominium has passed to the bankers, then their imperium, posing as the legitimate governing State, has not only turned the land-owner into the life-tenant, but in the nature of the new dominium has turned him into a life-debtor to the banking imperium. Since this is the foundational and pivotal instrument of thought by which social transformation is possible, further clarification is necessary. The power and dynamic of this thinking puts to an end as utterly worthless both the evolutionary myth that banking is merely the abstract and objective mechanism of markets and exchange, and that democracy is the ultimate post-historical system which grants every individual their rights, while in reality the usury system is mathematically doomed to ultimate collapse, and the real meaning of democracy is that people have been granted limited rights to social order in the imperium, but utterly forbidden access to the whole world’s wealth (that is, the fantasy currency and the real commodities in the ground).

This is a unique website which will require a more modern browser to work! Please upgrade today!