Category Archives: American

The Rich Only Support Democracy when the Elected State Serves their Class Interests, Otherwise They Try to Overthrow It

Zamfir: Thanks Robert. I appreciate the site, and it’s nice to feel welcome.

Obviously one problem in discussing this is that terms like ‘left’ and ‘right’ or ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have been given all kinds of different meanings. If economic conservatism is identified with free market ideology then I’m pretty ambivalent about that, at best. And if it’s identified with support for whatever this internationalist economic system is that we have now, I’m against it.

I find it very weird that people who are conservative about social and cultural issues often support “economic conservatism” of that kind. It’s so clear that these things are incompatible! Anyway I certainly have no problem with socialism per se. I would only disagree with certain versions, or cases where I believe socialism ends up being destructive of healthy families and cultures (in much the same way that capitalism can be).

As for democracy I’m not sure what I think about it. I think I’m a reactionary to the extent that I don’t believe that democracy, or any other specific system or procedure, is always good or always essential to a good society. My sense is that some democracies or kinds of democracy are fine, while others are really bad. It all depends on some many factors aside from the system or procedure itself.

I do want a society where the interests of most people, including the poor, are taken into account fairly. But I don’t see any reason why that could never happen in a non-democratic state. Or, more precisely, for anything that’s good about some democracies, I don’t see why certain non-democratic regimes couldn’t also have those good things; it would all depend on other factors such as the culture and history of the people, their typical behavior and beliefs, etc.

So I guess I’d support coups against democratic regimes in some cases–though things would have to be pretty bad–and also against non-democratic regimes in some cases. I don’t think coups are always bad. (In fact, that’s one thing that seems silly about a lot of rigid ‘conservative’ ideology–the wish to preserve order and the status quo no matter how terrible it’s become…)

You say the rich don’t support democracy. I wonder if that’s true. Maybe they don’t support the ideal of democracy, for the reasons you mentioned. But, again, bearing in mind the looseness of terminology here, they sure do seem to support systems that we normally call “democratic”. Is the US a democracy in your view?

Are England or Ireland or Canada democracies? If so, then I don’t agree that the rich never want democracy. My sense is that they long ago figured out how to manipulate these kinds of systems to get the results they want. They manage the perceptions and values of the masses so that they always end up “freely choosing” the same garbage that the elites wanted all along.

A good question is whether this is an inevitable feature of democracy. (I don’t know the answer.) It could be that in any feasible form of democracy, no matter how close it gets to the ideal, you end up with powerful interests rigging the process to maximize their own wealth and power. And I don’t like that, because I want the interests of ordinary people to be taken into account. Ironically, then, I’m skeptical about many forms of democracy because I think the masses deserve to have a say.

So I’d be against democracy in cases where ‘democratic’ systems are hijacked by elites and used against the people. That’s what’s happening in most of the western world, I’d say. Not to say I’d support a coup in this situation–and certainly not if the point of the coup was to install an even more extreme form of exploitation. But I’m not entirely sure what to say about democracy. I think the reactionary critique has merit. (But then, don’t communists also criticize democracy for roughly similar reasons?)

The Communist view is that seeking power peacefully would be a great idea except the ruling classes will never allow it to happen. They say that power never gives up without a fight, and I believe that they are correct. Nevertheless, most Communists support Venezuela, Nicaragua and only leftwing democratic countries. But the Communists would say, “Look what happens why you try to take power peacefully. You get Nicaragua, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Paraguay, Honduras, Haiti, and even Argentina.”

The ruling class will just overthrow the democratic Left state any way they can, always using anti-democratic means to do so. That’s why Lenin called people who supported the peaceful road to socialism “parliamentary cretins.” He thought it was a great idea but it would never work because the rich would never allow the Left to take power peacefully.

The Communist view is also that you never have democracy under capitalism anyway, as the capitalists and the rich always ending ruling the state one way or another through all sorts of means. And yes, the rich and the capitalists always take over all the media in any capitalist country as you said, they use it to shape the view of the people to support the class politics of the rich. Such support being called false consciousness.

Gramsci said that the ruling class took over the entire culture in capitalist countries and brainwashed the masses into supporting the project of the rich. They did this via cultural hegemony. Marx said that the culture of the rich is always the popular culture in any capitalist country. So the ruling class turns all of us into “little rich people” or “little capitalists” to support their project. They brainwash us into thinking we are the same class as the rich and that we are all capitalists ourselves, so we should support Capital. These are lies, but most Americans are easily fooled.

Ralph Nader called this “going corporate” or “thinking corporate.” He says that in the US, most people adopt the mindset of the corporations and think of themselves are part of the corporate structure whether they are or not. If everyone is part of the corporate structure, then what’s good for corporations is good for all of us, which is the project of the Republican Party, neoliberalism everywhere, the Latin American rich, etc. It’s a big fat lie, but people want to be rich and a lot of workers want to think of themselves are busy little capitalist money-making, go-getter, can-do, Bossterist entrepreneurs because it seems to cool to own your own business.

And the Communists would call this false consciousness and their argument would be that under capitalism, most people adopt false consciousness.

I think in the US, the rich see the tide coming and the rule of the rich is going to end so they want to lock in as much of the state as possible by stacking the courts, gutting the safety net, massive tax cuts that will be impossible to get rid of, and that Constitutional Convention they are two states away from getting where they want to rewrite the whole US Constitution to lock in rule by the rich for as long as possible. The rich see the writing on the wall. That’s why they came up with the computerized elections scam, so they could steal elections as long as people kept voting against the rich.

The gerrymandering of districts now makes it almost impossible to get rid of Republican majorities on state representatives in the House and in Senators and Assemblymen in the states. It’s all locked in.

So as the rich saw the tide turning and demographics moving against them, they instituted a full court press to do all sorts of extremely anti-democratic stuff to stay in power. If the people would just vote for them anyway, they would not have to do that, but apparently most Americans have now turned away from the politics of the rich, so the rich will have to lie, cheat, and steal to stay in power from now on.

Also they elected Donald Trump, by far the most corrupt, authoritarian and even outright fascist leader this country has ever had. And this follows too. Whenever there is a popular movement against the rich and the capitalists, the rich and the capitalists always, always, always resort of fascism to stay in power. This has been proven endlessly over time, even in Europe. Trotsky had some great things to say about this. Check out “Thermidor.” Trotsky truly understood what fascism was all about. It is a desperate last ditch move by the ruling class to seize power in the face of an uprising from the Left.

The rich and the capitalists are determined to stay in power, by hook or by crook, by any means necessary, and they will lie, cheat, steal and kill as many people as they have to just to keep the Left out of power. They simply will not allow the Left to rule. They must rule and if they are out of  power, they will use any antidemocratic means to get power back.

Which is the story of the CIA, the Pentagon and 100% of US foreign policy since 1945 and even before then. Read Samuel Butler.

I mean, we on the Left generally allow the Right to take power if they do so democratically. Sure they destroy everything like they always do, but most of us are committed to the democratic means of seeking power. Even most Communist parties will not take up arms against any rightwing government, saying they prefer to seek power by peaceful means. Typically, the CP will issue a statement that the nation is not in a revolutionary situation right now. There are objective conditions under which a nation is said to be in a revolutionary situation. I’m sure you can recall a few. It is then and only then that most CP’s will go underground and issue a call to take up arms.

Frankly, almost all Left insurgencies postwar were defensive. The Left allowed the Right to take power and then the Right started running around killing people. Usually the Left sat there for a while and let themselves get killed before taking up power. I know the Viet Cong just sat there from 1954-1960 while the rightwing Vietnamese government ran amok in the countryside, murdering 80,000 Communists in six years. They kept asking the North Vietnamese for permission to take up arms, but the North kept denying it.

The Colombian, Salvadoran and Guatemalan guerrillas only took up guns after the state had been running about murdering them unarmed for years. The Salvadoran guerrillas said they got tired of sitting in their homes waiting for the rightwing state to come kill them, and they decided that if the state was going to come kill them anyway, they might as well pick up a gun and defend themselves. They also took up arms because the Right kept stealing elections by fraud.

The Right had cut off all methods of seeking power peacefully, so the Left picked up guns. The message is if you elect a leftwing government, sooner or later the Right will overthrow it and then there will be a reign of terror where many Leftists will be murdered. Knowing that, if you were a Leftist in some country, would you not be afraid to put the Left in power knowing you stood a good chance of being murdered once the inevitable rightwing coup took place?

The Colombian and Honduran governments only stay in power by killing people. Lots of people. The Greek Communists only took up arms after the government had been killing them for some time.

Also once a Left government is overthrown by the rich and the capitalists, the new Rightist government institutes a reign of terror where they slaughter the defeated Left for many years. This went on for decades after 1954 in Guatemala, and it goes on still today. After Aristide was overthrown, the rightwing government murdered 3,000 of his supporters.

After Allende was overthrown, Pinochet murdered 15,000 people over a decade and a half. A threat from the Left prompted the Indonesian government to fake a Left coup and murder 1 million Communists in a couple of months. Even before the Korean War broke out, from 1948-1950, the South Korean government killed hundreds of thousands of Communists in the South.

As they withdrew when the North attacked, the South Koreans killed South Korean Communists everywhere they went. After the fascist coup in Argentina, the government decimated the Left, murdering 30,000 mostly unarmed supporters of the Left. The same thing happened in Bolivia with the Banzer Plan when Hugo Banzer took power after the tin miners briefly sought power. The new rightwing government in Brazil is already starting to murder members of the former Left ruling party. They’re not going to stop.

After the fascist coup in Ukraine, the Communist Party was outlawed and many of its members were murdered. War was declared on labor unions. Workers in one union were chained to a heater inside the building and the building was set on fire.

The party supported by half the population (the Russian speakers and their supporters) the Party of Regions, was outlawed, a number of its deputies were murdered and there were attempts to murder the leader of the party, lastly by setting his house on fire which set his neighbor’s house on fire instead. He fled to Russia. Now half the population and all of the Russian speakers had not party to represent them, which is why they took up arms. They were locked out of power.

Leave a comment

Filed under American, Americas, Argentina, Asia, Brazil, Capitalism, Capitalists, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Colombia, Conservatism, Culture, Economics, El Salvador, Eurasia, Europe, Fascism, Geopolitics, Government, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, History, Honduras, Indonesia, Journalism, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Marxism, Modern, NE Asia, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Revolution, Russia, Scum, SE Asia, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South America, South Korea, Ukraine, US, US Politics, USA, Vietnam, Vietnam War, War

America, Moral Beacon of Humanity

27994297_10106209950860617_735700233_n

Thank God for the Cultural Left! It’s not leading to the degeneration of society or anything like that. It’s just a collection of extremely healthy alternative lifestyles, sexual orientations and gender identities. Don’t kink shame! Let everyone do what they want! What could possibly go wrong if we do that?

It sure is comforting knowing that we in the West have the moral upper hand against those scummy Muzzies and Russkies and Greeks. American exceptionalism makes sense because we are better. We are the shining city on the hill, the one all of humanity looks up to for progress and moral guidance.

Can you believe those Arab men make their women wear bags over their bodies? How puritanical. Wouldn’t it be so much better if those Arab chicks just strolled around naked in the hot sun. I’m sure that wouldn’t cause any problems or anything like that.

Face it folks, morality is passe! Three cheers for the Cultural Left!

2 Comments

Filed under American, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Left, Scum, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Women

Why Do So Many Successful and Wise People Believe an IQ Test Doesn’t Mean Anything?

Answered on Quora.

It’s an Americanism. Americans hate the idea of intelligence in general. Supposedly everything is down to dumb luck or especially hard work. We believe that anyone can do anything if they only try. It is part of a mindset called “boosterism.” Want to get a college degree? You can get one if you work very hard! How about a Masters? If you work even harder, you can get a Masters!

Americans simply do not wish to believe that anyone is innately more intelligent than anyone else.

Of course that is an insane idea, and it is rooted in the ferocious anti-intellectualism in American life. It’s been here from the start. Check out De Tocqueville in Democracy in America. He said the same thing in 1850. Richard Hofstadter said the same thing in a seminal book, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life a century later. In between there was H. L. Mencken saying the same thing.

Our anti-intellectualism is actually quite pitiful, but we pride ourselves on it. Why we are proud of being stupid is beyond me!

So an “Americanism” has developed that success is all down to grit and hard work, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, Horatio Algerism, etc.

You don’t need a high IQ to be successful in America. Many successful businessmen have average IQ’s. Oglivy, the most famous ad-man who ever lived, had a 93 IQ. No one could believe it, so he kept taking the tests over and over, and he kept getting the same score.

A lot of high IQ people do dumb stuff, are social clods, and ruin their lives with idiotic behavior. Here we see the confusion of IQ and wisdom. These high IQ people who do this lack wisdom. But IQ tests don’t test for wisdom at all! It’s an intelligence test, not a wisdom test, and the two things are not the same.

In addition, we all know many average IQ people who are immanently sensible and have great common sense, street smarts, and social and people skills and seem to breeze through life this way. Many average IQ people are very wise.

Other than hatred for intelligence (which is IQ-hating is all about), another reason is liberalism. Unfortunately, different races score differently on IQ tests. For instance, Whites score 15 points higher than Blacks on IQ tests. Liberals believe in equality, so this result can’t be correct. It comes up with the wrong answer.

Instead we had a huge move by liberals to say that IQ tests didn’t matter, they don’t test intelligence, they only measure test-taking schools or book smarts (which is bullshit, but everyone believes it). It was also feared that if this got out, it could increase racism against Blacks. Also, people would not want to spend money to help Blacks on social programs if it was believed they were innately dumber. If they’re born dumb, why bother educating them? Waste of money.

To an extent, the liberals are correct to worry about how this information will be used. Most White racists are strong believers in IQ tests and differential intelligence among the races, and they use this to justify their racism all the way down to saying Blacks are too stupid to live alongside Whites, so Whites need a separate country. Almost all White racists are Libertarians because they think Blacks are innately stupid, so any money spent on them is wasted.

Due to all of this, a proven scientific fact, that Whites are smarter than Blacks on average, is disparaged and said to be a vicious racist lie. Merely stating this fact is sufficient to get one pilloried as a racist. You can have your career destroyed. James Watson’s career was ruined because he stated the truth about IQ and race.

This is quite pitiful because it shows that liberals in some cases have the same hatred of science that conservatives do. When you can be called a racist and have your career destroyed for stating a proven scientific fact, you are living in a pretty pitiful and truth-hating society.

Leave a comment

Filed under American, Anti-Racism, Blacks, Civil Rights, Culture, Intelligence, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Political Science, Psychology, Race Realism, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Science, Social Problems, Sociology, USA, White Racism, Whites

What Percentage of People with an IQ Over 140 Actually Know Their IQ score?

Answered on Quora.

Anywhere from most to almost all of them.

Usually with a very bright person, sometimes I might ask them, “Have you ever taken an IQ test?” with a twinkle of amazement in my eye. I comment something along the lines of, “Boy are you smart!”

I don’t think I am going to ask any more physicians. I asked three physicians so far, and none of them would answer the question. One told me he knew the answer, but he was not going to tell me.

Physicians are extremely susceptible to social rules and must behave in a conservative and dignified fashion, as they always feel they are on the spot. They are well aware of politeness protocols, and most don’t want to be rude.

Despite a lot of nonsense from IQ-haters, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the subject per se. An IQ score shows how smart you are. On what grounds is human intelligence not an important thing to discuss?! Amazing! Your IQ score is more important than your height, weight, and many other things.

The only thing wrong with such discussions is that at least here in the US (possibly in other places too), you are not supposed to talk about how smart you. In other words, IQ talk or even talk about intelligence is considered rude, out of bounds, and a politeness violation.

Actually you are not supposed to talk about how smart or dumb anyone is! Most Americans think there is no such thing as intelligence, and everything is down to either dumb luck or especially hard work.
I was speaking to a man the other day, and the very notion that some people were not intelligent enough to get a BA degree was regarded as outrageous to him. I then told him about a woman that I knew who wasn’t very smart (it’s true) but still makes $700/day. The notion that someone was not very smart was outrageous and apparently offensive to him.

People like him believe that everyone should go to college and get a university degree. I told him that I had a Masters Degree, and he said, “Good, everyone should get a Masters Degree.” Yes, Americans actually think like this! Isn’t it amazing?

Back to subject. I’ve never met an obviously wicked smart person who did not know their IQ score. Some refused to tell me, others told me but acted like it was a faux pas to discuss such things, but I never met one who did not know their score other than one young college aged man.
Not only do they know their scores, but everyone who told me they had an IQ of 140+ was delighted to tell me this. So far most of them have been women. Women are a lot less uptight about this than men. Men tend to see it as a competitive thing and worry that their IQ is not as high as yours, so it becomes a dick-measuring contest.

In fact, I would say that the smarter the person is, the more likely it is that they know their IQ score.

I don’t even bother asking folks with average intelligence, and none of them ever offer the scores up anyway. Most people with scores in the 120’s know their scores, but they act embarrassed like they are too low, which is incredible, as a 120 IQ is in the top 10% of the nation. Around 120 is where you also run into some of the vehement IQ haters. Why they hate the subject when they are in the top 10% is a mystery to me!

People between 113–120 usually know their scores too, but they are also often embarrassed and think their scores are too low. Score in this range are are in the top 16% of the population, so why are they embarrassed?

America is a crazy place. Unless you are in the top 1–2% of the population, you are embarrassed. How ridiculous!

Leave a comment

Filed under American, Culture, Intelligence, Psychology

Hillary Is Still Worse Than Trump on Militarism

From a year ago, but instructive nevertheless.

Sure, Trump is a horrifying hawk, and all of his promises about keeping us out of foreign wars have turned to crap. He has assembled one of the most hawkish cabinets one could imagine, including the terrifyingly insane John Bolton, the scariest man in America. Pompeo isn’t much better. Haley is catastrophic as UN ambassador.

Trump has already been far worse than Obama on war, especially in Syria. He has been much more bellicose than Obama on North Korea and Iran and even on Venezuela, on which he has threatened to launch an attack. He has also been much more hawkish on Russia, sending lethal military aid to Ukraine and attacking Russian forces a number of times in Syria.

His nominee for Secretary of State, Pompeo, recently bragged that the US had killed 200 Russians. It’s not true, and more about that later, but it’s a chilling thing to say.

In addition, since Trump came in, the rebels have made a number of miraculously precise artillery attacks on Russian forces and the Russian Embassy. A number of Russian soldiers, including some high ranking officers and even a general, were killed. A number of these Russia-killing attacks were by ISIS, and US advisers were known to be in the direct vicinity at the time. In fact, ISIS forces had just driven a convoy past US forces, and US forces had not done anything. A lot of people are saying that there is no way the rebels could have pulled such accurate high profile attacks on Russians that they did, and that the US must have helped them target these Russians.

So the US has already killed a number of Russians in Syria. Obama hadn’t killed one Russian. Trump, instead of being Putin’s pet, should instead by named The Russian Killer.

Trump removed all of the Rules of Engagement that Obama had put in for air strikes against ISIS. These rules had been quite strict and reasonable, but they had resulted in a number of civilian casualties. After removing the ROI’s, civilian casualties due to US strikes rose by 5-10 times. Trump killed a lot of Syrian civilians for no good reason.

However, Hillary’s comments about destroying Syria’s airfields go far beyond anything that Trump has even done so far, so as horrific as Trump has been on military matters, Hillary still probably would have been worse.

War Psychosis runs deep in US society, infecting all US elites across the spectrum and much of the clinically insane US population. We are simply a people who love war and get off on killing as many people as possible. We are a nation of bloodthirsty killers.

3 Comments

Filed under American, Asia, Culture, Democrats, Eurasia, Europe, Government, Iran, Middle East, Military Doctrine, NE Asia, North Korea, Obama, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Republicans, Russia, South America, Syria, Ukraine, US Politics, USA, Venezuela, War

Joni Mitchell, “Big Yellow Taxi”

A great environmentalist song from long ago, in 1970! That’s almost 50 years ago! This was off of her third album, Ladies of the Canyon, a reference to Laurel Canyon in Los Angeles where many hippies took up residence back then. There’s no way they could afford to live there now – it’s far too expensive. I have been through Laurel Canyon before, and it’s a beautiful drive. This was Joni’s third album and it is widely praised. Joni is originally Canadian, believe it or not. But by age 22, she was living in the US in Detroit, and by age 25, she was in Los Angeles. This song was covered by several other groups, most famously by Counting Crows, but I have heard that their version is not as good as this one.

I love Joni Mitchell, one of the great hippie folk-rock singers from the 1970’s. She was a genuine hippie. She lived in a large house on substantial acreage where she liked to wander about naked, smoke pot, and entertain various boyfriends.

And I would like to wish Joni Mitchell a happy 74th birthday. Yes, she is still with us. One more thing – she was always so beautiful. I have seen a photo of her at age 55, and she still looks fantastic. She was one of the greatest songwriters of our modern era.

Great epitaph for our planet with Donald Trump in the White House and Scott Pruitt as EPA head. Why do people who call themselves environmentalists vote Republican? How could they? Are there actually people who refer to themselves as environmentalists who nevertheless vote Republican? How can they justify it? Survey after survey shows majority support for all of our environmental laws, including the much-maligned Endangered Species Act. Yes, even the ESA has strong majority support. So majorities support environmentalism across the board, but a lot of them march off and vote Republican every year anyway. Go figure.

2 Comments

Filed under American, California, Culture, Environmentalism, Folk, Government, Law, Music, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Rock, US Politics, USA, West

Republican Congressmen Say If You Make $450,000/Year, You Are Middle Class

Here.

They’ve been talking like this forever. This is simply the way that Republican idiots think here in the US. That’s why the party itself is a what I would call a toxin. The party to me isn’t really a political party; it’s more of a substance akin to snake venom. It’s dangerous, toxic to mind and body, and you regularly need antidotes when you subjected to it. Hearing Republican ideology is like getting bitten by a rattlesnake.

In order to under why insane Republicans talk like this (and have been for decades) you need to understand  crazy US society. In the US, everyone insists that there are no classes at all! Somehow or other, everyone is middle class! There are no rich, no such thing.

This is why you get Republicans saying $450K is middle class. It’s a denial that classes exist at all in the US. If you say there are no classes, then there can be no such thing as class war in US society. Of course, class war is constant and vicious in the US, but if you deny that it exists, a lot of people will just say, “There is no class war.” When a lot of people deny this, most of the lower classes will not want to engage in class based actions because there’s no such thing as class war. Of course the rich know full well that there is class war in the US and they are masters are practicing it. This particular type of nonsense that that comment sprung from is an “Americanism.”

10 Comments

Filed under American, Culture, Economics, Government, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics, USA

Most Societies Will Always Have a 1%

Jason Y: Another thought is that having a 1 percent isn’t so bad – if only they’d throw out bigger scraps. Isn’t that the Trump message?

You are always going to have a 1% in most societies, surely in all capitalist societies. Even Sweden has some very rich people there. It’s just that the rich in places like Sweden are a lot less rich compared to the rich here. Things are much more equal over there. Most people are more or less some version of middle class. Very rich and very poor people are not common.

The rich will never throw out larger scraps to everyone else. Why should they? Give me one reason why the rich would ever throw out larger scraps for everyone else. What for?

To be nice? I got some news for you. Rich people aren’t very nice. If they were nice, they wouldn’t be rich. They didn’t get rich by being nice. In fact, most of them got rich by being quite the opposite. In any capitalist society the rich are among the worst people in the country. Capitalism is like a pond – the scum rises to the top.

Of course that is Trump’s message though in a sense – trickle down economics. Trickle down economics says that the more money you give to the rich, the more they will share it with the rest of us. It is truly amazing how many White Americans I have met who actually believe this tripe. One thing I have noted is that this year I have seen more Americans catching on to the scam of supply side economics and the general insanity of Republican economics than ever before.

You can’t fool all the people all the time.

And I would add another – you can’t fool people forever.

My attitude is that I don’t care if some people are rich. We had rich people in the 1950’s when we had a 90% marginal tax rate on millionaires. That’s fine with me. But those who have must share with those who have not. If they don’t want to, fine, then we the People (the State) will simply use force to take money away from the rich and give it to everyone else. That means guns, cops, agents, the threat of incarceration, and especially taxation.

6 Comments

Filed under American, Capitalism, Capitalists, Culture, Economics, Europe, Government, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, Scum, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden, US Politics, USA, Whites

A Fallacy: Whites Love and Worship/Admire the Rich

John Engleman: Most whites like and admire rich people. Many whites think hard work and Republican economic policies will make them rich before they die. I am a white person who lacks those feelings and beliefs.

Nevertheless, I recognize that modern civilization requires brilliant people to occupy leading positions. I would not be able to manage a corporation. I would not be able to design a space vehicle capable to taking humans to Mars.

How can we solve this conundrum? I am not able to do that either. My inclinations are to raise taxes on the rich. Nevertheless, I suspect that I need their expertise more than they need anything I can do.

In “A Farewell to Alms: a Brief Economic History of the World,” Gregory Clark maintained that from approximately 1200 to 1800 most people in England – he had better records for England, but this was probably true of the rest of the civilized world – worked longer than their paleolithic ancestors had eleven thousand years earlier and ate less well. While this was happening a small elite lived much better than their paleolithic ancestors had eleven thousand years previously. .

Nevertheless, the society in which the hard working poor lived supported many more of them than a paleolithic society would have. This was because of the management of the small elite. Without that management the vast majority of the hard working poor people would have soon died from starvation and violence.

This love of the rich and worship of rich people seems unique to the US. Whites in Europe do not love the rich or worship them at all. Whites in Russia hate the rich and probably want to kill them. I can’t think of one European country that loves and worships the rich as much as we do in the US. Can you?

Canadians do not love and worship the rich that I am aware of. Nor do Australians or New Zealanders.

Therefore it is not correct to say Whites love and worship the rich as this is only an American aberration.

7 Comments

Filed under American, Australia, Canada, Culture, Europe, North America, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, USA, Whites

The Rich 1, The People 0

Here.

From the link, summing up my text below:

Wealthy politicians & working class ppl don’t mix, I don’t care what you’ve been taught in ur life! Wealthy ppl have their own specific interests & agendas which really doesn’t include helping the working poor!

Not just the working poor I might add.

Low income, working class, lower middle class and middle class – none of these classes ever benefit for the rule of the rich. The rich are always hostile to all of these classes, and oligarchic rule always results in the slow impoverishment and eventual devastation of all of these classes.

So the governor’s race in very liberal Illinois is down to a billionaire investor, an heir to a hotel empire (sound familiar?) on the “Democratic” side versus a hedge fund mogul ( figures) on the “Republican” side. I’ve been saying forever on here that we have two parties of the rich, a liberal party of the rich (the Democrats) and a conservative party of the rich (the Republicans). I suppose if you are rich and either liberal or conservative, these distinctions without a difference might even matter, but for the rest of us, it’s game over before the first pitch.

How many times do I have to keep telling people? The rich are not your friends. Not not not not not never ever ever your friends, not in a million years your friends, not in any possible universe your friends. If you are anywhere from poor to low income to any middle class less than the upper one, you’re always screwed voting for a rich man.

This is where it is instructive to read Marx. One thing we never learn in a  capitalist country, because no one bothers to teach us for fear that a bit of knowledge is dangerous, is that people pursue something called “class interests.” The poor  are supposed to pursue the class interests of the poor, the lower middle class, the middle class and the upper middle class all pursue their class interests.  And of course, the rich and the ruling class never fail to pursue their class interests because they are smart, well educated and know the score. The eternal scam of capitalist politics is a game where the rich are always trying to get everyone else to vote for the class interests of the rich.

One thing that Americans can’t seem to get through their thick heads is that these class interests are typically antagonistic to each other. I’ve been explaining this to otherwise intelligent Americans (mostly middle class Whites) for decades and it never seems to sink in. Middle and working class White Americans operate under the perpetural delusion that the class interests of the rich are the same as their own class interests.  What’s good for the rich is good for working and middle class Whites. The roots of these form of political Down’s Syndrome can be traced to an idiotic culture, boosterism, a casino mindset, grossly exaggerated expectations, can-do thinking, and general worship of rich men that working and middle class Whites have been engaging in for a very long time now.

I got some news for you.

The class interests of the rich are generally directly antithetical to the class interests of the middle and lower middle classes, the low income, and the poor. What’s good for the rich is bad for all of these folks. Every time the rich win, all of these folks lose. That’s why these classes should not care anything about the stupid stock market. I call the stock market The Index of Evil. The stock market responds to whatever is good for the rich. Whatever is bad for the rich, which is almost always good for the rest of these classes is bad for the stock market. In other words, if these other classes start to succeed in their class interests, the stock market will go down. And every time these classes get screwed, the stock market goes up just a bit more. So quit cheering on the stupid stock market!

As noted above, it works the other way. Typically, everything that is good for these other classes is bad for the rich. Money doesn’t grow on trees. For the other classes to prosper, they generally have to take money from other classes, often the rich. In capitalism, class war is perpetual. What this boils down to is that most of the classes are trying to take money for at least some of the other classes in order to enrich themselves.

The behavior of the rich in most capitalist societies is to progressively take more and more money from these other classes and put it in the pockets of the rich. And if  you study rich people long enough, one thing you will realize is that the rich never have enough money. I am serious. Your average billionaire is a hungry man, slavering for every nickel he can scrape up. I suppose it is like a drug where the more you do, the more you want and crave.

For 40 years now, US politics has been all about taking money from these other classes and giving it to the rich and the upper middle class. Now if you are rich or upper middle class, this was a damn good deal. But if you are in those other classes, it’s been slow motion hell on wheels, a doomed road trip to progressive immiseration.

What I am saying here is that the outcome of this race is already foreseen. We might as well not even bother. Who cares which rich man wins? The “liberal” rich man or the “conservative” rich man, what difference does it make. Each one is guaranteed to pursue his class interests as a gazillionaire, which will always be bad for most of the rest of us.

The outcome of the election can be foretold with little effort:

Rich 1, People 0.

3 Comments

Filed under American, Capitalism, Conservatism, Culture, Democrats, Economics, Government, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Midwest, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics, USA, Whites