This post was updated on .
Nothing would be better for America politically than to round up all Americans worth $100M and shoot them. None of these people produce anything of value and all are harmful to society.
Karl Marx deserves credit for recognizing the fundamental conflict between the classes. His mistake was in getting the classes wrong. He recognized two class: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. But this wrong, there are actually three classes which I will call the elite, the freemen, and the proles. These terms are arbitrary, so I will define them now.
The proles are also called serfs, peasants, proletariat, employees, lower class, etc. They seek comfort and security. They are not interested in freedom or power. They are generally stupid and can't think ahead or plan anything. They have always made up the vast majority of the population. They are incapable of revolt without someone from another class to lead them. They always work for someone else.
The elite are also called aristocrats and upper class. They seek power and money. They are sociopaths who manipulate people to get what they want. They rarely produce anything themselves. They have no allegiance to any group.
The freemen are also called independents, freeholders, small business owners, and middle class. They seek freedom and personal satisfaction. They don't want power over others, but they also don't want to be told what to do. They are by far the most productive class. Everything of value in human history was created by them.
There is a natural relationship between the elite and proles, like the relationship between a farmer and farm animals. Countries with the misfortune of having democracy with universal suffrage are ruled by the elites who are best at fooling proles. In such countries, freemen have no real political power. This is why America originally didn't give the vote to proles, limiting suffrage to men with property and without debt. Under this system, freemen ruled.
Whenever the proles revolt, they are led by someone from another class. For example, Robin Hood was almost certainly not from the lower classes. Neither was Lenin. The proles are simply tools used by other groups in their fight for power.
The elite are fundamentally parasites. They are harmful to whatever society that they belong to. As parasites, they naturally choose to live in centers of wealth and power. This is one reason why wealthy societies decay while all new societies that successfully grow are far removed from wealth and power, thereby not attracting elites. The best societies are dominated by freemen. The best example is early America. The elite had no reason to move to early America and the proles were too lazy to move, so America was settled by freemen. These freemen recognized the evils of the elite (aristocracy) and tried to prevent the elite from taking power in America. But since freemen are so productive, America became very wealthy and so attracted elite who gradually took power.
The Covid regulations and the Black Lives Matter movement have basically the same purpose, to destroy the freemen class. The elite are seeking absolute power which is now within their grasp since most Americans have become stupid proles.
Historically the best solution for freemen was to move far from the elite. But with modern technology and globalism, this is becoming increasingly difficult. So freemen must consider other options.
One unique strategy is Judaism. Jews are elite and freemen, but not proles. The scripture of Judaism, the Talmud, is sociopathic and designed for Jews to act as a unified elite parasitic entity within a host society. So while an individual Jew may be a freeman, his loyalty is to Judaism and he will support Jewish causes and Jewish elites. In return, the Jewish elite are prevented from attacking Jewish freemen. So the Jewish freemen benefit at the expense of the host society.
If freemen are to survive, they must develop new strategies. They must organize into coherent communities. In the past, when they moved away from the elite, these communities naturally formed wherever freemen moved. Judaism provides coherent communities through synagogues. The obvious choice for freemen today are churches and mosques.
It is worth discussing religion in the context of classes. Christianity and Islam are similar. Both provide solace to the proles and help civilize their behavior. Both are generally hated by the elite. Serious religion condemns immorality which means it condemns typical elite behavior. A description of Satan in either religion actually serves as a fairly good description of the elite themselves. So the elite generally avoid religion, except when it is very centralized and the elite can benefit from corrupting the power center of the religion. And because the elite avoid religion, religion serves as a very good place for freemen to meet and organize. Ideally the freemen in one location should agree on one church (for Christians) and one mosque (for Muslims) to attend. Without such a basis for community, I don't see how freemen can survive.
Once religious communities are developed, freemen should focus on having the religion offer schooling so that children can grow up with good values. And they can focus on politics.
Politics is the natural domain of the elite, but freemen must get involved in politics to survive. The first step is to move where there are other freemen and not too many elite. One obvious choice is North Idaho. Then the freemen must recognize that the proles are not natural allies but in fact must be manipulated to support the political causes of freemen. And freemen should try to pass laws to make the area unattractive to the elite to discourage them from living there. For example a very high tax on high income levels could help.
What I write is generally ignored, but at least it serves as guidance for myself. I hope to move to North Idaho soon and then I can try to promote some of the ideas that I have written here.
You wouldn't be interested in freedom either if you could get fired and lose your house tomorrow, starve and die because you said one wrong word. Freedom is a luxury and people who've never been on the front lines of society don't understand that.
In the ancient world everyone was on the front lines - everyone could potentially starve, and no one was insulated. If a famine hit, money could only protect you so much. Before money, money couldn't protect you at all, and in all likelihood, if a bunch of people died, you'd be one of them.
In the modern world some people are completely insulated from risk and some are vulnerable, and those taking the risks (who stand to gain from them) are ironically the ones best insulated from the results of those risks if the ventures fail.
These are your classes: People who can starve and people who cannot.
You think it makes you better than others because you have never been uninsulated, so you think about luxuries before necessities. You have never had to sleep in your car, or live out of a backpack. You have never had to think about where your next meal is coming from; it will always just be there. Understandably you think people who focus on such non-issues as food, water, and shelter are stupid.
This post was updated on .
Simply no. People with strong values put those values over animal needs. I have been poor and lived on beans for a while because I couldn't afford anything else. I think it is the opposite of what you say. People who have never been poor fear poverty more because it is an unknown and they don't know how to handle it. And this is also why class isn't really economic. A true freeman will always value freedom regardless of his economic condition.
You would think, but psychology proves otherwise. The Maslow Pyramid shows how only when peoples' basic needs are met at a basic level can they consider other things.
You can't think about food if you're drowning. Air > Food
You can't think about all those high-minded values if you're starving. And I don't mean living on beans. I mean you have nothing and you're nearly dead.
You don't know what you'd do if you were actually deprived of a basic need and would die if you didn't do X. Most people would do X, even if it violated some moral belief they think they hold.
The Milgram experiment proved that most people will give up a value and hurt people simply when told to do so. You think if they were the ones suffering, and could push a button that shocked another person instead, they'd hold out until they were dead?
I wish there could be that experiment. I dearly wish it. But instead, the world has to stay in its safe, padded room state, so that people who have never been to genuinely horrible places can continue to think they're better than the people who have.
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|