The Ruling Class

The TV series Westworld begins to tackle this matter. The elites are not like us, don't think like us. Imagine Reinhard Heydrich's and the Nazi T-4 extermination program's "Final Solution" for undesireables in the heads of a refined, epicurean, polite, fine art collecting, coat and tie wearing ruling class.

Progressives could benefit hugely by reading right wing notions about the UN Agenda 21 strategic planning. Progressives pretend to be anti-police state but think and do stuff that falls right into the police state agenda.
Just imagine for a second the Death With Dignity program becoming a govt. agency. I mean really imagine what a monster that could become in the hands of these Nazi plantation breeder overlords.

The left has been lulled into an interpretive framework that is nearly incapable of detecting these dangers. The same for Planned Parenthood, which was an oligarch program of race purification. Margaret Sanger was a slimy race eugenicist from whom Hitler borrowed his race cleansing program. This is not disputable. The documentation is available to anyone willing to risk their narcissism in Sherlock Holmsing the issue. Margaret Sanger was a Nazi. Period. Anyone whitewashing her twisted ruling class chicanery is guilty of being a blind running dog lackey of globalist dictatorship. It's that ding dong simple. Evidence for anything I've said here is a mouse click away. Ask yourself why you are not bothering to expend the energy to click that little electronic rodent and let your curiosity sit in the pilot seat.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mayacaman:

Bill Gates is Setting the Stage for the Mark of the Beast

Scott Keisler - April 20, 2020

In 2016 a powerful confab of globalists converged at the UN headquarters in New York, New York to launch a global initiative called ID2020. The vision of ID2020 is ostensibly to advocate "for ethical, privacy-protecting approaches to digital ID"(1) and to provide IDs for "over 1 billion people worldwide (who) do not have access to any form of identification."(2)
...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by infojockey:

The TV series Westworld begins to tackle this matter. The elites are not like us, don't think like us. Imagine Reinhard Heydrich's and the Nazi T-4 extermination program's "Final Solution" for undesireables in the heads of a refined, epicurean, polite, fine art collecting, coat and tie wearing ruling class. Progressives could benefit hugely by reading right wing notions about the UN Agenda 21 strategic planning. Progressives pretend to be anti-police state but think and do stuff that falls right into the police state agenda. Just imagine for a second the Death With Dignity program becoming a govt. agency. I mean really imagine what a monster that could become in the hands of these Nazi plantation breeder overlords. The left has been lulled into an interpretive framework that is nearly incapable of detecting these dangers.

---

sure, if the worst things you can imagine are actually true, it would be bad!! If the best things you could imagine are actually true, it'd be rainbows and unicorns all day (well, not for me personally, but you get the point).

The issue a lot of us have with the right, is they have this feeling that the rest of us sheeple are totally blind to such risks. From what I consider a more sane point of view, anyone who hyperventilates over the risks posed by a banal bureaucratic policy outline like Agenda 21 has shown they have little sense of perspective. Sure, question whether it will be applied by people with bad intent, used as a justification for nefarious purposes, but when you try to propose that was the underlying purpose of the whole thing you lose tons of credibility. Sure, that could possibly turn out to be true in the end and some of us will feel pretty silly. I could also be the subject of a Truman-show like world. Both seem about as likely.

Good points, Podfish, taken to heart. But let me amplify on your characterization of UN strategies as "banal
by turning your attention to the radical left's embracing of Hannah Arendt's ideas on banality in her 1963 report from the trial of Adolf Eichmann published in the New Yorker which became the 1963 book “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.” The notion that banality is evil and evil is banality was the rallying cry for radical leftists in the 60's and was largely deployed against the American bourgeoisie, the most productive class the planet has ever known, which already shows the power of Marxist ideology to blind.

You may think that the ruling class is a clot of well intentioned suppliers of wealth to such eminent charitable foundations as the Rockefeller, the Carnegie, and so on. So why, after 10,000 years of their domination and 10,000 years of uprising against their domination, do we still have a ruling class? Are they stupid, have no sense of psychology or human weakness, are not globally networked in the modern era? That would be a naive assumption and you are not naive. They play fear, envy, hatred and jealousy like a Stradivarius. They control at least 70% of the data that enters your head.

Their perfection of the techniques of leverage are legendary - the placing of their operatives in low key strategic positions populating the bureaucracies of governments and corporations. What they can't get by moleing in they get by blackmail. Enter Jeffrey Epstein, a long line of agent compromisers transcending the various global mafias and in most cases controlling them when and to the degree necessary. The trick is to exert influence without resorting to an overt gun aimed at the head. That's where the rubber meets the road. So they exert influence across the panoply of popular philosophies and interpretive frameworks that seem to operate autonomously. There are a shit ton of books on Amazon that detail their mechanisms of control, some better than others, but all required reading to enable the reader to toss out the garbage, the deflection of attention, and plug the usable stuff into the big jigsaw puzzle in the sky. That's what Sherlock Holmes and any forensic analyst would do. Curiosity is the shovel, logic is the x-ray.

Start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkKwcXSbDK4

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

sure, if the worst things you can imagine are actually true, it would be bad!! If the best things you could imagine are actually true, it'd be rainbows and unicorns all day (well, not for me personally, but you get the point)....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by infojockey:

... The notion that banality is evil and evil is banality was the rallying cry for radical leftists in the 60's and was largely deployed against the American bourgeoisie, the most productive class the planet has ever known, which already shows the power of Marxist ideology to blind.

You may think that the ruling class is a clot of well intentioned suppliers of wealth to such eminent charitable foundations as the Rockefeller, the Carnegie, and so on. So why, after 10,000 years of their domination and 10,000 years of uprising against their domination, do we still have a ruling class?

---

some of the leftists, unless you mean to do the 'all true Scotsmen' thing, used it as a rallying cry. And again, it's all about the level of focus. Few were trying to destroy the bourgeoisie, but fewer still thought there was nothing to criticize about the world the bourgeoisie seemed to be trying to create. People can hold complex, even contradictory positions at one time. Doesn't mean they're blind to anything.

and no, I don't know how I'd give the impression that I think the ruling class is always well intentioned. In fact, I think they're more analogous to a bull in a china shop, often oblivious to the harm they cause or enable, and sometimes actively malevolent. But also capable of doing good, although there's a nasty human tendency to decide what's "good" by your own standards.

and why do they exist? because the level of coordination and common purpose it would take to have an egalitarian society is beyond the capabilities of a bunch of slightly-evolved monkeys. There's going to be a ruling class, and those born into it have higher odds of dying in it than those born outside it. Another monkey thing....

Yes, but I would like an answer as to how they manage to get really smart people to do their dirty work. How have they managed to stay in power against the full weight of half the world gone Marx and half the population of those countries not fully Marxist, gone Marx as well. We've thrown everything we got at them. What are we doing wrong? Russia, China and Viet Nam gone to capitalist economies.

The contemporary left still championing Marx inspired economics after they have proven to fail. The dodge that Scandanvia is the true form of socialism falls apart once you realize that their progressive social programs ride on a basis of capitalist wealth production. Frankly, I think it is long past time to toss Marx and socialism into the dustbin of history. Socialism has created more death on this planet than Nazism, yet it is clung to by "progressives" like a mother's tit. Nazi means National Socialist.

"Progressive" criticism of capitalism is operating with a really bad set of definitions. What they mean to attack is FEUDAL MONOPOLISM, which is a slavery mongering overlay upon the means of production, the usurpation of the freedom to create wealth for everyone's benefit. The factory abuse of the worker in Charles Dickens' time occurred because the plantation breeder aristocracy was dragged into the Industrial Revolution and its absolute need for educated workers which became the basis for democracy. Industry created the middle class and its demands for equitable wages and working conditions. The latifundist breeder aristocracy hated the wealth that became available to the rabble and the upward mobility it delivered into its exclusive aristocrat circles.

Not many enlightened factory managers back then because the "progressives" of the era attacked machine efficiencies rather than attacking the empire building plutocrats who saw the worker as just another dray animal to whip. The beginnings of socialism was a reaction to machine tool production putting craftsmen out of work. The first unions were craft guilds. So Marx attacked the machines rather than the psychology of greed that animated the sadistic feudal monopolist. He mistakenly thought that ownership was the cure to "alienation" to the workplace, when in fact workers actually do enjoy labor under non-exploitive conditions whether they own the machines or don't.

His theory of alienation was a spinoff the the Arts and Crafts movement's lament that machine made goods were being sold at a cost lower than their hand made goods, which pricing let poor people afford dinnerware, clothing and household goods as functional as those owned by the wealthy for the first time in history. Enough with socialism. Make capital answerable to human needs with humane working conditions and distribute that surplus wealth. Attack the oligarchs, not the economic system of surplus production that the oligarchs subvert to their needs rather than to our needs.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

some of the leftists,....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by infojockey:

Yes, but I would like an answer as to how they manage to get really smart people to do their dirty work. How have they managed to stay in power against the full weight of half the world gone Marx and half the population of those countries not fully Marxist, gone Marx as well. We've thrown everything we got at them. .

---

"we" haven't. It's not like it's a fixed "them". It's an analogy I almost used earlier. If you have 100 investors, 5 of them will come out really well. They'll think they were the ones because they were smartest somehow, but if you re-ran the experiment, it'd be a different 5 each time. But the statistical nature of the system is that 5 will be a group at the top. Society works that way. Those not in the select group (the group of "those in power") can indeed force it to change (how are the Romanovs doing these days?) but the passive statistical behavior of the system ensures there will be another group to oppose.

And for smart people? first off, it's a question as to who is using who. It's a symbiotic parasitic relationship, with the role of the parasite vs. host up for debate. Both groups offer something to each other.

another tack would be to point out that the assignments of people to these groups is arbitrary anyway. Who exactly are those in power? that's not a binary state with a permanent membership. And identifying smart people is even harder.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

"we" haven't. It's not like it's a fixed "them". It's an analogy I almost used earlier. If you have 100 investors, 5 of them will come out really well. They'll think they were the ones because they were smartest somehow, but if you re-ran the experiment, it'd be a different 5 each time. But the statistical nature of the system is that 5 will be a group at the top. Society works that way. Those not in the select group (the group of "those in power") can indeed force it to change (how are the Romanovs doing these days?) but the passive statistical behavior of the system ensures there will be another group to oppose.

And for smart people? first off, it's a question as to who is using who. It's a symbiotic parasitic relationship, with the role of the parasite vs. host up for debate. Both groups offer something to each other.

another tack would be to point out that the assignments of people to these groups is arbitrary anyway. Who exactly are those in power? that's not a binary state with a permanent membership. And identifying smart people is even harder.

---

I'm sorry, Peter, but I have to enter into this conversation, in order to beg to differ with you about the actual nature & composition of the "Ruling Class" in America & the so-called "Free World." Because it isn't quite as "Open" as one might suppose.

In order to actually grok this, one has to grasp the basic facts about what is meant by the word "Debt" when one is examining the System known as "Finance Capitalism." The National Debt of every country in the World is a "sinking Fund." -I believe that was the term that Alexander Hamilton used, when as the first Secretary of the Treasury, he sold the idea to Washington of turning the "National Debt into a National Blessing."

The National Debt of every nation on earth is a "sinking fund" that generates enormous wealth -on a Quarterly basis- for those who "own" it. -But it is only a portion of the Capital of the so-called "bond-holding class" - the privileged few who inherited the "right stock in the right banks." The so-called "Debt" is held by the Prime Banks in the form of interest-bearing Treasury Notes: "Bonds." As one lawyer who was privy to the nature of this scheme explained it to me, "It's all done through Banks."

This System has been in place in America since the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1914. -Which is why political science Professor Ferdinand Lundberg of NYU could write a book like "America's Sixty Families" in 1937, and it still be relevant today. There hasn't been a whole lot of penetration into the preserves of the Super-Rich since the System was perfected roughly one hundred years ago. It is a very exclusive Men's Club.

"Class A Stock" in the Prime Banks {the kind of stock that provides those handy Quarterly dividends) isn't traded on the Open Market. It's all hermetically sealed among the Class-mates, whose fathers tell their sons, "Now son, don't ever touch your principal" (i.e., your shares of that special, "preferred" , "Class A" stock in JP Morgan-Chase). Why disrupt a million-dollar sure thing?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by infojockey:

Good points, Podfish, taken to heart. But let me amplify on your characterization of UN strategies as "banal by turning your attention to the radical left's embracing of Hannah Arendt's ideas on banality in her 1963 report from the trial of Adolf Eichmann published in the New Yorker which became the 1963 book “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.” The notion that banality is evil and evil is banality was the rallying cry for radical leftists in the 60's and was largely deployed against the American bourgeoisie,...

---

What Hannah Arendt (who herself escaped from a Nazi-run concentration camp) was referring to (after being present at the Eichmann trials) was the way in which so much cruelty is inflicted by unthinking bureaucrats like Eichmann, following orders - truly banal and culminating in horrors beyond their ability to see and process. A very incisive and thoughtful response to what she herself witnessed.