As we discovered last post, America consists of three classes: The rich, who are the top 10%. The middle class, who are the next 10%. And the poor, who are the remaining 80%.
In a democracy, you would think it would be pretty easy for the bottom 80% to outvote the top 20%, and thereby get a higher standard of living than they currently enjoy. It isn't even really 80 vs. 20. Since the middle class are middle class, they would be just as well off siding with the bottom 80 as the top 10. With proper delicacy, it could be as thorough a division as 90% of Americans vs. the top 10%. The poor have nothing against the middle class -- in fact, they want to be middle class themselves. It just so happens that in America, the economy is so slanted towards the rich, that the middle class only begins at the 11-20% bracket of the country.
The biggest reason why the poor can't vote themselves more money is that both parties are run by and for the top 1%. The rich have bought out both parties. Representatives cannot get elected unless they make their ritual abasement to the rich who will fund their campaigns. Campaign funding is so important, because the milling herds of the American public do not vote on principles or issues, but based on personality and name recognition. They are completely incompetent at practicing democracy, as the Founding Fathers feared would occur. Therefore if some no-name, who cannot get the glitz and glamor of media attention and millions of dollars worth of advertisements and rallies, runs for office on the platform of the citizen's dividend, even though this would be in the interest of 90% of the voters, they will never vote for him. They will never even know he ran for office.
Another problem is our two-party system. Because voters are used to voting Democrat or Republican, there is no chance a third party candidate can hope to win an election. The last time a third party candidate won a presidential election in America was hundreds of years ago. If people know voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because everyone knows a 3rd party candidate can't win, they won't vote for him, and therefore he never can win. The only way to break this vicious cycle would be to reform election laws so that every vote DOES count. IE, proportional representation, or perhaps simply direct democracy, where the people don't vote for candidates anymore, but just directly vote up or down what laws our nation shall have, issue by issue. A true 'proposition nation.' However, I'm not that interested in attempting to reform democracy, because I think the concept is fundamentally broken and therefore we would be better off simply discarding it, than trying to make it better.
But these are sort of 'meta-issues.' Perhaps it would be more informative to break things down into the nuts and bolts of the actual process. How did we get here? How do the rich control both parties? What policies reach the floor of Congress and why are they the things being debated, instead of something else like the Citizen's Dividend?
For instance, let's take a look at the Democratic party. The Democrats are supposed to be the party of the poor. How then are they a party of the top 1%? And how do Democrats continue to manage to lose elections, when they are allied with the well-being of 90%, supposedly, of the population?
But what have the Democrats actually been attempting to do? They wanted to impose a new crippling tax on energy use and manufacturing, 'cap and trade.' They wanted the USA to spend trillions of dollars basically doing religious sacrifices to assuage the fury of the 'great heat God in the sky that will deliver divine retribution on our cities, with earthquakes and hurricanes and floods and droughts, unless we propitiate it daily with our religious rituals of wealth destruction.' Let's be clear: Hurting the economy does not help the poor. Every time you hurt the engine of wealth production, there is less money to go around for Everyone. Since the poor already have the least, they will be the people hit hardest by any policy that hurts our productivity. There is nothing more basic to wealth than energy and food. With energy and food, basically anything is possible. When energy and food is cheap, life is good in America. When you attack energy and food as sources of 'global warming' and require people pay additional regulatory fees or carbon fees to produce these goods, we end up with less energy and food, which translates into less of everything. The people who suffer the most are those who started off with the least, the 80% of us who are the poor.
Only the elites among the democratic party give a damn about the mythical danger of global warming. The democratic elite long ago lost their Christian/Jewish faith, and have converted to the cult of Gaia. The democratic environmental policy, which opposes any 'urban sprawl', thus making housing expensive, by opposing any new coal plants, thus making gasoline and electricity expensive, by requiring such-and-such amount of biofuels, thus making food expensive, are not the friends of the poor. They even say outright that they would like to kill off all poor people, simply wipe them off the face of the planet, to make more room for trees and birds. Instead of the seven billion people of the world today, they would like to see maybe a couple million, people who are super rich like them, and can properly enjoy the spiritual worship of Gaia like them.
I don't know whether human beings are actually heating the world through their use of fossil fuels and their eating of cows. To me, the science is unclear and we will have to wait a long time to gather enough data to be sure. But it's largely irrelevant. Because whatever heating we are causing is less damaging to the world than the measures democrats wish to impose to prevent the heating. The world has always been better off during its warmest periods. Humanity has always thrived during interglacials and even in recorded history, Europe suffered worse during colder periods and thrived the most during warmer periods. I wouldn't mind the Earth heating up a great deal further -- no one complained it was too hot during the medieval warming period. Canada and Russia are both vast, open, unpopulated countries which, if only they were warmer, could be made into wonderful prosperous lands. So this non-threat, which won't even occur for another hundred years, is being fought in such a way as to cripple the entire economy and cost normal people trillions of dollars a year. We could instead wait ninety years, develop all sorts of new technological abilities, and then cheaply and easily stop global warming with said new technologies, which wouldn't cost our future selves nearly as much as stopping global warming now would cost our present selves. For instance, we could invent fusion power, or cheap solar, or some sort of albedo/cloud making device, or a carbon-dioxide air sucker that filters our air for us and turns the carbon back into usable fuel. The possibilities are endless, if we just gave our civilization time to develop them. Instead democrats want to solve global warming, which isn't currently a problem, RIGHT NOW, at ANY PRICE. How is this rational? This is not, as democrats claim, some prudent measure to raise our quality of life. It is a religious ritual, in line with the old nature worship that sought to appease pagan nature gods of rain and drought by the sacrifice of crops, animals and eventually human lives. All their sophisticated arguments are just a pretext for their wish to act out a spiritually fulfilling climactic moment like those Aztecs who tore out hearts to keep 'the sun burning.' So for the sake of rich people's Gaian orgasms, the poor must suffer higher heating, food, and housing prices. This is the democratic stance on cap and trade.
How about the democratic stance on immigration then? Does this really help the poor? Of course not. The people being allowed to immigrate into our country are largely unskilled workers, who will compete directly with the unskilled workers who already live here. The larger the labor supply, the lower labor's wages go. Also, the higher unemployment becomes. The decade of the 00's did not see any growth in jobs, but it did add, largely through immigration, another 35 million people to the work force. In other words, we simply imported unemployed people all decade long. This makes NO sense to the poor of America. From some sort of universal viewpoint, perhaps it does help alleviate world poverty to import various poor people from around the world and give them low wage jobs, or just welfare. But it does not help America's poor, who suffer the most from the influxes of these immigrants. Even so, democrats continue to push for more immigration, endlessly more immigration. Why, when they know it hurts their own party, the poor? For one reason, the poor minorities have been hoodwinked. They have been told, over and over, that the problem with America is that it is ruled by whites -- NOT that it is ruled by plutocrats. In this way, they have diverted poor minorities from a hatred of the rich, into a hatred of white people, rich, middle class, or poor. The minorities don't care. And due to this hatred, minorities are willing to sacrifice their own wages and own jobs, their own well-being, in order to continue importing more and more 'non-whites like me.' They yearn for the day when non-whites will outnumber whites, because they think at that moment, they will finally be relieved of poverty and all the oppression in their lives will disappear.
Who fed these lies into the ears of dumb minority voters? Who taught them that whites, not rich people, are keeping them down? The jews. The top 1% rich democrats taught them these lies. And why did jews want to flood this country with non-white immigrants? For one reason, just like their gentile counterparts in the Republican party, all rich people like cheap maids and gardeners and low wages for their workers. But for another, they too hate and loathe white people, and so they taught this hatred and loathing of whites to their democratic voters. They don't hate whites because they're poor and oppressed, they are the richest people in America and in all the centers of power -- they hate whites because once upon a time whites oppressed them, and they might someday oppress them again. So before that happens, jews must make whites a powerless minority in their own country, so weak they can never hope to oppose or oppress jews ever again. Jews believe in preemptive attacks -- just like the 1967 war, the Jews of America have decided to get rid of white people before white people get rid of them. To do that, they needed massive immigration of non-whites. And to get that immigration, they needed to convince the other non-whites to rally around their racial and ethnic hostility instead of their class and poverty needs. That is why jews 'stirred up trouble' in the South with the civil rights movement. That is why jews created the NAACP. That is why jews like the ADL and SPLC call anyone who opposes immigration a racist, bigot, nazi, etc. That is why jews keep making 'alliances' with hispanics, La Raza, and lobbying for amnesty.
Jews man all the democratic think tanks and lobbying organizations. Jews fund 60% of all democratic campaign donations. Jews run the democratic media organs like NBC and CNN. Jews have complete control of the democratic party, and completely set the agenda from start to finish. Jews vote 80% democrat, but most democratic voters are hoodwinked poor people who think they are serving their class interests when in fact they are constantly empowering an elite diametrically opposed to their interests. Since poor people are generally stupid, they never catch on to these lies they are deluded into voting based upon. The reason why there is a difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, is that there is a great divide in our country between the super-rich. Half of all rich people are jews, and the other half are whites. Rich jews want one thing, rich whites want another, and therefore our two parties sometimes disagree with each other. However, whenever a policy favors the rich of both sides, both sides are quick to agree about it. This is why republicans and democrats both favor massive unskilled labor immigration. All rich people can agree to that.
If there were a party that told blacks, hispanics, and whites that they were fighting each other over nothing, and that the only people who were winning through this ethnic competition were the plutocrats on top, perhaps the intolerably high levels of race hatred in this country could be prevented. But as it stands, the policies of the elites intentionally play the poor people of each race off against each other. Take affirmative action for instance. Affirmative action has no impact on the rich. Rich people are smart people. Smart people can get into any college they like regardless of affirmative action. They score highly enough that their merit will always ensure they get into anywhere. Harvard, Law School, CEO's, whatever. Affirmative action is a small sliver of slots that takes from the least qualified whites and gives it to the most qualified non-whites. So the elites watch on in humor as they pit, like gladiatorial combatants, these two 'buffoons' against each other for their own entertainment. Poor whites are the ones most harmed by affirmative action, and yet they still vote democrat. But who can blame them? It's not like republicans have ever tried to repeal affirmative action. They tend to support it too. Because the republicans, the party of the top 1% whites, also have no fear of affirmative action ever harming them. Since republicans continuously hurt poor whites in various other ways, like banning bankruptcies, cutting taxes on the rich, getting us into foreign wars that poor whites end up bleeding and dying for, raising the cost of college and health care to impossibly high levels, firing them and offshoring their work to China -- what poor white would vote Republican? Let's recall, 80% of people in America are poor, and America is still 65% white. Let's assume that of the 20% middle class or rich in this country, 15% are white/jewish and 5% are minorities. (asians, indians, smart hispanics and blacks) That would leave 50% out of the 80% of poor people to still be whites. This is NOT a race issue. In fact, by this reasoning, the bottom 80% of America is 30% minority, 50% white. The gap between the poor and the rich is a class issue, not a race issue.
There are nearly five times as many poor whites as rich or middle class whites. These poor whites have no reason to vote Republican. What have republicans ever done for them? Have they restricted immigration? Have they indexed the minimum wage to inflation? Have they given them free health care? Have they at least banned affirmative action? No. They haven't done a thing. While George W. Bush was in office, republicans managed to pass a massive tax break for the top 1%, get us into two insane wars that poor whites largely had to bear the brunt of, and pushed us into two depressions that left whites lower paid and less employed than ever before -- while rescuing their banker friends in Wall Street with giant bailouts. Poor whites have no party. They vote for Republicans reflexively, simply because they have nowhere else to go.
The truth is America will continue to be run by plutocrats, and the disparities in wealth will only grow, when we become a majority non-white state. The dreams of the minority poor, who think that if they could just ever outnumber whites they could start living middle class lifestyles, will forever remain a dream. The democratic party will still be run by the jews on top, and they will never cede power, or a dime of their profits off the sweatshop factory poor. If the native poor get restless, they can just import yet more cheap labor from abroad. Until every last African and Indian in the world lives and works in America, so long as there is any wage disparity between workers in America and workers worldwide, plutocrats can always find willing workers who would love to come here and take our jobs and work for less than we are willing to work for. The immigration won't stop. This isn't a country where you, personally, can immigrate into, find a decent job, and give your children a good life. It's a country where you exist to undermine the previous generation of workers, and the next influx of immigrants exists to undermine you in turn, so that the sabotage never ends and the plutocrats continue to remain completely unopposed at the top. The minorities have been sold a pack of lies. They are as much victims as we are. Their destruction is just slightly down the road from ours.
Let us look at the Democratic health care reforms. This package was utterly absurd. Instead of promising to give poor people free health care, they actually wanted to MANDATE poor people buy health care they couldn't afford. They also intended to cut medicare, a program that again, poor people are MANDATED to pay taxes into (a regressive tax for that matter.) So a health care bill was made that says to the poor, "Oh, by the way, we aren't giving you your medicare that you already paid for in taxes after all. Instead, we are going to require you buy a private health insurance plan which you don't need and can't afford, because this will help subsidize care for richer, older, better off people." Poor people are going uninsured because they are largely in their 20's and 30's, and don't want to pay for health insurance they'll never need. The government, in its wisdom, has decided to take from the young, who are the poor, and give to the old, who are the wealthy. What kind of health care reform is this? What if instead the democrats had this proposal:
"From here on we will cut our military funding from a trillion a year, to 40 billion a year. Using this new influx of 960 billion dollars a year, we are going to fund a catastrophic health care promise to all Americans. That is, if you get sick from a medical expense over $10,000, the government will pay the entire bill in full. Restrictions apply to any illness that can be traced back to drinking, smoking, drug use, or obesity. Poor people are encouraged to stay fit so that they qualify for this program."
You see how in this system, poor people don't have to pay a dime for a great new benefit? You also see how health insurance companies don't profit by forcing people into a system they largely don't need and won't use? Do you also see how this didn't require anyone to raise taxes on the poor? If the Democrats actually wanted to help the poor, they would have announced this program. Instead they designed a program that only helps the rich. Special interests and older people looking to have cheaper health care by dragooning poor young people, by FORCE OF ARMS, into the same insurance pool. Absolutely insane. Absolutely evil.
The democrats keep claiming they are helping the poor, but all of their actual policy proposals do nothing to help the poor. Where is universal disaster insurance? Where is the citizen's dividend? Where are guaranteed apprenticeships for all high school graduates? Where is moral education to help them keep their own lives together? Where is a positive media that teaches them through good role models how to behave?
Abortion is another policy that keeps the picture muddled and away from the class struggle that should really be the center point of American politics. Republicans need to realize that abortion is necessary to keep single mothers out of a life of poverty and depression, and kids from a life of poverty and single motherhood. Young, uneducated, single mothers doom themselves and their children to poverty. Abortion is their only chance to escape this cycle, so that they can learn some valuable trade, get a job, and get married -- BEFORE having a child. Republicans, through their ferocious unwillingness to accept human nature, pretend that everyone could just remain celibate and therefore banning abortion is harmless. But people can't remain celibate, they are wired to have sex, it is as strong an instinct as food or sleep. Dumb people especially have poor impulse control and cannot be expected to act like saints and monks. The only way to prevent young, single mothers is to A) teach them to use birth control, something republicans simply REFUSE to do, or B) require people marry from a young age, again something neither party is willing to do.
Meanwhile democrats need to realize that abortion is a terrible evil. They really are murdering their baby. So many babies are dying, in fact, that we are facing below replacement birth rates. Abortion has murdered 40 million children in America, as fierce a genocide as anything Stalin or Mao engendered. It is difficult to conceive a child, and to simply kill off a miracle like a fully viable human life, which if you would just spare for 9 months could at least be adopted by a loving family elsewhere, is wantonly cruel. Babies struggle to escape death even in the womb. There are videos of babies clearly in fear and pain as they are chopped apart by abortionists' weapons. If we have enough compassion to ban animal cruelty, preserving the life of beings who aren't sentient and never will be sentient, what justification do we have for killing non-sentient babies, who will SOON BECOME SENTIENT? Isn't baby cruelty worse than animal cruelty? The idea that mothers shouldn't have to carry their babies to term, that it's some sort of unfair burden, is ridiculous. You're the one who chose to have unprotected sex, no one made you do it. And the idea that abortion is largely to stop retarded children, rape, or incest is just a lie. Around 80-90% of abortions are due to dumb sluts not using protection, getting pregnant, and killing their babies because it's too much of a chore to have them. Anyone with a heart, anyone with a decent mind, is of course going to oppose abortion and seek to ban it.
Throughout George W. Bush's term, he banned the offering of contraceptives or abortions to Africans and other poor places, the places that are in direst need of birth control, whose populations are spinning OUT OF CONTROL even against the will of the people having the children. If only they could afford birth control, they would use it, but George W. Bush and the republicans refused. Through their insane religious dogma, they have been forcefully breeding poverty all around the world. They did the same thing here in America, by teaching 'abstinence only' sex education. Every study has shown this type of sex ed to be utterly worthless, it has no impact on pregnancy or STD rates. What young women really need isn't sex education -- the media gives them plenty of that by age 5. What young women really need is a long term birth control shot, a depro unit, administered by the school every year or so, that keeps them infertile throughout their teenage years. They don't need to be taught to use protection -- which their parents won't let them have for fear it will encourage them to have more sex. They need to be GIVEN protection, right then and there, so it no longer matters if they have sex or not. As to STD's, it is a problem, but nothing compared to the high birth rates among the poor and unmarried. It does not create a systemic, lifelong, generational catastrophe. Via this compromise, we could stop abortions by stopping people from conceiving in the first place, but also protect people from the consequences of having and raising children poor and alone.
Around one half of hispanic women have a child as teenagers. Poverty will never be solved so long as unmarried, uneducated women are the mothers of our next generation. Democrat's solution, to simply abort all pregnancies, goes against human values and in fact doesn't work very well, because hispanics and blacks often don't have the heart to kill their own children and end up wanting to raise the baby once they become pregnant. The Republican solution is completely ineffective, because no one cares what God thinks, how great abstinence is, or why they should wait for marriage when most poor people never marry at all. The real solution is the mandatory marriage law and the citizen's dividend. But failing that, obligatory birth control throughout a woman's teens would be a major, cheap, and 100% effective solution that could please everyone. The government needs to also make birth control shots free for life. Anyone who wants can walk into a clinic and get one. Trust me, it would save money overall.
Neither democrats or republicans push these kinds of solutions, because they are both run by the elites. Since elites generally don't have abortions, they allow ideology, not practicality, to control the issue. The victims of the ideologues are the actual aborters and abortees far down below -- the debate to the elites is entirely theoretical, just a philosophical game to play between golf and tea. Here, ideals like 'freedom' and 'God' and 'empowerment' and 'love' have more say than the actual practical results of various policy propositions. The poor are the only ones who suffer from this philosophical game.
Gun control is another extremely frustrating issue. Gun control is a race issue, not a class issue, and so the issue of gun control means people are stuck voting against their class interests in favor of their racial interests. The issue is simple -- if you belong to a highly criminal race, black or hispanic, it is in your interest to ban guns. This is because your race cannot be trusted with guns, your criminals are too impulsive and likely to shoot said guns, and the victims are almost always other blacks and hispanics. Blacks and hispanics, voting for their own interests, would like to see a ban on guns, knives, chains, and everything else. The more you disarm people, the more arguments won't escalate past a fist fight, and everyone can go home alive.
Whites and Asians have a completely different set of interests, whether they are poor or rich is immaterial. They are still law abiding. They would still only use guns in self defense, or in hunting, or as part of a revolutionary armed rebellion. For these people, guns are a defense of their lives and liberty. Even if whites get into arguments with each other, they won't pull their guns and start blazing away. Whites aren't in gangs and aren't using guns to murder each other for territory. There are no downsides to white gun ownership. A great many white lives are saved by having guns which can stop black criminals -- whether said criminals have guns, knives, or just are traveling in a pack and have a lot of fists -- if the white did not have a gun, he would have certainly died EVEN IF all the blacks were also disarmed.
Democrats drive away white voters by trying to pass gun control. This means poor whites, who would ordinarily side with democrats, end up voting for the party whose policies only help the super rich. But at least republicans let poor whites, who must live around black and hispanic criminals and are constantly in danger of losing their lives, continue to carry guns to protect themselves with. If democrats were wise they would drop the whole issue of gun control. But even better would be gun control based on race -- but of course this is discriminatory, and could never happen -- which means the real solution is racial separation. It is the only way to create two parallel laws for two communities with very different criminal behaviors. For blacks and hispanics, who require extremely tough law codes and extremely powerful police facing a completely disarmed citizenry that won't randomly kill each other or rebel against the government (like we see in Africa), we could have one law code, including gun control. For whites and asians, we could let everyone keep their guns, because they don't cause civil wars for no reason, and they don't do violent crime either. We could even have a relaxed law code that tries to 'reform' inmates instead of punish them, because we know they're probably swell guys at heart. In a mixed society no law will be fair because races are inherently different. One or the other of us must suffer. And this is why voters arrange themselves by race instead of class. This splits the poor vote and lets the rich stay in power, unopposed.
So when Obama tried to explain western Pennsylvania, he talked about how whites cling to God and guns and therefore vote republican, even though they are poor and should be voting democrat. If you substitute 'pro-life' and 'the right to bear arms,' he's exactly right. Whites are voting against their 'poor' status and identifying themselves by their more primordial racial identity. This can't be helped, whites are more threatened by non-whites than by rich people. White lives are made worse by living in non-white ghettos, being bullied in non-white schools, being victims of non-white crime, than by being poor. Therefore the poor vote is splintered. The majority of the poor, poor whites, vote Republican, the party of the rich, because republicans are less anti-white in terms of policies like gun control and crime. They can't afford to vote their class interests and be democrats. The democrats have driven them away through their minority-first policies.
But democrats have their own problems! Since democrats aren't actually for the poor, and all their policies actually help their own rich plutocrats, all they have to play is the race card. all they CAN do is be anti-white and gain the minority vote thereby. All they CAN say is 'stick it to the white man.' That's how they get any votes at all. So the very process that drives poor whites away, is what lures non-whites and women TO their standard. They are a party of negativity and hostility, that creates phantom enemies while ignoring the giant elephant of the rich jew in the room. The democrats will never actually turn on the rich, because rich jews ARE the democratic party. they aren't the voters, but they are the elected officials. Jews are like 13 elected senators, around 1/3 of the democratic party. The same for the House and the Supreme Court and the Cabinet. And the same for the campaign funders and the article writers. So the democratic party must continuously rally around non-class issues in order to not turn and bite the hand that feeds them, the rich jews. Republicans meanwhile have the luxury of never needing to rally around class issues, because simply opposing the hostile policies of the democrats is good enough. All they have to be is slightly less anti-white and pro-minority than the democrats, and poor whites will vote for them anyway -- so why would THEY ever turn on THEIR rich that fund and staff THEIR campaigns either?
So here we have it, two rich groups playing their dumb poor lackeys against each other through racial animus and friction. If only our society were homogeneous, the poor could unite and turn against their rich overlords. This is why the rich don't want homogeneous countries. This is why rich people all over the world are importing diversity to help break up the poor and destroy their homelands. "Diversity is our Strength." Could more properly be written, "Diversity is Rich People's Greatest Strength against the Poor." Diversity is not poor people's strength. Diversity is our weakness, it is our bane, it is our doom. Diversity is what keeps the poor down. The rich play us off against each other, we exhaust ourselves, and they gain another % share of the economy. Rinse, repeat.
A white nation would first free us from our racial problems. But the very next thing we could do is solve our class problems, because no one would be left to stop us. It's like that phrase, "the road home is through Baghdad." The road to a socialist state is through white separatism.
No comments:
Post a Comment