Middle Class Dismantling 101. (MDM 101)
The purpose of this course is to enable future aristocrats take active part in the destruction of the middle class. Middle classes, when they represent a significant percentage of the total population, create a pervasive environment that leads to common people acquiring positions of power that do not let hard working and smart individuals (and their offspring) achieve the power they deserve.
The course is directed to the young sons and daughters of the nascent aristocracy, who need to completely dismantle the decaying but still powerful middle class. It is an organized form of knowledge that will help in the building of the ideological backbone of the future aristocracy.
The syllabus of the course contains the following topics, which will be briefly described.
1. Democracy: The antithesis of Aristocracy.
The etymology of the words democracy and aristocracy is as follows. Demos is a Greek work for people. Kratia is the Greek word for government. As a summary, democracy is the government of the people. Aristos is a Greek work that means best. As a summary, aristocracy is the government of the best. Future aristocrats have to be completely convinced that they deserve to rule because they are the best of humankind. Why are they the best? Because they have inherited the power from a prior generation that was already the best and were educated to be the best. In addition, the common people usually are not well educated and lack the character for optimal decision-making. This is why aristocracy and democracy are opposites. The common cannot be the best.
2. The Corporation: The base of the Aristocracy
Corporations have to first make sure that they can have the same rights that people in a democracy. Once that is achieved, they have to grow accumulating always a greater proportion of the generated wealth than the common people. The future aristocrats will be always at the top of a corporation. A historical analogy can be made with the feudal system of the later Middle Ages. The lord of the manor (CEO) will provide protection to the peasants (workers) in exchange for loyalty. Achieving this, starting with a society with a large and strong middle class, with a two century old tradition of democracy should take a few generations, however, the goals have to be set up.
3. Destruction of democracy… using democracy!
As it was said before, the people lack optimal decision-making capacity. They will elect to office politicians based on charisma. They lack an intellectual framework that will be able to protect themselves and their offspring. The goal of this topic is to learn the tools that will enable the leaders who will destroy the middle class be elected. The process, once started cannot stop so if there is the risk of a setback in anyone of the electoral processes, mechanisms of fraud should be designed to avoid them, raising minimal suspicion. People tend to vote for candidates who show strength, who share beliefs in the supernatural with them and who are against “alternative lifestyles”. Fear, religion, ethnocentrism and homophobia should be exacerbated in electoral campaigns. It has to be taken into account that middle class people will be voting for their own destruction so electoral processes should always be taken seriously.
4. Socioeconomic tools for MDM
Once in power, measures that transport wealth from the common people to the best people should be implemented. Tax-cuts for the wealthy are essential. The unions have to be dismantled. Common people (95th percentile or less) should be more concerned about paying energy bills, medical bills and food than to save for a decent retirement. Once this is achieved things should go smoother since the energies of the common people will be concentrated in survival. Once this happens they will look for the new aristocracy for protection.
5. Educational tools for MDM
The educational system has to be reformed in a way that public education creates weaker children with useless knowledge. Fun has to be more important than intellect. In this way, superstition and fear will be able to be used more easily. Questioning should be discouraged. Socialism should become taboo. Established scientific theories should be placed at the same level with religious myths. A well educated middle class is the worst enemy of an aristocracy. The lessons from the French Revolution should not be forgotten. In other words, the Enlightenment should never happen again.
6. Why an Aristocracy?
The world of the future is a world in which energy will be scarce and wealth will be unevenly distributed. It is the right of the people with the best capabilities to rule and to guide the surviving common people to better grounds for survival of humanity.
The course is directed to the young sons and daughters of the nascent aristocracy, who need to completely dismantle the decaying but still powerful middle class. It is an organized form of knowledge that will help in the building of the ideological backbone of the future aristocracy.
The syllabus of the course contains the following topics, which will be briefly described.
1. Democracy: The antithesis of Aristocracy.
The etymology of the words democracy and aristocracy is as follows. Demos is a Greek work for people. Kratia is the Greek word for government. As a summary, democracy is the government of the people. Aristos is a Greek work that means best. As a summary, aristocracy is the government of the best. Future aristocrats have to be completely convinced that they deserve to rule because they are the best of humankind. Why are they the best? Because they have inherited the power from a prior generation that was already the best and were educated to be the best. In addition, the common people usually are not well educated and lack the character for optimal decision-making. This is why aristocracy and democracy are opposites. The common cannot be the best.
2. The Corporation: The base of the Aristocracy
Corporations have to first make sure that they can have the same rights that people in a democracy. Once that is achieved, they have to grow accumulating always a greater proportion of the generated wealth than the common people. The future aristocrats will be always at the top of a corporation. A historical analogy can be made with the feudal system of the later Middle Ages. The lord of the manor (CEO) will provide protection to the peasants (workers) in exchange for loyalty. Achieving this, starting with a society with a large and strong middle class, with a two century old tradition of democracy should take a few generations, however, the goals have to be set up.
3. Destruction of democracy… using democracy!
As it was said before, the people lack optimal decision-making capacity. They will elect to office politicians based on charisma. They lack an intellectual framework that will be able to protect themselves and their offspring. The goal of this topic is to learn the tools that will enable the leaders who will destroy the middle class be elected. The process, once started cannot stop so if there is the risk of a setback in anyone of the electoral processes, mechanisms of fraud should be designed to avoid them, raising minimal suspicion. People tend to vote for candidates who show strength, who share beliefs in the supernatural with them and who are against “alternative lifestyles”. Fear, religion, ethnocentrism and homophobia should be exacerbated in electoral campaigns. It has to be taken into account that middle class people will be voting for their own destruction so electoral processes should always be taken seriously.
4. Socioeconomic tools for MDM
Once in power, measures that transport wealth from the common people to the best people should be implemented. Tax-cuts for the wealthy are essential. The unions have to be dismantled. Common people (95th percentile or less) should be more concerned about paying energy bills, medical bills and food than to save for a decent retirement. Once this is achieved things should go smoother since the energies of the common people will be concentrated in survival. Once this happens they will look for the new aristocracy for protection.
5. Educational tools for MDM
The educational system has to be reformed in a way that public education creates weaker children with useless knowledge. Fun has to be more important than intellect. In this way, superstition and fear will be able to be used more easily. Questioning should be discouraged. Socialism should become taboo. Established scientific theories should be placed at the same level with religious myths. A well educated middle class is the worst enemy of an aristocracy. The lessons from the French Revolution should not be forgotten. In other words, the Enlightenment should never happen again.
6. Why an Aristocracy?
The world of the future is a world in which energy will be scarce and wealth will be unevenly distributed. It is the right of the people with the best capabilities to rule and to guide the surviving common people to better grounds for survival of humanity.
By the end of the course the future young aristocrat will know how and why a middle class should be dismantled in order to establish a solid and stable aristocracy that will replace democracy as we know it.
Note from the author: For first visitors, I encourage to read the rest of my blog to get a feel of my real ideological positions. This post is intended to describe what kind of future is reserved if we let our precious middle class disappear.
posted by Doctor Marco at 00:22
12 Comments:
I found your idea about dismantling democracy with democracy very thought provoking. My question to you is this: Do you think that George W. Bush and Bill Clinton would fit the bill as
"charismatic". Bill with his saxophone playing and sex-capades and George W. with his jokes. It makes it difficult to have respect for these type of leaders. What shame.
I like your style of writing. For a good minute I thought you were actually "pro-aristocracy". Eventually I realized that you were describing a work of fiction in progress if the condition of our state continues to decay.
Interesting comparrison of Education for the MDM. I agree that our public educational system is failing to produce intellects. However, I remember people such as Abraham Lincoln, who had very little formal education, yet was such a powerful thinker. I think that although "educational background" influences the student; other factors such as self-motivation, curiosity and high I.Q. make the most difference in creating a generation of insightful leaders.
Last question: If I sign up for your class, will you be wearing the costume displayed on this blog? ;)
Marco,
I detect some liberal fatalism in your post.
1. Interesting. Aristotle was a Greek that did not favor democracy, yet he fermented many of the ideals found in Western philosophy.
2. Luckily for us anybody can form a corporation. LLC is arguably the best. You don't have to have a degree, or be a petigree, or even have much money.
3. Religion and homophobia have been key components of US politics since about 1800. Charisma has been a major component of almost every campaign in US history. Remember the Lincoln debates.
4. There were no federal taxes in the US until circa 1920. Until very recently most taxes redistributed the wealth from the richer to the poorer. That has changed radically and now the rich only have to pay 35% of what they earn in taxes (sarcasim). The unions dismantel themselves by abusing their employees and their employers. Those that survive either bring a fair balance or are in the throes of failure.
5. All I hear is complaints (mostly from liberals - or at least democrats) that "no child left behind" and "standardized tests" take all the creativity and fun out of education. All the kids get in school now is education. What are your sources behind this position?
6. How is this different from when the founding fathers established the USA? It was set up as a republic on purpose. You imply that things are worse now, but they are the same as they were since circa 1790.
I see more people starting their own businesses than ever before. That is the key to a middle class. Not unions.
Marco, you seem to be in a very dark mood. If every cloud has a silver lining, then doesn't every silver lining has a cloud.
If you seek to find darkness, you will find it. Try seeking sunshine...
Why don't you start your own medical office, help the employees form a union to protect them from you, and teach them how to start their own companies?
PS - The best way to insure that nobody is richer than anybody else is to make everybody equal via taxes and laws. Then a whole society can be equally mediocre. How is that for aristocacy thinking. I mean, why would I bust my butt to achieve anything if I'm gonna have it taken from me if I gather more than I "need".
You are disguising a "communistic economic" system behind a "democratic political" system and it doesn't even begin to pass the sniff test - not even close.
Alanita:
I think we give to much attention to the personal characteristics of the leaders. That is precisely the problem. We should focus more on ideology.
Although I wrote the piece as a fictitious course, it could represent aspects of a reality.
The educational system seems to be focused in fun-oriented learning rather than in the creation of rational individuals. The IQ level does not matter.
Grumpy:
I agree with the word liberal, I never hid my liberal ideas, however, I cannot agree with fatalism since I do not believe that the outcomes of our current events are already pre-determined.
Individuals or small numbers of people can form corporations, however, those are not the focus of the post. What I should do to improve the post is to add the adjective "large" before the corporation and define large as equal or greater than a certain number.
It really does not matter if religion, homophobia or something else is used to convince the little people to vote against him or herself. It is the amazing fact that people can vote against their own interest by artificially blurring their minds with puerile concerns what matters.
With respect to education, I am not fond of standardized testing, but I accept it as the best way of gathering information and comparing data. As you know, I am a foreigner. My native language is Spanish. I am also a collector of everything, I never throw away things. Sadly for me, I got a hold of my second grade notebooks. I compared them with third and fourth graders in modern day America. The quality of writing, and the organization of ideas were superior in the second grade books. I have to add the fact that the notebooks I found were written in English and not in Spanish. This leads me to believe that children have to be pushed for the maximum achievement without too much emphasis on fun.
I am a proud socialist and the sniff test of my own article told me that it had a sweet aroma.
A question for you. Do you really believe that wealth should trickle down from the rich to the rest of the society?
Another question. Do you think it is right that CEO's earn as an average more than 400 times what their employees earn?
One last question. What should we do with the beggars in the streets?
Marco,
You wrote:
"I am a proud socialist and the sniff test of my own article told me that it had a sweet aroma."
I lived in Andrews, Texas for many years and people that arrived would often say "Something stinks." You tell them, "Oh, that is oil." In a day or two it smells sweet to them. So, I know that many smells are subjective...
You wrote:
"A question for you. Do you really believe that wealth should trickle down from the rich to the rest of the society?"
Hell no. "Trickle down" is rhetoric. I'll earn my own or die trying thank you very much. All I need to be happy is food, clothing, shelter, and a little left over for social life. That is easy to attain in this society if you have you are mental health.
You wrote:
"Another question. Do you think it is right that CEO's earn as an average more than 400 times what their employees earn?"
I wouldn't pay that much if I owned a company, but it is up to the owners (stock holders or equity providers) and nobody else to determine how much they pay the CEO. Also, that is not a typical corporation. It is not even the typical "large" corporation. You used the WORST case example that represents a few companies globally.
I now live in San Antonio, Texas which is fairly low income and the CEOs of the "large" corporations here (including AT&T, HEB, Valero, USAA) make a lot more than the lowest paid full time person, but no where near 400x.
Also, would you pay Oprah the millions she gets evey year for talking on TV? Would you pay Lebron James millions every year to play basketball? Would you pay Tiger Woods $40 million every year in endorsements because he is good at golf?
You wrote:
"One last question. What should we do with the beggars in the streets?"
Wow - the term "beggars" seems a little condenscending...
A lot of things should be done.
1. Recognize that some of them choose the life style.
2. Continue to provide them with free (no cost to them) food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. Churchs and local charities like United Way provide this as well as (no, better than) local, state, and federal taxes.
3. Continue to provide them with drug rehab (even though it rarely works).
4. Accept any of them back into the mainstream of society if they choose to join.
There have always been, and there will always be "beggars". Many of the Western European nations (especially the Scandanavians) have extremely high taxes and social programs, yet they still have beggars and devastating drug problems...
Those are my responses.
I'd like to share some thoughts with you.
During the agricultural era most Americans worked at home running their won company - a farm/ranch.
Circa 1900 we shifted to the industrial era which required centralized factories/facilities for economy of scale. This in turn required large amounts of capital so corprations were formed. During this time people voluntarily went to work for corporations for a lot of reasons including better pay, easier than starting your own business, convenient (in the cities with access to amenities).
Circa 1990 we shifted to the information era. It has always been, but is now even more viable to start your own business. You don't have to go work for some billion dollar coporation. It does bring risk, it is hard, but it is also a viable option.
The US will be much better off if people start their own small companies than if we tax the hell out of corporations, the rich (which most democrats consider to be an annual income of $60,000), form unions (a good reason to outsource work to China, India, Poland, Indonesia, Ireland, and Russia), and create a bunch of laws that control pay.
If you really beleive that the US way is bad then please go to one of the socialist countries that do it right and leave the US alone.
Now a question for you.
Seriously, why come here and then try to make it like somewhere else?
Grumpy: I love the smell of armpits. But I don't like everybody's armpit smell. Only the smell of my husband's armpits.
I think Doctor Marco knows what is sweet and what is not.
Alanita,
I'm slow. You have to be more clear and direct with me so I can understand. You lost me.
If you are trying to say that what smells good to Marco might stink to me, then I say RIGHT ON! It takes all kinds to make the world and variety is the spice of life.
That doesn't mean that I want the USA to be even more of a socialist society than it already is. There are plenty of predominantly socialist, free nations (aka Western Europe) to live in without make this another one. I don't see that their lives are any better or that their problems are any fewer than ours.
I looked at my taxes and 22% of my earnings go to federal income tax, 8% go to local sales taxes, another 4% to state and local property taxes. That means that in January, February, March, and April I'm working for the good of whole. In addition my wife and I voluntarily give real close to 10% of our income to charity (mostly church). Now add in that my family doesn't receive any direct benefits from any government level.
I think I'm doing my share (at least). How much more does my society need from me? How much more to I owe to my society? How much more can my government waste? How much more should I give to people that would cut my throat (some of Marco's beggars) for the pitence in my wallet?
We cannot solve many of the worlds "problems", because many of them don't want to be solved...
There are entire towns in South Texas where nobody works. I can say the same for parts of Oklahoma, New Mexico, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, and just about every state I've been in (all but Alaska, Maine, North Dakota, Washington). They choose to live off of charity. They also have lots of people acting on their behalf to get them more because the "beggars" are so impoverished. Right, I get up at 5:00 am every morning (for the past 34 years), work all day, get home every night at 6:30 pm, Marco is telling me that the beggars are the ones that have the tough life...
I know that many beggars have mental illness and others have addictions. That is why I pay my taxes. That is why I give to charity. That is why I volunteer my time in United Way to help beggars, and others.
I also know that the ones with addictions weren't born with the addictions. I also know that many of the beggars just don't want to the everyday stress of society, a job, or a family.
I also do not believe, and Marco will never find data to prove, that the so called "American Aristocracy" is the reason we have beggars. There will always be beggars, unless we deport them like Great Britain did for most of the 1800's.
I'm trying to hold the line on socialism because I don't think more taxes or more government will fix the beggar problem. To me, the only way that Marco's ideal of "sweet smell" can be achieived is with more taxes and more government. I think that is what he is advocating - more government to control pay, control wealth, empower unions, and control distribution of wealth.
That doesn't smell sweet to me. It just smells.
Grumpy
Grumpy:
I did not see specific answers to my questions. When I asked about "trickling down" your answer said that it was a rhetoric statement and then you jumped to explain "how you earn your own." I will rephrase the question: Do you think that a small percentage of the population should concentrate most of the wealth and then allow part of their excess of wealth to be transferred to the rest?
I did not use the worst example for the ratio between CEO annual pay and average American annual pay, I used the AVERAGE. (Business Week, April 18, 2005). In this case you did answer the question and I am glad that you agree with me that 400 times is too much, however, you would still accept a payment like that in case the stock holders or equity providers agree on that.)
We agree in the beggar issue. However, I got the impression that you believe that a significant number of beggars choose that lifestyle. "Some" probably means a different number for me and for you.
Now, with respect to your question. I came here because the US is more socialist than my own country. There is more protection for the workers, more taxes to the wealthy, less taxes for the middle and lower classes. Professional pay is still highly regarded and I am professional. The US is not bad. It can be better, though. People in the US think more like me than like you (http://mediamatters.org/items/200706130002).
Marco,
"Do you think that a small percentage of the population should concentrate most of the wealth and then allow part of their excess of wealth to be transferred to the rest?"
No. A few people should not own the wealth. Especially if it was taken by force. There, now you see that we agree.
I'd like you to answer two questions:
1. Since this has happened over and over again to people around the globe, why did people allow this to happen to them - AGAIN?
2. How do you think it can be changed?
- - - - -
Here are my answers to the two questions I posed to you.
1. It happens, not because of the actions of a few people (rich Hollywood mogels, movie stars, lawyers, doctors, and CEOs) but because of the inaction of the millions. I say it is human nature. After all, it is easier to follow than lead. By the way, some socialism is how you get the people to go for this (aka - socialism is part of the cause. Why should people work for something when they can get with a vote. The Democrats have used this mechanism since about 1930. The Republicans use it, but don't take credit).
2. If we look at history we see several potential alternatives... but they have proven to be nothing more than stop gaps. Temporary solutions. Here are some ways to redistribute that highly concentrated wealth you and other liberals are so worried about:
2a. Total collapse (aka French Revolution) can temporarily stop it - careful, lots of people die...
2b. Total poverty can stop it. Everybody has nothing.
2c. True Socialism can temporarily stop it - your nation becomes an economic weakling (aka France). Your nation also has to depend on others for support - aka if Western Europe couldn't count on the USA for defense and had to finance their own military they wouldn't have any left over for all the social programs.
2d. Low level socialism (close to that found in the USA today) where for those people not willing to do what it takes to gather or create their own wealth, a minimal (just 30% of my income to taxes) set of support systems exist to provide just enough assistance to get by.
But, at the same time an environment where those people that understand the "opportunity to have your own business" is the true right as opposed to the "right to have a job with guaranteed pay" (enforced by your union - so Industrial Era), can risk their own rump and bust their own hump making their own company work.
Here is an anology that I think explains how the wealth has shifted in the USA with assistance from socialism - "How to catch wild pigs"
1. Put feed on the ground every day in the same place. Eventually the wild pigs will get used to human smell, etc. and start eating the free, easy food.
2. After a few days put up one length of fence and keep putting out the feed. The not so wild pigs will get use to the fence and eat the free, easy food feed.
3. Add a second side to the fence and keep giving the now rather lazy pigs food. They will get use to the fence and keep eating the free, easy food. In fact, the free food should be a right!
4. Add a third part to the fence and keep giving food to the lazy pigs. They will get use to the third part of the fence and eat the free, easy food that they now expect - after all, free food is a right.
5. Add a fourth part to the fence and a gate, but do not close the gate so that the fat, lazy pigs can still get to the free food. (Assuming the lazy pigs even bothered to leave the area). They will ignore the fourth part of the fence and the gate to get the free, easy food. After all, it is owed to them anyway.
6. One day when the fat, lazy pigs are busy eating the free food, close the gate - like you needed to anyway...
Oh yeah - the food was never free, it was just paid for by someone else. But the fat lazy pigs were willing to give up their rights, freedoms, and privileges for the "free" food.
Grumpy
PS - Since when is being like "most" Americans good? The average American:
- is divorced
- is very much over weight
- has at least one unhealthy addiction (tobacco, alcohol, other drugs)
- is in debt up to their ears (because they spend more than they make no matter how much the make)
- has bad cholestorol/and or blood pressure (because they don't have the discipline to exercise and control their diet)
- did not pursue or finish education beyond high school
- does not vote (30% voting is pretty good for the US)
- blames almost all of their problems on other people (especially business people and Republicans - they seem to think rich actors, rich athletes, and rich Democrats are cool - what a deception)
Grumpy:
It has been a long way, but I am glad to see some agreement.
Now to your questions.
It is my opinion that people allow this to happen not out of will but out of lack of involvement. This leads to lack of information, and eventually to apathy. Once an apathetic state is achieved, the greedy, who never lose track of the information, starts to grab power slowly but surely. Eventually the disparities become so obvious that something traumatic has to happen so that an apparent state of better distribution of wealth can be achieved (Great Depression, French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution). Following this logic, Latin America has lived in contant revolution and turmoil for 200 years because revolutions never created strong middle classes.
I believe that things can change by engineering a strong middle class, supported by a strong educational system that would emphasize true moral values like care for the environment and respect for the family as the unit of society. There has to be space for the hardworking and the well educated/trained to escalate in society. The "free market" that allows the existence of millionaire entertainers should be regulated better. Finally, steady-state economics should replace constant-growth economics (when we achieve an optimal development and until we find a way of expanding to another planet). Population and energy availability should always be in the mind of a government.
The key is to act before revolutions/depressions take care of the problem. I agree that almost always provide temporary solutions.
PS: What you call "low level socialism" is high level for other countries.
Marco,
The US is "low level socialist" compared to what it could be, and I want to keep it about where it is. 35% federal tax enough. Most of the 35% is wasted. 40 years of tax-and-spend welfare hasn't helped much.
I don't care about unions. People that don't like a company should go work somewhere else. This isn't the industrial age anymore.
I favor strong education, but you can't make people learn. In Texas the vast majority (by this I mean almost all) of illegal Mexicans that come here don't really care if their kids learn. If the kids can read at all they are ahead of their parents.
Plus, the parents came from such dire poverty in Mexico that a shack in Texas with electricity, a ceptic tank, and running water is a palace to them. Having a pickup and 3 meals a day is a life of luxury. Cable TV to watch football is beyond their wildest dreams. It is also the first time they have had access to medical care in most cases.
In spite of what the Democrats say and what is heard on the news frequently, the data shows that since 1983 the size and wealth of the middle class has not changed (it has barely fluctuated) in the USA. I doubt it has changed much since 1950.
There always has been and always will be people that do not succeed. I do not believe that number has not changed significantly in my life.
The rhetoric on the other hand has gone up signficantly. How else can the democrats get votes - while they simultaneously cater to movie stars, selected old money, and trial attorneys.
The US economic environment allows people to effectively start small businesses. It also allows people to prosper. I want to keep this way.
Grump
Grumpy:
Your 35% is an arbitrary number. It has led to the proliferation of billionaires so something must be wrong with it. A society that allows billionaires must have something wrong with it (in my view, you might like billionaires). Resources are limited, so we cannot let the smarter or the stronger grab them without control because it would mean that there would be a segement of the people with very limited access to them.
Unions are the base of the middle class. If you do not care about them, you probably do not want a middle class. Nothing wrong with that, it is just your view of the world.
Education involves much more effort than the effort seen so far.
Show me your data regarding the middle class size and wealth. Make sure, please, that you use real dollars of 1983 or 2007 to compare both years. As a hint, if we take into account a 3% yearly inflation since 1983, there is a 109% accumulated inflation which would mean that if someone earned 40000 dollars in 1983, in order for that person to be "earning the same", he or she should earn 84000 dollars in 2007. Please, when you review your data, take into account the difference between household income and personal income. Household income might have remained roughly the same in real dollars, however, in order to keep it that way, more hours have to be used to work and more than one person has to contribute to the household income. Please, also take into account the relative increase in price of healthcare, housing and transportation.
Prosperity and greed and diferent things.
Post a Comment
<< Home