Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

America's Disappearing 'Upper Class'

By Zephyr Teachout, The Nation. Posted May 23, 2008.


Apparently, in the United States, we don't have an upper class; we have elites -- a complimentary term that obscures true differences in opportunity.
Advertisement

John Edwards, it is hoped, will bring the "working-class" vote to Barack Obama. In alternative descriptions, he will help with the "middle-class" vote, or what a very tired Hillary Clinton might call the "white-middle white-class, white-working, white vote." This (disappearing) working-class population fills the pages of analysis and news. In the New York Times, for example, there have been 324 references to "middle class" and 220 references to "working class" in the past three months.

At the same time, "upper class" is vanishing from our language. In the 18 references in the New York Times in the last three months, none are in the context of elections. "Upper class" appears most often in quotes, literature review and history, or as a referent to people on the other side of the puddle, as they say: the "upper-class British" way of life appears, as does the "upper-class European," and the upper-class voice of a deceased BBC announcer.

In America, we don't have the upper class, apparently. We have, according to many news reports, "elites." There are thousands of references to elites: In the context of politics, a search for "Clinton" and "elite" in the last three months finds 40 results, while the blogs are full of concern about various candidates' tendencies to attract elite voters. It sounds like an epithet, when thrown at campaign managers ("you are just getting the elite vote"), but it's a compliment to the people described therein.

"Elites only, folks, elites only for early boarding," cries the Continental Airlines steward, and the rich people line up, complimented and convenienced at the same time. The best football players are elite, and the best colleges are elite -- the word comes not with the stink of privilege but with the flattering sound of being something deserved, worked for even. Elites may be "out of touch," but they are "out of touch" with a French-derived word meaning to choose -- the same root as the word "election," as it turns out. The elite are the chosen, the secular "good men and women," ones we ought to make way for as they pass.

You might think I'm being unfair here -- sometimes elite means a particular group of people, not all rich -- but what I think is disturbing (and imprecise) is how we use words from different categories blended together, as if we had three classes, "the elite," "the working class" and "people living under the poverty level," instead of the categories as they were initially introduced, "the upper class, the middle class and the poor," or "the elite, the mediocre and the incompetent," or "the ruling class, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat."

I like the first characterization best, because I think it's the most descriptive and least judgmental. I recoil against the tendency for the rich to have their cake and eat it too, as it were -- the tendency to describe themselves as elegant and chosen, to describe the middle class if they were organized and very effectively demanding their rights, and to describe the poor as if they were living under something and ought be pitied.

But importantly, I recoil against the imprecision of the word "elite." It communicates less than it seems and leaves the meaning up to the demographic imagination of the reader. It might mean the rich; it might mean a group of 20 people who have drinks at the Brick Skeller in D.C. The "richest 50,000" is precise. People "living below the poverty line" is precise. Anything written by Pew is precise. Elite is vague, and in a way that compliments people who think themselves elite while obscuring the real differences in opportunity and living that people experience.

So while we're making it difficult to make a middling income -- and simultaneously making this near-extinct species the fetish of our politics -- let me suggest that we at least do ourselves the dignity of naming the "elites" what they are: in some cases, the gang of five hundred, in most cases, the upper class. A group of people with a blend of luck, parentage and talent that has a whole lot more money than most people. The rich.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: class, poverty, middle class, elitism, upper class

Zephyr Teachout was the director of internet organizing for Howard Dean's campaign, the executive director of the Baobabs College Labs Project, and a consultant to America Coming Together. She was previously the executive director of the Fair Trial Initiative.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
How about the Plutocracy or the Oligarchy ?
Posted by: mmckinl on May 23, 2008 12:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author has some explaining to do. In my mind the "upper class" is not the "elite" but those that are wealthy enough not to have to worry about ever working again should they lose their job.

The "elites" are those that make policy both in the public and private sector that influence the running of the country. They are the plutocracy or oligarchy.

The Main Stream Media and the Powers that be are once again confusing wealth with power to effect a confusion they desire. Surely they are connected but wealth does not necessarily confer power or visa versa.

What has happened is that now, more than ever, money can buy power and influence. The Oligarchy once the guardians of access have now been eclipsed by the monied Plutocracy and we have seen the results. The management of the government and the economy for short term gain at the expense of the long term survival of the country itself. The Oligarchy can no longer protect the goose that has laid the golden eggs from the Plutocracy. It's now a mad dash for wealth, damn the consequences for our economy and our country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Power Cannot Be Bought Posted by: pdxstudent
» Well said, but coin of the realm... Posted by: wolfgangmo75
Call them what you will
Posted by: blogbooks on May 23, 2008 1:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just make sure someone is compiling a list of their names, homes and properties both domestic and abroad.

For..."research."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Call them what you will Posted by: DaBear
» No need for that Posted by: improperly_sedated
» I should specify that Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: I should specify that Posted by: Prairie Waif
» I forgot to finish that thought. . . Posted by: Prairie Waif
Ok article. Key topic.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on May 23, 2008 2:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ironically, I've more often heard the word "elite" used as a derogatory term to protect the interests of the real elite described in this article.

You'll hear some form of it all the time on talk radio, in Republican speeches, or by cable news pundits. Apparently, there's a group of rich, politically-correct, over-educated, liberal puppetmasters somewhere in the Northeast, San Francisco, and college sociology departments who want all of the gays to marry, all of our children to speak French, and to fill our museums with naked paintings and statues at the taxpayers' expense. Their goal is to destroy the values of ordinary, hard working families.

They are used as an excuse to keep this country locked in the Dark Ages, cut taxes for the top 1%, start wars, and screw the bottom 99% (or more accurately: convince the bottom 99% to screw themselves).

This is a great topic, because it gets at the root of the extreme inequalities here in the US, and some of the differences between the US and other countries: Most of us have no class consciousness. 99% of us think we're middle-class. Too many of us think you get rich by working hard and studying hard. And most of us wouldn't know the real puppetmasters if they slapped us with a dead cat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ok article. Key topic. Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Ok article. Key topic. Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous
» RE: Ok article. Key topic. Posted by: wolfgangmo75
I think that is a really good point..
Posted by: Squarehead on May 23, 2008 3:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that is a really good point...

That 'elites' lets the bastards off the hook. I have habitually used the word, as a sort of value neutral examination of society, but now see my error.

In any objective sense, actual leadership behavior (so-called elite, in one examination) is expressed by many posters here, since it can be the start of political action. [I am assuming that we all are doing other stuff too; not just venting off our rage]

So I must start re-using 'upper- class' so as to push awareness. We can all remember that the upper- class are indeed the 'cream' of society; rich and thick, rises to the top.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not so fast. . . Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Not so fast. . . Posted by: Squarehead
I think that is a really good point..
Posted by: Squarehead on May 23, 2008 3:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that is a really good point...

That 'elites' lets the bastards off the hook. I have habitually used the word, as a sort of value neutral examination of society, but now see my error.

In any objective sense, actual leadership behavior (so-called elite, in one examination) is expressed by many posters here, since it can be the start of political action. [I am assuming that we all are doing other stuff too; not just venting off our rage]

So I must start re-using 'upper- class' so as to push awareness. We can all remember that the upper- class are indeed the 'cream' of society; rich and thick, rises to the top.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I think that is a really good point.. Posted by: Romantic Violence
Didn't need a pic of the several-times-near-bankrupt con artist Trump
Posted by: war_on_tara on May 23, 2008 4:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think he counts as an "elite," and if he's "upper class" it's only temporary. Although he's certainly not "idle rich"; he's a very hard-working con artist!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't be fooled. Posted by: wolfgangmo75
Depends on Who's Talking
Posted by: Urstrly on May 23, 2008 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Republicans use "elite," they seem to have in mind anyone who reads real books, eats organic and disagrees with them. Clintonians call Democrats elite if they have advanced degrees and don't support Hillary. Obama seems to welcome elites, as long as they aren't obviously corporate.It's all cultural to me.

Class definitions are a lot more specific and useful, since they are based on wealth,power and prestige. The Bushes personify the Upper Upper Class, no matter how aw shucks they pretend to be, but all of our presidential candidates now would fall into that category. I've always suspected that one reason Kucinich did so poorly was that he didn't have the power connections that wealth or an Ivy League school might have conferred. Ditto Mike Huckabee.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Being wealthy means not to share,
Posted by: Last Chance on May 23, 2008 6:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
especially not information, so the upper class elites shun publicity to protect their sources of wealth from prying eyes and probing opportunists, all the better to manipulate the masses whose labor supports their lifestyle. No "conspicuous consumption" just quiet elegance with delusions of immunity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Power-Elite
Posted by: Gravitas on May 23, 2008 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sociologist have a concept called the power-elite. It is a word that needs to become a part of the American vocabulary. It identifies that small group at the top that protects their interests at the expense of the rest of us. That plays at Bohemian Grove, that controls the content of the media, that buys elected officials to vote their way, that uses government as their own tool for personal profit, that constantly scapegoats and race/religion bates so we will never stand together to oppose them. If we had a word that easily identifies them, it would make them more real to the people. And maybe they would finally wake up and see who the true enemy really is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Power-Elite Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: The Power-Elite Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: The Power-Elite Posted by: crazy carlos
An interesting fact from the '30s Depression
Posted by: ReallyBearish on May 23, 2008 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in the 1920s wealth disparity climbed to an all time high. But by 1936 it had substantially disappered. Economic depressions that visit us once in a roughly 60 year period serve to clean out much of the new rich, who's money was mostly made on cheap credit and runaway financial assets. This fate will soon visit them again. Let's not worry about them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An interesting fact from the '30s Depression Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous
great article on the ruling class
Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous on May 23, 2008 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
personally i have always preferred the term "ruling class" because i think it more accurately portrays the actual position of the members of the top layers of the corporate world -- the ceo's, the chairmen, their boards of directors, in some cases people on the one or two layers immediately below these folks, the independently wealthy -- and of course their lackeys in the gop and in some cases in the democratic party as well. these folks truly rule our country, and in a larger sense, the world. usually they are content to rule behind the scenes but sometimes as in the last 8 years and in the reagan era, they decide to move a little closer to being more obviously in charge. their last few years of being more directly in charge and obscuring our nation's priorities with red herrings such as gay marriage, evolution vs god, whether or not john kerry was a war hero, the absolutely primary importance of tax cuts for those who need them the least, ad infinitum ad nauseum, has been to the detriment of much more important issues to address such as climate change, why we continue to get involved in and lose wars with 3rd world countries where we can't tell the combatants from the general population, our countrys' deteriorating infrastructure, problematic long-term structural changes in jobs and employment and employment compensation levels in our country, the decline in freedom and in civil liberties in our country largely subsequent to the authoritarian actions of the current president and the gop congressional majorities of the last few sessions of congress, developing multiple alternative energy sources as part of mixed source clean energy system to power our country and serve as a model for the rest of the world, providing affordable and decent levels of health care for all our citizens in some way or another. of course there are other pressing problems to address, but that's just off the top of my head.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» 60% of America is in the Stock Market Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» Meaningless statistic Posted by: improperly_sedated
This is what Liberals want Right?
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters on May 23, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fall of the Upper Class? Let me guess, you couldn't afford the Bimmer 5 series so you went with the Saab and you have that apartment above 140th in Harlem or you had to settle for that brownstone near that housing project? You have to cut back on buying a lunch to "gasp" brown bagging it on the A train oh and gawd forbid you buy groceries and cook. That fallen dollar has curbed your Europe Vacation to "gasp" your aunt that lives in Milwaukee or you went camping in "Appalachia" because you became intrigued of all the political coverage and was really wondering is those West Virginians stuck in the 1950's?
I fought Liberals hate wealthy people? The Upper Class I fought Liberals wanted to destroy? Is this more "white guilt" over the latte at starbucks? Myself I don't know should I been concerned of just amused? I here there is a declining middle class, and now the same is for the upper class too? Let me guess, all the money is at the top 1% getting rich off the backs of illegal immigrants and there low wages?
Well at least just about everyone is felling the "so called" burn. I don't know how this apples to me because I refused to participate in any decline or recession or in a.... I know you guys are really hoping for a depression because that that America needs for its sins of decadence. Yea, thats how we stick it all to "The Man" because if I'm hurting in my Saab and I have to attend "State School" for my masters well, doggoned that top 1% trust fund kid well... he should pay more taxes somehow.

This is going nowhere and so is this article. Have a good weekend.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This one is a keeper Posted by: improperly_sedated
Money does NOT equal Class
Posted by: grethart on May 23, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just because one has money he/she is not automatically "upper class" or "high class".
Or has any 'class' at all!

Upper Class are not all rich. Upper Class are born "upper class", are usually "old family money" (generations and generations of money in their lineage), and try to marry within their echelon.
People with money acquired from their own earnings are the 'neuvo riche' (new money).....and are not considered "upper class" to the "upper class".
Having money does not equal having 'class'.

The "upper class" consider themselves part of the "American Aristocracy".

Sound stuffy??? Well, you're right!!! It is stuffy.

But those born to it have different 'social training' and attitudes....maybe not lots of money, but always taught "class".

(This 'upper class" is a carry over from the European Aristocracy lineage class system.)

The "new money" peoples may fit into some of the 'elitist groups', but they are not part of the 'social 400'.

The "Social 400", in case you were wondering, is the section of the population of a city that is listed in an "upper class" publication. This is an actual publication and lists the names of the "Upper Class"....moneyed or not. In large cities it is literally limited to 400 names.

Money cannot buy 'class'....as indicated by the actions of some many of our rich!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The power of language and the language of power
Posted by: goodsensecynic on May 23, 2008 10:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is an old joke about two English academics who meet after a lengthy time apart.

The first asks: "What, dear chap, are working on now?"

The second replies: "The endurance of social class in America."

Astonished, the first exclaims: "But I didn't think there was a ruling class in America."

The second smiles and whispers: "Neither does anyone else. That's how it survives."

For current purposes, the term "elite" derives from stratification analysis in sociology. It acknowledges inequality, but insists that it is fluid, with upward and downward mobility reflecting the personal qualities of those who rise or fall in the social order. It can be used effectively to criticize current social arrangements (cf. C. Wright Mills' iconic volume, The Power Elite, but it is extremely limited, both theoretically and practically.

We are better off to exmploy the language of "social class," which comes mainly from political economy, and more satisfactorily explains how "the ruling class" gains and keeps its wealth (ruthless exploitation of the middle and working classes), power (control of the state, the main political parties and in extremis their monopoly on
"legitimate" violence through the police, the courts and the military), and influence (domination of the mass media and education).

If this sounds offensively Marxist, I make no apologies. The "Moor" was as adept a social analyst as we have seen. The main problem of Marxism, however, is that he and his followers were so uncritically brimming with optimism, thinking that revolution - like Hooverian prosperity - was "just around the corner."

Alas, the anticipated revolution has not come about anywhere. It was not seriously attempted in Russia or China where Marx himself would have scoffed at the very idea. After all, they had not experienced capitalism and, as Darwin taught him, natural and social evolution do not make leaps!

So, while awaiting for the revolutionary potential of the proletariat to materialize (certainly not expected in my lifetime), we can at least use the language of social class to advance our understanding of social, political and economic structures.

I do not, however, recommend that it play a large tactical part in our public discussions, especially those aimed at achieving modest "liberal" amelioration of the most egregious outrages of "late capitalism" at home and abroad.

"American Dreamers" (right, left and centre) still do not like being informed or reminded of their real relationship to the mode and means of production. It will take some time to persuade people that: (a) TV Game shows are not a genuine avenue to success, much less a proof of the possibility of upward mobility; (b) that solidarity and loyalty should be directed something more substantial than the local professional sports franchise; and, (c) that laughing at such embarrasments as Paris Hilton does not constitute a radical critique of the society and the social class that spawned her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» On C. Wright Mills as a "Left Weberian" Posted by: goodsensecynic
enough layperson articles on "class" call in those experts
Posted by: DaBear on May 23, 2008 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Class Action and class matters have the very best info and dirt on class in 'Merkuh. And a quirky fellow writes on dematerialism another way of looking at class. A little less rigorous than Class Action and Class Matters but some important observations nonetheless.

That being said, I have to laugh (and choke, sputter and snarl) every time I read a "journalist" writing about class because they generally do a piss-poor job of research and make constant blunders... just as they did and still do with anything related to Gen-X.

There are subgroups within each major class category: Within the "upper class" you have the ruling elite, the owning class and the boundary group, the investor class which includes most of the upper middlers. In the middle class you have a lower border group called the amateur-professional class (educated to the hilt but paid less or equal to the working class) and the working class who straddle middle and "lower" class. In the "lower class" we find various subgroups such as working poor, poverty, homeless, etc. And to the chagrin of many a 'Merkaaner simpleton, these are NOT hard and fast boundaries or linear definitions, they flex and shape-shift and depend on a myriad of variables. Class Action has a fantastic matrix on their website that's useful for finding one's position in the class system which nearly always surprises everyone, and Class Action promotes cross-class dialogue and teaches people how to actually do that.

The author's preferences fall woefully short of it, probably because of a failure to research... I know, "it's just business" and the usual batshit excuses for being dumb 'Merkaans. OTOH, there's a considerable case to be made for using empirical or theoretic academic language that in effect gives a free pass to those responsible for unloading considerable shit onto everyone else. That's just plain un'Merkaan. Stop giving the owning class a pass, let alone the fab 500! The chickens are coming home to roost rich boyz... time to pay up, parasites. And all that kinda thing....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Language That Obscures Posted by: pdxstudent
rn
Posted by: mnatra on May 23, 2008 9:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Power elite is descrption closer to the mark. They are the big bosses who stay on top of everything,only to come down to refuel.There is one similarity between the psychie of the power elite ruling class baron and between the relegious fanatic. They both are fundamentalists in their outlook
The fundamentalist Christian sees either hell or salvation. The elite see either rich or poor and they are the rich.No matter how much education they have at ivy league colleges, the rich are basically ignorant instrumentalists who see things in black and white, but there
control is just never sustainable and it never will be. The economy will collapse as it has in the past.They do not see that we are all in this together.so they prey on the less fortunate. "Are there no work houses?, are there no prisons?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rich vs the richer
Posted by: nfamous on May 24, 2008 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a huge difference between someone with a few million dollars and someone with hundreds of millions of dollars. People with that much money own and control the means of production and distribution. They can do whatever they want. People with a few million bucks are rich but they do not have the power that the elite have.

I do agree that elite connotes some genetic superiority that is never a reality. What elite should mean is that your ancestors focused their lives on attaining wealth in any way possible and passed it on to you through no part of your own. In other words the elite are people who's ancestors never stopped to smell the roses. They were equally obsessed about the accrual of assets only to discover at the end that nothing could save them from death.

No one needs hundreds of millions of dollars. That should be illegal because you are killing people just by having it and creating huge wealth disparity. Because of the elite there are people with no health insurance. There are soldiers dying in Iraq because they had no other choice in their town except to join the military. Excessive wealth kills people but the elite don't care. We should reverse the order of the upper and lower classes by basing it on morality and human compassion. That would make the elite the lower class hands down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Poverty IS slavery Posted by: wolfgangmo75
FASCISM by FASCISTS INC.
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on May 24, 2008 5:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“A group of people with a blend of luck, parentage and talent that has a whole lot more money than most people. The rich.”

The Nation magazine’s cotton candy whitewash on class structure has virtually no basis in fact or historical reality.

Anyone that sells the MSM farce that cartel wealth and power is about “luck, parentage and talent" is likely an incompetent or sellout propagandist. In an utterly rigged Fascist system of the kind the U.S. has become, “Luck” and “talent” can make you a millionaire and in the most exceptional of rare cases, a billionaire. The ruling class that actually governs D.C. and what we hear and see at the MSM effectively controls hundreds of TRILLIONS in wealth through what amounts to autocrat policy. That’s called Fascism as in monopolist organized corporate crime that has ZERO to do with “capitalism” or “democracy”.

The criminal ruling class that rigs a private and unconstitutional “Federal Reserve” Corp (not federal, no reserves) and a far newer BlackWater Corp (with more genocide boots on the ground than the military for bogus 9/11 “war on terror” of a thousand lies) is one and the same.

To cut to the chase, a cure requires accurate diagnosis.

There is virtually none to be had at the MSM or at an “alternative” media. That is scarcely an accident.





“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government of the U.S. ever since the days of Andrew Jackson. History depicts Andrew Jackson as the last truly honorable and incorruptible American president.”
President FDR (on de facto Fascist rule in a letter to corporate monopoly charlatan “Colonel” Edward M. House, co-founder of the Council on Foreign Relations and political fixer for the ruling class. House also handled President Wilson for implementation of the “Federal Reserve” Corp. 11/21/ l933)

“The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them.”
Doctor Albert Einstein (in a letter to Sigmund Freud 7/30/1932. 1879-1955)

“We will have world government whether or not we like it. The only question is whether world government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”
James Paul Warburg (cartel banker in testimony before the US Senate. Warburg was the son of Paul M. Warburg, an agent of the Rockefeller-Rothschild bloc and chief architect of the “Federal Reserve” Corp, an unconstitutional private bank monopoly set up for cartel hegemony. Paul Warburg was also a founder and director of the Council of Foreign Relations. James Paul Warburg was the nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff, both of the Rothschild front Kuhn, Loeb & Co that financed and helped arrange Lenin and Trotsky’s “Bolshevik Communist” coup thru brother Max Warburg as banker to the German government. February 17, 1950)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Code Blue for the US DOLLAR - R.I.P.
Posted by: Von on May 28, 2008 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://infowars.net/articles/may2008/260508Dollar.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

recognizing elitism
Posted by: Dianka on May 29, 2008 7:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But it would be to our advantage in the long run to examine the elitism seen so vividly in post-Clinton era progressives. The Progressive movement in the US has a long, honorable history of fighting for social and economic justice. This is the first time in US history that Progressives have abandoned (or at least, restricted) principles of social and economic justice. Each day, we can read about the hardships of the working poor, and rightly so. But once a person falls off that over-crowded, narrow platform, they become non-people, utterly invisible. We don't mention them, because we bought into the idea that there is "no excuse for not working". We think that (Americans) who aren't actively employed (regardless of the reason) are not entitled to many of the most basic human rights protections, as ratified by most nations (but NOT the US) in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is elitism.

I think what is most disturbing to me is the
ease with which otherwise-progressive people have gone along with removing the discussion of America's poor from the public forum. What's scary is that I don't think people even think about it, or are aware of how they really no longer regard the poor as "regular" human beings. What's really scary is that the process used to transfer "common good" funds into corporate bank accounts has been too similar to classic Nazi propaganda tactics, relying on a steady dehumanizing process of our poor to effectively stem any public criticism of those policies. When something is repeated often enough, long enough, the public will believe it, not matter how ludicrous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Screwers vs Screwees
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 30, 2008 3:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I weaver between being a 'communist' and a Real Free Market Believer. Maybe it can be resolved by a 'Cap' . I consider the Garbage man Just as Important as the physician. both contribute to public health- both are vitally necessary to assure a Healthy Nation. so both should be compensated equally. So do we Raise the wages of Garbagemen or lower wages for Doc's?
On the other hand, If someone comes up with a great idea,workks hard & plays by the rules should they not be allowed to benefit from their 'extra effort' their extraordinary talent? So in these area 'supply and Demand' is the only gage.
However, those who do 'make it big' should retain some social responsiblity. The Gates Foundation is agreat example of through the 'Free market' an individual is capable of contributing Back to the society which has CREATED THEM.Without the masses buying their products, ideas, they would have Nothing. therefore there is a Innate requirement to 'reinvest'.
Obviously Taxation would be the great equilizer, 'Reinvestment' obligation- but this has been usurped. Why is it that other insittutions have not stepped Up. Wherre are these "mega churches' and their influence on the 'Haves'....Pocketing the money donated to by air conditioned Dog Houses for the 'Pastor' with delusions of Grandeur it Appears. We must END the 'Exempt' rule for So Called Religious enterprises. Let's make them Put their Money where their Mouths Are.Then all those home bound Elderly who have donated all their money will actually be recieving Help from them through the Gov't instead of being Left to Eat Dog Food !For as many 'bible Thumpers' We have in this Country and Insanely Rich- we should not be seeing our Cititzens starving and living on the Streets. Where's this 'Moral Fiber' they keep Proclaiming?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» MY FEELINGS EXACTLY Posted by: mindtrvlr