5 August, 2009

The Difficult Class

Posted by Socrates in dispossession & destruction, Frankfurt School, globalization, Max Horkheimer, Socrates, White middle class at 12:07 am | Permanent Link

by Elizabeth Whitcombe.

“The middle class is not an income bracket. It is a group of people who share values that strengthen the individual. Their strength makes the middle class the most difficult class to rule.

Displacing the middle class has been the trend of recent history. Globalism concentrates wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people, which starves out the mid-tier of society. Particularly since the end of WWII , Western elites have focused on breaking the mid-tier’s ability to resist their own disenfranchisement.”

[Article].


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 12/01/16 White Middle Class? What White Middle Class? Or, the Government’s War on White People 52% similar
  3. 03/19/17 The Coming Death of the White Middle Class 42% similar
  4. 03/12/09 Illegals: the Newest Protected Class 40% similar
  5. 04/29/11 Whites: Second-Class Citizens 32% similar
  6. 04/30/11 Whites: Second-Class Citizens, Part 2 31% similar
  7. 14 Responses to “The Difficult Class”

    1. CW-2 Says:

      An excellent article, coolly argued wth pertinent historical examples. Essential reading for newbies to fully grasp the extent of the psychological warfare being conducted against us.

    2. old dutch Says:

      The whole concept of “class” is jewish & marxist. To acknowledge “class” is to acknowlege both judaism & marxism. Why play the jews game? Class analysis is not for White men. LOL. There are “no classes” among White men only income levels.

      Btw, I’ve listened to some of the Sunic-MacDonald dialogue, and the good Doctors so far are in general agreement with me. Although, I put much less weight on the religious aspect of Roman Catholicism and much more weight on the political aspect of Roman Catholicism as currently practiced in the US by Roman Catholic politicians. And the Roman Catholic church has a history of trying to put itself, and its goals before civil authority of the nation state and the will of the people. Particularly in northern Europe—now in the US.

    3. Old Dutch Fill In Says:

      I see you’re back from “fishing,” Old Dutch. Did you catch any (hic!)”snapper” on your “fishing trip” *wink wink*? LOL. With you back, there’s no need for me to “fill in” on exposing the papal conspiracy. LOL.

      (hic!) VNN – No Catholics, Just Right. LOL. Go get ‘um! LOL.

    4. CW-2 Says:

      It is regretable that sometimes it is necessary to use terms such as ‘class’ which are part of the enemy vocabulary, but we all know what is meant by ‘middle class’, ie., those who through education or good fortune have attained an income level that permits a good measure of independence.

      BTW, the Catholic church is almost non-existent in Northern Europe, its heartland is mostly south of the 48th parallel. The pressing threat to freedom in Europe has nothing to do with Catholic / Protestant differences of the past, it is all to do with jihadist Islam, and the jews who brought them here.

    5. S.U.N. Says:

      Catholicism is a calque of the modus operandi of judaism, only worse. The popes and their pederast aides found all the wealth and power so damn irresistible to let go ever since.

    6. old dutch Says:

      Sort of…the Protestant Reformation threw off the Roman Catholic political yoke in the German states, Switzerland, Holland, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and to a lesser extent in small parts of France & central Europe.

      Btw, it was the Protestant Elector of Saxony John George III who turned the Turks/Moslems back at Vienna in 1683.

      I don’t think any rational individual can dispute the fact that the Roman Catholic politicians in the United States have a political alliance with the Jews to let the Mexicans and other Roman Catholic populations of Central & South America into the US legally or illegally!

      Btw, I don’t think Ratzenberg is a Jew. LOL. He’s just playing a very dangerous game of power politics.

    7. Adam Says:

      In contrast to CW-2, I found this article rather muddled. She contradicts herself within the first two opening paragraphs, and that set the tone:

      The middle class is not an income bracket. It is a group of people who share values that strengthen the individual. Their strength makes the middle class the most difficult class to rule.

      Displacing the middle class has been the trend of recent history. Globalism concentrates wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people, which starves out the mid-tier of society. Particularly since the end of WWII , Western elites have focused on breaking the mid-tier’s ability to resist their own disenfranchisement.[Emphasis added.]

      First she tells us the middle class isn’t an income bracket, and then immediately reverses course and tells us that it is being starved out of existence by the concentration of wealth in elite hands. Which is it? Starting off with this foggy understanding of the true nature of the problem, she goes on to erroneously focus on the “attack” of the middle class through such vehicles as the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals, and attributes its decline to actions emanating from those quarters.

      But the truth is that it is the growth of the technological system itself which is concentrating wealth in elite hands. This arises from certain natural facts about our world which pertain to the form that the expansion of the technological system must, of necessity, take. Chief among these is economies of scale, which force the creation first of corporations and then multi-national conglomerates, some of which soon attain more wealth and power than small political states. Small businesses – the middle class – are then driven out, because they simply can’t compete, and the middle class is destroyed. But beyond economies of scale, there are also other important natural facts regarding the technological system which favor centralization of wealth and power. Among these are facts of resource extraction and distribution, and facts regarding the application of technique itself. As an example of the former, consider that the extraction and distribution of oil is not something that can effectively be done at all by a small business. The amount of capital and the physical plant required to drill for oil, extract it, and distribute it worldwide requires the creation of a multi-national corporate entity such as Exxon. As an example of the latter, we must consider that certain techniques, though required, simply will not be effective unless their control is centralized and their use enforced. Dealing with the effects of pollution resulting from burning the extracted oil is a good example of this. For instance, it won’t do any good if catalytic converters on automobiles are optional, available to be put on cars on a voluntary basis by public-spirited individuals worried about pollution. No, here there is no substitute for centralization and the compulsion of state force needed to bring this about. Thus, the growth of the technological system, by its nature, limits freedom and concentrates wealth in fewer and fewer hands. In other words, the growth of the technological system involves destroying the middle class.

      She continues:

      In his Republic Plato recognized the power of middle class principles. Family loyalty, community participation, self reliance and prizing education are all things that help the individual resist the will of the State. Plato knew that a class of virtuous citizens needed these qualities in order to prevent the state from slipping into tyranny.

      This is a very bizarre reading of Plato. Book VIII of the Republic, wherein “the tyranny of slaves” is discussed, begins:

      Socrates – GLAUCON

      And so, Glaucon, we have arrived at the conclusion that in the perfect State wives and children are to be in common; and that all education and the pursuits of war and peace are also to be common, and the best philosophers and the bravest warriors are to be their kings?

      Holding wives and children in common is not exactly coming out for bourgeois values or the family, is it Miss Whitcombe? Further, in other parts of Republic Plato goes on to detail what he means by education, and it is quite a different thing than what she appears to think it is. In Plato’s ideal state, only the archons know the truth. The rest of the people are schooled to believe only what the state wants them to believe. The arts are kept under tight control. Plato was no supporter of the nuclear family, and no apostle of libertarian freedom. His perfect state here sounds like it has more in common with Hillary Clinton’s global village than with the republic of Thomas Jefferson.

      In conclusion, even if we accept that the technological system is directed by Jews and their willing accomplices who, taken together, constitute a global elite who are hostile to white (i.e., middle class) values, it does not necessarily follow that these people can do anything they want. They cannot, for example, decentralize the system, even if they wanted to. They cannot meaningfully intervene to support the middle class, since every tendency of the expansion of the technological system runs against that.

    8. CW-2 Says:

      We are wandering way off topic! Does any body have any comments, constructive or otherwise, on Whitcombe’s article on the globalist’s use of the Frankfurt School brand of psy-ops?

    9. Parsifal Says:

      I don’t think there is too much topic-drift here, sir.

      I believe that in The Republic, Plato, speaking through his master Socrates, was simply arguing for a Meritocracy, where there is no inherited class of wealth, power or privilege, a Society ruled by wise philospher-kings.

      As for the Frankfurt School, they are primarily concerned with the academic and intellectual instruction of future political leaders, not with the abolition of the bourgeoisie per se. Being run by Jews, the School doubtless advocates Jew supremicism, globalism and Zionism.

    10. Old Dutch Fill In Says:

      A very smooth transition from “the middle class” to “The Threat of the Roman Catholic Church,” Old Dutch. LOL. Then you masterfully tied it in to the problems of all those Roman Catholics from Central and South America. Brilliant!

      That’s why you’re the premier pope-buster on VNN. Kudos! LOL.

    11. New America Says:

      in reply to Adam:

      you wrote:

      In contrast to CW-2, I found this article rather muddled. She contradicts herself within the first two opening paragraphs, and that set the tone:

      The middle class is not an income bracket. It is a group of people who share values that strengthen the individual. Their strength makes the middle class the most difficult class to rule.

      Displacing the middle class has been the trend of recent history. Globalism concentrates wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people, which starves out the mid-tier of society. Particularly since the end of WWII , Western elites have focused on breaking the mid-tier’s ability to resist their own disenfranchisement.[Emphasis added.]

      First she tells us the middle class isn’t an income bracket, and then immediately reverses course and tells us that it is being starved out of existence by the concentration of wealth in elite hands. Which is it? Starting off with this foggy understanding of the true nature of the problem, she goes on to erroneously focus on the “attack” of the middle class through such vehicles as the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals, and attributes its decline to actions emanating from those quarters.

      in reply:
      You seem to have missed the mark of Miss Whitcombe’s comments.

      The middle class is NOT an income bracket; it is more than MERELY an income bracket.

      It is the creation of a group with certain values that lead them to be in those income brackets; in those, but not limited to, as their Posterity may well go on to occupy higher income brackets.

      The larger issue, in part, has to do with wealth, rather than income, and the Cultural Values needed to develop wealth creation.

      And, she’s right on the money there – so to speak!

      Thus your basic argument fails.

      you wrote:

      But the truth is that it is the growth of the technological system itself which is concentrating wealth in elite hands. This arises from certain natural facts about our world which pertain to the form that the expansion of the technological system must, of necessity, take. Chief among these is economies of scale, which force the creation first of corporations and then multi-national conglomerates, some of which soon attain more wealth and power than small political states. Small businesses – the middle class – are then driven out, because they simply can’t compete, and the middle class is destroyed.

      in reply:
      Not really.

      Small businesses work well in meeting the ecosystem niches that are formed by larger corporations, which can not respond quickly enough – bureaucratic overhead – to deal with market realities.

      This is a commonly misunderstood point from those who support Schumacher, without having read Schumacher.

      He made it clear – “small” was consistent with “appropriate” in terms of the size of the organization.

      For instance, Lockheed employed thousands of people directly, and tens of thousnads indirectly, through subcontractors.

      Yet, their greatest design work came from a handful of guys at what was called the Skunk Works.

      Lots more examples come to mind from the knowledge intensive industries, computers in particular.

      I suppose I will have to tell the technological master, IBM, about someone called William S. Gates III, and discuss how well their economies of scale worked with his bedroom start-up, an obscure company called Microsoft.

      Perhaps you’ve heard of it?

      you wrote:

      But beyond economies of scale, there are also other important natural facts regarding the technological system which favor centralization of wealth and power. Among these are facts of resource extraction and distribution, and facts regarding the application of technique itself. As an example of the former, consider that the extraction and distribution of oil is not something that can effectively be done at all by a small business.

      in reply:
      In fact, these are done by small businesses within Exxon.

      You might want to see how small, and successful, Schlumberger was.

      A lot of small businesses, with intelligent coordination, can nimbly overcome their technological Leviathan competitors.

      See how easily Exxon was defeated when it went into the business systems business.

      you wrote:

      The amount of capital and the physical plant required to drill for oil, extract it, and distribute it worldwide requires the creation of a multi-national corporate entity such as Exxon. As an example of the latter, we must consider that certain techniques, though required, simply will not be effective unless their control is centralized and their use enforced. Dealing with the effects of pollution resulting from burning the extracted oil is a good example of this. For instance, it won’t do any good if catalytic converters on automobiles are optional, available to be put on cars on a voluntary basis by public-spirited individuals worried about pollution. No, here there is no substitute for centralization and the compulsion of state force needed to bring this about. Thus, the growth of the technological system, by its nature, limits freedom and concentrates wealth in fewer and fewer hands. In other words, the growth of the technological system involves destroying the middle class.

      in reply:
      It seems more likely that it is the middle class that makes the technological system operate at all!

      This is particularly true in assembling, and repairing, automotive emissions devices!

      you wrote:

      She continues:

      In his Republic Plato recognized the power of middle class principles. Family loyalty, community participation, self reliance and prizing education are all things that help the individual resist the will of the State. Plato knew that a class of virtuous citizens needed these qualities in order to prevent the state from slipping into tyranny.

      This is a very bizarre reading of Plato. Book VIII of the Republic, wherein “the tyranny of slaves” is discussed, begins:

      Socrates – GLAUCON

      And so, Glaucon, we have arrived at the conclusion that in the perfect State wives and children are to be in common; and that all education and the pursuits of war and peace are also to be common, and the best philosophers and the bravest warriors are to be their kings?

      Holding wives and children in common is not exactly coming out for bourgeois values or the family, is it Miss Whitcombe? Further, in other parts of Republic Plato goes on to detail what he means by education, and it is quite a different thing than what she appears to think it is. In Plato’s ideal state, only the archons know the truth. The rest of the people are schooled to believe only what the state wants them to believe. The arts are kept under tight control. Plato was no supporter of the nuclear family, and no apostle of libertarian freedom. His perfect state here sounds like it has more in common with Hillary Clinton’s global village than with the republic of Thomas Jefferson.

      in reply:
      There was a lot more to Plato than The Republic, and a lot more to The Republic than the small section you cited.

      There was also a lot more that Miss Whitcombe said that was of central importance, rather than a side comment of minimal importance, like citing Plato.

      You seem remarkably silent on your criticism of, well, the vast majority of her article.

      you wrote:

      In conclusion, even if we accept that the technological system is directed by Jews and their willing accomplices who, taken together, constitute a global elite who are hostile to white (i.e., middle class) values, it does not necessarily follow that these people can do anything they want. They cannot, for example, decentralize the system, even if they wanted to. They cannot meaningfully intervene to support the middle class, since every tendency of the expansion of the technological system runs against that.

      in reply:
      The last concern of the Jews is the maintenance of the American middle class.

      Their place in the “technological system” is really more precarious than they dare admit, as they can be easily outmaneuvered on almost all levels, save national finance, and national politics.

      Above all, tying the discussion back to VNN, The Jews look on all that is not Jewish as being, at best, subhuman animals.

      That’s fine.

      One day, perhaps, we shall be able to return the favor.

      Oh, and to tie this into the larger issue of Harold Covington’s Northwest Republic Analytical Model, let me just mention that the Northwest Republic economic system would be based on a National Socialist model of the Mittelstand, which certainly favors the development of a productive, prosperous, middle class.

      Plato could not have imagined such a thing.

      We, his intellectual Posterity, not only can imagine such a thing, we have Created it, and made it a Reality.

      Fourteen Forever.

    12. Adam Says:

      To the furious typist:

      It’s great to have fans, even stupid ones!

      Thank you very much.

    13. Parsifal Says:

      Herr Adam, I would hardly characterize either New America or yourself as “stupid”, sir…………..After all, how many White people are engaged in conversations such as these, either online or in person? Most of their conversations are about the usual things, like the weather, their jobs, gossiping about a mutual acquaintance or getting worked up about their favorite TV show or coon-ball teams.

      Which brings me to my next point. The middle class has “values”? What might those be, a speedboat parked in the driveway? A giant flat-screen TV to watch the Super Bowl with? Sending your kids to a large state university with a great NCAA basketball team? The bourgeoisie has no values that I can see, other than consumerism, materialism, pretensions of respectability and a domesticated animal kind of submission to authority. Who needs ’em? The White Power Revolution would just get bogged down by people like that, anyway.

      We need a class of fearless, bomb-throwing White Revolutionaries, not a class of people who are more concerned with re-modeling their patios.

    14. Adam Says:

      Parsifal Says:

      Herr Adam, I would hardly characterize either New America or yourself as “stupid”, sir………….

      Thank you, my distinguished colleague.

      .After all, how many White people are engaged in conversations such as these, either online or in person?

      I wouldn’t characterize Mr. Harold Covington Jr.’s response as part of a conversation. Rather, his comments on what I have written always seem to me to be a predictable, almost hysterical attempt at refutation, as forced as it is wide of the mark. But had I not argued persuasively, there would be no need to refute, yes? So in a way it is a compliment.

      Most of their conversations are about the usual things, like the weather, their jobs, gossiping about a mutual acquaintance or getting worked up about their favorite TV show or coon-ball teams.

      Which brings me to my next point. The middle class has “values”? What might those be, a speedboat parked in the driveway? A giant flat-screen TV to watch the Super Bowl with? Sending your kids to a large state university with a great NCAA basketball team? The bourgeoisie has no values that I can see, other than consumerism, materialism, pretensions of respectability and a domesticated animal kind of submission to authority. Who needs ‘em? The White Power Revolution would just get bogged down by people like that, anyway.

      We need a class of fearless, bomb-throwing White Revolutionaries, not a class of people who are more concerned with re-modeling their patios.

      Even though most people never amount to anything, the white race is the genetic reservoir from which such revolutionaries will spring.

      Those few must save the many.