The Nuevo-aristocracy

In recent years it has become obvious to me that the goal of the George Bush crowd (I will not say the Republicans, or even the Religious Right) is to establish a nuevo-aristocracy in the United States. That is, two separate classes of people, the aristocracy, who are above the law, and the common people, who are simply pawns whose lives may be used in the games the aristocracy decides to play. And there is no doorway between the two, unless it is to go to some other country to escape their tyranny, then, after succeeding there, to return.

There have been several, to me, obvious steps taken in this direction. For example, the removal of the estate tax. It was pointed out that the estate tax only affects a very small number of people - only the extremely rich - by design. That is, the tax was established by Theodore Roosevelt in the early twentieth century in response to the "robber barons" of the late nineteenth century. (That was the nineteenth centuries attempt at establishing an aristocracy.) The idea was that this would prevent people from being able to collect huge amounts of money, then establish themselves as an elite by simply taking some out between generations if the amount got too big.

It is unfortunate to thing that the nuevo-peons have actually been recruited to support this. That is, the victims have been recruited to establish the tyranny. This is new, and has been documented in a book, What's the Matter with Kansas. That is, people have been persuaded to vote for the aristocrats who have as their only goal to exploit the people.

This has not been as difficult as it might sound. First, they establish themselves as the center of religion. This was done in the late 1970's with the establishment of the "Moral Majority." This was supposedly based on God, but they immediately managed to convince people that they had a new god - Ronald Reagan. (This should not be blamed on Reagan - I remember seeing stories that he was amused that the religious right would choose to support someone like him, a divorced man, over a ministers son.)

Then, it was easy to use this religion, which was, and is, not Christian by any means, to ostracize their enemies. Therefore, politics were viewed as being us versus them, good versus evil, Christian versus pagan, etc. If they're not for us, they're against us. Therefore, they could use the fear of the outsider to consolidate their control.

In Kansas, the Republican party, having been taken over by the Religious Right, has very much emphasized this point. That is, they have rules that require any candidate they support to support only Republicans. Since Kansas is not by nature a radical right state, many notable Republicans have been leaving the party, which may result in the State going Democratic in November, 2008. Certainly I would be surprised if the Democratic party did not make some strong inroads into what has been Republican territory.

To get back to the nuevo-aristocracy, they had created their god, Reagan. Then they created their enemy, anyone who was not them. Finally, they came to power. Not by the voice of the people, yet, but by State sanctioned fraud. After all, the ends justifies the means (a very non-Christian concept, but then, they are not Christian).

Even so, they had problems. That is, Bush was president, and therefore (they thought) above the law, but Congress was still in their way. Along came Osama bin Laden, who did them a favor by attacking. This was used to solidify the "us versus them" flavor of politics, and allowed them to start using the terms patriotism to alienate their political enemies.

For several years after the 9/11 attacks, Bush hid bad statistics by declaring "Terrorist alerts" whenever bad new was to be published. At first, the press acquiesced, but, I think, once the press realized how they were being used by the administration, they changed their tune, and the terrorist alerts went to the back page. Since the terrorist alerts were no longer doing what they were intended to do - hide bad news - the administration quit issuing them.

Thus, the Religious Right had it all. They had convinced people that Reagan was their god, that any attempt to assert the freedoms for which the United States is known was unpatriotic. (I remember the statement from the movie The American President in which one of his advisors criticized the president. A coworker then told him that he didn't have that authority [referring to his job], but the first advisor told him he did - he was a citizen of the United States, so he not only had the authority to question his president, but the responsibility.) Finally, they were able to foment a war against, as one source put it, a noun (terror). This gave them authority to establish their place as being above the law. First, do away with habeas corpus so anyone can be thrown into prison for any whim of the administration with no recourse. After all, we are at war, and, by definition, anyone the administration throws in jail is a terrorist.

Finally, the administration decided to establish an off-site terrorist camp - actually several. That is, they used the theory that since the camps were not physically in the United States, the government was not bound by law, or by the Constitution.

(I have to admit I find this logic ludicrous. That is, the Constitution lists those rights that people have given up in order to be able to live together. People who are not citizens of this country have not agreed to give up those rights, and therefore should have more rights. But then, this was what the whole exercise is about: informing people that they have no rights except those the aristocracy deign to give them.)

This is where things have begun to fall apart. That is, people could see the terrorism that was being forged in their name at these terrorism camps. And torture is torture, they hadn't signed up for that. Also, I have been told, the Christian the right has relied on for unquestioned support had begun to bolt. Perhaps they began to realize that Reagan was not God. Therefore, the support the administration has felt has begun to melt away.

Now the question is, was it in time? That is, the administration has a lot of power, and at least one person has suggested they might now give it up easily, or peacefully. The economy is in ruins. People have been disenfranchised. The elite now control the nerve centers of the economy, and have convinced people that (in the phraseology of 1984) war is peace, and peace is war. Therefore, to suggest the tax increases which would be needed to pay for the government services that people have come to expect is automatically viewed as being evil.

Will the world continue to finance the stupidity of the United States, the wars, the domestic arrogance, even the environmental negligence? (I saw a story in the last few days where NASA scientist have said that the environmental situation is so bad that immediate drastic action will be needed to avert a catastrophe.) Will people peacefully give up the services the government has given them? How will people react when the truth finally wins out, and the economic stupidity the United States has been set on since 1984 comes to its inevitable end in public bankruptcy?

I will as a statement of hope. I think the people of the United States, and the World in general, are beginning to see the stupidity they have been engaged in. The book The Fourth Turning (which I have read) and Generation (which is by the same author, and I have not read) point out that the United States, and the World, is on the brink of one of its cyclic disasters. That is, a man made disaster occurs with with regularity about every eighty to ninety years. The World is ready for the next one now. There is hope in that the disaster usually only lasts about twenty years, then it is followed by a rebirth, and peace. The books do not talk about what the disaster is, only that it exists, and only the wise will see it coming. I think it will involve money, possibly the monetary collapse of the United States.