Mercy! Mercy! That Dang Nabed PERCY!

The Same Old Model

Most things don’t change. What does change are the labels we give to things. In the Middle Ages there were the King, the Nobles, the Merchants, the Skilled Laborers, the Unskilled Laborers, and Serfs. (Slave). Even back then the labels changed. The nobles came to be known as Aristocrats. They derisively called the merchants "The new rich" and everyone else the "Unwashed." Skilled workers came to be known as Craftsmen, and the unskilled as Laborers. Then there were the slaves who have been called serfs, indentured servants, freemen and today are welfare recipients. The point I'm trying to make is that there has always been a class system and the only thing that has changed is the job descriptions.

I think Rush Limbaugh is a bright guy and I’m grateful that Fox New is around so I get a truth on things that counterbalances the propaganda put out by the Main Stream Media. Who owns the Main Street Media you ask? Old Money.

Rush makes a big mistake, however, in using the labels that are currently in vogue to define and explain the world he sees. In doing so he only obscures the real forcers that are bumping heads in the clash of things around us. There is and has always been, class warfare going on. The players are the same regardless of what you call them. There is the King, the Aristocrats, The Merchants, The skilled Workers, the Laborers and the slaves. Framing the world, using titles like Liberals and Conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, Socialism and Capitalism only confuses natural forcers that have been at play as far back as man discovered that collectively he/she had a better chance of making it as a group than all by themselves.

For my part I like the old fashioned labels. They resonate with clarity. Regardless of the form of government we still have a King. Instead of having one that serves at the pleasure of God, we elect one every few years. In other countries the King is the biggest, meanest hombre around and acquires the job through low cunning and brute force. Still a King is a King regardless of how he/(she?) comes to acquire the reins of power.

Next on the pecking order are the Aristocrats. This group is called different things in different parts of the world, ranging from ruling families, to nobility, to Old Money. I like the term "Old Money" and "Aristocrats' because it defines who this group really is.

The next rung is what I will call the middle class. It has gone by the label Working Class, Merchant Class, Artisans and Skilled laborers. Some break it down into Upper Middle Class made up of successful businessmen, inventors and innovators. They take a salary from the earnings of their enterprise. The Middle Class is comprised of those who are paid a salary. The lower middle class are those who have a "Job" and include workers, divided into an upper tier, with valuable skills, and a lower tier of those requiring a limited amount of training. At the bottom are the slaves, which remain in shackles regardless of the politically correct classification that happens to be in vogue.

The struggle we see playing out every day in the media is one between Old Money and New Money. Old Money can be defined as money that passes from one generation to the next and New Money as fortunes that rise and fall in the lifetime of the person who earns it. If one understands the dynamic in these terms it is easier to understand some of the unholy alliances that get forged between the various classes of society.

Some might wonder why Liberals (Old Money Families) have such a love affair with the poor and downtrodden. If you have sympathy for that line of bull they'll tell you it's because they feel a social obligation to return to the system some of the wealth they acquired for the benefit of promoting humanity in a cruel and unfair world. Am I amusing you? Do you really think these galvanized Aristocrats really give a rat’s petotti about the common man?

The reality is that in their arrogance they see themselves as existing on a social plane far above the “Unwashed” and fancy themselves uniquely qualified to promote the Arts and charities that represent the best, in their view, that humanity has to offer. They give “unselfishly” of the wealth passed to them, generations earlier, by ancestors who wrung it out of capitalistic enterprises. So why do these Aristocrats, masquerading as Liberals, have such empathy on one hand, for the lower classes that on the other, they have only contempt for?

The reason is that to control a Democracy they need the vote of the lower classes to acquire and maintain political power. One of the things the Aristocracy fears most is a rising middle class. I mentioned earlier some of their other worries but currently the power of the middle class, that expanded and grew in the aftermath of WW2, provided a real threat to a world of affluence that they considered their exclusive domain.

So if you wonder what's going on with these Liberals who made their wealth on capitalism and come to view the Constitution with such disdain… that actively promotes Socialism in our government, churches, schools as an alternative to Capitalism, the answer is that Socialism is easier to control than the powerful and unruly forces of the marketplace. To insure the continuation of the status quo, which provides the setting for their continuing affluence, Old Money needs to control the government, and in order to do that they need the vote. Where do these votes come from you ask…? They come form the lower classes of Americans currently being described as low information voters. Who pays the bill? The middle class does. All these charities and non-profits are little more than tax shelters created to insure the vast wealth of the old Money Class continues to grow and pass from one generation to the next. Socialism is seen as a means for redistributing the wealth of the middle class. Old Money wants New Money to stay within its generational boundaries.