As the society's resources continue to dwindle, the problem of the "surplus population" becomes more acute for the ruling class. The State now controls a population which is far larger than the ruling class finds useful for its purposes. What do States do in such situations? As much as we understandably resist stating the obvious conclusion, we would be well-advised to face it now: the State kills the especially disfavored parts of its population -- those who cannot work, those who are old and/or sick, those who produce nothing the ruling class finds of value.
If we broaden our perspective, and if we look beyond particular developments and attempt to grasp what is happening over a longer period of time, the nature of the horror that awaits us takes on a clearer shape: The West's ruling class is embarked on a program of killing and elimination.
...
The ruling class dreamed a nightmare, and made it real. We are now caught up in it. For many of us -- certainly for me, and very possibly for you -- the end result is clear: the ruling class intends to kill us.Not today or tomorrow, the ruling class hasn't reached that point of desperation quite yet, but they'll kill us soon enough. We have no value to them; we're superfluous; we're not needed.

- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (25)
A general caution should be kept in mind. I'm not suggesting that this program is one that the ruling class has explicitly identified, even to itself, at least not necessarily. The ruling class is intent upon increasing its own power and wealth; in one sense, that is its only concern. I suppose, in some fantasy world, the ruling class would be content to enjoy its immense power and wealth while "ordinary" people pursue their own lives of contentment. This, of course, is the goal which the ruling class announces, and which it desperately tries to convince both itself and us is true.
But we don't live in that fantasy world. In this world -- and, I would argue, in any world where brute power is the final means of settling every dispute, especially when that power is consolidated in the State -- the ruling class seeks power and wealth by dominating and controlling the weaker segments of society. The ruling class may not set out to kill those people it finds unnecessary for its aims, but if the ruling class can maintain and increase its power and wealth only by eliminating them, it will eventually eliminate them. This is the logic of the ruling class's desires.
Some deep thoughts on the trajectory of humanity worth contemplating.
- 2 votes
But we are still the ones we have been waiting for, and always will be. They can't take that away from us.
- 2 votes
Let's be serious. They don't want to kill us; that would be counter-productive. What they really wish is to return us to serfdom.
- 2 votes
hvymtl83-
I think you are correct. They don't want to kill us all, without the poor there are no rich.
They just want us to do slave labor for slave wages and live in slave homes having breeds of slave children for them to exploit for their life as well.
- 1 vote
I agree with a1623AlgonquinmutT and think unregulated capitalism, business as warfare, radical, worldwide warfare, at this point, acts like cancer and may eventually kill the host. It's a "Tragedy of the Commons;" optimization of individual interests will destroy the common resource, in this case, this planet, and this species, we (both human and corporate) hold in common.
The headline here is a killer. Even though I may agree there may be some in the ruling class with these thoughts, I cannot personally accept the generalization of the headline.
I'm not suggesting that this program is one that the ruling class has explicitly identified, even to itself…
"The headline here is a killer." I'm not sure whether you mean that in a good way or a bad way… I, obviously, think it is a good headline (and I used the author's own words.)
- 1 vote
Grey Wolf,
I mean it in a bad way. The headline generalization suggests that all people of immense wealth eventually tend to kill us. Therefore, I did not read this article because of the headline. I realize it may not be your headline, but . . .
- 2 votes
I did not read this article ...
Ah, I see.
I think the thrust of the article is that policies intended to increase the wealth of the richest (i.e. perpetual war, no social programs, etc) tend to involve deaths among the poorest humans. Hence, my comment, "thoughts on the trajectory of humanity worth contemplating."
- 2 votes
I'm not disagreeing with the article, just the generalization of the headline. I assume if you stick with the generalization implied in the headline, you seriously believe (all) all all rich people are out to kill us. I agree there may be some, but not all, all, all.
I will be back after a couple hour of work to read the article. Maybe this will give us both time to think. peace
You transpose "ruling class" to each individual, while I posit "ruling class" as the policies imposed on the citizens by the plutocracy as a whole. You are making the inference that the headline is directed at individuals rather than the policies advocated by the ruling class, which is the verbatim meaning of the text. Intent, in a legal sense, also includes knowledge of the outcome. Chaining your child in the basement with no food for months would, from a thoughtful perspective, be characterized as intending to kill the child.
Grey Wolf
Based on your own assessment of the article
I think the thrust of the article is that policies intended to increase the wealth of the richest
I think your article violates the #3 of the COH
Headlines should be supported by the information presented in the article/seed, rather than used primarily as a means to draw attention
Perhaps the moderators will consider this or you will edit the title of the article
There are interesting points to that could be debated in the article, but the title is over the line IMHO
- 1 vote
Woop Woop it's the happy police pulling you over to give you a "happy citation" for being too doom and gloom. :)
- 2 votes
wooden
I didn't report anything
I made the comment because the title is inaccurate based on the facts of the story and meant to incite which is a violation of the COH
It's difficult to dismiss the pattern of hard-won laws to protect individual rights and dignity, being methodically neutralized, and finally completely removed. There are many examples, with the Patriot Act at the top of the food chain, and laws that require firemen to watch as someone's house burns down for lack of a $75 fee, down nearer to the bottom.
The one bright spot is that they recognize how important public opinion is. If that were not the case, they wouldn't have made the capture of that opinion so central. Which means that we can take this back if we can be as successful as they have been in capturing the minds of those whose minds are easy to capture.
And I'll be the first one to admit, that without weapons such as Fox News and the Koch Brothers & all their kin, it will be no small task.
- 3 votes
And I think the title fulfills the requirements of all good titles: it tells the truth about what the article contains. The idea embodied in the title is confirmed over and over again throughout the article itself. I think it's possible that very thing may be what actually troubles those complaining about the title: it's a little too apt.
I also think that criticisms of titles overall at Newsvine are among the most trivial of all trivial criticisms. They usually make some appeal to the moderators -- always carries this tattle-tale quality to me. As if we're a bunch of children who can't figure out if a title is misleading or not all by ourselves.
Just my take.
- 3 votes
I think it's possible that very thing may be what actually troubles those complaining about the title: it's a little too apt.
Yes, but I didn't want to be the one to point that out. Bravo, bravo! (And regarding the tattle-tale quality: one commentator admitted he hadn't read the article and stated that he complained just because he didn't like the headline, not because it doesn't truthfully represent the content.)
- 3 votes
911 proves getting rid of some of us is not something unthinkable to this ruling class, though it would have been only a few in the upper echelons of government behind it. Google World Trade Center Building 7 if you have any doubts that it was an Inside Job. 911 was done to launch this country into a trajectory that it has been on since it happened, perpetual wars and all the rest. To be an American these days is to wake up to news from the Middle East like Orwell wrote about the wars in Oceania. I recall reading about the Holocaust and how Jews in Germany couldn't bring themselves to believe that they would be exterminated even as it was happening. I read some the same remarks here from people who can't believe they would go that far. To a far right winger getting rid of what they consider dead weight makes sense.
- 1 vote
The world would not only survive without its bankers and CEOs but would be better off. There is no such thing as a surplus of people, that kind of talk is genocidal nonsense. There is enough resources for all, the problem is the people have almost no access to it other then what is given to them by the ruling class. The ruling class is making up all these lies about how the Earth cant sustain us so they can use that to put tighter controls on the Earths resources. Stand up and take it from the oppressors.
- 2 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |



