► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Neo-Feudalism’

California’s Progressive Feudalism

by Phantom Ace ( 133 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Democratic Party, Fascism, Hipsters, Liberal Fascism, Progressives, Socialism, Tranzis at October 8th, 2013 - 7:00 am

I have been writing for years that the edn goal of the Progressive movement is the creation of a Neo-Feudal system, where everyone is born into a caste. You can see the the end game in California, which has stratified society. This is the end game of Progressive economic polices.

Like medieval serfs, increasing numbers of Californians are downwardly mobile, and doing worse than their parents: native born Latinos actually have shorter lifespans than their parents, according to one recent report. Nor are things expected to get better any time soon. According to a recent Hoover Institution survey, most Californians expect their incomes to stagnate in the coming six months, a sense widely shared among the young, whites, Latinos, females, and the less educated.

Some of these trends can be found nationwide, but they have become pronounced and are metastasizing more quickly in the Golden State. As late as the 80s, the state was about as egalitarian as the rest of the country. Now, for the first time in decades, the middle class is a minority, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

[….]

Breaking Down the New Feudalism: The Emerging Class Structure

The emerging class structure of neo-feudalism, like its European and Asian antecedents, is far more complex than simply a matter of the gilded “them” and the broad “us.” To work as a system, as we can now see in California, we need to understand the broader, more divergent class structure that is emerging.

The Oligarchs: The swelling number of billionaires in the state, particularly in Silicon Valley, has enhanced power that is emerging into something like the old aristocratic French second estate. Through public advocacy and philanthropy, the oligarchs have tended to embrace California’s “green” agenda, with a very negative impact on traditional industries such as manufacturing, agriculture, energy, and construction. Like the aristocrats who saw all value in land, and dismissed other commerce as unworthy, they believe all value belongs to those who own the increasingly abstracted information revolution than has made them so fabulously rich.

The  Clerisy: The Oligarchs may have the money, but by themselves they cannot control a huge state like California, much less America. Gentry domination requires allies with a broader social base and their own political power. In the Middle Ages, this role was played largely by the church; in today’s hyper-secular America, the job of shaping the masses has fallen to the government apparat, the professoriat, and the media, which together constitute our new Clerisy. The Clerisy generally defines societal priorities, defends “right-thinking” oligarchs, and chastises those, like traditional energy companies, that deviate from their theology.

The New Serfs: If current trends continue, the fastest growing class will be the permanently property-less. This group includes welfare recipients and other government dependents but also the far more numerous working poor. In the past, the working poor had reasonable aspirations for a better life, epitomized by property ownership or better prospects for their children. Now, with increasingly little prospect of advancement, California’s serfs depend on the Clerisy to produce benefits making their permanent impoverishment less gruesome. This sad result remains inevitable as long as the state’s economy bifurcates between a small high-wage, tech-oriented sector, and an expanding number of lower wage jobs in hospitality, health services, and personal service jobs. As a result, the working class, stunted in their drive to achieve the California dream, now represents the largest portion of domestic migrants out of the state.

The Yeomanry: In neo-feudalist California, the biggest losers tend to be the old private sector middle class. This includes largely small business owners, professionals, and skilled workers in traditional industries most targeted by regulatory shifts and higher taxes. Once catered to by both parties, the yeomanry have become increasingly irrelevant as California has evolved into a one-party state where the ruling Democrats have achieved a potentially permanent, sizable majority consisting largely of the clerisy and the serf class, and funded by the oligarchs. Unable to influence government and largely disdained by the clerisy, these middle income Californians are becoming a permanent outsider group, much like the old Third Estate in early medieval times, forced to pay ever higher taxes as well as soaring utility bills and required to follow regulations imposed by people who often have little use for their “middle class” suburban values.

The Political Implications of Neo-Feudalism

As Marx, among others, has suggested, class structures contain within them the seeds of their dissolution. In New York, a city that is arguably as feudal as anything in California, the  emergence of mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio reflected growing  antagonism—particularly among the remaining yeoman and serf class— towards the gentry urbanism epitomized by Mayor Michael “Luxury City” Bloomberg.

Yet except for occasional rumbling from the left, neo-feudalism likely represents the future. Certainly in California, Gov. Jerry Brown, a former Jesuit with the intellectual and political skills needed to oversee a neo-feudal society, remains all but unassailable politically. If Brown, or his policies, are to be contested, the challenge will likely come from left-wing activists who find his policies insufficiently supportive of the spending demanded by the clerisy and the serfs or insufficiently zealous in their pursuit of environmental purity.

The Progressive movement is actually reactionary. They want to go back to medieval times where you had Lords and Serfs.

Essential VDH: The Progressive Neo-Feudal elite

by Phantom Ace ( 102 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Progressives at January 9th, 2013 - 7:00 am

I have been writing about how the Progressive Movement is really about Neo-Feudalism for many years now. Their polices are turning America into a caste system. People who go to Ivy League schools get positions of power. They use class warfare for political benefits, yet they are very wealthy. It’s a hypocritical system that Victor Davis Hanson calls out.

Limousine liberal” is an old American term used against those who inherited lots of money and then became “traitors to their class” by embracing populist politics.

The Roosevelts and Kennedys enjoyed the high life quite apart from the multitude that they championed. And they were exempt, by virtue of their inherited riches and armies of accountants and attorneys, from the higher taxes they advocated for others. Few worried about how their original fortunes were made long ago, or that as lifelong government officials they had their needs met by the state. Most were relieved instead that as very rich people they wanted less rich people to pay their fair share to help the poor.

But the new liberal aristocracy is far less discreet than the old. Most are self-made multimillionaires who acquired their money through government service, finance, law, investment, or marriage. If the old-money liberals lived it up tastefully within their walled family compounds, the new liberal aristocrats are unashamed about living openly in a manner quite at odds with their professed populist ideology.

[….]

During the 2008 financial meltdown, Goldman Sachs was a recipient of federal cash bailouts. Recently its CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, wrote an op-ed in which he said, “I believe that tax increases, especially for the wealthiest, are appropriate.” Why, then, would Goldman Sachs rush to pay out $65 million in restricted stock bonuses to its own corporate elite in time to beat the new higher tax rates that began on January 1, 2013?

[….]

To be cool is now not just to be rich, but to appear caring. Hollywood still seeks hundreds of millions in tax breaks unavailable to small businesses without shame because it is so manifestly compassionate. Occupy Wall Street does not camp out in Beverly Hills or Malibu, although the likes of Johnny Depp and Leonardo DiCaprio make more per year than do most Wall Street fat cats. The public wonders why Hollywood is so liberal — is it the Bohemian culture surrounding the arts? The natural creative temperament of actors? The Lotus-land surf and sun of the southern-California beach milieu? Perhaps. But penance plays a role as well. For the overpaid and pampered Hollywood movie star, calling for raising taxes, banning guns, ending global warming, and legalizing gay marriage means never having to feel too bad about living on the beach and making, under our capitalist system, more money in a month than do many Americans in a lifetime.

I, for the life of me, do not understand why the Republicans do not turn class warfare back at the Democrats. It’s a winning issue they can exploit to divide Democrat voters. The GOP should position itself as the party of the middle class, small susinesses and main street. They should tailor their economic policies to benefit their constituents and destroy the Neo-Feudal system. But the GOP has no imagination and is stubborn.

America is rapidly becoming a caste based feudal state. The Progressive Global Elites live good, while the rest of us struggle to get by. The economic Golden Era of America, 1945-2000, is rapidly becoming a memory. The opening is there for the Republicans to take advantage of Progressive hypocrisy. If they do not, then eventually a New Center-Right Party will emerge.

America’s Progressive/Neo-Feudal future enabled by Republicans ineptitude and Media bias

by Phantom Ace ( 181 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Liberal Fascism, Progressives, Republican Party at December 28th, 2012 - 3:00 pm

The Republican Party has a problem. They have lost the popular vote 5 out of the last 6 Presidential elections. Yet many Republicans continue to exist in a state of denial and have become very hostile when new ideas or tactics are floated. This has resulted in the Democrats not having a credible opposition at the national level. With no credible opposition, Democrats are creating a  Neo-Feudal system that only benefits an elite core of the Democrat party.

Republicans refuse to reach out to Democrats who do not benefit from this Neo-Feudal system. Instead the inept Establishment tries to copy the Democrats and the Purists want the GOP as their exclusive club.

The media has helped the Democrats and are the 800 lb Gorilla in the room. They love to interview people like Santorum, Bachmann or Coulter knowing full well that will make statements that makes Republicans look bad. Notice Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Susana Martinez, Pat Toomey or Bobby Jindal do not get many interviews? The media know what they are doing and are using Republican incompetence to assist the Democrats establish their Neo-Feudal state.

Progressives may be a lot less religious  than conservatives, but these days they have reason to think that Providence– or Gaia — has taken on a bluish hue.

From the solid re-election of President Obama, to a host of demographic and social trends, the progressives seem poised to achieve what Ruy Texeira predicted a decade ago:  an “emerging Democratic majority” .

Virtually all the groups that backed Obama — singles, millennials, Hispanics, Asians — are all growing bigger while many of the core Republican groups, such as evangelicals  and intact families, appear in  secular decline.

And then, the Republicans, ham handed themselves, are virtually voiceless (outside of the Murdoch empire) in the mainstream national media.

Whatever the issue that comes up — from Hurricane Sandy to the Newtown shootings or the “fiscal cliffs” — the Republicans, congenitally inept to start with, end up being portrayed as even more oafish.

[….]

Of the now triumphant urban gentry have their townhouses and high-rise lofts, but the service workers who do their dirty work have to log their way by bus or car from the vast American banlieues, either in peripheral parts of the city (think of Brooklyn’s impoverished fringes) or the poorer close-in suburbs. This progressive economy works from the well-placed academics, the trustfunders and hedge funders, but produces little opportunity for a better life for the vast majority of the middle and working class.

[….]

Over time, the cultural identity and lifestyle politics practiced so brilliantly by the President and his team could begin to wear thin even with their core constituencies.  Hispanics, for example, have suffered grievously in the recession — some 28%  now live in poverty, the highest of any ethnic group.

It’s possible that the unnatural cohesion between gentry progressives and Latinos will tear asunder. For one thing Hispanics seek out life in suburbs with homes and backyards, and often drive more energy-consuming cars that fit the needs of family and work, notably construction and labor blue collar industries — all targets of the gentry and green agenda.

[….]

Of course, the blues have one inestimable advantage: a perennially stupid Republican party and a largely clueless, ideologically hidebound conservative movement. Constant missteps on issues like immigration and gay rights could keep even disappointed minority or younger votes in the President’s pocket. You can’t win new adherents by being the party of no and know-nothing. You also have to acknowledge that inequality is real and develop a program to promote upward mobility.

Unless that is done, the new generation and new Americans likely will continue to bow to the blue idols, irrespective to the failures that gentry progressivism all but guarantees.

The ineptitude of the Republican Party is the best weapons Democrats have. Rather than learn the lesson from the 2012 defeat Republicans have gone into denial and excuse making.  This is a recipe for Democrat dominance for the foreseeable future. If people feel you hate them, they will not vote for you. The Media has played up this nasty Republican reaction to their loss.

Nature abhors a vacuum and I do not see the Democrats dominating permanently. Many Republicans will get tired of losing and will either rebel against the inept Establishment and the Purists or will establish a new Center Right Party.

The Democrats have a very unstable coalition that can be easily picked apart by a competent opposition. But the Republican Party is not competent, nor is it interested in reaching out to new voters. Unless Democrats go after guns, an issue that the GOP is actually good on, they will dominate politics until challenged by a reformed Republican Party or a New Center-Right Party. For now, the Progressives can enjoy their Neo-Fedual state they are building. They can thank the media and the GOP for their power!

Obama gets Nasty at the White House Correspondence Dinner

by Phantom Ace ( 74 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Progressives, Republican Party at May 1st, 2011 - 1:00 pm

In years past the White House Correspondence Dinner was a roast of the President. Whether it was Reagan, Papa Bush, Clinton or Baby Bush, they all mocked themselves and took it all in stride. This is not the case with the current occupant of the White House.

Barack Obama is a thin skinned man. He’s a pure 3rd World Liberation Ideologue and has a messiah complex. Rather than allow roasts of himself, he did what he does best. He demagogue and insulted his opponents. He took shots at Bachmann, Romney, Pawlenty, Trump, Ryan and Fox News. Regardless how you feel about these individuals, this shows how nasty and thinned skin Obama is.

Can you imagine Reagan, Papa Bush, Clinton or Baby Bush doing this? This was disgraceful and shows what we all know Obama Obama.

Barack Hussein Obama is like school in summertime, no class.