Paul VanderKlay commented: “The underclass knows the overclass better than the overclass knows the underclass.” I replied, in the comments to the video (modified slightly for clarity):
Something really worth considering in understanding the political and world events (and the media that has covered these) that have played out over the last years.
This, in the context of events at the capitol, etc.
I have been thinking about when the political division in this country took such a toxic turn – not just toxic between and amongst politicians, but toxic toward and between some multiple number of tens-of-millions of people.
I would point to the roots of it in the political strategy of Antonio Gramsci, who knew that communism would not come to the West via a division between the workers and the owners/capitalists, but only through the creation from below of a new culture – one that by design would crush Christianity. And this would be true enough; we are living it.
I would also consider the manifestation of this strategy in the 1960s and the cultural revolution that was plainly visible at the time. Certainly, by the 1990s, the toxic ideas of critical theory would begin to permeate academia to the point where today the various disciplines of the liberal arts are all lost to corruption (with STEM now being dragged through the wreckage of their wake).
Yet, throughout this time – and for the most part – the debates and discussions were on policy matters; we didn’t turn the issues into ones where the other side was seen as totally corrupt and unpardonable.
Sure, there was a small minority of us who saw as totally corrupt some of the institutions and objectives: The Federal Reserve and the military adventurism and empire, as two examples. But, given the overwhelming support that these received (either actively or passively, whether considered or ignored), the national personal animus was limited to something like everyone ganging up on Ron Paul (the most courageous politician of my lifetime) during a presidential debate.
I think that there were a couple of events that marked the divide – where the political debate turned into personal animosity, division, derision, disgust and disdain. The first event marked it economically, and that was the bailouts in 2008. Calls to congress were running as high as 95% against the bailouts, as I recall. But we know how the rest of the story played out. This made clear the purpose of the financial system. But while it has contributed to the divide (or helped accelerate it), this is a separate issue to my point here.
The event that marked the first formal notice that the cultural divide was going to be forced upon us was back in April, 2008. Sure, the seeds were planted long before: once Gramsci’s strategy was put in place – especially in higher education – the deck was stacked. But in April, 2008, we were put on notice:
"And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
So said presidential hopeful Barack Obama, when speaking about those who are frustrated with their economic conditions – said frustration, of course, quite warranted given the aforementioned financial crisis (and the economic divide that has been growing wider since Nixon closed the gold window).
Obama was speaking of the underclass – and it is the underclass clings to religion and guns. Or, more properly: if you cling to religion and guns, you are underclass. Religion and guns: two targets to be eliminated, as we know, by the overclass.
Further, the underclass was labeled by Obama as being against others not like them – yet, this same underclass helped elect Obama to the office of president a few months later.
Hillary Clinton would reply:
"The people of faith I know don't ‘cling to' religion because they're bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich.”
Of course, her reply was based solely on the possibility that this would bring her more votes, as she was running against Obama at the time. To say it was a cynical statement would be redundant, as this could be said about virtually every statement made by virtually every politician.
As if to demonstrate the point of cynicism, and to further the seeds sown that have resulted in the divide, Clinton offered eight years later (and four years ago):
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?
“The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”
These folks are deplorable and irredeemable. If you believe there is something in your culture, tradition, and Western Civilization worth saving, you are deplorable and irredeemable.
Between these two comments – first Obama’s, then Clinton’s – it seems to me that we find the lines of hate drawn. And it is during the last twelve years that the seeds planted by Gramsci have turned into the culture war of today – one driving the country to a totalitarian dystopia.
When Nietzsche wrote of the death of God, he wasn’t making a prophetic statement, nor was he offering a clarion call to action. He was describing the reality of the time, capturing, in that phrase, what has transpired from the time Enlightenment ideas took root until that moment and the inevitability of what was to come and where this road would lead.
Take the following in the same light:
The day after the events of January 6, I heard someone on sports talk radio reliving his feelings from the day before, while he sat glued to the television news coverage. “We didn’t know if they would start dragging congressmen out of their offices.”
Yet, if you are deemed irredeemable, why wouldn’t you? What do you have to lose?
Two women were kicked off of a Delta Airlines flight for having a private conversation about Trump. There are at least 70 million other adults who fall into this category.
As I wrote the other day, this is the lesson that the irredeemable deplorables are being taught:
No matter what, you will lose. We are going to beat this so far into you that you will never forget it. Even when you win, you will lose; even when you are peaceful (or especially because we count on you being peaceful), you will lose.
Dragging congressmen out of their offices might be the most peaceful event on the road ahead of us.
When there are at least 70 million irredeemable adults, where else does this road lead?