A recent article in the American Spectator by Angelo Codevilla outlined the division in America between the ‘Ruling Class’ and the ‘Country Class’, which has already been discussed to some degree on this site. The Ruling Class, which transcends party lines, was described thusly:
As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.
When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.
Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. Moreover, 2009-10 establishment Republicans sought only to modify the government’s agenda while showing eagerness to join the Democrats in new grand schemes, if only they were allowed to. Sen. Orrin Hatch continued dreaming of being Ted Kennedy, while Lindsey Graham set aside what is true or false about “global warming” for the sake of getting on the right side of history. No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class’s continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place. The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it.
Never has there been so little diversity within America’s upper crust.
Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct.
More on ‘Using the right words’ and ‘speaking the “in” language’, and how it serves not only as a badge of identity but is a key point in upward social movement is discussed in ‘The Tea Party vs. the Intellectuals’ by Lee Harris and my response ‘Breaking the Grip of the Jewish Intellectual Cultural Hegemony Machine’. Learning to ‘use the right words’ might not even be enough if you’re from the wrong background.
A recent study found that whites from rural and lower income backgrounds have significantly lesser chances. Not only are “white Christians and ethnic Catholics, though two-thirds of the U.S. population one-fourth of the student body,” but:
Though elite schools give points to applicants for extracurricular activities, especially for leadership roles and honors, writes Nieli, if you played a lead role in Future Farmers of America, the 4-H Clubs or junior ROTC, leave it off your resume or you may just be blackballed. “Excelling in these activities is ‘associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds on admissions.'”
As Kevin MacDonald points out, this is part of the vast overrepresentation of jews in elite universities, of the type that allow mediocre individuals such as Elena Kagan to rise to the top. The jews set up a system which favors not only themselves, but the whites closest to them in culture and attitudes, which combines to form the ‘ruling class’. ‘Country class’ whites need not apply. Infiltrating the elite intellectual establishment to any significant degree seems nigh impossible.
Luckily, white people have a better idea: burn down the whole rotten apparatus. Like the Germans bypassing the Maginot Line in WWII, white people are now ready to bypass the whole ‘elite establishment’ mind control machine. I’ve frequently seen in recent comments in here that “it didn’t work for George Wallace, so it certainly won’t work now.” Well, times have changed. One longtime activist who I talked to recently was a supporter of Wallace and was with him within a day of him being shot, and told me that “the Tea Parties are more radical” than anything back then. Not to mention, it’s more of a nationwide than regional phenomena, and the media is much harder to control these days than back then.
More from Codevilla:
Whereas in 1968 Governor George Wallace’s taunt “there ain’t a dime’s worth of difference” between the Republican and Democratic parties resonated with only 13.5 percent of the American people, in 1992 Ross Perot became a serious contender for the presidency (at one point he was favored by 39 percent of Americans vs. 31 percent for G.H.W. Bush and 25 percent for Clinton) simply by speaking ill of the ruling class. Today, few speak well of the ruling class. Not only has it burgeoned in size and pretense, but it also has undertaken wars it has not won, presided over a declining economy and mushrooming debt, made life more expensive, raised taxes, and talked down to the American people. Americans’ conviction that the ruling class is as hostile as it is incompetent has solidified. The polls tell us that only about a fifth of Americans trust the government to do the right thing. The rest expect that it will do more harm than good and are no longer afraid to say so.
Who are these rulers, and by what right do they rule? How did America change from a place where people could expect to live without bowing to privileged classes to one in which, at best, they might have the chance to climb into them? What sets our ruling class apart from the rest of us?
The most widespread answers — by such as the Times’s Thomas Friedman and David Brooks — are schlock sociology. Supposedly, modern society became so complex and productive, the technical skills to run it so rare, that it called forth a new class of highly educated officials and cooperators in an ever less private sector. Similarly fanciful is Edward Goldberg’s notion that America is now ruled by a “newocracy”: a “new aristocracy who are the true beneficiaries of globalization — including the multinational manager, the technologist and the aspirational members of the meritocracy.” In fact, our ruling class grew and set itself apart from the rest of us by its connection with ever bigger government, and above all by a certain attitude.
Our old jewish friends Friedman and Brooks from the NY Times, plus this Goldberg haughtily informing us that we are now ruled by a ‘new aristocracy’. Pages 2-4 of this article contain an excellent description of this ‘ruling class’, much of which we already know to some degree, but is still worth the read.
Now, for the Good Guys: what Codevilla describes as the ‘Country Class’. He’s a bit off the mark, describing everything in terms of ‘Christianity’, whereas we all know that this ‘Country Class’ consists of ordinary white people. The blacks and Hispanics would be completely lost without their civil service jobs and welfare, which is why nearly all blacks and the vast majority of Hispanics support this ‘ruling class’. This, of course, is why the ‘ruling class’ wants to bring more of them into not just the U.S., but all western countries.
The one spot where this racial blindness makes him hit off the mark the most is when he says that “This class also takes part in the U.S. armed forces body and soul: nearly all the enlisted, non-commissioned officers and officers under flag rank belong to this class in every measurable way.” The military now pays more than private jobs of the same skill level, not to mention the benefits and full pension after 20 years. Not to mention, the military is a jobs program for blacks, especially black middle/upper class. Whereas the average family income of white enlistees is below the white average, the average family income of the average black enlistee is above the black average. These people will likely resist any removal of the ‘ruling class’, and as we’ve seen in North Korea, ruling classes tend to indulge their militaries until the bitter end.
This ‘Country Class’ has its own culture, which we tend to call ‘American’, or better yet ‘real Americans’. It’s commonly been alleged that ‘conservatives are losing because they don’t challenge liberals on an intellectual and cultural level’, as well as similar allegations regarding white nationalism specifically on this site. I’ve always been highly skeptical of this argument, and Codevilla describes, it simply isn’t true: ordinary white folks have built their own culture outside Hollywood and broadcast TV:
Some parts of the country class now follow the stars and the music out of Nashville, Tennessee, and Branson, Missouri — entertainment complexes larger than Hollywood’s — because since the 1970s most of Hollywood’s products have appealed more to the mores of the ruling class and its underclass clients than to those of large percentages of Americans. The same goes for “popular music” and television. For some in the country class Christian radio and TV are the lodestone of sociopolitical taste, while the very secular Fox News serves the same purpose for others. While symphonies and opera houses around the country, as well as the stations that broadcast them, are firmly in the ruling class’s hands, a considerable part of the country class appreciates these things for their own sake. By that very token, the country class’s characteristic cultural venture — the homeschool movement — stresses the classics across the board in science, literature, music, and history even as the ruling class abandons them.
Although these are not ‘explicitly white’, they generally fall into the ‘implicitly white’ category. Also, white Nationalists have also have developed our own cultures. There was the friendly neighborhood Klan we met deep in the mountains of southwest Virginia. There’s the skinhead punk, Hatecore, and NSBM music scenes; Christian Identity and Folkish Heathenism. Sites like Facebook and NewSaxon allow us to connect with fellow nationalists from all over the world, not to mention the joy everyone derives from this site. We’ve even got our own comedy shows.
This country class is where the ‘Tea Party’ comes from. They have noticeably healthier racial attitudes:
Those who embrace the Tea Party movement are much less likely than others to see discrimination as a threat to the nation’s future and a hurdle for minorities. More than three in four say racial minorities have equal job opportunities; only half of non-Tea Party supporters agree. They overwhelmingly reject the notion that economic disparities between blacks and whites are mainly the result of discrimination.
Nearly half say blacks lag in jobs, income and housing “because most African-Americans just don’t have the motivation or willpower to pull themselves up out of poverty.” Only one-third of non-supporters agree.
And Tea Party supporters are much less sympathetic than others to illegal immigrants. By 4-to-1, they say illegal immigrants in the long run cost taxpayers too much by using government services rather than becoming productive citizens. That view is hardly out of the mainstream, though — it’s also held by 52% of non-Tea Party supporters.
“The Tea Party (gatherings) are not some radical meetings; it’s just average folks,” says Tim Brazil, 54, a small-business owner from Chesterfield County, Va., who has attended several local meetings. He says Tea Party members are agitated about the way things are going in the country, and for good reason: “Washington doesn’t hear us, and the Tea Party is waking them up.”
Better yet, they’re not just going along with some intellectual nonsense supplied by the ruling class, and they’re on to the fact that the GOP bigwigs are part of the ‘ruling class’
Even so, the movement is less a party than an anti-party, with no clear consensus about whom its national leaders are and a generally dyspeptic view of organized political power.
“It’s a party opposed to the idea of parties,” says Jill Lepore, a Harvard historian whose book about the movement, The Whites of Their Eyes, is scheduled to be published in October. The Tea Party reminds her more of a religious revival than a political movement. She compares it to the Second Great Awakening in the 1830s, a religious resurgence that helped fuel temperance and abolitionism.
… And she’s not enamored with former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, who is a hero to some in the movement. “I don’t like her folksy sayings,” Jones says. “She’s just a politician like the rest of them.”
Former House Majority leader Dick Armey, who describes himself and his group FreedomWorks as “mentors” for the movement, calls the lack of a centralized structure a defining characteristic and an asset. “It is baffling to the left because it’s a group of people who are not centrally organized,” the former Texas congressman says, chortling. “There is nobody running the Tea Party movement.”
Jim Sagray, 63, a retired high school science teacher from Roseville, Calif., and Tea Party supporter, agrees.
“I don’t believe there are any real Tea Party leaders; I don’t believe there’s any real national leadership,” he says. “It’s largely just independent groups fed up with how things are going in our nation.”
Armey calls them “the biggest swing movement on the field.”
The growing conservatism hasn’t rebounded to the benefit of the Republican Party, however: 28% of Americans identified themselves as Republicans in 2008; 28% do so now. In 2004, the year Bush was re-elected president, 34% did.
Some Tea Party supporters who might have moved back toward the GOP express disappointment with Bush’s backing of the Wall Street bailout and Medicare prescription-drug initiative. They describe those as just more big-government programs that blurred the differences between the two major parties.
“Basically, Democrats and Republicans are screwed up, and the Tea Party is the only group that has their act together,” says Greg White, 23, an Army soldier from Ashburn, Ga. “Democrats are trying to be Socialist, and the Republicans aren’t far off.”
“The Tea Party is trying to change the country around because the Republicans and Democrats — I don’t think anyone knows what they’re doing in Washington anymore,” says Ed Bradley, 54, a retired police officer and judge from Lebanon, Ind.. “The Tea Party is trying to change this country to what it used to be.”
Where do White Nationalist fit within the greater ‘Country Class’ rubric, and what do we do about this information? Can we prevent healthy attitudes from once again being hijacked by elites? To be continued in the next episode.