A word to use in the place of "lower class", Mike? Try "working class". It's still used in Europe to classify those who are related to the economy NOT by investment of capital resources, of which those in the working class lack the requisite to provide a either a secure lifestyle or social leverage; but by investment of labor power or potential investment of the same or of past investment of their labor; at the minimum, to populate the army of the unemployed to keep wage rates low. The term "middle class" is promoted by the parasitical capital-wielding ruling class, who rarely contribute their own labor to the production process, to hide the fact that there is a working class in the U.S.A. If there is a lower class, it's populated preponderantly by persons who have never possessed salable labor power nor capital. "Middle class" is the traditional term for the lower echelons of those who live securely and comfortably by investment rather than by their labor, but who lack the capital resources to control segments of society. The rich are rich because the poor are poor (and disenfranchised from any leverage in the economic system). The overwhelming numbers of working people in comparison with the small numbers of those in the ruling class will not be the deciding factor as it was at a time when numbers could decide battles and revolutions. However, the ruling class must rely on the diminishing talented tenth of the working class to defend their rule. This diminishing talented tenth have a foot in scientific, technological, military, and other so-called "professional" communities; and their loyalties will always lie for the most part in those communities. As those communities go over to the revolution, the ruling class's talented tenth will abandon them and go over to the forces arrayed AGAINST the ruling class. As the demonstrable inability of the ruling class to administer society becomes progressively apparent to all, their days become numbered; even though they appear now to be omnipotent.
Sounds good, atlantabill, when do we start? I've been waiting since the Nixon administration
"Nukular." Bring back the battleships? Light tanks in Iran? A military solution to every issue? Ian Fleming?
"Nukular Combat" as Slim Pickens said in "Dr. Strangelove". If we want to do gunboat diplomacy, we need gunboats--ships that can take a hit--not 5, 000 victims waiting to be killed so as to enrage the american sheeple into another ill-conceived war for Wall Street profits. If we are going to munitions strike Iranian nuclear facilities we had best INSURE they are gone by a CAVALRY in light tracked tanks that after the punitive raid goes home. This is the kind of skilled and morally sound military America needs but does not have--what Ian Fleming wanted.
I enjoyed the interview. But Sparks did make one error it seems to me. He got on the Mormons, to attack Romney, by saying that if they are right then God had been lying to us for 1800 years. He repeated this claim and at one point mentioned the Jehovah's Witnesses as fitting into the same category. However, Mr. Sparks needs to take a closer look at his Bible if he is going to make this claim. The Bible makes it clear that with the approach of the endtimes, a new denomination will come along that names iself after God. This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses did. So their advent would actually represent God telling the truth, not a lie. It would have been a lie if they had never come along.
A new religious system that CONTRADICTS what God has been instructing people to follow for 1800 +/- years is NOT mentioned or described in the Bible. God has not told us to worship the Lord Jesus Christ and have his sacrifice in our place which establishes a PARDON for our sins will be withdrawn so we can do works-salvation for either the JW or the Mormon church human bureaucracies. If you believe the latter, I have a piece of the Brooklyn bridge for sale, do you have PayPal?
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F: