An abundance of poor is necessary to enable the comfort of the rich. Voltaire said something like that. When the rich lack comfort, they set their eyes upon foreign lands. GE best prospers when Cambodia is being bombed and Marines are in Haiti. The military industrial complex prospers during conflict, but uncertain outcome of conflict threatens the nation. The rich must remain satiated to prevent new war. I suppose in that vein, our national security has been most at risk in those moments that threatened the institution of poverty itself.
In the mid 19th century, the fall of slavery provided the promise transcendence, but that's bullshit. The whip was traded for the noose, and the black populace remained enslaved. No major wars following Civil War, killing of natives continued but that was status quo.
The mid 20th century threatened everything. The GI bill provided the opportunity of education to the masses of returning soldiers, depriving society of an easily exploitable poor. The unions also gained power in the mid 20th century, and shooting union members fell out of fashion. The rich were forced to waste resources on improving working conditions. South Korea.
This is why the Vietnam War was so important. Imagine millions of young people, sitting in the quads of universities across the nation. Plotting. Organizing. Smoking weed and spreading anti-establishment bullshit. They had to be sent overseas to be killed. The further profiteering was merely a bonus, the important outcome was to break down a potentially explosive movement. No one returns from military service the same.
It's not enough to keep the poor abundant, they must also be controlled. The only thing that saved us during the rise of the middle class was the ability to pit the newly formed middle class against the poor. Race riots and the drug wars.
With the natural dismemberment of the middle class over the past two decades, new means for controlling the poor must be established. High society lacks the intestinal fortitude of its forefathers to enforce the obedience of the poor through violence. Imprisonment has become increasingly less frightening; conditions are more agreeable than ever; warm food and a bed can be had by all in this institution. If there is no fear and no middle class buffer, there is nothing to protect the rich from the poor. New methods must be established.
Aldous Huxley shows us how - control through the use of sex and narcotics. Technology has allowed these to be combined in new mediums; media. The tv provides escape, and young men can be distracted by the gaming consoles connected to them. Put a tv and Playstation in the living room of every housing project and crack den in America. The aim is not to brainwash, the goal is thought evacuation. Sometimes the poor will steal from each other, but if everyone is provided the same, the market will be saturated and the incentives to steal removed. Everyone must receive a television and cable. No one can be allowed to go without.
If we can devise methods to shuffle young men to and from work while filling idle time with these distractions, the rich can remain in comfort. The women can be oft be counted on to take care of themselves. Ensure the poor girls continue getting pregnant at early ages before they can attain education. Keep abortion difficult to access, if not illegal. Children are the most important impediment to success.
The economist says giving people food for free decreases incentives to work. The activist says we must help those who lack the means to help themselves; think of the children.
It's interesting that people in America still go hungry. Not to say it's surprising. None of your elected officials have experienced hunger. To be hungry is awful, to die of hunger is an awful, painful, miserable experience. I have never died of hunger. Biden grew up comfortably middle class. Obama has a compelling backstory, but was never hungry. No current US Senator has experienced a lack of sleep stemming from hunger pangs. They don't know what it's like to pray for sleep to take away the pain. This is an important distinction. The poor do not provide the money for politicians to be elected, the rich do. We must continue electing politicians unable to empathize with the poor.
And what if no one was hungry? What if all citizens felt they led lives worth living? Then who would fight our wars? It's the proposition of a dangerous world with no honor.