The Next American Genocide, and why YOU must die in it
It seems likely that events are working towards a general purge of the American working-class population. Advances in automation have made much of the “99%” unnecessary, from an economic perspective; from the viewpoint of the financial elite, the majority of the American population are not only nonproductive, but are actually a net minus on the books. They expect education for their children, social services, and other things that cost money. And they represent a potential danger, in that more and more of them are at risk of realizing their true status and may become radicalized against the status quo.
Looking at it from the viewpoint of the owners of this country, American workers have outlived their usefulness. They’re consuming resources. They’re a potential threat. And therefore, it would be better for all concerned – well, for the owner class, which is all that really matters – if most of the working class and their descendants were to quietly and obligingly die.
Under the circumstances, genocide is a necessity.
It’s worth mentioning that this is hardly a new concept. Quite a few students of politics and culture were foresighted enough to realize that eventually, technology would make most workers obsolete. Take the late American science fiction writer (and soldier of fortune) Mack Reynolds, for example. He wrote often of a near-future America in which the vast majority of the population was utterly unneeded and unemployed. His foresight failed him when it came to the next step, however, since in his works he generally posited two outcomes: first, a vast increase in drinking, violent “reality television”, and recreational drug use (as an alternative he suggested the possibility of a renaissance in amateur creativity, but didn’t seem to think it a likely outcome). This drugging of the surplus population was sponsored by the government in many of his works.
However, the more critical issue that he addressed was the economic function of that surplus: being unemployed, how would they live? Reynolds came up with many different names for it; Negative Income Tax, the Guaranteed Minimal Income, etc., but it all translated to welfare, a social safety net, money given by the government to the unemployed.
What Reynolds apparently overlooked was that from the perspective of the owner class, this is pure waste. Why would they allow THEIR money to be given to dirty, squalid, undereducated non-workers? Far better that the parasites be eliminated altogether! And that’s what the unspoken consensus seems to be among our real-world plutocratic masters.
Mind you, I am NOT suggesting that there is an intentional plan to exterminate most of the lower 99%. There is almost certainly not a cabal of plutocrats sitting around a luxuriously-appointed table in a secure and secret location, patting their small dogs and rubbing their hands together at the thought of slaughtering lower-class babies by the truckload. Rather, we are simply seeing the inevitable effect of untrammeled greed and power run amok.
The question is, how to kill off the substantial majority of the population without triggering a dangerous revolution? Particularly considering that so many of them are armed?
Events will probably work themselves out in the usual messy way. Elements of the surplus population will be encouraged to turn against each other; right against left (or middle, since there isn’t much of a “left” in America), straights against gays, ethnicity against ethnicity, all of the classic “divide and conquer” techniques. Constant reduction in the social safety net will enhance that population reduction in two ways: first through “neglect” – that is, when there’s less food, shelter, and health care available, people will die – and secondly, through increased social pressure, i.e. when there are fewer resources available, competition for those resources will cause violence and hatred are certain to increase, with a corresponding increase in mortality.
Cutting educational resources will also have the gratifying effect of reducing the risk of enough of the population becoming aware of the realities of their situation to pose a threat to the ruling class.
Beyond that, we see that other contingencies are being set up to handle whatever portion of the population survives increased internecine warfare. The militarization of police forces across the country is necessary, of course, to protect the owner class from unruly survivors. As the population decreases, the police will become more and more needed – and, conveniently enough, more effective – in crushing dissent and executing potential leaders.
The wars themselves are doubly useful for this purpose. The military is, of course, primarily recruiting from the lower classes; militarily losses don’t form a substantial part of the purge at this point, but it is still a net gain (of dead ex-workers, that is), and the wars may possibly be expanded later. Beyond that, the military provides a useful population of potential police and security guards who are trained to the high levels of violence that will be necessary during the violent years to come. Because, unfortunately, it’s simply a matter of human nature (if I may be forgiven for using the word “human” to refer to the lower classes) that as they are crushed, they will eventually erupt in violence which may threaten some members of the ruling elite – that is, the owner class, and not just the politicians who work for them.
Collapse of infrastructure, growing scarcity of resources, religious hatred, increasing environmental problems…all these factors will play a useful role in the genocide to come. The only real risk is that the willful refusal by the owner class to take environmental collapse seriously as a threat to themselves may eventually provide a most ironic result.
After exterminating the working class, they themselves may face the prospect of dying alone in a final environmental collapse. They will, of course, die with the most money. But they will die nonetheless.