Win,

Great points. What I meant about the social structure not changing since the 19th century had more to do with the top down nature of it, and to quote a comment Kevin made a few years back, “the great grand children of the robber barons aren’t ready to let go yet”. As far as the enormous changes in the composition of the labor force I believe we had a robust conversation on that one over 10 years ago that involved Hacksaw. But the component at the very top has remained the same and thus I believe the biggest cause of the quandary we find ourselves in today.

I don’t know if you’ve been following this TED program on PBS, where various scientists and research groups give their presentations. There was this Swiss group – and this story was well publicized in the past few months – who gave this presentation based on their research where they investigated ownership of large corporations, who sat on which board of directors, etc. They followed the relationship of ownership of all the world’s largest corporation and developed a computer program to process it into various graphical forms and came to the conclusion that probably 1 percent of the world’s population controls some 67 % of the world resources. Extremely centralized, perhaps dangerously so.

I think we already knew that but what is more astounding is that this centralized control is by the same European and American families that pretty much ran the show, set the foreign policy, funded and influenced the world’s politicians, back in the mid 1800’s.

This is what I meant by the same social structure, not in how it has been revolutionized in the past 150 years, but in how it is controlled at the top. Now these individuals are not well known anymore than the owner of your apartment building has his name pinned to the front door, as they prefer to be shielded through several levels of limited liability corporate entities, but the serious researchers of the past century from left and right and from main stream academia seem to have painted a picture that the big movements in global foreign policy has probably been highly influenced by large corporate interests, more specifically, banking finance capital, head quartered mostly in London and New York. This Swiss group also made that observation. I was reading on this and similar subjects as far back as the early 1970’s.

So that might be a problem in the world today that the world’s resources and its capital are perhaps too centralized in too few hands and that perhaps it is not in their interests that the world’s resources be redistributed too much, where they would lose a controlling interest in its profit making potential.

I could go much further than this and give endless examples that I’ve accumulated over several decades but I’ll leave you our Dean Henderson, A Lefty, A Greenie, I’d characterize him as, who also has researched who owns what in the world.

If you want to know where the true power center of the world lies, follow the money - cui bono. According to Global Finance magazine, as of 2010 the world’s five biggest banks are all based in Rothschild fiefdoms UK and France.

They are the French BNP ($3 trillion in assets), Royal Bank of Scotland ($2.7 trillion), the UK-based HSBC Holdings ($2.4 trillion), the French Credit Agricole ($2.2 trillion) and the British Barclays ($2.2 trillion).

In the US, a combination of deregulation and merger-mania has left four mega-banks ruling the financial roost. According to Global Finance, as of 2010 they are Bank of America ($2.2 trillion), JP Morgan Chase ($2 trillion), Citigroup ($1.9 trillion) and Wells Fargo ($1.25 trillion). I have dubbed them the Four Horsemen of US banking.

The same Eight Families-controlled banks which for decades had galloped their Four Horsemen of oil roughshod through the Persian Gulf oil patch are now more powerful than at any time in history. They are the Four Horsemen of US banking.

The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo) own the Four Horsemen of Oil (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP Amoco and Chevron Texaco); in tandem with Deutsche Bank, BNP, Barclays and other European old money behemoths.

But their monopoly over the global economy does not end at the edge of the oil patch. According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation.

The Federal Reserve Bank was born in 1913, the same year US banking scion J. Pierpont Morgan died and the Rockefeller Foundation was formed. The House of Morgan presided over American finance from the corner of Wall Street and Broad, acting as quasi-US central bank since 1838, when George Peabody founded it in London.

Peabody was a business associate of the Rothschilds who “…preferred to operate anonymously in the US behind the facade of J.P. Morgan & Company”. The Morgans were nothing more than Rothschild agents. Author Gabriel Kolko stated, “Morgan’s activities in 1895-1896 in selling US gold bonds in Europe were based on an alliance with the House of Rothschild.”

Trilateral Commission (TC) founder and former Chase Manhattan Chairman David who has spearheaded
the family’s agenda on a global scale. He defended the Shah of Iran, the South African apartheid regime and the Chilean Pinochet junta. He was the biggest financier of the CFR, the TC and (during the Vietnam War) the Committee for an Effective and Durable Peace in Asia- a contract bonanza for those who made their living off the conflict.


This is a rather long article and I’ve just grabbed a few snibbets to give you a flavor of this octopus like network of control that developed in the 19th century and is even more powerfully consolidated now. The world events you hear on the TV are in many ways the outward symptoms of global plans made by this 1 percent control over a majority of the world’s resources.

So to view the world via this “Model”, one that identifies top down control as a primary driver, one that goes back many centuries, might be a fairly accurate way to understand how the world really works, more so than listening to what so and so from either party says, or even what social system a nation chooses, both being irrelevant compared to the larger historical developments taking place right under our noses.

To tie this back into our previous discussion, I believe that this global social system requires a hierarchical social structure, one that contains a vast mass of people who should be dumb enough, compliant enough, docile enough, but hard working enough, to fit into the longer term plans of this global elite 1 percent who seem to run the world.

So of course you'd find educational standards lacking and in their place a robust people's culture developing, full of color and working class ambiance, Jazz and Blues, Brooklyn and East London, Jamaica and Newfoundland, Ireland and the Scottish Highlands, the great heart of the World's working classes. The language they speak may have more relevance to the world's history, and where are going, than the language of the elite academics, and their falsified histories, written by the stooges of the world's ruling classes. Side with that!