The American Ruling Class

[Bizzy]

Occupy Wall Street

Hi Rick
I finally have more time to be on line since the harvest is in and the wine is started for the winter.
In watching the Occupy demonstrations it reminds me of the communist radicals I went to school with in W Germany. People who want anarchy for the cause of destroying the staus quo no matter what evolves in its place.
In interviews with them many are admittedly communists and socilaist who want nothing less than the distruction of the USA. Plus the fact the Obama supports them and encourages them tells me that the core of these demonstartions is not healthy for the United States.
I was just wondering what your take on Occupy Wall Street is?
Bizzy

[alexstep2009]

Study: 40% of the world's wealth controls only 1% of the companies, they have very close ties
The researchers analyzed the relationship between multinational corporations with thousands of 43 and found a relatively small group of organizations that have a real impact on the global economy. The group mainly includes banks, confirming the worst hypothesis participants of the "take Wall Street," writes New Scientist.

To analyze the relationships between corporations, researchers from the Swiss Technical High School in Zurich used a mathematical model of data analysis. The scientists chose 43 000 corporations from 37 million global companies and investors and then tried to determine who they belong to and who is a shareholder in these companies.

The study found that about 1318 companies have extremely close ties. A total of their income is 20% of the profits of all companies in the world, with shares of these companies control 60% of global income, and most of the "blue chips" in the world.

In addition, the group observed the internal communication: each of the 1318 companies has to do more, to at least two other companies, and the average number of links between them is equal to twenty.

Further investigation revealed more closely related group of "super-entities", which included only 147 companies, most of whom are financial institutions. "Super subjects" owned 40% of total world wealth. "Less than 1% of the companies are able to control 40% of the entire network of companies" - says the results of experience is one of the scientists who conducted the study.

Some of the "Super subjects" were banks Barclays, UBS, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse. In the list published by the magazine New Scientist, also referred to Goldman Sachs Group, Lehman Brothers Holdings and other companies.

[aljhoa]

Nathan Rothschild said (1777-1836): "I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire and I control the British money supply."

"Give me the control of the credit of a nation, and I care not who makes the laws." The famous boastful statement of Nathaniel Meyer Rothschild, speaking to a group of international bankers, 1912: "The few who could understand the system (cheque, money, credits) will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." The boastful statement by Rothschild Bros. of London.
Rothschilds & Rockefellers - Trillionaires Of The World

Wall Street rejects Dem fundraising - UPI.com
NEW YORK, Oct. 18 (UPI) -- Wall Street lobbyists are telling Democrats they can't have it both ways: They can't support Occupy Wall Street protests and then ask for Wall Street cash.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent a recent e-mail calling on supporters to sign a petition backing the protests. Then livid banking executives called DCCC officials demanding answers, financial services lobbyists told Politico.

while every thing that can be useful to the public is engrossed by this tribe of black gentry, who work more effectually against us than the enemys Arms; and are a hundd. times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in.
Washington to Edmund Pendleton, November 1, 1779 - For Teachers (Library of Congress)

No, I didn't notice. Did you say how long some of the musicians played in Stokowski's orchestra? And if you did, how does that relate to the American Ruling Class?

The circumscribed tribe operation best describes "Philadelphia Sound" model and does The American Ruling Class exist?

Viva K-Y Herman Cain, 2012.

Al

[Shadesz]

Here is an idea for you guys. Take it how you want. Use it and spread it, or leave it here to disappear on the internet. I wonder what you think about the idea though?

This is just a possible starting place. Obviously more work would need to be done both to make this happen, and after it does.

Note: It assumes that you know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. If you don't, Watch this YouTube.

[rickoff]

Ron Paul is overlooking the part of the Constitution that has the concept of "probable cause". Without probable cause Al Waki's slaying would have been a crime, but with probable cause it is justified. The Constitution is more flexible than what Ron Paul thinks it is. It's not like Al Waki was picked at random, he openly presented himself as a threat to the USA and any citizen thereof.

Whoa! Just a minute there, Aljhoa. I often don't know if what I am reading from you is your own words, or something you have borrowed from someone else, and when this happens I have no idea whether you include such statement as what you believe to be true, or if you are mocking the person who actually wrote the statement. So what exactly is the case concerning the above statement? Your words, or someone else's? If they are someone else's words, please indicate the source, and tell us why you included the quote. If these are your words, or if they are someone else's and you agree with that person, then you are sadly mistaken.

Probable cause, as included in the Constitution, only relates to search and seizure, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with granting a right to the US government to assassinate American citizens. The first ten Amendments to the Constitution are also known as the Bill of Rights, and these Amendments guaranteed the safety and liberty of the People, and states rights, while strictly limiting the powers of the federal government. The Fourth Amendment, which relates to probable cause, defines search and seizure law, and what it says is this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.- 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

The intended meaning of the 4th Amendment is unmistakably clear. Warrants must be obtained before any person or their belongings can be searched or seized, and such warrants cannot be issued unless there is justifiable and sworn oath or affirmation of probable cause to believe that a law has been broken. Warrants issued when probable cause has been shown to exist are only for search and/or seizure. No justice can claim the right to issue a death warrant under the 4th Amendment, or authorize any person to carry out such a warrant. Ron Paul is correct about assassinations of US citizens, no matter what they may have said or done, being unconstitutional and setting a dangerous precedent. Just remember that any person can be labeled as a possible terrorist and potential threat to our nation. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for instance, has sent out memos which label TEA Partiers, gun owners, and people who consider themselves as patriots and/or cite the Constitution, as potential terror threats, and DHS believes that the unconstitutional and falsely named "Patriot Act" gives them authority to search, seize, question, and detain any US citizen at will, and without warrant. The Patriot Act does nothing to make us safe or secure, or to protect our liberties, and in fact does exactly the opposite. Who, in Congress, has always voted against the Patriot Act being enacted or extended?

[aljhoa]

Whoa! Just a minute there, Aljhoa. I often don't know if what I am reading from you is your own words, or something you have borrowed from someone else, and when this happens I have no idea whether you include such statement as what you believe to be true, or if you are mocking the person who actually wrote the statement. So what exactly is the case concerning the above statement? Your words, or someone else's? If they are someone else's words, please indicate the source, and tell us why you included the quote. If these are your words, or if they are someone else's and you agree with that person, then you are sadly mistaken.

Probable cause, as included in the Constitution, only relates to search and seizure, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with granting a right to the US government to assassinate American citizens. The first ten Amendments to the Constitution are also known as the Bill of Rights, and these Amendments guaranteed the safety and liberty of the People, and states rights, while strictly limiting the powers of the federal government. The Fourth Amendment, which relates to probable cause, defines search and seizure law, and what it says is this:



The intended meaning of the 4th Amendment is unmistakably clear. Warrants must be obtained before any person or their belongings can be searched or seized, and such warrants cannot be issued unless there is justifiable and sworn oath or affirmation of probable cause to believe that a law has been broken. Warrants issued when probable cause has been shown to exist are only for search and/or seizure. No justice can claim the right to issue a death warrant under the 4th Amendment, or authorize any person to carry out such a warrant. Ron Paul is correct about assassinations of US citizens, no matter what they may have said or done, being unconstitutional and setting a dangerous precedent. Just remember that any person can be labeled as a possible terrorist and potential threat to our nation. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for instance, has sent out memos which label TEA Partiers, gun owners, and people who consider themselves as patriots and/or cite the Constitution, as potential terror threats, and DHS believes that the unconstitutional and falsely named "Patriot Act" gives them authority to search, seize, question, and detain any US citizen at will, and without warrant. The Patriot Act does nothing to make us safe or secure, or to protect our liberties, and in fact does exactly the opposite. Who, in Congress, has always voted against the Patriot Act being enacted or extended?

Ron Paul is overlooking the part of the Constitution that has the concept of "probable cause". Without probable cause Al Waki's slaying would hav flexible than what Ron Paul thinks it is. It's not like Al Waki was picked at random, he openly presented himself as a threat to the USA and any citizen thereof.
oeyesea 16 hours ago

My rules are: blue for citations and black is reserved for my comments.
That post (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post162606) presented four points of view on the subject of Anwar Al Awlaki Assassination.
(1)Glenn Beck, (2)Judge Napolitano and (3)Ron Paul viewpoints were the same and the opposing, that you are quoting, is the commentary of (4) "oeyesea 16 hours ago"(Note: "tree" against "goat".).
In that post I made the following statements:

History is repeated over and over and over…
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Al

[aljhoa]

I'll see you again but not yet.wav








Al

[rickoff]

My rules are: blue for citations and black is reserved for my comments.
That post (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post162606) presented four points of view on the subject of Anwar Al Awlaki Assassination.
(1)Glenn Beck, (2)Judge Napolitano and (3)Ron Paul viewpoints were the same and the opposing, that you are quoting, is the commentary of (4) "oeyesea 16 hours ago"(Note: "tree" against "goat".).
In that post I made the following statements:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa
History is repeated over and over and over…
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Al

Thanks for the explanation, Al, though I have no idea what you meant by "'tree' against 'goat'." And while it is good to observe several viewpoints on any subject, I am not sure if we have ever heard your viewpoint expressed. So whenever you do post a quotation, it would be helpful to the rest of us if you would either say that you agree with the quoted comment, or that you disagree, in which case you should explain why. Failure to do so can lead us to believe you may agree with a quoted statement, when in fact you may not. The only statement which you made in that post did not offer any explanation. In future posts, I hope that we will begin hearing more of what your opinions are. After all, this is a discussion thread, and everyone should feel free to voice their opinions - within forum guidelines, of course.

[aljhoa]

Thanks for the explanation, Al, though I have no idea what you meant by "'tree' against 'goat'." And while it is good to observe several viewpoints on any subject, I am not sure if we have ever heard your viewpoint expressed. So whenever you do post a quotation, it would be helpful to the rest of us if you would either say that you agree with the quoted comment, or that you disagree, in which case you should explain why. Failure to do so can lead us to believe you may agree with a quoted statement, when in fact you may not. The only statement which you made in that post did not offer any explanation. In future posts, I hope that we will begin hearing more of what your opinions are. After all, this is a discussion thread, and everyone should feel free to voice their opinions - within forum guidelines, of course.

Rick, history is the mystery and all should know the facts. Giving my opinions may stop others from posting their findings or exploring new angles on the non-existent subject where even Corporation’s "CEO" is a "Martian". You have selected very controversial topic where there may not be a single correct view and where the opinions of Domestic Terrorists like Jorge Washington are immaterial.
As Clint Eastwood explained in "Dirty Harry" ...
Opinions Are Like ... Sound Clip and Quote

Al

[dutchdivco]

aljhoa

A couple of things to bear in mind. Analogies, metaphores, parables, etc. are generally used to FACILITATE communication, not to obscure it.So, for instance I say something is like "Building a better mousetrap", because of the oft repeated idea that the "world will beat a path to your door, if you can design a better mousetrap". If you use such devices, such as (I THINK) making a comparison between an orchestra leader re-arranging the musicians, and even re-designing the orchestra hall, as a metaphor for the person or people 'behind the scenes', re-arranging the political/social system, to suit their (nefarious?) ends, it would help others if you could clarify that in some way, so we're not all reading your post, and thinking "What the F*ck does THIS have to do with "The American Ruling Class".

Otherwise, you are not CLARIFYING your communication, you are OBSCURING it. Your (fairly) consistently obscure posts, along with your stated retisence (sp?) to express an opinon cause readers to wonder "What the H*ll is he trying to say? why doesn't he just come right out and say it? Why is he even posting? Is he trying to contribute to the dialogue of this thread, or just getting some satisfaction with demonstrating (to himself, as nobody else can figure it out, or cares to try) how clever he is. Alas, there is such a thing as being "Too clever by half", and too much of anything, even 'intelligence' is not a GOOD thing. Jim

[conradphd]

A couple of things to bear in mind. Analogies, metaphores, parables, etc. are generally used to FACILITATE communication, not to obscure it.So, for instance I say something is like "Building a better mousetrap", because of the oft repeated idea that the "world will beat a path to your door, if you can design a better mousetrap". If you use such devices, such as (I THINK) making a comparison between an orchestra leader re-arranging the musicians, and even re-designing the orchestra hall, as a metaphor for the person or people 'behind the scenes', re-arranging the political/social system, to suit their (nefarious?) ends, it would help others if you could clarify that in some way, so we're not all reading your post, and thinking "What the F*ck does THIS have to do with "The American Ruling Class".

Otherwise, you are not CLARIFYING your communication, you are OBSCURING it. Your (fairly) consistently obscure posts, along with your stated retisence (sp?) to express an opinon cause readers to wonder "What the H*ll is he trying to say? why doesn't he just come right out and say it? Why is he even posting? Is he trying to contribute to the dialogue of this thread, or just getting some satisfaction with demonstrating (to himself, as nobody else can figure it out, or cares to try) how clever he is. Alas, there is such a thing as being "Too clever by half", and too much of anything, even 'intelligence' is not a GOOD thing. Jim

*I have watched this thread for about four months now and feel ready to make the following observation.

What is that saying; "Talk is Cheap!", "Action causes reaction and has consequence."

Well I must at last say that I feel you all are living on a very strict budget; "Talk is Cheap!" and afraid of the Reaction to Action. So dies America.

[rickoff]

*I have watched this thread for about four months now and feel ready to make the following observation.

What is that saying; "Talk is Cheap!", "Action causes reaction and has consequence."

Well I must at last say that I feel you all are living on a very strict budget; "Talk is Cheap!" and afraid of the Reaction to Action. So dies America.

Hi Conrad,

What I am wondering is why you were content to just watch this thread for 4 months without contributing anything prior to this time, if you felt that the thread had no value. For that matter, why did you keep returning for 4 months if you felt the thread had nothing to offer? Furthermore, why are you supposing that this thread is all about talk with no action? And if the actions proposed here don't suit your way of thinking, then what plan of action do you intend to pursue?

[Bizzy]

*I have watched this thread for about four months now and feel ready to make the following observation.

What is that saying; "Talk is Cheap!", "Action causes reaction and has consequence."

Well I must at last say that I feel you all are living on a very strict budget; "Talk is Cheap!" and afraid of the Reaction to Action. So dies America.

Hi Conrad
This thread is about discusion of ideas, and to spawn debate. I only wish I had more time to participate.
As far as the concern that Americans are all talk and no action and that talk is cheap... that is wrong thinking. Yes perhaps many of our leaders are that way but I know that there are quite a few people in this country who do take action, and take that action seriously. Just look at the Tea Party, look at the malitia movement. Just because we dont advertize in from of Big Brother what our intentions are, doesnt mean that we are doing nothing.
Bizzy

[aljhoa]

Amazing Pumpkin Sculpting
10-24-10
Artist Ray Villafane began carving pumpkins on a lark for his art students in a small rural school district in Michigan. The hobby changed his life as he gained a viral following online and unlocked his genuine love of sculpting. Here are images of pumpkin carvings Villafane created over the past five years.
Amazing Pumpkin Sculpting

Rough day


Al

[rickoff]

Amazing Pumpkin Sculpting

I agree that this pumpkin sculpture is quite unique, but once again find myself asking: What in the world does this have to do with the topic of this thread??

Rick