The American Ruling Class

[yoyo]

related subject ...

I agree Rick, the "impeachment" issue might just be window dressing until further disclosure.

Since you're a forex trader, have you noticed Ed Ponsi's latest book: Selling America Short: The New World Order vs. the American Middle Class?

Brief comment by "Sam" -- "The book contains real solutions, it really is to educate Americans and prevent them from being scammed by the government and the federal reserve."

[aljhoa]

Stockholders/Shareholders

Sorry if you already covered this. With a Corporation, ultimately the stockholders 'own' the corporation, although they have little say in the day to day running of said corp. unless they get so P.O'd at the 'board of directors' that they vote them out. Anyway, If Barry is the CEO, who are the Board of Directors, and who are the stockholders? What, EXACTLY was IN that 'bretton Woods' agreement, anyway????Jim

Stockholders are granted special privileges depending on the class of stock. These rights may include:

The right to sell their shares, provided there is a buyer.
*
The right to nominate directors (although this is very difficult in practice because of minority protections) and propose shareholder resolutions.
*
The right to dividends if they are declared.

Therefore, contrary to popular opinion,
shareholders of American public corporations are NOT the
(1) owners of the corporation,
(2) the claimants of the profit, or
(3) investors, as in the contributors of capital.

Shareholder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Al

[aljhoa]

Interesting comments for the Josh Hicks post at

Ron Paul and the racist newsletters (Fact Checker biography) - The Washington Post

Al

[dutchdivco]

Aljhoa

I stand corrected (actually, I'm sitting, LOL). My question still stands, unanswered, however; Just WHO 'owns' this U.S. Corporation, and is Barry the CEO, or what? Rick called it 'a foriegn owned corporation' earlier, and I'm wanting to know who the 'owners of record' (or whatever) are?

Whoever THEY are, I should think the corporation is bankrupt, and has sold bonds to the Chinese Gov't, Japanese Gov't, and anyone else 'buying' US corporation debt. Just wondering, as I say, who the 'owners' of the corporation are? Jim

[rickoff]

I agree Rick, the "impeachment" issue might just be window dressing until further disclosure.

Since you're a forex trader, have you noticed Ed Ponsi's latest book: Selling America Short: The New World Order vs. the American Middle Class?

Brief comment by "Sam" -- "The book contains real solutions, it really is to educate Americans and prevent them from being scammed by the government and the federal reserve."

Yes, I am familiar with Ed Ponsi's books. In Forex terms, the title of the book, Selling America Short, refers to the Federal Reserve and our so-called "government" deliberately shorting the dollar in order to destroy the middle class. In the Forex currency game, traders "short" the dollar by betting against it. For example, if a currency trader believes that the Euro is about to rise in value in relation to the U.S. Dollar, the trader will buy the Euro/US Dollar currency pair (EUR/USD), which is the same as "shorting" the U.S. Dollar. If the trader wins the bet, his winnings equal the difference between the valuation of the two currencies from the time the bet was initiated to the time the bet is closed. In other words, if one Euro is valued equal to $1.20 in US Dollars at the time the trader enters the currency trade, and is valued at $1.30 in US Dollars when the trader exits the trade, the trader realizes a profit equal to $0.10 (ten cents) for each unit of this currency pair that he held. A trader betting $1,200 as per this example, and using 100 to 1 leverage, which is common, would have controlled 100,000 units and made a profit of 10,000 dollars. It is therefore easy to see how those with inside information (those knowing with a certainty that the US dollar is about to become adversely affected) can expand their wealth dramatically in a very short period of time. And who but the Federal Reserve banking cartel is in a better position to control up and down fluctuations in currency, to know precisely which direction the currency will be moving in, and when it will move?

Ed Ponsi's book is an effort to educate the U.S. middle class as to the Keynesian policies and plans of the Federal Reserve and our so-called federal "government," which are working hand in hand to ensure the total destruction of both the US Dollar and the middle class. As the value of the U.S. Dollar falls, so does the savings and purchasing power of the middle class, until finally everyone now being a member of the middle class is dirt poor. With the middle class gone, we will be a nation like Mexico where there will only be the rich and the poor, and where the poor are literally willing to work for peanuts to compete with other poor folks to provide goods and services to the rich. The rich will not only have grown richer through their investments in commodities and precious metals, but their positions of wealth will enable them to purchase future goods and services at drastic price reductions while the poor will have become insufferably poorer.

[rickoff]

Sorry if you already covered this. With a Corporation, ultimately the stockholders 'own' the corporation, although they have little say in the day to day running of said corp. unless they get so P.O'd at the 'board of directors' that they vote them out. Anyway, If Barry is the CEO, who are the Board of Directors, and who are the stockholders? What, EXACTLY was IN that 'bretton Woods' agreement, anyway????Jim

Much of this was covered in post #1989 on page 67 of this thread, and I quote the related portion of that post here:

The final act of desperation by the government owned Corporation U.S. was the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, which effectively quit-claimed Corporation U.S. to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as a World War II settlement for war debts owed to the international bankers. As a result, Corporation U.S. thereafter became a foreign owned corporation owned and controlled by Great Britain's Bank of International Settlements. Under the Agreement, the United States Treasury became the Individual Drawing Account of the IMF. Now I know that anyone reading this must be shaking their head in disbelief and thinking, “this just can’t be,” but if you examine the facts you will see that it actually did happen this way. What you have to keep in mind is that it was not the United States of America, nor the Treasury of the United States of America, that was quit-claimed to foreign interests, which would never have been allowed under the Constitution. Instead, it was Corporation U.S (otherwise known as Washington, D.C.), and the Corporation U.S. Treasury, that was quit-claimed to the IMF. Remember too that although seemingly treasonous for our nation’s capitol to be given up to foreign interests, this was done by officers of a corporation, and not by our government, as our federal governing body no longer existed. The government, if it had still existed, could not have made this Agreement. Besides being unconstitutional, it would have been regarded as a Treaty, and would have required the Senate to approve the President’s signature on the Treaty with a 2/3 majority vote, which never happened. In fact, it was the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference which drew up the Agreement and authorized the “President of the United States” (actually the Corporation U.S. president) to sign.

From the foregoing quote, one should logically wonder who owns and/or controls the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). The BIS was established in 1930 in Basle, Switzerland, by Nathan M Rothschild and Sons, as their first world bank. The Rothschilds had already taken control of the Bank of England in 1815, which had become the financial center of the world following Napoleon's defeat. It was in 1815 that Nathan Mayer Rothschild said, "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."

It was from England that the Rothschilds controlled not only the Bank of England and the BIS, but also most of the central banks of the world. Thus, although it is reported that the corporations known as the central banks of the world own and control the BIS, it is actually controlled by the Rothschilds.

Through Alexander Hamilton (their agent in George Washington’s cabinet) the Rothschilds had already set up a central bank in the USA, called the First Bank of the United States, in 1791. This was established with a 20 year charter which expired in 1811, and which the US Congress rightly voted not to renew. Nathan Rothschild issued an ultimatum stating, "Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war." When the United States stood firm in rejecting renewal of the charter, the War of 1812 with Britain followed. After the deaths of thousands of US and British soldiers, the US Congress in 1816 passed a bill permitting yet another Rothschild dominated central bank, which gave the Rothschilds control of the American money supply again. This was called the Second Bank of the United States and was given a twenty year charter. In 1833 President Andrew Jackson began removing the government's deposits from the Rothschild controlled Second Bank of the United States and deposited them into banks directed by democratic bankers. This caused the Rothschilds to panic, and so they contracted the money supply, causing a depression. President Jackson later said of the Rothschilds,"You are a den of thieves and vipers, and I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out." Two years later there was an assassination attempt upon Jackson by a Richard Lawrence, who later bragged that powerful people in Europe had hired him and promised to protect him if he were caught. This appeared to be the case, as Lawrence was found "not guilty by reason of insanity," and Jackson maintained he knew that the Rothschilds had been responsible for the assassination attempt. Jackson had vetoed an early attempt by Congress to extend the Second Bank of the United States charter, and in 1841 President John Tyler vetoed another Act by Congress to renew the charter, which resulted in him receiveing hundreds of letters threatening assassination. In 1861, President Lincoln approached the big banks in New York to ask them to finance his ongoing Civil War efforts. Those bankers, heavily controlled by the Rothschilds, and who would have borrowed funds from them to extend these loans, offered the loans at exhorbitant interest rates of around 26%, so Lincoln had the government print up US Notes, or "greenbacks," at no interest cost, and this infuriated the Rothschilds. Two years later Lincoln was assassinated. It is no wonder that, under such actions and threats, US Presidents and Congress members have mostly been quite cooperative with the Rothschilds. Kennedy was an exception, and we all know what happened to him as a result.

Who owns and controls the IMF? Again, it is the House of Rothschild that largely owns and controls this banking corporation, along with between 30 and 40 of the other most wealthy people in the world. The IMF, and the World Bank, are both Rothschild designed institutions which emerged from the Bretton Woods Agreement as a result of the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944. Interestingly, it was John Maynard Keynes, the man who developed Keynesian economic policies followed by Obama, who represented Britain at the conference. Keynes wanted an ICU, in effect a bank with its own currency to be called the bancor. And who represented the United States? That was Harry Dexter White, who was the main architect of the IMF and World Bank, and who later became the director and US representative of the IMF. He resigned that post in 1947 after being exposed as a Russian agent. While White prevailed over Keynes at the Bretton Woods Conference, ultimately giving the Rothschilds the strongest possible stranglehold over world banking, the Keynes plan would also have paved the way for a one world currency controlled by the Rothschilds.

You may remember that Obama, who hosted the G20 meeting at Pittsburgh in 2009, said that as a result of the G20 meetings it was agreed that the IMF would be given $1 trillion to help "stimulate the world economy." What a joke! And did you realize that the US "government" now obtains from the IMF the funding to pay Social Security benefits? Those who receive checks rather than direct deposits have seen "IMF" printed in the center of their checks. The IMF, by the way, is headquartered in Washington D.C.

Like most central banks, the Federal Reserve is largely owned and controlled by the House of Rothschild, along with their chosen partners in crime. Here's an organizational chart of the Federal Reserve from 1976: Who owns the Fed?

Barry is the acting CEO of Corporation US. "Acting" is the key word here, because in truth he is merely a sock puppet controlled by the owners of Corporation US. These owners are the only actual shareholders, since Corporation U.S. shares are not publicly traded, and also form the corporate Board of Directors who make all the decisions. Barry and the Congress merely implement those decisions as directed.

[aljhoa]

Rick called it 'a foriegn owned corporation' earlier, and I'm wanting to know who the 'owners of record' (or whatever) are?

Whoever THEY are, I should think the corporation is bankrupt, and has sold bonds to the Chinese Gov't, Japanese Gov't, and anyone else 'buying' US corporation debt. Just wondering, as I say, who the 'owners' of the corporation are? Jim

It's anybody's guess.
No one knows,
so anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's,
however:

The Wheel w/o McCoys


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/im...l/esp_so1x.jpg
Al

[Shadesz]

Ron Paul This Speech Gave Me Chills - YouTube

also...

A blatant confession of media suppression clear back in 2007... I link you to 20 seconds into the video. Listen for ten more seconds. I'll quote it...

"We have been dealing with this at CNBC... We did an online poll after the debate of who won the debate. Ron Paul dominated the debate and some of my colleagues thought that there must be something wrong with that. They took the poll down."

This is just insane. Well I guess we have to expect it, but geesh!

I'll tell you, even though I am a Mormon that lives in Utah, I am voting for Ron Paul in 2012. (Sorry Romney, lol)

[rickoff]

I should think the corporation [Corporation U.S.] is bankrupt, and has sold bonds to the Chinese Gov't, Japanese Gov't, and anyone else 'buying' US corporation debt.

Remember that those who own Corporation U.S. also own the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Federal Reserve, and the United States Treasury (Corporation U.S. treasury). This should make it clear how the U.S. Treasury can contribute funds to the IMF that are "borrowed" from the Federal Reserve at interest, and how these funds are then lent to developing nations, at interest, by the IMF. All these funds are purely fictional, of course, as nothing of actual monetary value is created or lent in this process. Those nations which become debtors by borrowing from the Federal Reserve and IMF, however, are made to pledge assurances that the alleged "debt" will be repaid, with added interest, and collateralize these loans with precious metals treasury assets, oil and mineral rights, real estate, and natural resources - all things which do have real intrinsic value. When a nation finds that it can no longer keep up the ever increasing payments for their loans, and in effect becomes bankrupt, the IMF and/or Federal Reserve can force a showdown where the nation must then forfeit the collateral. This happened in 1912, when Corporation U.S., which was then owned by the true government of the United States of America, could not repay debts called due by the seven wealthy families which had purchased the debt bonds which the government had sold to finance their operations. With the government owned Corporation U.S. unable to make payment, the creditor families settled for all of the Corporation U.S. assets, along with all of the United States of America Treasury's assets. This of course left the United States government totally bankrupt and in need of borrowing more funds to continue their immediate and near future operations. This is the situation that allowed the creditor families, who had formed a private corporation which they named the "Federal Reserve" a year earlier, to make a deal where they would fund Corporation U.S. through the Federal Reserve using Federal Reserve Notes, rather than with money backed instruments. In 1944, the still government owned Corporation U.S. was once again bankrupt and unable to pay its massive World War II debt obligations. This was what enabled the Bretton Woods Agreement, in which Corporation U.S. was quitclaimed to the IMF and thus became a foreign owned corporation.

As of June 2009 the IMF had gold reserves of 3,217 tons, so as owner of Corporation U.S. it is very unlikely that the corporation could ever become bankrupt again. After all, each time that Corporation U.S. "borrows" funds from the Federal Reserve they are actually borrowing those funds from themselves in a circular manner, since both have the same owners. While the Corporation U.S. Treasury does sell bonds to individual, corporate, and foreign nation investors alike, to finance the U.S. debt burden, the Federal Reserve is actually by far the largest holder of these bonds, now owning more than 50% and currently purchasing 70% of the bonds which become available.

It is said that the 8,000 metric tons of gold held by the U.S. Treasury prior to 1913 was transferred to the Federal Reserve, but the Federal Reserve claims that gold was transferred back to the Treasury in 1934, in exchange for gold certificates, under the FDR gold confiscation. If that claim is true, then the gold certificates held by the Federal Reserve would be valued at the $20.67 per ounce confiscation price, not the current value of gold. The real question becomes which treasury did the Federal Reserve transfer the gold to in 1934, if they actually did this as claimed? Was it transferred to the foreign owned Corporation U.S. Treasury, or to the Treasury of the United States of America? For that matter, is there still a Treasury of the United States of America? There should be, but if it still exists then why was the seat for the office of Treasurer of the United States of America vacated by an Act of Congress in 1920? It should be noted that the U.S. Bullion Depository at Fort Knox was not completed until 1936, sixteen years after the seat of Treasurer of the United States of America was vacated. Other suspicion arises because the Bullion Depository is guarded by the United States Mint Police, which was founded in 1792 to protect the U.S. mints, but which in more recent times is also performing security services for non-mint related events such as two Presidential inaugurations, an IMF/World Bank conference, and protecting the New Orleans branch of the Federal Reserve during Hurricane Katrina. Thus it becomes prudent to ask why the U.S. Mint Police, originally formed as a federal government law enforcement agency, are now involved in providing security for the private corporations IMF, Federal Reserve, and Corporation U.S. Something doesn't smell quite right with that.

It is claimed that the U.S. Bullion Depository currently holds about 4,577 metric tons of gold, while the Federal Reserve Bank of New York alone holds 7,000 metric tons in its underground vault.

[dutchdivco]

Glad I asked

And thank you for expanding on that, Rick. Well oviously if R.P WERE to be elected, he would be assasinated, based on what you've posted.

I find myself having 'Biblical' thoughts right now, like "Neither a borrower nor a lender be", and "Render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's". And, it sounds like this 'group' has figured out how to be 'loansharks' to countries, complete with the threat to 'break a leg' if their victims don't pay up! Also somewhat like a 'protection racket'.

I know how you feel about the 'mainstream press', but,... Last night they were 'covering' a recent report comparing the wealth of Congressman/Senators with the 'average' American; AA's wealth has gone down, C/S's wealth has gone up. Over 1/2 of those 'representing us' in D.C are millionares. Then they cut to a University professor, who has studied 'stock investments' of Senators/Congressman. He said 'they', as a group have consistently done 'better' than the S & P 500. When asked to explain how C/S's have been able to consistently do better than statistics would say they SHOULD, he stated "The most obvious explantion is they are trading with 'inside information'.

Mind you, this wasn't on some 'Blog' somewhere on the I-net; it was right on the NBC evening news!!!!I can only conclude that 'they' WANT to fuel the anger, for their own nefarious purposes.

This supports my 'gut level' feeling that the 'occupy' movement is being manipulated. And, overall, this supports my 'gut level' feeling that I need to work towards a lifestyle that is, as much as possible, independent, or not dependent, on currency. That is to say, I felt I should strive for this, but didn't know WHY. Now I understand WHY. Thanks, Rick for you patience in explaning this.Jim

[rickoff]

You're welcome, Jim. I'll say one thing, though, and that is that Ron Paul would not likely be the object of an assassination attempt. He's been calling for the auditing of, and an end to the Federal Reserve and IRS for decades now, and there was no urgency to off him for that. Of course that is because he was pretty much a lone voice in Congress calling for that, and it was better to just to portray him in the media as being a bit too libertarian, and perhaps somewhat nutty. Now that Ron is obviously gaining a lot of public support for his ideas, we might tend to think that the Ruling Class elite see him as a threat to their future plans, and would want to get rid of him. The recent media blitz aimed against Ron tends to add to that notion, but that probably won't be enough to eliminate him from the running since, unlike other candidate supporters who are wishy-washy and tend to flip flop along with poll results, R.P. supporters are steadfast and determined. So if they can't eliminate Ron from the running in a way that is believable to the public, they may have to allow him to win the Republican nomination, and may even choose to allow him to win the general election as well. I know that seems quite unlikely at first reflection, but 'they' really don't have much to lose by allowing him to win. First of all, If he did win, supporters would be forced to believe that the election was fair and that the votes were counted properly, and of course that would halt any actions towards election reforms and be a feather in the hat for the Ruling Class' future elections. Secondly, as I have already pointed out, Ron would be a lame duck president with no effective backing from Congress to accomplish the reforms and restoration efforts that he proposes, and that is because the establishment politicians will largely remain in power after the 2012 elections, especially in the Senate where only 1/3 of the seats will be up for grabs. This will ensure that the status quo remains in effect, and the media will have little difficulty in persuading the public to believe that R.P. has been totally inept. As the country sinks further into debt and more and more people become unemployed and homeless, R.P. would be endlessly portrayed by the media as being responsible for this demise. TEA Partiers, and all other R.P. supporters, would be even more despised than they now are by other elements of society, and R.P. would not stand a chance at reelection in 2016, by which time it would be too late to save this nation. See how all of this would work in favor of the Ruling Class? To off Ron Paul is not necessary, and would be extremely unwise on their part, as supporters would never believe any explanation handed to them by the media, such as a "sudden heart attack," "tragic airplane accident," or a "crazed gunman." It's way easier to simply allow R.P and his supporters to win, and then blame them for all that follows as the Ruling Class completes the final stage of their agenda.

[rickoff]

Here's a short but great video that shows how just one act of kindness by an individual can influence others to pass it on to the extent that it may eventually be returned, or "boomeranged back" to the person who initiated the effort. Enjoy!

Just to let you know so you don't think I have deserted this thread - I will be heading off to my new homestead for a few days, and do not have Internet access there yet, so will be unable to reply to folks or make any new posts until I return here. Likewise, the next couple of weeks or so will be really hectic for me in finalizing preparations for the move, which I hope to accomplish before the end of January, so my posts here will likely be shorter and fewer during that period.

Best wishes to all for a great New Year,

Rick

[OrionLightShip]

Here is our future. I went to mail.gmail.com and was redirected to this site:

ggjf.com/router.php

I saved a copy to my desktop for posterity.
I declined to answer.

I recently saw another pre-war advertisement on the news which I never watch.

Gold is plummeting so I'm sure they are pumping up the market to get ready for another round of theft. I think the greatest depression ever is coming our way soon. Certainly before the next regularly scheduled illegal election.

unbelievable

Orion

[rickoff]

Here is our future. I went to mail.gmail.com and was redirected to this site:

ggjf.com/router.php

unbelievable

Orion

Yes, it seems they would like to have instant foreign policy decisions based upon Internet poll results. Incredibly, a lot of morons who participate in this poll asking if Israel should attack Iran if Iran has nuclear weapons capability will probably say, "sure, why not?" The United States of America has never preemptively attacked a nation for having a nuclear weapon, even when that nation was unfriendly or a sworn enemy, and I hope we never do that. No one wants to see additional countries jumping on the nuclear bandwagon, but lets get real. How many nuclear weapons does Israel have aimed at other nations? In this video, at 32 seconds elapsed time, Ron Paul estimates that Israel has perhaps 300, and he probably has good reason to state that. Other sources say it is closer to 400 or more within Israel, and more offshore in submarines. Obviously then, Iran or any other middle eastern country that would contemplate attacking Israel would realize they would do so at the expense of their own total destruction. Therefore, a preemptive attack on Iran for the reason that they might have or use a nuclear weapon against Israel would not only constitute illogical thinking, but also immoral and unwarranted aggression. We should not be suggesting or supporting any such action, and should definitely not take such action ourselves. Those who criticize Ron Paul for taking this stance, or who accuse him of being anti Semite because of it, are either delusional or warmongers (or both).

[aljhoa]

Incredibly, a lot of morons who participate in this poll asking if Israel should attack Iran if Iran has nuclear weapons capability will probably say, "sure, why not?"

Those who criticize Ron Paul for taking this stance, or who accuse him of being anti Semite because of it, are either delusional or warmongers (or both).

HOW TO CONTROL PEOPLE
by Charley Reese

The difference between true education and vocational training has been
cleverly blurred. Here are a few tips on how smart people can control
other people. If any of this rings a bell - Well, then wake up!

The first principle of people control is not to let them know you are
controlling them. If people knew, this knowledge will breed resentment
and possibly rebellion, which would then require brute force and terror,
and old fashioned, expensive and not 100 % certain method of control.

It is easier than you think to control people indirectly, to manipulate
them into thinking what you want them to think and doing what you want
them to do.

One basic technique is to keep them ignorant. Educated people are not as
easy to manipulate. Abolishing public education or restricting access to
education would be the direct approach. That would spill the beans. The
indirect approach is to control the education they receive.

It's possible to be a Ph.D., doctor, lawyer, businessman, journalist, or
an accountant, just to name a few examples, and at the same time be an
uneducated person. The difference between true education and vocational
training has been cleverly blurred in our time so that we have people
successfully practicing their vocations while at the same time being
totally ignorant of the larger issues of the world in which they live.

The most obvious symptom is their absence of original thought. Ask them
a question and they will end up reciting what someone else thinks or
thought the answer was. What do they think Well, they never thought about
it. Their education consisted of learning how to use the library and cite
sources.

That greatly simplifies things for the controller because with lots of
money, university endowments, foundations, grants, and ownership of
media, it is relatively easy to control who they will think of as
authorities to cite in lieu of doing their own thinking.

Another technique is to keep them entertained. Roman emperors did not
stage circuses and gladiator contests because they didn't have
television. We have television because we don't have circuses and
gladiator events. Either way, the purpose is to keep the people's minds
focused on entertainment, sports, and peripheral political issues. This
way you won't have to worry that they will ever figure out the real
issues that allow you to control them.

Just as a truly educated person is difficult to control, so too is an
economically independent person. Therefore, you want to create conditions
that will produce people who work for wages, since wage earners have
little control over their economic destiny. You'll also want to control
the monetary, credit, and banking systems. This will allow you to inflate
the currency and make it next to impossible for wage earners to
accumulate capital. You can also cause periodic deflation to collapse the
family businesses, family farms, and entrepreneurs, including independent
community banks.

To keep trade unions under control, you just promote a scheme that
allows you to shift production jobs out of the country and bring back the
products as imports (it is called free trade). This way you will end up
with no unions or docile unions.

Another technique is to buy both political parties so that after a while
people will feel that no matter whether they vote for Candidate A or
Candidate B, they will get the same policies. This will create great
apathy and a belief that the political process is useless for effecting
real change.

Pretty soon you will have a population that feels completely helpless,
and thinks the bad things happening to them are nobody in particular's
fault, just a result of global forces or evolution or some other
disembodied abstract concept. If necessary, you can offer scapegoats.

Then you can bleed them dry without having to worry overly much that one
of them will sneak into your house one night and cut your throat. If you
do it right, they won't even know whose throat they are cutting.

Charley Reese
The 545 People Responsible For All of America's Woes

Yes, it seems they would like to have instant foreign policy decisions based upon Internet poll results.

Also "every stick has two ends".

Al