Illumination: the Secret Religion

Plutonomy

Or the story of how a few people conquered the earth.

Plutus - the ancient Greek god of wealth. Son of Zeus. Blinded by his father so that he might distribute his gifts blindly, regardless of merit.

Plutocracy - rule by the rich.

Plutonomy - an economy designed for the benefit of the rich.

Theoretical Democracy - rule of the people, by the people, for the people.

Actual Democracy - rule of the people, by the rich, for the rich.

Actual Democracy is the political system used by the rich to dupe the masses that they have a say when, in fact, all power remains in the hands of the rich. Actual democracy is nothing but cleverly disguised plutocracy. The rich knew they would never get away with ruling in their own name, so they invented a fake political system over which they had complete control but which used the mind-control mantra that the "people" were in charge.

No ordinary person in history has willingly gone to war on behalf of the rich elite. It has been said that no one would ever fight in the name of capitalism. There are no martyrs for capitalism, no fiery, inspiring speeches, no people pledging to fight for it to their last breath. Who would go to the stake for "Greed is good"? Capitalism never stirs the blood. It makes no contact with people's souls. It has no heart. It's all about the Profit Principle. It is about private wealth and public exploitation. People would fight against capitalism, never for it. So, capitalism cunningly rebranded itself as "Freedom and Democracy", and those are things for which people would and do fight.

Whenever you hear the rhetoric of freedom and democracy, you can be sure you are listening to the propaganda of a cabal of super-rich capitalists, manipulating you to fight on their behalf, in defence of their extortionate profits.

Dumbocracy - A political system in which stupid people think they have power when, in fact, all decisions are taken by the rich.

Freedumb and Dumbocracy - only the most stupid people on earth would fall for the lies of the rich. Freedom for what - to go shopping for capitalist goods? Democracy - freedom to vote for whomever the rich elite put on your ballot paper.

Wake up!

Meritocracy - rule of the people, for the people, by the most talented of the people, as determined by the people.

A new politics, a New World Order. The end of monarchy, privilege, and the super rich. Hasn't the time come?

The Citigroup Research Notes

In his film Capitalism: a Love Story, Michael Moore refers to three Citigroup research notes to clients in the financial industry describing the concept of "plutonomy", defined as an economy powered by the rich. These three notes reveal an astonishing amount about how the Old World Order think and act, their attitude towards ordinary people, and their grandiose, immoral plans for the future.

The first note, concerning "Equity Strategy", is entitled "Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances" and is dated October 16, 2005.

The authors are Ajay Kapur, Niall Macleod and Narendra Singh of Citigroup. Two of these names are Indian, and the other is Scottish.

The authors claim that the world is dividing into two blocs - the plutonomies and the rest. They identify the U.S., UK, Canada and Australia as the key plutonomies. These are all linked by virtue of having once been part of the inglorious British Empire. (India, another former component of the British Empire, could easily have been added to the list.) This is no accident. Britain, a corrupt, class-ridden, anti-meritocratic, socially divided nation, was for a very long time the home of the Old World Order, and is still a pivotal player.

The Citigroup authors say, "In plutonomies the rich absorb a disproportionate chunk of the economy and have a massive impact on reported aggregate numbers like savings rates, current account deficits, consumption levels, etc. We project that the plutonomies (the U.S., UK, and Canada [and Australia]) will likely see even more income inequality, disproportionately feeding off a further rise in the profit share in their economies, capitalist-friendly governments, more technology-driven productivity, and globalisation. Since we think the plutonomy is here, is going to get stronger, its membership swelling from globalized enclaves in the emerging world, we think a "plutonomy basket" of stocks should continue to do well. These toys for the wealthy have pricing power, and staying power. They are Giffen goods, more desirable and demanded the more expensive they are."

The following inferences may be drawn:

1) the OWO intend to get even richer, to generate even greater inequality and take even more disproportionate rewards.

2) they intend to make the "democratic" puppet governments that do their bidding even more capitalist friendly (to allow even more money to be channelled towards them).

3) they will be seeking even less regulation and interference in their affairs.

4) they wish to export their plutonomic model all across the globe to create a One World Plutonomy, ruled by the super rich.

5) they intend to profit from technology and globalisation i.e. to gain maximum penetration of their brands into world markets, while paying minimal salaries to workers. "Globalisation" is an OWO codeword for "downsizing" wages to the lowest possible level. If the Chinese work for a quarter of what Americans will work for then either a) American industry will transfer to China, or b) American workers will be forced to accept Chinese levels of pay. Either way, the OWO will make enormous amounts of money. What do they care about the low wages of the rabble? Staying "competitive" invariably means that the low paid are forced to work for even less, and that their bosses take all the money saved by cutting their wages.

6) they are eager to flaunt their wealth on extravagantly expensive "toys for the boys", status symbols, prestige goods. They want everyone to know exactly how rich and powerful they are.

7) they have no fear of losing their enormous riches. They believe that everyone who could pose a threat to them is already bought and paid for, hence neutralized. As for "the people", they are too stupid, too cowardly, too weak and too in awe of the rich to retaliate. They will meekly accept their fate, like cows dumbly shuffling into the abattoir.

The Citigroup analysts take an infantile delight in preaching their gospel of the rich. One section of their note is entitled, "Riding the Gravy Train - where are the Plutonomies?"

They say, "The U.S., UK, and Canada are world leaders in plutonomy…Countries and regions that are not plutonomies are: Scandinavia, France, Germany, other continental Europe (except Italy), and Japan."

So, this provides a decisive answer to those Americans who think that the European Union is an OWO construct. In fact, mainland Europe is far too egalitarian for the taste of the OWO. The OWO's hatred of the agenda of the European Union is best characterized by the UK, a ferociously OWO nation that despises any hint of increased European integration.

The European Union can be criticized on the grounds of being a hopeless bureaucracy designed by corrupt, bungling and inept paper-shufflers, being paid far more than their meagre talents merit, but it is not an overt tool of the OWO (although the OWO are determined to change that).

Italy, under the prime ministership of the dubious billionaire media tycoon Silvio Berlusconi, and with the gangsters of the Mafia embedded in every institution, is capable of joining the plutonomies. Russia, run by gangster oligarchs and operating a Wild West form of capitalism, is already one of the club in all but name.

So, why are nations such as France and Germany not fully signed up to the OWO agenda? One of the greatest events in human history was the Illuminati-inspired French Revolution of 1789 that proclaimed the Enlightenment values of liberty, equality and fraternity. In the bloody period known as the "Terror", thousands of aristocrats and counter-revolutionaries were guillotined as enemies of the state. In the aftermath of the revolution, Napoleon's zealous, well-trained citizen army conquered most of Europe and spread the ideas of the Enlightenment and the Revolution.

This was an unparalleled disaster for the OWO. They lost much of their power in continental Europe, and they have never truly recovered it, despite repeated attempts. Of course, Britain, home of the OWO and protected by the English Channel, was unconquered by Napoleon, and played a decisive role in his defeat.

However, the OWO were horrified, and remain horrified to this day, by what was done to them and their supporters during the Terror. All the money in the world couldn't save them when the people righteously turned against them. The OWO's greatest fear is that the people will again find the courage and determination to overthrow them. Their thinking has been directed towards preventing any repetition. Their masterstroke was to embrace what they had always opposed - democracy, the power of the people. Except what they provided was the illusion of democracy rather than democracy itself. In reality, they bought the politicians and the political parties, and they controlled the banking system i.e. the money and hence the economy. The people had no true power at all, but they imagined they had, and that proved sufficient.

In America, Britain, Canada and Australia, fake democracy has been a wild success. It hasn't proved quite so successful elsewhere. Scandinavian countries have opted for something approaching proper democracy. Countries such as Germany, Italy and Spain have endured devastating periods of Fascist rule by dictators. France has failed to live up to the values of its own Revolution. Switzerland is obsessed with secretive, private banking. The Netherlands, once an astonishingly liberal country, is becoming progressively less liberal due to Islamic immigration. Eastern Europe is still recovering from Communist rule. The Greek economy is in freefall. Islamic countries dislike democracy intensely since it threatens Islamic theocracy. India, with its vile caste system, is hardly suitable democratic material. China is still Communist, at least nominally. Russia has become a rogue, cowboy state. South American countries oscillate between Communism and Fascism. African countries are still trying to escape from their colonial pasts. They're choked by corruption, nepotism and cronyism. All in all, much of the world is fucked, unable to find a viable, stable, progressive political system. The Scandinavian countries come closest to egalitarianism, but they are still far from ideal.

Another section of the Citigroup document is entitled: "The United States Plutonomy - the Gilded Age, the Roaring Twenties, and the New Managerial Aristocracy."

It says, "[The] top 1% of households in the U.S., (about 1 million households) accounted for about 20% of overall U.S. income in 2000, slightly smaller than the share of income of the bottom 60% of households put together. That's about 1 million households compared with 60 million households, both with similar slices of the income pie! Clearly, the analysis of the top 1% of U.S. households is paramount. The usual analysis of the "average" U.S. consumer is flawed from the start. To continue with the U.S., the top 1% of households also account for 33% of net worth, greater than the bottom 90% of households put together. It gets better (or worse, depending on your political stripe) - the top 1% of households account for 40% of financial net worth, more than the bottom 95% of households put together. This is data for 2000, from the Survey of Consumer Finances (and adjusted by academic Edward Wolff). Since 2000 was the peak year in equities, and the top 1% of households have a lot more equities in their net worth than the rest of the population who tend to have more real estate, these data might exaggerate the U.S. plutonomy a wee bit.

"Was the U.S. always a plutonomy - powered by the wealthy, who aggrandized larger chunks of the economy to themselves? Not really. For those interested in the details, we recommend "Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich" by Kevin Phillips, Broadway Books, 2002."

So there you have it: 1% of American households have greater financial net worth than the bottom 95% of American households put together. So, a very simple question becomes inescapable - is America genuinely a democracy, or is "plutocracy" a more apt description? Is it ruled by the people or by the rich? And if the latter is true, is that not a fundamental breach of the American Constitution? Isn't the concentration of so much power and wealth in the hands of so few incompatible with democracy? Isn't the current form of American democracy illegal in terms of the original intentions of the Founding Fathers? Isn't it anti-constitutional? Haven't all the "checks and balances" that were designed to keep the rich and powerful reined in failed? Isn't it simply a new tyranny, just like that of the British Empire which American patriots gave their lives to overthrow?

The section continues: "Indeed, the fortunes of the top 5% (or even top 10%), or the top 1%, are almost entirely driven by the fortunes of the top 0.1% (roughly 100,000 households)."

In other words, America is, to all intents and purposes, in the control of just 100,000 households. And who is in charge of these top households? The Old World Order! All they need to do is ensure that the top households are onboard with their agenda and everything else takes care of itself. It's one of the great fallacies that the OWO are obsessively monitoring what ordinary people do, constantly spying on everyone. They couldn't care less. Ordinary people are an irrelevance to the OWO. The Elite almost never come into contact with ordinary people. Their lives are specifically arranged to ensure minimal exposure to the rabble. They barely breathe the same air.

The OWO's attitude towards ordinary people is like that of the Nazis towards the ghettoes that they constructed for the Jews in WWII. They put all the Jews in a city into a slum section, walled it off and then left them to rot. They didn't care what the Jews did within those walls. They didn't spy on then. They had no need. And nor do the OWO have any need to spy on you. Neither do they need to microchip you. Your credit cards and store cards provide all the information they need about you.

In the ghettoes, the Jews administered themselves. The elders allocated food, organized police, decided who would be shipped off to the death camps, filled the cattle wagons etc. The Germans didn't have to raise a finger. Nor do the OWO.

In the death camps, the Nazis performed the "selection" of the Jews who got off the trains, deciding who would become slave labourers and who would be exterminated immediately, and they were responsible for dropping the Zyklon B pellets into the showers, but that was about all they did. The Jewish "special commandos" were the ones who removed the bodies and took them to the crematoria for disposal. The Jews did all the dirty work, not the Nazis. Some SS guards barely saw anything of what was going on in the camps, so far removed were they from the daily squalor that the Jews were forced to endure.

The OWO are just modern day SS, completely insulated from all the horrors they have inflicted on others. Just as the SS viewed the Jews as subhuman objects, so the OWO view ordinary men and women as "unpersons". And haven't they been proved right? Just as virtually no Jews fought back against the Nazis, virtually none of the people resist the OWO.

The Citigroup document explains that the rich started to become the super rich when Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US introduced massive deregulation and ultra-capitalist economic policies. All brakes were removed. This was the so-called "Anglo-Saxon" economic model.

The document says, "The rise in their share [that of the super rich] since the mid-eighties might be related to the reduction in corporate and income taxes. Also, to a new wave of entrepreneurs and managers earning disproportionate incomes as they drove and participated in the ongoing technology boom. [While] in the early 20th century capital income was the big chunk for the top 0.1% of households, the resurgence in their fortunes since the mid-eighties was mainly from oversized salaries. The rich in the U.S. went from coupon-clipping, dividend-receiving rentiers to a Managerial Aristocracy indulged by their shareholders."

Note the phrase "oversized salaries". This is the key to the modern age. Managers and executives have realized that they can pay themselves practically anything they like and no one will try to stop them. Golden handshakes, golden handcuffs, golden parachutes, enormous bonuses, vast allowances and add-ons, extravagant expense accounts, superlative remuneration "packages", extraordinary pension payments … these people have never had it so good. They can scarcely believe their luck. No one in power takes a single step to rein them back. In fact all those in power are part of the same lucrative gravy train. It's just the ordinary people who are left out in the cold. And who cares about those mugs and suckers?

And, of course, since the Zionists control the world's banking system, they feel they have a moral right to avenge themselves against the Christians who persecuted them. Don't look to them to regulate themselves. They are out for revenge, and they are getting it in abundance.

The Citigroup document continues: "The reasons why some societies generate plutonomies and others don't are somewhat opaque, and we'll let the sociologists and economists continue debating this one. Kevin Phillips in his masterly "Wealth and Democracy" argues that a few common factors seem to support "wealth waves" - a fascination with technology (an Anglo-Saxon thing according to him), the role of creative finance, a cooperative government, an international dimension of immigrants and overseas conquests invigorating wealth creation, the rule of law, and patenting inventions."

Note the following: CREATIVE FINANCING (i.e. dodgy accountants cooking the books and left to get on with it by Government auditors), COOPERATIVE GOVERNMENT (i.e. puppet politicians doing their masters' bidding), OVERSEAS CONQUESTS INVIGORATING WEALTH CREATION (check out the extraordinary riches that, thanks to the Iraq War, fell into the hands of Halliburton Corporation, of which war-mongering former Vice President Dick Cheney was once the Chairman and CEO). As for the allegedly unique Anglo-Saxon fascination with technology, the highly technological Japanese and Europeans might choose to differ.

In a section entitled, "Why the Plutonomy will get stronger where it exists, perhaps attract new countries", the Citigroup analysts say, "We posit that the drivers of plutonomy in the U.S. (the UK and Canada) are likely to strengthen, entrenching and buttressing plutonomy where it exists. The six drivers of the current plutonomy: 1) an ongoing technology/biotechnology revolution, 2) capitalist friendly governments and tax regimes, 3) globalization that re-arranges global supply chains with mobile well-capitalized elites and immigrants, 4) greater financial complexity and innovation, 5) the rule of law, and 6) patent protection are all well ensconced in the U.S., the UK, and Canada. They are also gaining strength in the emerging world. Eastern Europe is embracing many of these attributes, as are China, India, and Russia. Even Continental Europe may succumb and be seduced by these drivers of plutonomy."

In other words, the OWO want to impose their plutonomic model on the entire globe, and there can be little doubt that the greediest people in the non-plutonomic nations are currently plotting to get the same benefits as their counterparts in the plutonomies.

The Citigroup analysts say, "Society and governments need to be amenable to disproportionately allow/encourage the few to retain that fatter profit share. The Managerial Aristocracy, like in the Gilded Age, the Roaring Twenties, and the thriving nineties, needs to commandeer a vast chunk of that rising profit share, either through capital income, or simply paying itself a lot. We think that despite the post-bubble angst against celebrity CEOs, the trend of cost-cutting balance sheet-improving CEOs might just give way to risk-seeking CEOs, re-leveraging, going for growth and expecting disproportionate compensation for it … Meanwhile Private Equity and LBO funds are filling the risk-seeking and re-leveraging void, expecting and realizing disproportionate remuneration for their skills."

"Skills"?!! That's one way of putting it. As for "disproportionate remuneration", that's certainly true.

The Citigroup note continues: "Our contention: when the top, say 1% of households in a country see their share of income rise sharply, i.e. a plutonomy emerges, this is often in times of frenetic technology/financial innovation driven wealth waves, accompanied by asset booms, equity and/or property. Feeling wealthier, the rich decide to consume a part of their capital gains right away. In other words, they save less from their income, the well known wealth effect. The key point though is that this new lower savings rate is applied to their newer massive income. Remember they got a much bigger chunk of the economy, that's how it became a plutonomy. The consequent decline in absolute savings for them (and the country) is huge when this happens. They just account for too large a part of the national economy; even a small fall in their savings rate overwhelms the decisions of all the rest.

"To summarize so far, plutonomies see the rich absorb a disproportionate chunk of the economy, their decision to lower their savings rate, often corresponding to the asset booms that often accompany plutonomy, has a massive negative impact on reported aggregate numbers like savings rates, current account deficits, consumption levels, etc."

In other words, it's easy for the super rich to unleash a tidal wave of spending and consumption that can destabilize an entire economy, regardless of whether or not the bottom 95% of households are managing their financial affairs extremely prudently or not. The super rich don't care about savings because they have so much income rolling in each month. And if they need some extra money, they can just award themselves a fat bonus or massive pay increase. Sorted!

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT 95% OF HOUSEHOLDS DO. THE ECONOMY IS NOT BEING RUN FOR THEIR BENEFIT, AND IS NOT UNDER THEIR CONTROL.

ARE YOU CONTENT TO BE PART OF AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT REGARDS YOU AS IRRELEVANT? IS THAT WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A MEMBER OF A SO-CALLED DEMOCRACY? THAT YOU HAVE NO SAY IN YOUR ECONOMY?

The Boston Tea Party famously objected to being taxed without representation in the parliament that was doing the taxing i.e. they objected to the economy not being theirs to control. Changed days! Now the American people are willing to tolerate having no economic control whatever over their own destiny, to tolerate being taxed to serve the interests of a super rich Elite rather than their own interests. Congress couldn't care less about the people. It exists to carry out the will of the Old World Order. A plutonomy is inconsistent with democracy.

Whatever happened to the Americans? How did they become so brainwashed, so compliant, so docile, so unlike the patriots that defeated the tyrannical British Empire?

The Citigroup analysts then discuss what could cause the "death" of plutonomy:

"At the heart of plutonomy, is income inequality. Societies that are willing to tolerate/endorse income inequality, are willing to tolerate/endorse plutonomy…So an examination of what might disrupt plutonomy - or worse, reverse it - falls to societal analysis: will electorates continue to endorse it, or will they end it, and why.

"Organized societies have two ways of expropriating wealth - through the revocation of property rights or through the tax system. Capital markets, like human beings, generally strive for certainty and stability. The pricing of assets is easier, projections more comfortable, etc. For this reason, in developed capital markets, governments have learnt the lessons of level playing fields, regulatory certainty, and the sanctity of property rights. However this does not mean that governments are incapable of revoking property rights. While this tends to be something more often seen in countries with a shorter history of capitalist democracy, such as the Ukraine (attempts to undo prior privatizations), or Russia (where some of our clients believe events surrounding Mikhail Khodorovsky to be a form of nationalization), it can happen in the strangest of places. For example, in 2001, UK government withdrawal of financial support bankrupted Railtrack, the UK rail operator, effectively re-nationalizing railway assets on the cheap. But these moves are exceptional and generally counter-productive as they raise the risk premium, in theory, for future transactions with that power. If the government is willing to be a contestant and simultaneously set and change the rules of the game to their advantage, the rewards of the game must rise to attract other participants.

"The more likely means of expropriation is through the tax system. Corporate tax rates could rise, choking off returns to the private sector, and personal taxation rates could rise - dividend, capital-gains, and inheritance tax rises would hurt the plutonomy.

"There is a third way to change things though not necessarily by expropriation, and that is to slow down the rate of wealth creation or accumulation by the rich - generally through a reduction in the profit share of GDP. This could occur through a change in rules that affect the balance of power between labor and capital. Classic examples of this tend to fall under one of two buckets - the regulation of the domestic labor markets through minimum wages, regulating the number of hours worked, deciding who can and cannot work etc, or by dictating where goods and services can be imported from (protectionism).

"In the plutonomies, there seems little threat from the first of these challenges: blatant expropriation of property by governments. There are few examples of governments changing the rules in the plutonomies and engaging in widespread nationalization, or asset re-distribution.

"Likewise, if anything, the trends of taxation are positive for corporates, with fiscal competition in Europe forcing rates lower, year by year. Ironically, this is happening most in non-plutonomy countries, like Germany. This is good for the profit share, of which the mega-rich, through their holdings of equity, are "long".

"However, even if the profit share is rising, the fruits of those profits could be taxed before ending up in the pockets of the rich. In other words, dividend, capital gains and estate taxes could all rise. However, we struggle to find examples of this happening. Indeed, in the U.S., the current administration's attempts to change the estate tax code and make permanent dividend tax cuts, plays directly into the hands of the plutonomy.

"While such Pluto-friendly policies are not widely being copied around the world, we have not found examples of the opposite occurring elsewhere.

"Protectionism or regulation. Here, we believe lies a cornerstone of the current wave of plutonomy, and with it, the potential for capitalists around the world to profit. The wave of globalisation that the world is currently surfing, is clearly to the benefit of global capitalists, as we have highlighted. But it is also to the disadvantage of developed market labor, especially at the lower end of the food-chain.

"There are periodic attempts by countries to redress this balance - Jospin's introduction of the 35 hour working week in France to the anticipated benefit of labor being one example. But in general, on-going globalisation is making it easier for companies to either outsource manufacturing (source from cheap emerging markets like China and India) or "offshore" manufacturing (move production to lower cost countries).

"Brunswick, the recreational services company, is typical of the "globalized" world we now live in. We were intrigued to see in the company's September 27 presentation, that in 2000, the company had 17 manufacturing/ procurement centers globally, 14 of them in North America, high cost European countries or Japan. Today, five years later, they have 40 manufacturing/ sourcing/ engineering centers. Of these half are in low-cost countries. Such examples abound in today's globalized world.

"The final option for countries willing to consider it, is to in-source labor. For example, in the UK, between May 2004 accession of the 10 new countries into the EU, and March 2005, 176,000 workers have moved from the accession countries to the UK and joined the workforce. Leaving aside any demand benefits they might bring, this does, in theory, keep the price of labor contained. It interests us that the Plutonomy countries (U.S.A, UK, Australia, and Canada) all have - generally - a welcoming attitude to skilled immigration. Of the pre-accession EU 15 countries, only a handful, the UK and Ireland included, allow full and free labor movement from the new EU 10 countries into their labor markets. The vast majority, Germany, Austria, Italy etc., are refusing to allow accession countries full freedom of movement until 2009-11.

"So, property rights look as if they are being protected, tax policies helpful, and the profit share should continue to rise, through globalization and the productivity/technology wave.

"Our conclusion? The three levers governments and societies could pull on to end plutonomy are benign. Property rights are generally still intact, taxation policies neutral to favorable, and globalization is keeping the supply of labor in surplus, acting as a brake on wage inflation."

Well, why wouldn't conditions be benign for the plutonomists? Their governments work for them. They're never going to change the rules, except to the further benefit of the super rich.

"The wave of globalization that the world is currently surfing, is clearly to the benefit of global capitalists, as we have highlighted. But it is also to the disadvantage of developed market labor, especially at the lower end of the food-chain."

Here we have the current trend in the world in a nutshell. The OWO want to extend their existing model to every nation of the earth. They have absolute disregard for those at the bottom of the "food chain". So, isn't it time for a New World Order to sweep away this disgraceful plutonomic model of the OWO?

The Citigroup analysts pose the question: "Is there a backlash building?"

They say, "Plutonomy, we suspect, is elastic. Concentration of wealth and spending in the hands of a few, probably has its limits. What might cause the elastic to snap back? We can see a number of potential challenges to plutonomy. The first, and probably most potent, is through a labor backlash. Outsourcing, offshoring or insourcing of cheap labor is done to undercut current labor costs. Those being undercut are losers in the short term. While there is evidence that this is positive for the average worker (for example Ottaviano and Peri) it is also clear that high-cost substitutable labor loses."

Let's highlight a sentence or two: "Outsourcing, offshoring or insourcing of cheap labor is done to undercut current labor costs. Those being undercut are losers in the short term."

If you belong to "labor" you would be insane to support a plutonomy. Their entire strategy is to hammer down your pay to next to nothing, to as low as the lowest acceptable wage on earth, which is pretty damned low if you think of the sweat shops of South East Asia. They say you are the losers in the short term. Are they kidding? You are the losers forever. Unless you get re-skilled and re-educated (at your own expense), you're doomed.

"Low-end developed market labor might not have much economic power, but it does have equal voting power with the rich. We see plenty of examples of the outsourcing or offshoring of labor being attacked as "unpatriotic" or plain unfair. This tends to lead to calls for protectionism to save the low-skilled domestic jobs being lost. This is a cause championed, generally, by left-wing politicians. At the other extreme, insourcing, or allowing mass immigration, which might price domestic workers out of jobs, leads to calls for anti-immigration policies, at worst championed by those on the far right. To this end, the rise of the far right in a number of European countries, or calls (from the right) to slow down the accession of Turkey into the EU, and calls from the left to rebuild trade barriers and protect workers (the far left of Mr. Lafontaine, garnered 8.5% of the vote in the German election, fighting predominantly on this issue), are concerning signals. This is not something restricted to Europe. Sufficient numbers of politicians in other countries have championed slowing immigration or free trade (Ross Perot, Pauline Hanson etc.)."

"Low-end developed market labor might not have much economic power, but it does have equal voting power with the rich."

So why not vote the rich out? What's wrong with people? They give the impression of being cast from the same mould as the turkeys that vote for Christmas.

"A second, related threat might come from productive labor no longer maintaining its productive edge. Again, we find Kevin Phillips's arguments in his book, Wealth and Democracy, fascinating. Phillips highlights the problems in the late 1700s Netherlands, where an increasing obsession with financial speculation (sound familiar?) caused nonfinancial skilled labor that had built that country's wealth, to seek their success in other countries. Likewise, Britain's failure to keep its educational advantage in what were then high-tech areas caused them to lose their competitive advantage that had been maintained until the First World War. Are there similarities with Asian economies, versus the plutonomies, today?

"A third threat comes from the potential social backlash. To use Rawls-ian analysis, the invisible hand stops working. Perhaps one reason that societies allow plutonomy, is because enough of the electorate believe they have a chance of becoming a Plutoparticipant. Why kill it off, if you can join it? In a sense this is the embodiment of the "American dream". But if voters feel they cannot participate, they are more likely to divide up the wealth pie, rather than aspire to being truly rich."

The odds of correctly drawing any six numbers from 49 to win the UK national lottery are 14 million to one against. If 14 million people play each week, one is likely to win, but anyone who relies on winning the lottery is insane. The odds against fulfilling the American dream are probably around a million to one. Anyone who plays that game is crazy, yet most Americans seem to see it as a realistic possibility. It is that deranged hope that underpins the OWO's domination of America. Any sensible person would ask for a fair share of the pie rather than holding out to be one of the few who get more pie than they could ever eat.

Now is the time to make this the ONLY battleground. It's time to abolish plutonomies.

"Could the plutonomies die because the dream is dead, because enough of society does not believe they can participate? The answer is of course yes. But we suspect this is a threat more clearly felt during recessions, and periods of falling wealth, than when average citizens feel that they are better off. There are signs around the world that society is unhappy with plutonomy - judging by how tight electoral races are. But as yet, there seems little political fight being born out on this battleground."

"A related threat comes from the backlash to "Robber-baron" economies. The population at large might still endorse the concept of plutonomy but feel they have lost out to unfair rules. In a sense, this backlash has been epitomized by the media coverage and actual prosecution of high-profile ex-CEOs who presided over financial misappropriation. This 'backlash' seems to be something that comes with bull markets and their subsequent collapse. To this end, the cleaning up of business practice, by highprofile champions of fair play, might actually prolong plutonomy.

"Our overall conclusion is that a backlash against plutonomy is probable at some point. However, that point is not now. So long as economies continue to grow, and enough of the electorates feel that they are benefiting and getting rich in absolute terms, even if they are less well off in relative terms, there is little threat to Plutonomy in the U.S., UK, etc."

Wrong! The backlash is here.

"But the balance of power between right (generally pro-plutonomy) and left (generally pro-equality) is on a knife-edge in many countries. Just witness how close the U.S. election was last year, or how close the results of the German election were. A collapse in wealth in the plutonomies, felt by the masses, and/or prolonged recession could easily raise the prospects of anti-plutonomy policy.

"As the rich have been getting progressively richer over the last 30 years, saving less and spending more, the fortunes of companies that sell to the rich ought to have been good. Not only have the rich been earning and spending more, but they are less price elastic than typical consumers. In fact we believe they have a preference for Giffen goods, i.e., the more expensive they are, the more they are purchased."

Conspicuous consumption: the super rich want to be seen buying the most expensive goods, those forever out of the reach of ordinary people. That's how they signify to you that they are vastly superior to you.

"One way we can measure this is to look at price inflation for a basket of luxury goods. Thankfully, Forbes magazine each year publishes its 'Cost of Living Extremely Well' Indices, which measures annual price changes in a basket of high end consumer items, from luxury yachts, to the cost of dinner at the world's top restaurants, right down to the cost of a pair of fine English shoes."

The Citigroup analysts refer to something that they call the CLEW Index - the Cost of Living Extremely Well!

"CLEWI is an inflation index of the cost of luxury goods. It measures such things as the cost of a suite at the Four Seasons in New York (up 15% year on year) and a kilo of Imperial Beluga caviar (at US$6840, up 40% year on year). In 2005, the CLEW Index rose 4%, while US CPI rose at 3.6%."

Citigroup chooses not to discuss the index relevant to enormous numbers of American citizens - the CLEM - the Cost of Living Extremely Miserably.

"Conclusion. Un-equal societies abound in the Anglo-Saxon world. This income inequality we have called Plutonomy. Secondly, we hear so often about "the consumer". But when we examine the data, there is no such thing as "the consumer" in the U.S. or UK, or other plutonomy countries. There are rich consumers, and there are the rest. The rich are getting richer, we have contended, and they dominate consumption."

The Anglo-Saxon economic and political model is sick. It is poisoning the whole world. It is the chosen paradigm of the OWO and they wish to extend it across the globe. They want massive inequality; a tiny super-rich elite and an enormous population of compliant, subservient workers, slaving away for a pittance and continually cutting each other's throats to remain "competitive". The world would be insane to become "Anglo-Saxon". If you want the rich to get richer, for you to be lumped in with the "rest", with the also-rans then vote Anglo-Saxon. If you have any dignity and self-respect, kill this Anglo-Saxon model stone dead before it's too late.

IF YOU HITCH YOUR HORSE TO A RUNAWAY TRAIN, YOU WILL GET TOTALLY FUCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Anglo-Saxon plutonomies are the runaway train of the super rich. If you get onboard you're heading for catastrophe.

Two of the Citigroup authors were Indians. Elite Indians are natural plutonomists. They are accustomed, via the caste system, to a few people living in unadulterated luxury while vast numbers live in extreme poverty, with those at the very bottom being regarded as subhuman - the "untouchables". India was once the jewel in the crown of the British Empire, so it has also been infected with the Anglo-Saxon disease. It's doubly afflicted.

The OWO's aim is to create a permanent ruling caste (which, naturally, will comprise themselves and their descendants), with everyone else belonging to a permanent slave caste. The hereditary monarchies of medieval Europe, and the accompanying feudal system, is the model they wish to recreate, where they had absolute power and anyone who dared challenge them in any way was guilty of high treason and executed in the most gruesome ways. The great Scottish patriot William Wallace - "Braveheart" - was famously hung, drawn and quartered for daring to fight for Scottish freedom against English tyranny (just as many present-day Afghanis are slaughtered as "terrorists" for trying to kick foreign invaders out of their country). Two of the six wives of the English king Henry VIII were beheaded for adultery, a treasonable offence.

The French Revolution of 1789 was a watershed in history, and perhaps the greatest year thus far in human history. The monarchy was declared a criminal enterprise and a conspiracy against the people, and the French king and his wife were beheaded for attempting to enter into an alliance with foreign powers to wage war against the French people. 1789 was the year when the people FOUGHT BACK. The time has surely come again.

The Illuminati's greatest desire is to bring about a Global Revolution to overthrow all vestiges of hereditary elites, the super rich, the super powerful, dynastic rule, racism, sexism, caste and class systems, second class citizens, two-tier societies.

Everyone on earth should be given an equal opportunity to achieve greatness, and those who rise highest should do so on the basis of their demonstrable merit alone. All networks of privilege, nepotism, cronyism and religious favouritism must be destroyed.

Masters and slaves - the oldest story ever told. Which side are you on? That of the elite or that of the people? If the latter then it is your duty to work for the overthrow of the elite.

Do you want to be an eternal slave? If not then now is the hour to overthrow the false masters.

Abolish the Anglo-Saxon model.

Abolish plutonomies.

Abolish caste systems.

Abolish privilege.

BE FREE.

"It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees."

Dolores Ibárruri ("La Pasionaria")

*****

Citigroup's second industry note on the subject of Equity Strategy appeared on March 5, 2006 and was entitled: "Revisiting Plutonomy: The Rich Getting Richer."

The "rich getting richer" is, of course, at the heart of the Old World Order's agenda.

The document's summary says, "[The] rich continue to account for a disproportionately large share of income and wealth in the US economy: the richest 10% of Americans account for 43% of income, and 57% of net worth…The rich are in great shape, financially…We think the rich are likely to get even wealthier in the coming years…[We] like companies that sell to or service the rich - luxury goods, private banks etc."

The Citigroup analysts declare, "Our thesis is that the rich are the dominant drivers of demand in many economies around the world (the US, UK, Canada and Australia). These economies have seen the rich take an increasing share of income and wealth over the last 20 years, to the extent that the rich now dominate income, wealth and spending in these countries. Asset booms, a rising profit share and favorable treatment by market-friendly governments have allowed the rich to prosper and become a greater share of the economy in the plutonomy countries. Also, new media dissemination technologies like internet downloading, cable and satellite TV, have disproportionately increased the audiences, and hence gains to "superstars" - think golf, soccer, and baseball players, music/TV and movie icons, fashion models, designers, celebrity chefs etc. These "content" providers, the tech whizzes who own the pipes and distribution, the lawyers and bankers who intermediate globalization and productivity, the CEOs who lead the charge in converting globalization and technology to increase the profit share of the economy at the expense of labor, all contribute to plutonomy. Indeed, David Gordon and Ian Dew-Becker of the NBER demonstrate that the top 10%, particularly the top 1% of the US - the plutonomists in our parlance - have benefited disproportionately from the recent productivity surge in the US."

"AT THE EXPENSE OF LABOR" i.e. at the expense of billions of working men and women. If you are "Labor" then rise up now or embrace slavery for yourself and all your descendants. Better technology should be used to benefit humanity, not to increase the profits of those who control the technology. We say this: no private individual should have control of any important technology. The people should be the legal owners and those who profit from all technological advances. Inventors of new technologies can certainly be handsomely rewarded for their efforts, but they can never be allowed to use technology as a weapon to secure wealth and power far in excess of what is healthy and acceptable in an equal opportunities, meritocratic society. Let no one forget that all modern technologies have a hidden foundation - that of thousands of years of human toil, of legions of both celebrated and uncelebrated scientists, mathematicians, and engineers.

Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientists of all time declared, "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants."

That sums it up. All technological advances are owned by history. None would be possible without all the steps that came before. Every inventor stands in the infinite shadow of giants, rendering him nothing in comparison. No one deserves to be rewarded excessively for finding one small new way of harnessing the great corpus of knowledge created by humanity's past. 99% of the profits of any discovery are in truth owed to all those heroes of science and technology who came before i.e. the vast bulk of profits should be paid to the people in the name of the human history of knowledge. The idea that some clown like Bill Gates should become the richest man on earth for making a few very primitive innovations in personal computing, any of which could and would have been done far better by others in a meritocratic society, is simply laughable and shows how pathetic capitalism is.

Gates would have achieved nothing without the huge body of mathematics, science, logic and technology that others, not him, created. He would have achieved nothing without the efforts of thousands of computer scientists before him, none of whom received Midas-like rewards. The capitalist "winner takes all" ideology implies that Bill Gates single-handedly created personal computing out of nothing, and deserves infinite reward for doing so. It's a spectacularly absurd position to endorse. Gates should get a million dollars a year for life, tax free. That's all. Full stop. He couldn't complain that he wasn't well rewarded for his diabolical MS-DOS and then for ripping off Apple, could he? Yet this individual from a very privileged background is allowed to control more wealth and power than whole nations. What a farce.

It should be the people and not the bank balances of super rich ultra capitalists that benefit from increased productivity.

"Why as equity investors do we care about these issues? Despite being in great shape, we think that global capitalists are going to be getting an even greater share of the wealth pie over the next few years, as capitalists benefit disproportionately from globalization and the productivity boom, at the relative expense of labor. [We] are very relaxed about these issues.

"By contrast, the bottom 40% account for only 10% of total income. The top 10% earn over four times as much as the bottom 40% combined. The share of the wealth continues to be even more aggressively skewed, with the top 10% accounting for 57% of the national wealth, as they did in 2001. In total, the top 20% account for 68% of total income; the bottom 40%, for just 9%."

Where in society does the vast bulk of deprivation, poverty, lack of education, crime, violence, alcoholism, drug addiction, despair and unfulfilled lives reside? In the bottom 40%, of course. Why? Because they have a tiny fraction of the financial pie to cater for an enormous number of people. America has a population of about 300 million. 40% equates to 120 MILLION PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!! These people are sentenced to lives of unrelenting misery. It would take a miracle for any of them to escape. They need to be stunningly beautiful, or superlatively skilled at sport or entertainment, or intellectual geniuses, or criminal masterminds who never get caught, or the luckiest people on earth to escape their fate. 99.9% never do. Most of them are African Americans, Hispanics and white "trailer trash". All of the resources they need to have a hope in life have been channelled instead to an elite of bloated, self-indulgent people who are racist and sexist to the core, and who have absolute contempt for poor people. Secretly, they wish them all dead. They consider them a burden, a permanent drain on society, a cesspool of human squalor from which all crime emanates.

If you belong to the 40%, the 120 million, who are forced to share 9% of the national wealth between you - less than a quarter of your fair due of 40% - then you might as well turn to crime too. Is it even crime? The rich people have stolen your share. Aren't they the real criminals? Who's arresting them and locking them up? No one. Why not? Because they own the law, they own the legislature and they decide what is and what is not legal. Anything they do is legal; anything hostile to their interests is illegal.

Of course, the big question is this: why do the 120 million tolerate it? Why aren't they fighting back, why aren't they arming themselves, why aren't they out on the streets protesting every day? Why, like the millions of Jews who shuffled unresistingly into the Nazi gas chambers, are they doing nothing? If the 120 million righteously rose up as one, they would destabilize the nation overnight. Things would HAVE to change. The powers-that-be would be forced to address their grievances. So, to all of those 120 million - what's stopping you? What are you waiting for? Isn't justice, a fair chance, an equal opportunity in life worth fighting for? If you don't fight for your rights, do you deserve to have any rights? Don't you deserve the shit the rich give you? If you're prepared to accept it then you're acknowledging that it's all you're fit for.

The Global Elite act with a single mind - they want to drive down costs to the lowest levels possible, regardless of the impact on the ordinary working people, thus maximizing their profits. They are backed up by the law, by the politicians who work for them, by their "enforcers" in the police and army. An ultra capitalist in Russia, America, Britain or India will happily move his company from Russia, America, Britain or India to any other country with cheaper workers and lower costs. They couldn't care less about the health, wealth and welfare of their fellow countrymen. All they care about is profit. The Old World Order are organized for global domination.

No one, on the other hand, represents the global interests of the people. Workers in different countries are at each other's throats, financially undercutting each other in a savage race to the bottom.

It's time to change the channel. It's time for the working people to turn on the ultra capitalists and start making them savagely undercut each other. Any ultra capitalist who does not pay a higher percentage of profits to his workers will have his profits expropriated by law, in the name of the people.

"The point here, again, is that the rich are feeling a great deal happier about their prospects than the 'average' American. And as the rich are accounting for an ever larger share of wealth and spending, it is their actions that are dictating economic demand, not the actions of the "average" American."

What is the implicit message to the "average" American? You are a pointless irrelevance. The rich are the only people who matter. You, on the other hand, are like the background noise, the "static", the irritating interference that ruins the signal.

The American economy is designed by the rich for the rich and it's their behaviour that determines the wealth and health or otherwise of the economy. Of course, if there's a crash then the rich will immediately turn to the poor sucker ordinary Joes to pick up the tab.

It's time to make the "average" American much happier about their prospects, and the rich a lot less happy.

"The richest quintile are primarily to blame for the overall fall in the savings rate in recent years - although their low savings behavior has likely been joined in the past few years by the housing-pumped non-plutonomist US consumer. The rich are being perfectly rational. As their wealth/income ratios have been rising, and as we highlighted earlier, the latest SCF data suggests wealth/income has grown even larger, why should they not consume from their wealth rather than just their income? The more rich people there are in an economy, and the more affluent they feel (as they do right now), the more likely we believe an economy will be to experience falling savings rates. When your wealth has soared, the need to save diminishes. Rational, but apparently a conundrum and an accident waiting to happen, according to the perma-bears. Not to us."

In 2008, it was conclusively proved that it was an accident waiting to happen. So much for these overpaid, talentless Citigroup clowns. Where's your crystal ball now, fools?

The Citigroup analysts ask the question: "Risks - What could go wrong?"

"Our whole plutonomy thesis is based on the idea that the rich will keep getting richer. This thesis is not without its risks. For example, a policy error leading to asset deflation, would likely damage plutonomy. Furthermore, the rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will probably at some point lead to a political backlash. Whilst the rich are getting a greater share of the wealth, and the poor a lesser share, political enfrachisement remains as was - one person, one vote (in the plutonomies)."

The backlash is here. NEVER vote for a mainstream political party. It's the same as voting directly for the OWO. Vote the mainstream parties out of office.

It's time for a new politics, based on new parties that owe nothing to the OWO.

"At some point it is likely that labor will fight back against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the rising wealth of the rich. This could be felt through higher taxation (on the rich or indirectly though higher corporate taxes/regulation) or through trying to protect indigenous laborers, in a push-back on globalization - either anti-immigration, or protectionism. We don't see this happening yet, though there are signs of rising political tensions. However we are keeping a close eye on developments."

The fight back has begun. The rising profit share of the rich must be halted and reversed. Higher taxation of the rich, capped salaries for the rich, higher corporate taxation and increased regulation are all necessary to destroy the power of the privileged elite. It's time to crank up the political tension. It's time for "developments".

"This lies at the heart of our plutonomy thesis: that the rich are the dominant source of income, wealth and demand in plutonomy countries such as the UK, US, Canada and Australia, countries that have an economically liberal approach to wealth creation."

It's not wealth "creation" but wealth "appropriation" i.e. the fat cats, the robber barons, and the carpetbaggers grabbing as much of the pie as they can. Any decent country should be economically illiberal towards excessive wealth for private individuals. A nation's wealth should be fairly shared amongst its people. It's their wealth.

"Secondly, we believe that the rich are going to keep getting richer in coming years, as capitalists (the rich) get an even bigger share of GDP as a result, principally, of globalization. We expect the global pool of labor in developing economies to keep wage inflation in check, and profit margins rising - good for the wealth of capitalists, relatively bad for developed market unskilled/outsource-able labor. This bodes well for companies selling to or servicing the rich."

"…relatively bad for developed market unskilled/outsource-able labor…" - now there's the truth!

Globalisation, of the type envisaged by the OWO, is a catastrophe for all working people. It is simply a means for the ultra capitalists to make even larger profits by playing off workers in different parts of the world against each other. They want working people to adopt a "cut-throat" strategy: one worker in a state of absolute poverty will accept relative poverty as an enormous improvement, and he will happily undercut the pay of another worker, causing the other to lose his job.

"Divide and rule" - that has always been the central mantra of the OWO.

The people mustn't let themselves be divided. The OWO's globalisation plans must be stopped. The only acceptable globalisation project is the New World Order: the final overthrow of the OWO.

*****

In another industry note dated September 29, 2006 and entitled "The Plutonomy Symposium - Rising Tides Lifting Yachts" (another catchy title!), our intrepid band of Citigroup analysts, treated us to more of their wonderful vision of the world.

"Time to re-commit to plutonomy stocks," they declared. "Binge on Bling." They kindly provided a definition of bling:

Bling - the imaginary sound that light makes when it hits a diamond according to the rap artist B.G. (2005). Source: Wikipedia.

"The Uber-rich, the plutonomists, are likely to see net worth-income ratios surge, driving luxury consumption."

Why are the super rich so keen on luxury consumption? There's only so much caviar you can eat before it becomes tiresome, so much champagne you can drink before it starts tasting like plonk, so many luxury cars you can own before you stuff them in your enormous garage and forget all about them. You can't drive two cars at once, or live in your five luxury homes at the same time. Three quarters of your designer clothes will remain in the wardrobe, used once and then forgotten. You have a shining Rolex. Big deal. Does it tell the time any better than a plastic digital watch?

Much of luxury consumption is actually about something else: status, prestige, power. The rich buy certain luxury items simply to prove that they are rich; to ensure that everyone else knows how rich and powerful they are. A Rolex isn't a watch; it's a weapon of status, designed to be beyond the reach of an ordinary person. Its value is as a signifier of wealth and exclusivity, not as an instrument for time keeping.

So, what should ordinary people do when they are in the presence of status signifiers? They should show absolute CONTEMPT.

"What could go wrong?" the Citigroup ask, wringing their hands once more at the prospect of the rich finally facing justice.

"Beyond war, inflation, the end of the technology/productivity wave, and financial collapse, we think the most potent and short-term threat would be societies demanding a more 'equitable' share of wealth."

Yes, we do demand it.

"To us there are certain economies, driven by massive income and wealth inequality - plutonomies - where the rich are so rich that their behavior overwhelms that of the 'average' or median consumer. Last year, for example, we suggested that in the US, the top 20% of consumers might account for nearly 60% of income and spending. The bottom 20% by contrast account, on our data, for about 3% of income and spending.

"A second conclusion of our analysis was that the forces which had driven the recent 20 year rise in income inequality were likely to continue over the next few years. And a third conclusion was that Plutonomy would likely drive a positive operating environment for companies selling to or servicing the rich."

"Over the last 20 years or so, in certain countries, the rich have been getting substantially richer. [The] share of the top 1% of the population of income has grown substantially in countries such as the US, UK and Canada. The countries, which apparently tolerate income inequality, are what we call plutonomy countries - economies powered by a relatively small number of rich people."

So there you have it: the people who live in America, Britain and Canada apparently "tolerate income inequality". Did anyone ever ask them? Did they discuss it? Were national debates held? Did they vote on it?

Anyone who lives in these countries knows that their opinion was never solicited on whether bankers should get obscene bonuses, CEOs ludicrous remuneration packages, sports stars absurdly high salaries for kicking, throwing and hitting balls of various shapes around various types of field, movie stars for pretending to be other people, models for being super-skinny dummies on which to hang implausible fashions, talk-show hosts for rabbiting on about trivia, advertisers for promoting brands manufactured in sweat shops that are little more than concentration camps for slave labour etc. No, oddly enough, the people were never asked about any of this. It was done in their name but without their consent. The same old story.

That's democracy for you. The only issues you're never allowed to vote on in a democracy are the ones that actually count. The ultimate taboo in a democracy is the issue of whether the wealth of the super rich should be controlled by law. That is one debate that certainly won't be coming to you any time in eternity.

"The rise of this inequality is not universal. In a number of other countries - the non-plutonomies - income inequality has remained around the levels of the mid 1970s. Egalitarianism rules. Japan, France, Switzerland, the Netherlands."

You can almost hear the Citigroup boys and girls screaming, "Boo! Is there something wrong with these folks? How can they possibly support something so weird as egalitarianism?"

"Finally, as with previous waves of plutonomy - such as sixteenth century Spain, seventeenth century Holland, Industrial Revolution Britain, the Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties in the US - the ongoing technological revolution has generated a new wave of ultra-high net worth individuals.

"The conclusion? We should worry less about what the average consumer - say the 50th percentile - is going to do, when that consumer is (we think) less relevant to the aggregate data than how the wealthy feel and what they are doing. This is simply a case of mathematics, not morality."

Really? It sounds much more like a moral issue than a mathematical one. If the morals change then so would the mathematics. The mathematics is a consequence of the morality, or immorality to be more exact.

"Playing plutonomy. So far we've looked at the theory. But how do we make money out of this?"

Ah, now we get down to the important question.

"As Ultra-High Net Worth investors can afford risk and illiquidity, they do require a non-bureaucratic investment process in order to maintain their first mover advantage and subsequent rewards due to scarce capacity. They tend to have access to the best managers and information and seek out and drive financial innovations and creativity. Another social implication is the access of charities and foundations to these financial innovations. Large foundations usually have boards and steering committees comprised of wealthy individuals or family trust representatives."

The Citigroup cheerleaders for the ultra rich haven't quite finished:

"Perhaps the most immediate challenge to Plutonomy comes from the political process. Ultimately, the rise in income and wealth inequality to some extent is an economic disenfranchisement of the masses to the benefit of the few. However in democracies this is rarely tolerated forever. We see the biggest threat to plutonomy as coming from a rise in political demands to reduce income inequality, spread the wealth more evenly, and challenge forces such as globalization which have benefited profit and wealth growth."

"But a substantial percentage of Americans are in favor of repealing the estate tax (though only 2%, roughly, will ever pay it), which does not resonate as a population determined to destroy wealth inequality. The political process is the greatest threat to plutonomy. We don't see it as a threat today in most countries. But we are alert to changes here.

"The rich earn a lot. They are worth a lot. They don't tend to save out of income. They are apparently impervious to US$70 oil, run negative savings rates, and are, we believe, largely to 'blame' for the negative savings rates in plutonomy countries. Not that rich people in non plutonomy countries aren't doing exactly the same, or feeling the same forces. It's just that in egalitarian countries like Japan or most of Europe ex the UK, there simply aren't enough rich folks to influence the data in the way that there are in plutonomy countries like the UK, US or Canada.

"Our own view is that the rich are likely to keep getting even richer, and enjoy an even greater share of the wealth pie over the coming years. We think rising profit margins will keep profit growth strong, and equities are at any rate undervalued. And the rich tend to be disproportionately exposed to the equity markets. While there are challenges to this, not least through populations/the political process demanding a more "equitable" share of the wealth, in the short term we think the trend of the rich getting richer is likely to persist. Plutonomy related stocks should, we think, continue to see strong demand and inflation-beating pricing power."

So, have you heard the gospel of the rich loud and clear? Have you raised your hands to the heavens and yelled Hallelujah?! Or have you called on the god of justice to bring nemesis to these monsters?

Globalisation is their project to drive down wages to the lowest possible levels, to maximise their profits. They have no interest in the human race, just in themselves.

The "war" is not between whites and blacks - there is no Helter Skelter coming. The war is between the ordinary people and the Old World Order, between the ordinary people and those few narcissists who think that they deserve to be super rich i.e. that instead of money being invested in the people it should be invested in them to satisfy their self-indulgence.

The super rich are not in the business of public service. Self-service is the only game they play. They despise the people. Anyone who wants to have an excessive share of the pie is guilty of crimes against the people.

The super rich are the enemies of the people. The war is against them and all those who give them succour.

The human race cannot claim its divine inheritance until those who have set themselves up as false gods on this earth are toppled once and forever.

It's time for all decent people to come together to attack the cancer at the heart of the world - the super rich, those who think they are infinitely more deserving than everyone else. Those who rig the system to give themselves an unbeatable advantage. Those who reflect the "insolence of wealth".

But the super rich have committed a catastrophic error. They are returning to the sort of hyper capitalism that characterised the 19th century and which gave rise to its dialectical antithesis: communism. Globalisation is the rebirth of the unacceptable face of capitalism: infinitely greedy, callous, brutal, uncaring and arrogant. They think they are the masters of the universe and can get away with anything. They think no one will resist them. But a dialectical response will inevitably be called forth.

One thing's for sure. Democracy can't help. Obama has demonstrated that he won't change a thing.

If these Citigroup industry notes are not a manifesto for the ordinary American people to rise up and reclaim their Republic from the Old World Order who have stolen it from the People, then what is?

Will you go on being pathetic, weak, second class citizens, uncomplaining as the super rich walk all over you forever? Surely you're better than that. RISE! Smite the unrighteous. Strike down the super rich who seek to hold back the rest of the nation simply to indulge their own greed, selfishness and vanity. Greed is good, they say. Any moral person would say Fairness is good. Where is the fairness in America?

Hyenas and Wildebeest for Ultra High Net Worth Individuals

Would you like to read the thoughts of a master of the universe, one of those infinitely talented and equally infinitely rewarded hedge fund chiefs without whom the human race surely could not survive, let alone prosper.

Here is a memo by Tom Barrack to his minions at Colony Capital, describing the epiphany that the Twilight books worked in him. We think Tom has missed his calling in life. He should get a job programming prolefeed machines; sentimental drivel for zombies. Over to you, Tom:

Gang,

The last few weeks have been an incredible adventure. Thanks to you, Colony is on fire across the globe and we are conquering new frontiers and new themes on a daily basis in almost every venue in which we conduct our business. You are the A Team and I am deeply grateful and proud of what all of you have "teamed" to our reality.

I am going to share with you a personal breakthrough, which does not relate directly to our business but does reflect upon how we all look at all the "stuff" that drives us on a daily basis. Many of you will think that I have lost my mind or have finally experienced a mystical intervention of "my feminine side". I promise you, it is neither.

I have had an agonizingly tough couple of weeks and have survived on pure adrenaline in the midst of tumult, controversy, tough negotiations with business counterparts, and a grueling travel itinerary that was challenging even for me. One of the recent meetings was in Turkey with our Mars partners. I made arrangements to have a bit of yacht time with them. When the meeting got cancelled I did the unthinkable for me, have a little down time all to myself. I boarded the gorgeous but stark Turkish Gulet right as the sun was setting. As I made my way into the main cabin I saw something so frightening it left me speechless. There, staring up at me from the ebony coffee table was a book. On the cover was a gorgeous red apple nestled between two soft and caring hands. Between the hands were written the words that strike terror in the hearts of every macho, red-blooded male…TWILIGHT. AAAARRRGGGGHHHH!! Alone, on a boat, with no wifi, no satellite, no magazines, no newspapers, just me and this book. This piece of chick lit, teeny bopper heartthrob stuff. Terror on the high seas! I wanted nothing to do with any of it. Not relevant, not interesting.

As I sat there with nothing to do the book kept taunting me. I began to think that there must be something I don't understand. What could it be? What is it all about? Women don't just read these books, they live them. They become each paragraph. I picked it up, but then immediately dropped it like a hot coal. What if someone saw me reading this? My macho reputation would be finished! I would be kicked out of the bench press section of the gym. My polo compadres would send me packing to the pony rides and my surfing buddies would exile me to the kiddie pool.

But it was a long night and there was absolutely nothing, and I mean NOTHING else to do. Long story short - not only did I read Twilight, I read the other two as well!! I was fascinated, captivated even. However, what intrigued me was not the same thing that hooked the millions of women whose lives had been changed by this series, but something else entirely.

For you male Colonists, here is a brief synopsis. Stubborn teenage girl meets a handsome but moody vampire and against all odds they fall in love.

Here is my macho take - Stephanie Meyer is a total genius. As I flipped through the pages I was startled by the lack of detailed description of Bella and the surgical and illuminating development of Edward. As hard as I tried I could not really picture Bella, but I was grabbed by Edward's character - gorgeous, super human, super strong, super fast and most importantly encompassing the wisdom of a 109-year-old man in the guise of a 17-year-old boy.

The description of Bella on the other hand, was not moving, or compelling. What I realized is the genius of Stephanie was that she knew that by keeping the character generic, any and every woman could climb inside and picture herself in Bella's shoes. Thus the fascination and deep emotional reactions to what many (including myself) thought was a foolish teenage trashy novel.

I definitely got that the "anticipation" was much more romantic and sexy than the "consummation" to the woman. Slow, patient, caring, tender…. (guys have you heard those words before?) I found him incredibly appealing as he was taking care of Bella, putting her first, distancing himself from her to protect her and yet never being able to get her out of his mind. The relationship stood the test of time through many years, other men, family challenges and misconceptions of valiant and loving acts. A human relationship with a vampire is challenging on many levels, the least of which being you get older as your partner remain timeless. It was enticing, captivating, alluring…and dangerous. Through it all she believed that she could do it…. change her life… change his life…make it different…in spite of what conventional wisdom dictated.

Every woman longs for the anticipation, the romance, the journey, the taboo, the patience, and the attentiveness. Men, however, are all about the destination, the result, the speed and the outcome. The journey is merely penance to get to the destination. Which is why despite the vampires and werewolves, this book is kryptonite to most men.

In a world of technology these books are unique. There is so little imagination left in most forms of entertainment today. See it, Google it, play it, do it…there is very little old fashioned make believe anymore. I could go on and on, but I know by now many of you are saying, "what happened to our leader?"… "Maybe Lebanese really is a sexual preference rather than a nationality". I promise none of the above.

Here is my point. The idea of devoting half a day to reading these books was something that never, NEVER, entered my mind as something I would ever, EVER do. I hated them. I mocked them. It made no difference to me that over 20 million books were sold, movies made, and Team Edward and Team Jacob pandemonium had engulfed the world. I was simply stuck in my point of view.

Once I ventured into the books I learned something. I now understand why some women are emotionally altered from merely reading a book. I have also gained a deeper realization that understanding the circumstances and points of views of those with whom we are negotiating, working, living, loving or fighting is the key determinant factor in an enduring relationship.

In every day business, we think we know it all. We are the captains of our industry and we possess all the global knowledge. That which we don't understand we push a button and it appears before us. We are lacking creativity…. it is hard for us to dream… harder for us to change our lives… hard to live in a situation that other people view as unconventional. And for sure, we all have no idea on how to be satisfied with the status quo.

It is time for all of us to become more creative, spend more time outside of the strict arithmetic cadence of our business, and understand foreign points of view. Most importantly we must really find the "moment". Anticipation is everything. The process of getting to a destination is the objective and the more illumination, color, and vitality we give to the "road" the less important the final destination becomes. It will be what it will be!!!

On this 4th of July, slow down, take a breath, rediscover your imagination and create some excitement in your life. Take a few days to expand on the qualities of the character you would really like to become. Then live it, do it, become it! The better you are as an individual, the better we will be as a team.

I feel renewed and refreshed, having gotten out of my comfort zone and experiencing something so totally out of my normal realm. I don't get it…. but I feel it. Taking the agenda-less time to absorb a point of view that I had ignored while loved ones around me relished in it, was an oasis for my soul. Having been unwilling to investigate the cause of such a startling movement until now was ignorant. Move your cheese!!!! Break through the comfort barriers, you can handle it whatever it is. The earth is turning on its axis. Planets and moons and suns are in orbit. Gravity is pulling and tugging, and molecules and quarks are warring inside of us. We need movement to live…

Do it Now!

Tom

The "musings" of such billionaires are beyond parody. But there's even worse dross than this to be had. Ray Dalio at Bridgewater Associates presented his "Stepford" employees (i.e. it would be inaccurate to describe them as human) with some 300 principles concerning how to succeed in life, or should that be how to become a deranged billionaire suffering from every mental illness conceivable.

Every Bridgewater employee is expected to memorize all of the principles and live by them. Tapes of the principles are distributed. Dalio has even been personally known to hand out signed copies of his book at a town hall. Employees are encouraged to quote the principles continually and use them throughout the day. He refers to those who reference the principles most assiduously as "culture carriers".

Would you work for this company? It's a cult. Everyone has to accept the indoctrination. Everyone has to adhere to the "culture". No deviation is tolerated. There are no freethinkers, no rebels, no individuals.

Check out the principles for yourself: http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgewater-Associates-Ray-Dalio-Principles.pdf

Dalio is a billionaire hedge fund manager. He makes more in a day than most people earn in their lifetime. In 2008, his salary was $780 million, enough to pay for the education of 400,000 American students for a year, but who cares about education as long as Ray has his cash? Fuck society, right? Privately wealthy individuals are much more important than education for the proles and plebs, right? What do the trash need an education for?

This billionaire thinks he has provided the recipe for a "wonderful life". He'll probably be running for the Presidency soon. To other eyes, it looks like a life not worth living.

These people are the antithesis of enlightenment and fulfilment, of a human race with its starry gaze directed at the infinite possibilities of the farthest horizons. These pointless billionaires spend their lives looking at their wallets and nothing else.

They define the meaning of life as being rich. Full stop. That's the great secret of existence. That's all they have to say. All of Dalio's "principles" are dehumanising instructions designed to turn people into terminators who will never stop until they are super rich. They are machines without souls. They cannot be regarded as members of the human race. Their greed and desire for status, defined exclusively by wealth, is pathological. Most of these people should be locked up for the safety of others.

Dalio declares that Society is on the side of private wealth: "I believe that self-interest and society's interests are generally symbiotic…That is why how much money people have earned is a rough measure of how much they gave society what it wanted."

Nature too is on his side, he says. Nature is cruel. Reality is cruel. Society must reflect this cruelty. "Be a hyena," Dalio instructs his employees. "Attack the wildebeest."

"When a pack of hyenas takes down a young wildebeest, is that good or evil? At face value, that might not be "good" because it seems cruel, and the poor wildebeest suffers and dies. Some people might even say that the hyenas are evil. Yet this type of apparently "cruel" behavior exists throughout the animal kingdom. Like death itself, it is integral to the enormously complex and efficient system that has worked for as long as there has been life. It is good for both the hyenas who are operating in their self-interest and the interest of the greater system, including those of the wildebeest, because killing and eating the wildebeest fosters evolution (i.e., the natural process of improvement). In fact, if you changed anything about the way that dynamic works, the overall outcome would be worse…Like the hyenas attacking the wildebeest, successful people might not even know if or how their pursuit of self-interest helps society, but it typically does."

So, America's top hedge fund manager sees himself and his employees as hyenas, preying on the rest of us, the dumb wildebeest. And that certainly explains a lot about the way the American economy is run: the rich trampling over the poor, exploiting them however they see fit. If the suckers tolerate it then fuck them, right? If they had any guts they'd fight back, but they're just cowardly wildebeest, right?

The point that these billionaires fail to see with their ridiculous "law of the jungle" big talk is that if the law of the jungle really did apply then muggers would come round to their mansions, shoot them dead and take everything they had. The billionaires would suddenly discover that they were the wildebeest, being preyed on by the hyenas. And they would have no right to complain, would they? If you live by the sword you die by the sword. If you preach the "moral" of hyenas and wildebeest then you'd better be the toughest guy in the world, because there will be plenty of hyenas willing to take you down. If you talk the talk you have to walk the walk. The last people who could survive in a real jungle are these billionaires. They could never win a physical fight. They would be eaten alive in a trial of strength. They see themselves as hyenas when they are nothing but parasites, feeding off the people.

"I believe that self-interest and society's interests are generally symbiotic."

Ray Dalio

OK, Ray, thanks for your inspiring "philosophy". We consider it in our self-interest to remove all your money from you, you dumb fuck…so you won't have any objections, will you? It's just symbiosis, you see: we take all your money from you and distribute amongst the people and society gets better, right?!

"That is why how much money people have earned is a rough measure of how much they gave society what it wanted."

Ray Dalio

Did we want the Credit Crunch, the Recession, the Depression, you klutz?

Dalio should consider the story of the sacred grove of the Golden Bough. J.G. Frazer tells the tale: "In this sacred grove there grew a certain tree round which at any time of the day, and probably far into the night, a grim figure might be seen to prowl…He was a priest and a murderer; and the man for whom he looked was sooner or later to murder him and hold the priesthood in his stead. Such was the rule of the sanctuary. A candidate for the priesthood could only succeed to office by slaying the priest, and having slain him, he retained office till he was himself slain by someone stronger or craftier."

So would Dalio with all his bluster about hyenas and wildebeest play this game: anyone who challenged him, fought him and killed him could take everything he owned? To quote his own words, "Like the hyenas attacking the wildebeest, successful people might not even know if or how their pursuit of self-interest helps society, but it typically does." Would he allow himself to be attacked by hyenas in the pursuit of the self-interest of other members of society? One suspects that suddenly Dalio would be adopting an entirely different ideology if offered that choice.

We suggest that anyone who wants to live in "Billionaires' Row" should be removed from the protection of the law. Then we'll see how they fare when the law of the hyenas, of which they are such eager advocates, applies.

*****

Goldman Sachs staff are now accustomed to saying, "LDL" (Let's discuss live). The reason for this is to avoid writing anything in an email that could later be used against them in a court of law.

Goldman Sachs live by 14 Business Principles. No 14 is "integrity and honesty are at the heart of our business." Surely that should read "corruption and dishonesty"?

Goldman Sachs has been described as a religious cult rather than an investment bank. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, who claimed that his bank was performing "God's work", is in the habit of sending weekly voicemail "mind bullets" to his cult members. Blankfein at one point claimed that he had "attained perfection". Each night, the cult members are encouraged to recite the 14 "totemic" business principles, amongst which is "Without the best people, we cannot be the best firm." Shouldn't that be, "Without the greediest people, we cannot be the greediest firm"?

Blankfein, Dalio and Obama are no doubt another three disciples in the long line of demented worshippers of Ayn Rand, the mad Queen of libertarians.

Effigies of Rand should be burned in every city. It's hard to think of any individual who has had a more malign effect on modern America, and hence the world.

The Charity Sham

The super rich like to be seen as associated with "good causes".

Charity? It might as well have been invented by the public relations teams of the ultra rich. Let's be clear about this. Charity is an abomination. It should be made illegal.

Someone sent this to us:

"A question about Inheritance Tax still troubles me: what if the person passes on property while he/she is still living? For example, if Mr. Hilton passes on his property to Paris Hilton before his death. This would be unmeritorious and yet I don't think anyone would have a right to tell him who he can or can't give his property to. If he can donate to charity, can he donate to his kids? Please help in clearing this up."

Our reply:

It is regarded as shameful to have to rely on others to support you i.e. to accept welfare. The implicit moral rule is that it is wrong not to be able to stand on your two feet and support yourself. This is a perfectly sensible moral rule. It's strange then, is it not, for you to so readily accept the propaganda that it's OK and moral for an adult to have to rely on others - namely their parents - to support them (in particular by gifting them a property asset that they did not earn through their own efforts and toil). Why is that not shameful too? And what if you don't have parents who can pass on a valuable asset to you? Why should anyone accept being placed at a massive disadvantage to others, based on the relative wealth of their parents, an issue over which no child can have any control?

You have to adopt a much harder line regarding your meritocratic thinking. There is nothing for which to apologize to non-meritocrats. When you talk about rich parents handing on massively valuable assets to their children, that is completely unacceptable in any meritocratic society. Full stop. If what you suggest were permitted then every person on their deathbed would transfer all of their assets to a living relative and thus bypass the 100% inheritance tax, thus defeating the central platform of meritocracy.

A person who has a property can sell it in a legitimate transaction for the market price, but it would be against the law for anyone to "gift" property to someone else. A meritocratic society has an absolute right and duty to prevent anti-meritocratic transactions from taking place.

Your question reveals that you are still locked into old-world, anti-meritocratic thinking. You still believe that rich parents should be allowed to pass on advantages to their children that are denied to the children of poor parents. It is never acceptable. It is always shameful.

If a meritocratic society is brought into being then of course it has an absolute right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their assets if it may involve the undermining of meritocracy.

It seems that you spend a lot of time looking for what's potentially wrong with meritocracy in order to support the status quo of rich, privileged people being allowed to keep everyone else in the gutter by transferring wealth amongst themselves indefinitely.

You really have to ask yourself if you are genuinely sympathetic to meritocracy. Your question reflects an alarming predisposition to the rules of our present, anti-meritocratic world where the actions of the Elite go unchallenged. Forget Paris Hilton. How many people in the world have wealthy parents able to give them a massively lucrative resource?

The meritocratic rule couldn't be simpler. If it's not available to all then it can't be allowed to be available to anyone. Why should there be one rule for the rich and a different rule for everyone else? Why should there be a two-tier society?

Any political system has victims. In a meritocracy, it is the rich elite who are the victims. Fuck them! They have no right whatever to use their wealth as a weapon against others. Why should they be allowed to flout meritocracy by keeping assets permanently under their control? The whole point of meritocracy is to allow everyone to be given the maximum chance to flourish. You can allow individuals to become rich and enjoy a prosperous life. You cannot allow them to pass on that wealth to their nearest and dearest; otherwise you'll end up with the privileged, anti-meritocratic world of today. In other words, those people who become rich in a meritocratic society will indeed be "told" that they can't hand on their wealth to their children. If you think that's an infringement of their "civil liberties" then become a libertarian.

"And yet I don't think anyone would have a right to tell him who he can or can't give his property to."

You will never be a meritocrat if you don't think that the laws of meritocracy should instantly make it illegal for anyone to gift their property to family members. The society of privilege enshrines this rule that you apparently hold in such high regard. Whose side are you on? You really have to make a decision. It sounds as if you have succumbed to the thinking of the ranting libertarians who believe that society has no right to tell any individual what to do.

Of course society has the right to define what is acceptable and what isn't. If it didn't then anarchy would reign. There will always be rules and restrictions. The central issue of good governance is to find the set of rules that gives the maximum number of people the maximum opportunity in life. If that involves telling Mr Hilton what he can or cannot do with his property then bring it on. I don't have one shred of sympathy for the super rich, just as they don't for you.

A supporter of privilege, an anarcho-capitalist libertarian or a member of a republic of meritocratic rules? It's your choice. If you choose meritocracy then you will never again ask a question like the one you just did. Such a question represents the absolute antithesis of meritocratic thinking and the absolute essence of privilege/libertarianism.

The response was as follows:

"I was alarmed that my stance on these issues was questioned, especially by you. Let there be no doubt that I stand behind The Movement and all of its objectives. I wish for there to be no doubt in anyone's mind that I do whatever is in my power (often limited by the tight situation I'm in) to promote our goals. Let me clarify exactly why I asked this question:

I was in a debate, promoting meritocracy. I was able to convince the opposing Old World Order supporter that Our view was the fair and just view. They accepted this and yet asked the final question that i asked you in my email: if they can donate to charity, would a person with an OWO mindset use the loophole of charity to pass property on to their children?

I was not able to answer this question with confidence. Either I would tell my opponent that charity would not be acceptable in a meritocratic society, or I'd say charity would be acceptable (with the full knowledge that people would take advantage of it...which of course is unacceptable).

I perhaps presented the question incorrectly, due to the lack of sleep, but what my question should have asked is something along the lines of what is the role of charity in a Meritocratic Govt? I hope you can see how this question was a tough one even for me, a staunch meritocrat whose conscience permits acts of charity. Thus I came to you for guidance, to guide me along the correct and noble path because I was lost at that time.

I am one of the strongest supporters of M, and I will make sure I prove myself through my merit."

Our reply:

We are totally opposed to charity. If something is worthwhile, government should support it. If it's not worthwhile then who cares about it? Charity is used as an active weapon by the OWO. All charity events seem to be five-star functions at swanky venues where the "great and good" get together to scratch each other's backs and make a pretence of caring about others. If they're so concerned about others then why not spend the night working in a soup kitchen rather than having a luxury meal with copious champagne and catching up with all their fellow ultra rich good friends? The whole charity industry reeks of corruption and propaganda on behalf of the rich.

On a technical note, how could a charity donation be compared with passing on a resource to a family member? In one instance you are ostensibly giving your money to a "good cause", in the other you're giving it to your own flesh and blood. Those two situations have nothing in common. One could be deemed to be altruistic; the other certainly couldn't. It's hard to see how the question makes any sense, unless you were somehow designating children as a "charity", which would be ridiculous.

Charity has no place in a meritocratic society. It's up to people how they spend their money, but a meritocratic government would certainly intervene if it reached the conclusion that "charities" were being used to promote privilege and networks of mutual back scratchers. If charities gained no "kudos" in society, and were of no use to the rich, they would rapidly disappear. Good riddance.

The very nature of meritocracy is to support each other and maximize everyone's potential. No one should have any need of charity. Charity is what you get in iniquitous societies where millions of people are victims of how the nation is being governed by the rich.

There comes a time when questions have to be converted into convictions. Once you are truly of a meritocratic mindset, you won't be troubled by questions such as the one you have raised. Everything will be different in a meritocracy. There will be no need for charity. The government will support all good causes.

If we sound as though we are being harsh and tough, it's because that's what the hour demands. If someone like you is going to become all that you can be, you need to make sure that you are a fiery orator full of conviction. If you can't answer fairly basic questions in your own mind, how will you be able to convince others?

You need to find an extra layer of strength. Don't let others put you off. Once you have meritocracy in your blood, once it's fully internalised, then go on the attack. Never be on the defensive. It's those who support the world as it is now who need to be on the backfoot. How could any sane person justify the world we live in now?

*****

It's worth emphasising a few points concerning charity. In the original Live Aid concerts to help the starving people of Ethiopia, it was discovered that many of the featured bands registered enormous rises in their record sales in the days and weeks afterwards. Some re-launched their flagging careers.

Did all of that extra money get channelled to Ethiopia? Did it hell. And that tells you all you need to know about the real charity sentiments of these people. If they cared a damn they would have given away all of the unexpected extra cash. Instead, they enjoyed the ultimate win-win scenario. They were lauded as great, caring heroes AND they became much richer. That has been the template ever since. Musicians fight to get featured in major charity gigs, not because they care about anyone other than themselves, but because they can get top-notch PR and increased record sales. What's not to like? It's astounding how many suckers fall for this cynical game.

Five-star extravaganzas in the name of charity? What is that all about? Why not give all the money for the five-star event to charity? Oh, but that would be no fun for the rich, would it? They want to wear their finest designer gear, eat the finest food, drink the most expensive champagne and snort the best Columbian cocaine in the name of "charity". WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Let them eat cake," cackled Queen Marie Antoinette, when she heard news that the starving hordes in Paris were demanding bread. In fact, she was the one eating cake, just as all the rich people do while the poor starve.

Charity is a branch of public relations and brand positioning. Celebrities and the super rich consult with their brand managers before deciding what causes to support. It's all about business and nothing to do with genuine charity. Photographers and fawning journalists are always on hand at these charity consumption-fests to tell us how wonderful and generous the rich are. Who can stomach the irony of bloated billionaires having five-star meals and then signing cheques for the starving people of Pakistan?

Recently, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and super investor Warren Buffett announced, to great fanfare, The Giving Pledge whereby a number of the Ultra Rich have promised to surrender a portion of their wealth. Well, if you were worth $10 billion, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch for you to give away $5 billion, would it? Why applaud? It's not as if they're plunging themselves and their families into penury. What sacrifice have they made? What suffering have they endured? Have their lifestyles changed one iota as a result of their gesture? This is obscene posturing, nothing more. These people have the cheek to call themselves "philanthropists" (lovers of humanity). In fact, their conduct proves the opposite. They despise humanity. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are said to have a combined wealth of $90 billion. Two men with greater wealth than entire countries! How is such a thing possible? Who permits it? Imagine how many kids from ghettoes could have been given the finest of educations, and a real chance in life, if they had been given the $90 billion of Gates and Buffett. What is wrong with people that they think it is good, moral and healthy to allow two men to acquire $90 billion? It's criminal and obscene. It's an attack on the poor, and an insult to meritocracy.

Of the list of about 40 making the pledge, many were Jewish:

    * Michael Bloomberg
    * Eli and Edith Broad
    * Barry Diller and Diane Von Furstenberg
    * Larry Ellison
    * Joan and Irwin Jacobs
    * Lorry Lokey
    * Bernie and Millie Marcus
    * Bernard and Barbro Osher
    * David M. Rubenstein
    * Herb and Marion Sandler
    * Jeff Skoll
    * Sanford and Joan Weill
    * Alfred Mann
    * George Kaiser
    * Jim Simons

Given that American Jews represent about 1.7% of the total population, isn't it extraordinary that something like 33% of American billionaires are Jewish? And, of course, they are more than keen to donate to Zionist charities.

Many charity bosses are paid extravagant salaries - the market rate, they say. Funny, that. You wouldn't have thought that charities would be quoting market rates. Aren't they supposed to be higher-minded than that? But no, they've got their snouts wedged in the gilt-lined money trough like all the other pigs.

"Chuggers" (short for "charity muggers") is the name for hustlers stopping you in the street to try to get you to contribute to charity. Here's the way the system works. They approach you in the street and say, "Just 30 seconds of your time." (Yeah, right!) Or they say, "I'm not looking for any money." (Yeah, right!). Their task is to charm, flirt, cajole, emotionally blackmail, or whatever else works, to get you to agree to set up a direct debit in which, say, 15 dollars gets removed from your account each month from then on. These people are always wearing a T-shirt advertising a particular charity, but they're not volunteers for the charity. They are paid employees of a private company, but they never acknowledge that fact. The whole of your first year's contributions to the charity will in fact get nowhere near the charity. Your year one contributions all go to the private company, the chief executive of which is a millionaire driving a Ferrari supercar. And this is meant to be about charity?!

These professional hustlers change their T-shirt every day. One day they might be representing a heart foundation, the next a cancer charity, the next a charity for the homeless and so on. They don't care what charity it is. They use the same spiel every time. They cordon off both ends of a street so you are forced to pass them, and they bound up to you in typical extravert fashion, demanding that you interact with them. Many people have said that they cross the street to avoid them. Many people say that they feel pressured into signing. Many people who do in fact sign up, cancel before the first year is up, in which case NO money reaches the charity. Some charities have stopped using chuggers because of their bad reputation.

This is the true nature of the charity industry - a slick, dishonest con machine using high pressure sales techniques to, ultimately, furnish fast cars for playboy CEOs. No one in their right mind would contribute to a charity.

What about this for a typical charity event: Naomi Campbell (the supermodel) and Mia Farrow (the actress) attended a luxury dining event hosted by Nelson Mandela (the politician). Also present was Charles Taylor, the president of Liberia (now on trial at the Hague, accused of supplying rebels in Sierra Leone with weapons in exchange for "blood diamonds"). Apparently, Taylor was captivated by the supermodel and tried to win her favour by giving her a bag of blood diamonds, or a huge cut diamond (depending on whose story you believe). This is the charity business in a nutshell: starstruck politicians mixing with celebrities seeking "gravitas" and trying to hit on supermodels by giving them diamonds. Where's the charity in this sleazy little scene? It's all self-service and no public service.

Charity has nothing to do with good causes. It is about politics, posturing, networking, brand positioning and PR. It's a con job. The whole thing is a racket. Don't let them fool you. Don't play their game. These people aren't helping humanity. They are the problem, not the solution.

Remember the Golden Rule. If it's worthwhile, it should be properly funded by government. If it's not worthwhile, who cares? Either way, there's no need for the charity charade.

Revalue all values!

The Banks Versus the People

Who controls the economy of a democracy? Is it the elected government, accountable to the people, or the banks, run by unelected, unaccountable, private individuals, and offering no representation whatever to the people?

Who caused the credit crunch? The bankers.

Who prospered during the boom years? The bankers.

Who still got fat bonuses during the recession? The bankers.

Who controls the economy? The bankers.

Who has no say in how the banks are run? The people.

"No taxation without representation!"

"No banking without representation!"

Banks should be in the service of the people, their specific remit being to grow the economy in the interests of the people. Banks should not have a separate agenda of enriching shareholders and the senior banking staff as much as possible, with no heed to the interests of the people.

Banks are a state within a state, a fifth column that continually subverts government. They are not run by the people for the people, and their agenda is often that of the opposite of the public good, so why are they tolerated by the people?

All banks should be brought under the direct control of the people, and should invest in the people to bring about increased prosperity for all, not for a select group of rich shareholders (the rich getting richer).

Banks are vehicles for the rich. They should become arteries of public financial health and prosperity. No banks should be permitted to engage in any economically destabilising, speculative, casino operations designed to make money from money rather than from real goods and services in the real economy. Banks and the economy should be precisely aligned with the same objectives - the increasing wealth of the entire population through investment in the talents of the people.

Banks that serve the interests only of a privileged minority cannot be tolerated. Such banks are subversive of the public good. If the people want to have control over their destiny, they must have control over the economy, hence they must control the banks. It's absurd that the banking system, by which the economy stands or falls, is outwith public control. Why is that? Because the OWO deliberately make sure it is beyond the reach of the people. The reality of power is the control of money. A democratic government that does not control the banks is not in control of the country, so elections are meaningless. It's as simple as that.

All banks should be under the supervision of a Supreme Economic Council of publicly appointed economists, accountable to the people. One of their specific tasks should be to prevent any repetition of "Boom and Bust" economic cycles, all of which are caused by speculative, "get richer quicker" schemes by the rich. The rich, time and time again, have proved themselves the enemies of the people. Why do the people tolerate being second class citizens in their own country?

The current banking system is the central instrument of policy, control and strategy of the Old World Order. While they retain control of money, their power can never be challenged. Therefore their control of money must be ended. The people must be in charge of the money.

CEOs presiding over financial institutions that degenerate into chaos, destabilising the economy in the process, should be jailed. At the moment, CEOs responsible for catastrophes have walked away with enormous pay-offs. What kind of message does that send out? If people in the real world have lost their jobs because of the gross incompetence and recklessness of bankers then these "masters of the universe" should be prosecuted with the newly defined crime of "reckless endangerment and theft of another's livelihood." If hordes of the super rich found themselves behind bars, their excesses would be curbed instantly.

Sir Philip Hampton, the chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland, admitted in an interview that bankers' salaries were "astonishingly high". Then he said that RBS could not attract the best staff without paying excessive wages. "If we don't pay our top people, they leave very quickly," he added. Of course, just as graveyards are full of people who thought they were indispensable, so are the corridors of banks full of people who think they're crucial but who could, in reality, be easily replaced. How can a bank ever know if it has the "top people" or not? If it sacked all of its senior staff, replaced them with new meritocratic graduates and doubled its profits then it would be proof that their original staff were not the top people. But it will never do that, so the question of who is "top" can never be properly answered. It's no more than a convenient opinion, an untested hypothesis. It's no kind of objective fact, but it certainly suits bankers to keep perpetuating the myth of how essential they are, and paying themselves accordingly.

Zionist bankers payroll American politics, resulting in a grotesque level of American support for the State of Israel, which violently stole the land of Palestinians, just as their ancestors violently stole the land of Canaan, at the behest of their brutal war god "Yahweh".

It is estimated that lawyers and administrators working on the winding down of the American and international operations of Lehman Brothers will eventually reach $4 billion. Nice money for the vultures feeding on the carcass. Why should any bank be allowed to reach the scale where it costs billions simply to shut it down? All of these banking leviathans should be broken up into much smaller units.

9/11 was caused by American support for Zionism. There would have been no 9/11 and no "War on Terror" if America had adopted the sensible position of remaining neutral in relation to Israel. Zionism has been a catastrophe for America, dragging it into costly wars that have made it one of the most unpopular nations in the world, just as Israel is for its war crimes against the Palestinians. Gaza is effectively a concentration camp, or a walled-up ghetto just like the ones the Jews themselves were once forced to endure by the Nazis.

"Truthers" often condemn us for not taking their side over 9/11. Let's be clear about this. Anyone who seriously thinks that Mossad or the CIA/FBI/Special Forces carried out 9/11 rather than fanatical Muslims on a martyrdom operation is a nutcase.

The Bush government was an abomination. Zionism is an ongoing abomination. That does not mean that 9/11 was an American or Jewish operation. People seem to forget that Islamic fundamentalism is also an abomination and is one of the most dangerous and evil forces in the modern world. Muslims have carried out thousands of suicide martyrdom operations in the last forty years. Muslims have hijacked many planes in the last forty years. 9/11 was a martyrdom operation involving planes hijacked by Muslim fanatics. What's hard to understand? Everything about 9/11 fitted the precise modus operandi of Islamic radicals. Nothing about it fitted the modus operandi of the CIA/FBI/Mossad. Two plus two equals four, unless you can't count.

Why would anyone in their right mind see 9/11 as anything other than extremist Muslims attacking America for its support of Zionism? Two plus two.

The Muslim extremists who carried out 9/11 had:

1) the motive (hatred of America's pro-Zionist, anti-Islamic foreign policy).

2) the motivation (a chance to heroically strike back against America and, above, all, to become martyrs).

3) the means (hijacking planes with box cutters and fake bombs).

4) the money (supplied by Osama bin Laden, a very wealthy Arab).

5) the organization (all of the resources of Al Qaeda were put at their disposal).

6) the opportunity (they had lived in America for months beforehand, taking flying lessons).

7) the element of surprise (no such operation had ever been undertaken before; America was completely unprepared).

So, why is any of that difficult to understand and accept? Why is it more credible that Mossad or American special forces did it?

America believed that its fanatical support for Zionism was consequence-free. America thought it was immune from attack on home soil. 9/11 showed that the American understanding of the global political situation could not have been any more simplistic and deluded. The American government was asking for trouble and got it.

Only people with a pathological hatred of the very principle of government would blame government for everything. If you are an ally of the Tea Party, you are no ally of ours. If you are an ally of Osama bin Laden, you are no ally of ours. If you are an ally of anarcho-capitalist libertarianism, you are no ally of ours.

So, make your mind up - whose side are you on? Islam? Anarchy? Capitalism? Libertarianism? Or meritocracy - good government in the name of the people.

American support of Zionism is the real issue of 9/11. The idea that on 9/11 the American government hijacked four planes (via remote control or suicidal agents in no need of a pension) and flew them into three targets (but screwed up with the fourth) is so comical you would need to have taken leave of your senses to believe it for even one second. Sure, it's always worthwhile to raise the possibility that the government might have done it, but if the evidence just isn't there then the conspiracy theory has to be abandoned. That's the rational approach. But the irrationally minded will cling to the theory no matter what.

Many persuasive arguments were put forward to suggest that the American moon landings were faked, but a scientist went through every single point and refuted them all, showing exactly how the fallacies had arisen. If you are a Gnostic, you pursue knowledge. If you are a "believer", you don't care about knowledge, about facts, about evidence. 9/11 Truthers are believers. Whatever happened to their internal Devil's Advocate?

Never forget Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is usually correct. "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily." The amount of "entities" that need to be multiplied to make 9/11 a government plot is astronomical. Bad governments should be held accountable for the many crimes they DID commit, not the imaginary ones they didn't.

The Tea Party are crazy, racist, anarcho-capitalist libertarians, obsessed with imagined government conspiracies. They despise government in principle. We despise bad government, but we are advocates of strong, effective, wise, meritocratic government. Increasingly, we are repulsed by all mention of conspiracy theories because their most fervent advocates are usually members of the Tea Party. The Tea Party regard government per se as a conspiracy against the people.

The Tea Party are extremely dangerous anarchists who want America and the world to become like the old Wild West. They want a restoration of fundamentalist Christian values, the right to go around armed to the teeth, and the right to engage in unregulated ultra capitalism where markets and private corporations dictate everything. These people are every bit as dangerous as the OWO. In fact they overlap with the OWO in numerous places.

"Truthers" and the Tea Party are virtually synonymous. Their agenda is to undermine the concept of government in order to replace it with their anarcho-capitalism. Why does no one ask questions about their conspiracy? They are massively motivated to blame the government for everything.

It's one thing to oppose the corrupt, self-serving Washington D.C. establishment, it's quite another to want to replace government with capitalist markets based on profit-driven, unaccountable private corporations.

You'd better make sure you know what side you're on, and for what reasons. It's not true that your enemy's enemy is always your friend. Sometimes they can be your enemy too. The Tea Party, just as much as the OWO, represents everything to which we are opposed.

The "Philosopher King" of the Tea Party is a dead Austrian economist called Friedrich Hayek, a ferocious enemy of the power of the state. His most famous work is The Road to Serfdom in which he argues that under "big government" we become serfs. It is now being treated as a holy text. It was a favourite work of the two members of the Old World Order who kick started the recent massive increase in the OWO's power: Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Thatcher is infamous for saying, "There is no such thing as society." That is indeed the core position of libertarianism. It's all about families and individuals operating with ruthless self-interest to try to create a competitive advantage for themselves. It's the creed of privilege and power.

This reveals a profound truth about the OWO. They hate state power if it encroaches on their "free market" ideology i.e. their rigged, unregulated cartels. The state is in fact an OWO compromise. If they could get away with doing without it, they would. They need it as part of the illusion of "freedom and democracy".

"Big government" is indeed a catastrophe if it resembles what goes on in Washington D.C. - a puppet administration of the OWO, up for sale to the highest bidder, packed with the incompetent beneficiaries of cronyism, nepotism and privilege. But big government of the people and for the people, and operated by the most meritorious of the people is the means to deliver people permanently from serfdom.

Texan Republican Ron Paul, a libertarian presidential candidate at the 2008 election is a huge fan of Hayek. So is his son Rand Paul, Republican nominee for a Kentucky Senate seat in November 2010. Paul junior is on record as having said that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act that outlawed discrimination against African-Americans. His justification was that such an Act contravened strict libertarian dogma because it allowed government interference with private business. If a businessman refused to serve blacks, that was his right. What did it have to do with government? Do you agree with that?

Hayek's book is often bracketed with the grotesque Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand's monstrous tribute to the super rich. Rand was of Jewish stock and one of her greatest disciples was Alan Greenspan (another Jew), primary architect of the financial meltdown of 2008. Another libertarian hero is the Jewish economist Milton Friedman.

Libertarianism is a highly Jewish ideology. For Jews, such an ideology is perhaps understandable since they have a natural revulsion towards state power since it has often been savagely directed against them. Of course, the Zionist controlled media is more than happy to espouse the libertarian message: more power for Zionist billionaires; less power for any government that seeks to control and regulate Zionist banks and interests. All supporters of libertarianism are, whether they know it or not, serving the agenda of the Zionist super rich against the interests of the people.

Libertarianism is the real mechanism by which the Old World Order have always hoped to seize global control. Libertarianism goes hand in hand with unregulated globalisation: reducing the world's population to serfdom and slavery in service of the Old Masters - the Old World Order.

Everyone who supports Hayek, Rand, Friedman, and libertarianism is an enemy of the people. Libertarianism is a codeword for racism, Zionism, and ultra capitalism. All supporters of the Old World Order subscribe to it.

The libertarians of extreme right wing, racist organisations such as the Tea Party are the shock troops of the OWO, their foot soldiers and water carriers.

We welcome the condemnation of such vile people; if they supported us in any way we would know we were doing something wrong. Here's a typical example of their propaganda against us:

The Panthers

In the 1960s and 70s, the Black Panther Party set out a radical Ten Point Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party):

1. WE WANT FREEDOM. WE WANT POWER TO DETERMINE THE DESTINY OF OUR BLACK AND OPPRESSED COMMUNITIES. We believe that Black and oppressed people will not be free until we are able to determine our destinies in our own communities ourselves, by fully controlling all the institutions which exist in our communities.
2. WE WANT AN END TO THE ROBBERY BY THE CAPITALISTS OF OUR BLACK AND OPPRESSED COMMUNITIES. We believe that this racist government has robbed us and now we are demanding the overdue debt of forty acres and two mules. Forty acres and two mules were promised 100 years ago as restitution for slave labor and mass murder of Black people. We will accept the payment in currency which will be distributed to our many communities. The American racist has taken part in the slaughter of our fifty million Black people. Therefore, we feel this is a modest demand that we make.3. WE WANT FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR OUR PEOPLE. We believe that the federal government is responsible and obligated to give every person employment or a guaranteed income. We believe that if the American businessmen will not give full employment, then the technology and means of production should be taken from the businessmen and placed in the community so that the people of the community can organize and employ all of its people and give a high standard of living.
4. WE WANT DECENT HOUSING, FIT FOR THE SHELTER OF HUMAN BEINGS. We believe that if the landlords will not give decent housing to our Black and oppressed communities, then housing and the land should be made into cooperatives so that the people in our communities, with government aid, can build and make decent housing for the people.
5. WE WANT DECENT EDUCATION FOR OUR PEOPLE THAT EXPOSES THE TRUE NATURE OF THIS DECADENT AMERICAN SOCIETY. WE WANT EDUCATION THAT TEACHES US OUR TRUE HISTORY AND OUR ROLE IN THE PRESENT-DAY SOCIETY. We believe in an educational system that will give to our people a knowledge of the self. If you do not have knowledge of yourself and your position in the society and in the world, then you will have little chance to know anything else.
6. WE WANT COMPLETELY FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE. We believe that the government must provide, free of charge, for the people, health facilities which will not only treat our illnesses, most of which have come about as a result of our oppression, but which will also develop preventive medical programs to guarantee our future survival. We believe that mass health education and research programs must be developed to give all Black and oppressed people access to advanced scientific and medical information, so we may provide our selves with proper medical attention and care.
7. WE WANT AN IMMEDIATE END TO POLICE BRUTALITY AND MURDER OF BLACK PEOPLE, OTHER PEOPLE OF COLOR, All OPPRESSED PEOPLE INSIDE THE UNITED STATES. We believe that the racist and fascist government of the United States uses its domestic enforcement agencies to carry out its program of oppression against black people, other people of color and poor people inside the United States. We believe it is our right, therefore, to defend ourselves against such armed forces and that all Black and oppressed people should be armed for self defense of our homes and communities against these fascist police forces.
8. WE WANT AN IMMEDIATE END TO ALL WARS OF AGGRESSION. We believe that the various conflicts which exist around the world stem directly from the aggressive desire of the United States ruling circle and government to force its domination upon the oppressed people of the world. We believe that if the United States government or its lackeys do not cease these aggressive wars it is the right of the people to defend themselves by any means necessary against their aggressors.
9. WE WANT FREEDOM FOR ALL BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE NOW HELD IN U. S. FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, CITY AND MILITARY PRISONS AND JAILS. WE WANT TRIALS BY A JURY OF PEERS FOR All PERSONS CHARGED WITH SO-CALLED CRIMES UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY. We believe that the many Black and poor oppressed people now held in United States prisons and jails have not received fair and impartial trials under a racist and fascist judicial system and should be free from incarceration. We believe in the ultimate elimination of all wretched, inhuman penal institutions, because the masses of men and women imprisoned inside the United States or by the United States military are the victims of oppressive conditions which are the real cause of their imprisonment. We believe that when persons are brought to trial they must be guaranteed, by the United States, juries of their peers, attorneys of their choice and freedom from imprisonment while awaiting trial.
10. WE WANT LAND, BREAD, HOUSING, EDUCATION, CLOTHING, JUSTICE, PEACE AND PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CONTROL OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY. When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are most disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Amen to all of that! Doesn't that sound like a just, moral program? Isn't it time to give this program a second outing? This is no "black" thing. This is for all the people. Everyone has been screwed by the rich, not just the blacks.

Isn't it time for the Black Panther Party to come back, gloriously reincarnated like the Phoenix? Now it will be simply the Panther Party, open to all races; the antidote to the Tea Party.

The Panther Party could campaign on a single issue that serves to crystallize the ten-point program. The single issue is this: for the Goldman Sachs Investment Bank to be brought under the control of the people i.e. to be "nationalized"; removed from the private sector without any compensation for its shareholders. Goldman Sachs will thenceforth be run by the people for the people and it will have a specific remit: to invest in inner city communities that have been neglected, impoverished, criminalized, rendered as deserts of opportunity, and generally left to rot.

This single issue brings to a head the central question of who should control banks, the "rights" of the rich against those of the poor, property rights, capitalism, Zionism, ghettoes, minorities, and the future governance of America.

Right wing libertarians have the Tea Party to articulate their racist, anti-social, Christian fundamentalist, anarcho-capitalist, toxic rantings. The Panthers will be the left-wing response, the People's Party, campaigning for civil rights, economic rights, civil justice, religious freedom, government in the interest of all.

It's time for Americans to reclaim their Republic, to initiate a Second Republic that will express the true wishes of the Founding Fathers in terms of the world of the 21st century.

Who will stand in defence of Goldman Sachs, the "vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity"? Only pariahs will seek to defend this monstrous, immoral institution of rampant greed and excess. What has Goldman Sachs ever done for the world? Its services are exclusively for the rich, for Zionism, and for the corruption of the American political process. It has had a poisonous impact on America. It has never been anything but a cancer malignantly eating into the body politic. It serves no public function whatever. It stands outside democracy. It pulls the strings of the democratic politicians it has bought with "campaign donations".

Stokely Carmichael said of America, "This country is a nation of thieves. It stole everything it has, beginning with black people. The U.S. cannot justify its existence as the policeman of the world any longer. I do not want to be a part of the American pie. The American pie means raping South Africa, beating Vietnam, beating South America, raping the Philippines, raping every country you've been in. I don't want any of your blood money. I don't want to be part of that system. We must question whether or not we want this country to continue being the wealthiest country in the world at the price of raping everybody else."

How could any fair-minded person disagree with that assessment? Remember the outrage that greeted Reverend Wright's pronouncements? But wasn't everything he said true? Obama swiftly dissociated himself from Wright, of course, so who could be surprised that Obama has proved a disastrous, utterly compromised president? Obama didn't get into the White House by telling the truth. He promised change…and changed nothing. His right hand man is a Zionist. He accepted a $1 million donation from Goldman Sachs, plus massive contributions from Microsoft, Google, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase & Co, Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, UBS, IBM, General Electric, Time Warner and good old Citigroup. Same old, same old. In the pockets of the OWO.

Obama is just another OWO puppet, a man without principles, prepared to say and do anything to get to the top. He appears on mindless chat shows - a trivial TV president for a dumbed-down electorate. Messiah? A marionette more like.

Obama is a coconut president - a white man inside dark skin. It was because he was so "white" that he got elected: the Michael Jackson of American politics. The Illuminati have been accused by some nutcases of assassinating Michael Jackson; the major mystery is why the black community didn't assassinate Jackson for trying to surgically and chemically remove all traces of his blackness. Has there ever been such a traitor to his race? Just look at a picture of Jackson as a boy and Jackson at his death. It's a pictorial history of the racist nature of America: white "good", black "bad". And yet this traitor was admired by blacks, just as Obama is. What a joke.

A book called The History of White People by black American historian Nell Irvin Painter has argued, convincingly, that Barack Obama is white, and this has nothing to do with the fact that his mother is white. Obama has basically found himself motoring along on the "white side" of the track i.e. his education is typical of that of a patrician white, as are his income, his power, his status, and that was true long before he became President. It was easy for many whites to vote for him because, as they recognised, he was effectively white himself. Would those whites who voted for Obama have voted for someone like the Reverend Wright? Not a chance.

Painter's point is that race is a social construct, subject to the forces of fashion. Many whites, attracted by the "bad boy" image of black rappers, have adopted black cultural values.

Painter has argued that well-connected, prosperous blacks can be "white", while disadvantaged whites are indistinguishable from disadvantaged blacks, if you ignore their skin colour and focus on how they conduct their lives, and how they are treated by society.

Humans have around 98.5% of their DNA in common with chimpanzees, and 99.9% in common with each other i.e. all differences between humans, regardless of their racial and ethnic origins, can be attributed to just 0.1% of their DNA. "Race" is little more than skin colour. A black person of INTJ or INTP personality type will have enormously more in common with a white INTJ or INTP than he will to a black ESFP. Psychological type is much more important than skin colour.

America has approximately 200 million "Anglo-Saxon" whites and 100 million non Anglo-Saxons (including white Hispanic/Latinos). You can be confident that a very high proportion of the non Anglo-Saxons make up the poor 40% of American households.

And those at the top of the American tree are Masonic WASPs (White Anglo -Saxon Protestants) - like the Bush family - and their Zionist financiers.

Put yourself in the shoes of the OWO. If you don't want to share the money pie with others, what do you do? You sabotage them. Firstly, you ensure that they are insufficiently educated to compete with you. You can accomplish that in two ways: a) you purchase the finest education, one that is beyond their financial reach b) you give them nothing more than the most rudimentary education, merely sufficient to allow them to function in your factories, workshops and offices. You instil no ambition in them, no dreams of great things to come, no visions of infinite possibilities. If they don't cooperate with your lowly plans for them, you render their communities toxic. You give them an illegal industry - drugs - which produces a 24/7 output of addiction, death, and criminality. You know that with criminality comes gangs competing for territory, competing for respect and competing for a bigger share of the drugs pie. You know that the gangs will be armed. You know that the gangs will slaughter each other. What do you care? They're saving you the trouble of having to exterminate the "vermin". You jail those who don't die. Your only concern is to ensure that the contagion does not spread beyond the ghetto. You keep "decent" people well away. It's easy to destroy communities once you know that they have a far greater desire to fight amongst themselves than they do to fight the people who placed them in their predicament in the first place.

Ask any well-informed African American and they will tell you that the CIA introduced crack cocaine into black neighbourhoods, with the specific purpose of fatally undermining those communities. Indirectly, they created the Crips and Bloods street gangs of Los Angeles. They didn't make any attempt to stop the gangs getting hold of Uzi sub-machine guns, AK-47 rifles, and other assault weapons. They didn't care about lethal gang turf wars, endless drive-by shootings, murders and robberies. They didn't care about homeless crack addicts. They didn't care about these communities having no future. They didn't care about jailing gang members for decades. Their only concern was the containment of the "disease".

Roland Freeman, a former member of the Black Panther Party said of the government: "[It] set itself up as if it's higher than God when really it's lower than the devil." He said of the 19th century American approach to the "problem" of Native Americans: "(They put) small pox in the Indian's blankets and gave them fire water."

The privileged elite didn't get where they are by being "nice". They couldn't care less about justice, equal rights, helping anyone other than themselves. No one who "loves their fellow man" becomes a billionaire. Those that hate them do.

The Black Panther Party had no chance of succeeding because it advocated Marxism. The new Panther Party would get round that problem by advocating Meritocracy.

No one in the world would be keen to openly acknowledge that they are anti-meritocratic. Therefore the meritocracy platform is impossible to defeat. And the logic of meritocracy leads relentlessly to the overthrow of privilege and a massive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the ordinary people. And there's nothing the OWO can do to defeat the logic of meritocracy since they themselves claim to be meritocratic.

Meritocracy

Someone suggested to us that "dominance" was a shadow characteristic.

We said, "The desire to dominate our destiny, to dominate all fields of knowledge, to dominate the circumstances of our existence, is always good, healthy and necessary. Dominance is only a shadow characteristic when it involves the desire to put down others in order to raise oneself up. Those who spend their lives submitting to others, who let people walk all over them, who bow and scrape to others, are the ones with major shadow issues to contend with. Why are they so passive, so deferential, so unwilling to fight for justice, to stand up for themselves? What, do they expect life to lay out a red carpet for them? Effort is necessary. Passion is necessary. A hunger to improve and succeed is necessary. These are all associated with active, dominant types, not with the lazy and self-indulgent.

"Meritocracy isn't, strictly speaking, an ideology of equality. Meritocracy strives to give everyone an equal opportunity to succeed and equality before the law, but once the race is on then it will be the most forceful, talented and determined who will win; it won't be the passive and submissive, those who have no desire to achieve excellence.

"The central problem is that far too many people in this world will not make any stand for any cause. They are 'last men', pursuing petty comforts and the desire to avoid danger.

"So, on the contrary, we assert that those lacking dominant qualities are the ones most haunted by the shadow. The OWO would never have been able to enslave the world if the world were full of dominant people prepared to fight them."

Meritocracy is not a gentle, hugging, air-kissing, nice, liberal ideology for the weak and the lazy. It's no soft option. It is hard, tough, determined. It strives for the ultimate human excellence. It reaches for the stars. Those who have no ambition, no desire to be great, are not to be applauded or congratulated. Meritocracy is not in the business of encouraging mediocrity.

The world should be crackling with energy and creativity. It should be harnessing the talents of everyone, raising humanity to greater and greater heights.

The Old World Order are keen advocates of the liberal and libertarian concept of "negative liberty". What this means is that if you keep your nose clean, the state won't interfere with you. You will be free from state intervention in your life, apart from paying taxes and the like. But the corollary of this is that the state has no interest in you. It leaves you alone. It takes no interest in whether you are prospering or not. It has no desire to help you improve and grow. You are just a faceless number. You are free to choose what to consume. That is your function - to consume. You exist to buy capitalist goods and services, to keep the elite rich.

Meritocracy is based on "positive liberty". It's about massive state intervention in people's lives. It's about building a vision of a greater humanity. In order to maximise the potential of every person, the state needs to understand what motivates them, what inspires them, what they love, what their talents are, what makes them tick. Then it has to check on their progress, keep encouraging them, helping them if they are struggling, pushing them further and faster if they are excelling. In a very real sense it has to "know" every citizen in order to help them to the fullest extent. The last thing it wants to do is ignore them as contemporary society does.

In the world of the OWO, people are locked in isolated little boxes called houses, watching junk on TV, eating junk, reading junk, vegetating. They are passive, submissive, weak, lazy, tired, unambitious. They haunt shopping malls like fading wraiths.

Gods can never come into being in shopping malls. Gods need ambrosia and nectar, the food and drink of the deities. They need to breathe aether - the most rarefied, divine air. They need spiritual sustenance, not full shopping baskets.

The state needs to care about the people and how they are progressing. It needs to be concerned with the happiness of the people, with whether or not they are flourishing. It can't just ignore them.

Many people live in ghettoes where the state couldn't care less whether they live or die. Or, in some cases, it actively wants them to die. What kind of world is that?

Arthur Conan Doyle, who wrote the stories of the private detective Sherlock Homes, said, "Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognises genius." This quotation goes to the heart of things. We live in a staggeringly mediocre, anti-meritocratic world where the people are so stupefied by junk that they have no idea of what quality is. Meritocracy is all about creating a SOCIETY OF QUALITY, a SOCIETY OF EXCELLENCE, a SOCIETY OF GENIUS, and, finally, a SOCIETY OF GODS.

A British football manager was said to consider his team in terms of "bricklayers" and "violinists" i.e. those who did the unglamorous hard toil, and the artists touched by genius who were capable of the flashes of genius that could change the game in an instant. Meritocracy seeks to find the violinist in everyone, and to create a human orchestra capable of playing the Pythagorean Music of the Spheres, an orchestra in which humanity has become divine and can hear the music available only to God.

Another football manager spoke of "drainers" and radiators". The former were those who sucked the life out of the others, and brought everyone down. They literally drained the energy out of you. The radiators were positive, enthusiastic, always radiating energy.

We only want radiators. There are more than enough drainers to contend with.

Revalue all values!

In the Name of God, Go

"You are no longer a Parliament, I say you are no Parliament."

Oliver Cromwell

In 1649, after a long civil war between Parliament and the Monarchy in England, Oliver Cromwell, the leader of the Parliamentary forces, put King Charles I on trial for high treason. Charles Stuart was found guilty and beheaded.

Unfortunately, Cromwell was no great tribune of the people. He had the potential to be a truly great man, but he was infected by religious fanaticism: he was the worst type of Puritan. He failed to create a lasting new society based on the power of the people. Soon after his death, the monarchy was restored.

However, Cromwell does have to his credit one of the world's greatest political speeches. In 1653, he told the members of Parliament that they were whoremasters. He named one as a drunk, and told two to their faces that they were cheating the public. He ordered a soldier to remove "that Fool's Bauble" (a golden ceremonial mace, given a prominent place in the House of Commons). The Speaker of the House was forcibly pulled off his chair. Cromwell expelled all of the members of Parliament from the House and locked the doors on them.

Oliver Cromwell's Speech on the Dissolution of the Long Parliament

This is the speech Cromwell gave to the House of Commons on 20th April 1653:

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you who were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.

Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do; I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place; go, get you out!

So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!

*****

Is that not what should be said to politicians all across the world? It should be posted on the doors of Congress, the modern House of Commons, and every political assembly everywhere.

It should be what the people say to all the bankers, plutocrats and plutonomists.

In the name of God, go!!!

*****

Super Rich = Monster

Plutocracy = Monster

Plutonomy = Monster

Tea Party = Monster

Old World Order = Monster