Dacia Iluministă » Blog Archive » Academia Iluministă (109)

Academia Iluministă (109)

maggio 10th, 2019 Posted in Mişcarea Dacia

Este posibil ca imaginea să conţină: interior

The Future:

Are you for the future or against it? Do you believe that the human race is perfect? Then where is your system for bringing about perfection? Do you think democracy is the answer? Capitalism? Christianity? Are they as good as it gets? Are they our limit, as far as we can go? Can our imaginations and creativity produce nothing better? Will they be around a million years from now? The truth is they have all had their day and they have all failed. They are dinosaurs heading for well-deserved extinction. Only we have a system designed to perfect the human race – the universal dialectic. It is a process of higher and higher accomplishment, until humanity’s omega point has been attained and we are a community of gods. HyperHumanity, Omega Humanity, Humanity becoming God. Isn’t that our sacred quest?

Nietzsche said that if humanity continued on its present trajectory, it would give rise to the “Last Man”.

“Alas! The time is coming when man will give birth to no more stars. Alas! The time of the most contemptible man is coming, the man who can no longer despise himself.

“Behold! I shall show you the Last Man.

“‘What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?’ thus asks the Last Man and blinks.

“The earth has become small, and upon it hops the Last Man, who makes everything small. His race is as inexterminable as the flea; the Last Man lives longest.

“‘We have discovered happiness,’ say the Last Men and blink.”

Nietzsche obviously foresaw the rise of Shopping Mall Man. We have to find the antidote to the Last Men: HyperHumanity, Omega Humanity, Ultimate Humanity, Divine Humanity is the answer. The dialectic is the process. Ours is the path leading to perfection. Any other route is the road to nowhere. Humanity’s true nature craves that we should go on the ultimate spiritual journey, not that we should go shopping. That is our vision. We have the plan. We have the mechanism. That is why our triumph is inevitable. Eventually, all of the most talented, creative, smart and visionary people in the world will come over to our side. And then we cannot be defeated. Our victory is assured because, deep down, everyone is dissatisfied, restless, and unfulfilled. When they are presented with the opportunity to have meaningful lives, they will seize it.

Join our movement, our dialectical adventure, our mission to release humanity’s inner divinity. Make your own unique dialectical contribution. It’s time for the spiritual renaissance of the human race. We want to illuminate the cosmos with the light of humanity’s glittering, glinting, shimmering divine sparks of every conceivable bright colour. We are marching towards perfection. Reject the past. Reject the Old World Order, the old religions, the old politics, the old rules of society. It’s time to begin again. Now, finally, the way forward is fully understood – as a dialectical progression towards the Omega Point of Omega Humanity.

The time has come to revalue all values.
__________

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, and powered by 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 the credo “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’s 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? This is the age of liberation.
__________

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 plodding 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 papershufflers, 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 intensely dislike democracy 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, the canaille. 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 them. They had no need. And nor do the OWO have any need to spy on you. Nor 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 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 they can pay themselves practically anything they like and no one will 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 releveraging 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 renationalizing 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 insource 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 Southeast 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.).” So, “Low-end developed market labor might not have much economic power, but it does have equal voting power with the rich.”

Well then, 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 against. 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 high profile 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 proplutonomy) 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 antiplutonomy 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 monarch 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’s your duty to work for the overthrow of the elite. Do you want to be an eternal slave? 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”)
__________

6/9

Related Post



Leave a Reply

Protected by WP Anti Spam


QR Code Business Card