Skip to main content

So what if I told you that the powers of financial capitalism (bankers etc.), had a far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands, able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.

This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations?

And what if I told you they had succeeded?

Wow! The most powerful bankers creating a world system of financial control, dominating the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole, with secret meetings. Surely you would think Tocque has fallen under the spell of a wild conspiracy theory.

But you can put away the cat in the tinfoil hat. Those are not my words. And it's not a theory. They are the words of one of the greatest, most eminent historians in modern times, the late Carroll Quigley - of Harvard, Princeton and the Georgetown Foreign School.

Here is bill Clinton referring to his former college professor Quigley at the 1992 Democratic convention:

"As a teenager, I heard John Kennedy’s summons to citizenship. And then, as a student at Georgetown I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest nation in history because our people had always believed in two things: that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal moral responsibility to make it so."

Quigley could write credibly about the far reaching aims of these ruling elites because he himself was a member of the ruling class and, as such, he was given unprecedented access to their private files and records. When he published these words in his 1300 page tome, Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, not only was he adding to the historical record a previously untold story, he was making history himself in doing so.

The story I am about to share is critically important. One simply cannot understand  politics without understanding the significant role the ruling class plays in it -  behind the scenes, and beyond the grasp of democratic oversight. Quigley is an essential introduction to what I call the adult history of the world. And it is only with this historical understanding that we can understand the forces shaping our world, and possibly hope to affect them.

The time for the common man, or at the very least the educated political class like us, to be let in on the secret has long since passed. To take our country back, we must know who exactly we are taking it back from. And we must know what their real agenda is, and their methods for achieving it. It is simply unacceptable in this information age for so many to be oblivious to the real forces of political power, and to allow those forces to operate in secrecy.

These excerpts from Quigley are just the beginning. And while his revelations are about the financial powers of the early 20th Century, they are essential for understanding the power structures that exist today.

Perhaps most importantly, his revelations help us recognize that there is indeed a power class, working behind the scenes, acting upon our government, the mass media and education to bring about a world that is very much contrary to the interests and aims of the public.

The Historian Spills the Beans

Tragedy and Hope is not a book about the ruling class, and it is certainly not a "conspiracy" book. It is, as its title says, a history of the modern world. Quigley has merely reinserted the role of the ruling powers back into the narrative where they belong for any accurate account.

But in the process, Quigley drops a number of bombshells. And I don't mean two week press cycle bombshells. I mean rewrite history bombshells. Here is an incredibly brief synopsis of some of them, followed by the relevant excerptions. (I have linked to the excerpt that corresponds to each item. Just click the number to quickly scroll down.)

BOMBSHELL #1

Cecil Rhodes, the founder of De Beers and creator of the Rhodes' Trust (of which the Rhodes' Scholarship is a part) formed a secret society with some of the wealthiest and most powerful men in Britain and New York. The primary goal of this group was to federate the English speaking world and to expand the British empire. The structure of this society was an inner circle of "initiates" and outer circles of "helpers." The outer circles were called Round Table groups.

This was during the Gilded Age and it is difficult to even comprehend the wealth of these people (I posted a pic of one of their houses just to convey). And to truly understand their aims, you have to appreciate the reach of their industry. These were the first globalists of the modern era and their vision was breathtaking in scope. They sought to create a transnational trading system that would allow them unfettered access to markets and resources worldwide with minimal red tape. In essence, they were the pioneers of globalization and national sovereignty and colonial unrest was their primary impediment.

It appears the specific goals of this group evolved over the years, and their dream of a world federation gave way to a softer, more subtle alignment. But one can only describe their general aim of recalibrating the political environment, consisting of most major nations, into a global free trading system as being highly successful.

We are witnessing now the fruition of a plan set in motion over a century ago, conceived in secret, and implemented over multiple generations. And while the modern world certainly differs from that imagined by these founders, they are truly the architects of what we may call the Anglo-American empire that thrives today. They laid the foundation, both for the transnational banking and industrial system we have now, and for the methods of exerting the power to create that system.

Intermission

At this point, if this isn't blowing your mind a bit, it's because you already know all about Carroll Quigley and his revelations, you haven't been reading carefully, or you think I'm off my rocker. Let me assure you, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I have zero interest in secret societies. Skull and Bones bores me. My only interest in the ruling class is their subversion, for their own aims, of American democracy, and the many crimes against humanity and nature they commit daily around the world.

It is only to the extent that they are a force in politics that I have any interest at all. Through my involvement in the entertainment industry and academic associations I have known more than a few in the ruling class (mostly their offspring) and I can tell you unequivocally that they are not all evil, Bohemian Grove is not a cult but a fancy camping trip, and that almost all the conspiracy theories you will find on the interenet are wrong. There is, as far as I know, no Illuminati or any other such bullshit. And this is not the X-Files.

What we have is pluralism meets feudalism with a hefty amount of mafia thrown in. The ruling class in the early 20th Century, as it is now, was not monolithic. And in spite of their working together to bring about one globalized order, they often compete and work against each other, just like any other political bloc. It is imperative to understand, this is not a conspiracy. It was in its conception. And the powerful certainly conspire and collude daily. But "globalization" is a movement, not too unlike the progressive movement. The difference is the globalists have literally trillions of dollars, euros, and pounds to throw around on their campaign.

BOMBSHELL #2

The Council on Foreign Relations was a front organization for this group. This shouldn't come as any surprise. The CFR is known well now as a trade lobby. And many also already have a pretty good idea of their role in empire maintenance. But to discover their secret origins was one of Quigley's greatest finds. And if one has any doubt about the power of the CFR, one merely has to read this bit of homespun wisdom spoken on the Senate floor from Senator Earnest Hollings (D) of South Carolina (Congressional Record, June 30, 1993, S8315):

If you ever run for President, you get very wonderful, embossed invitations from the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, and you get the coffee and fine china, and, man, you are really a high muckety-muck.
   
And then what they do is get you to swear on the altar of free trade an undying loyalty and support---free trade, free trade. That is all they want. And they co-opt every one of these young Senators that want to run for President.

In England, the front is called the Royal Institute of International Affairs or Chatham House.

BOMBSHELL #3

Here Quigley describes the methods the group uses to implement its far reaching aims. I'm going to revisit this part in my next post. But this should be of special interest to us all. In fact, I place this as the most important of all of Quigley's revelations.

"The methods can be summed up under three  headings: (a) a triple-front penetration in politics, education, and  journalism; (b) the recruitment of men of ability (chiefly from  [certain universities) and the linking of these men to the [Group] by  matrimonial alliances and by gratitude for titles and positions of  power; and (c) the influencing of public policy by placing members of  the [Group] in positions of power shielded as much as possible from  public attention. (Carroll Quigley - The Anglo American Establishment

Thus the title of this diary - Three Easy Steps. This movement has penetrated every power structure civilized life - from politics of course, to journalism (See bombshell #4), and even down to our schools and universities, all with the goal of facilitating their control.

BOMBSHELL #4

The group had significant control over the most powerful newspapers in the US and Britain, and infiltrated the Left-wing with such instruments as the New Republic:

The American branch of this "English Establishment" exerted much of its influence through five American newspapers (The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, and the lamented Boston Evening Transcript)

Here begins the excerpt section. It's a hard read with many unfamiliar names - and some you will know. But I highly recommend reading it. There is far more treasure in here than I outlined.

#1 The Plot

This association was formally established on February 5, 1891, when Rhodes and Stead organized a secret society of which Rhodes had been dreaming for sixteen years. In this secret society Rhodes was to be leader; Stead, Brett (Lord Esher), and Lord Milner were to form an executive committee; Arthur (Lord) Balfour, (Sir) Harry Johnston, Lord Rothschild, Albert (Lord) Grey, and others were listed as potential members of a "Circle of Initiates"; while there was to be an outer circle known as the "Association of Helpers" (later organized by Milner as the Round Table organization)....Thus the central part of the secret society was established by March 1891. It continued to function as a formal group, although the outer circle was, apparently, not organized until 1909-1913.

Quigley describes the "outer", Round Table group's formation thusly:

The Round Table Groups have already been mentioned in this book several times, notably in connection with the formation of the British Commonwealth in chapter 4 and in the discussion of appeasement in chapter 12 ("the Cliveden Set"). At the risk of some repetition, the story will be summarized here, because the American branch of this organization (sometimes called the "Eastern Establishment' ) has played a very significant role in the history of the United States in the last generation.

The Round Table Groups were semi-secret discussion and lobbying groups organized by Lionel Curtis, Philip H. Kerr (Lord Lothian), and (Sir) William S. Marris in 1908- 1911. This was done on behalf of Lord Milner, the dominant Trustee of the Rhodes Trust in the two decades 1905-1925. The original purpose of these groups was to seek to federate the English-speaking world along lines laid down by Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902) and William T. Stead (1849-1912), and the money for the organizational work came originally from the Rhodes Trust. By 1915 Round Table groups existed in seven countries, including England, South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and a rather loosely organized group in the United States (George Louis Beer, Walter Lippmann, Frank Aydelotte, Whitney Shepardson, Thomas W. Lamont, Jerome D. Greene, Erwin D. Canham of the Christian Science Monitor, and others). The attitudes of the various groups were coordinated by frequent visits and discussions and by a well informed and totally anonymous quarterly magazine, The Round Table, whose first issue, largely written by Philip Kerr, appeared in November 1910.

...

Money for the widely ramified activities of this organization came originally from the associates and followers of Cecil Rhodes, chiefly from the Rhodes Trust itself, and from wealthy associates such as the Beit brothers, from Sir Abe Bailey, and (after 1915) from the Astor family. Since 1925 there have been substantial contributions from wealthy individuals and from foundations and firms associated with the international banking fraternity, especially the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and other organizations associated with J. P. Morgan, the Rockefeller and Whitney families, and the associates of Lazard Brothers and of Morgan, Grenfell, and Company.

The chief backbone of this organization grew up along the already existing financial cooperation running from the Morgan Bank in New York to a group of international financiers in London led by Lazard Brothers. Milner himself in 1901 had refused a fabulous offer, worth up to $100,000 a year, to become one of the three partners of the Morgan Bank in London, in succession to the younger J. P. Morgan who moved from London to join his father in New York (eventually the vacancy went to E. C. Grenfell, so that the London affiliate of Morgan became known as Morgan, Grenfell, and Company). Instead, Milner became director of a number of public banks, chiefly the London Joint Stock Bank, corporate precursor of the Midland Bank. He became one of the greatest political and financial powers in England, with his disciples strategically placed throughout England in significant places, such as the editorship of The Times, the editorship of The Observer, the managing directorship of Lazard Brothers, various administrative posts, and even Cabinet positions. Ramifications were established in politics, high finance, Oxford and London universities, periodicals, the civil service, and tax-exempt foundations.

#2 Expanding the Empire to the US - Council on Foreign Relations

At the end of the war of 1914, it became clear that the organization of this system had to be greatly extended. Once again the task was entrusted to Lionel Curtis who established, in England and each dominion, a front organization to the existing local Round Table Group. This front organization, called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the existing submerged Round Table Group. In New York it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations, and was a front for J. P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group. The American organizers were dominated by the large number of Morgan "experts," including Lamont and Beer, who had gone to the Paris Peace Conference and there became close friends with the similar group of English "experts" which had been recruited by the Milner group. In fact, the original plans for the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations were drawn up at Paris. The Council of the RIIA (which, by Curtis's energy came to be housed in Chatham House, across St. James's Square from the Astors, and was soon known by the name of this headquarters) and the board of the Council on Foreign Relations have carried ever since the marks of their origin. Until 1960 the council at Chatham House was dominated by the dwindling group of Milner's associates, while the paid staff members were largely the agents of Lionel Curtis. The Round Table for years (until 1961) was edited from the back door of Chatham House grounds in Ormond Yard, and its telephone came through the Chatham House switchboard.

The New York branch was dominated by the associates of the Morgan Bank. For example, in 1928 the Council on Foreign Relations had John W. Davis as president, Paul Cravath as vice-president, and a council of thirteen others, which included Owen D. Young, Russell C. Leffingwell, Norman Davis, Allen Dulles, George W. Wickersham, Frank L. Polk, Whitney Shepardson, Isaiah Bowman, Stephen P. Duggan, and Otto Kahn. Throughout its history the council has been associated with the American Round Tablers, such as Beer, Lippmann. Shepardson. and Jerome Greene.


 

The academic figures have been those linked to Morgan, such as James T. Shotwell, Charles Seymour, Joseph P. Chamberlain, Philip Jessup, Isaiah Bowman and, more recently, Philip Moseley, Grayson L. Kirk, and Henry M. Wriston. The Wall Street contacts with these were created originally from Morgan's influence in handling large academic endowments. In the case of the largest of these endowments, that at Harvard, the influence was usually exercised indirectly through "State Street," Boston, which, for much of the twentieth century, came through the Boston banker Thomas Nelson Perkins.

The American Group and the CIA
 

Closely allied with this Morgan influence were a small group of Wall Street law firms, whose chief figures were Elihu Root, John W. Davis, Paul D. Cravath, Russell Leffingwell, the Dulles brothers (Alan Dulles was head of CIA) and, more recently, Arthur H. Dean, Philip D. Reed, and John J. McCloy. Other nonlegal agents of Morgan included men like Owen D. Young and Norman H. Davis.

Roots of the Anglo-American alliance
 

On this basis, which was originally financial and goes back to George Peabody, there grew up in the twentieth century a power structure between London and New York which penetrated deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy. In England the center was the Round Table Group, while in the United States it was J. P. Morgan and Company or its local branches in Boston, Philadelphia, and Cleveland. Some rather incidental examples of the operations of this structure are very revealing, just because they are incidental. For example, it set up in Princeton a reasonable copy of the Round Table Group's chief Oxford headquarters, All Souls College. This copy, called the Institute for Advanced Study, and best known, perhaps, as the refuge of Einstein, Oppenheimer, John von Neumann, and George F. Kennan, was organized by Abraham Flexner of the Carnegie Foundation and Rockefeller's General Education Board after he had experienced the delights of All Souls while serving as Rhodes Memorial Lecturer at Oxford. The plans were largely drawn by Tom Jones, one of the Round Table's most active intriguers and foundation administrators.(cont. below)

#3. The Triple Front
   

THE MILNER GROUP could never have been built up by Milner's  own efforts. He had no political power or even influence. All that he had  was ability and ideas. The same thing is true about many of the other members  of the Milner Group, at least at the time that they joined the Group. The  power that was utilized by Milner and his Group was really the power of  the Cecil family and its allied families such as the Lyttelton (Viscounts  Cobham), Wyndham (Barons Leconfield), Grosvenor (Dukes of Westminster),  Balfour, Wemyss, Palmer (Earls of Selborne and Viscounts Wolmer), Cavendish  (Dukes of Devonshire and Marquesses of Hartington), and Gathorne-Hardy  (Earls of Cranbrook). The Milner Group was originally a major fief within  the great nexus of power, influence, and privilege controlled by the Cecil  family. It is not possible to describe here the ramifications of the  Cecil influence. It has been all-pervasive in British life since  1886. This Cecil Bloc was built up by Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil,  Viscount Cranborne and third Marquess of Salisbury (1830-1903). The  methods used by this man were merely copied by the Milner Group. These  methods can be summed up under three headings: (a) a triple-front penetration  in politics, education, and journalism; (b) the recruitment of men of ability  (chiefly from All Souls) and the linking of these men to the Cecil Bloc  by matrimonal alliances and by gratitude for titles and positions of power;  and (c) the influencing of public policy by placing members of the Cecil  Bloc in positions of power shielded as much as possible from public attention.

 
#4. Controlling the  Media
 

The American branch of this "English Establishment" exerted much of its influence through five American newspapers (The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, and the lamented Boston Evening Transcript). In fact, the editor of the Christian Science Monitor was the chief American correspondent (anonymously) of The Round Table, and Lord Lothian, the original editor of The Round Table and later secretary of the Rhodes Trust (1925-1939) and ambassador to Washington, was a frequent writer in the Monitor. It might be mentioned that the existence of this Wall Street, Anglo-American axis is quite obvious once it is pointed out. It is reflected in the fact that such Wall Street luminaries as John W. Davis, Lewis Douglas, Jock Whitney, and Douglas Dillon were appointed to be American ambassadors in London.

...This group wielded great influence because it controlled the Rhodes Trust, the Beit Trust, The Times of London, The Observer, the influential and highly anonymous quarterly review known as The Round Table (founded in 1910 with money supplied by Sir Abe Bailey and the Rhodes Trust, and with Lothian as editor), and it dominated the Royal Institute of International Affairs, called "Chatham House" (of which Sir Abe Bailey and the Astors were the chief financial supporters, while Lionel Curtis was the actual founder), the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and All Souls College, Oxford...

Infiltrating the Left-wing and the New Republic

More than fifty years ago the Morgan firm decided to infiltrate the Left-wing political movements in the United States. This was relatively easy to do, since these groups were starved for funds and eager for a voice to reach the people. Wall Street supplied both. The purpose was not to destroy ... or take over but was really threefold: (1) to keep informed about the thinking of Left-wing or liberal groups; (2) to provide them with a mouthpiece so that they could "blow off steam," and (3) to have a final veto on their publicity and possibly on their actions, if they ever went "radical."

There was nothing really new about this decision, since other financiers had talked about it and even attempted it earlier. What made it decisively important this time was the combination of its adoption by the dominant Wall Street financier, at a time when tax policy was driving all financiers to seek tax-exempt refuges for their fortunes, and at a time when the ultimate in Left-wing radicalism was about to appear under the banner of the Third International.

The best example of this alliance of Wall Street and Left-wing publications was The New Republic, a magazine founded by Willard Straight, using Payne Whitney money, in 1914. Straight, who had been assistant to Sir Robert Hart (Director of the Chinese Imperial Customs Service and the head of the European imperialist penetration of China) and had remained in the Far East from 1901 to r9l:, became a Morgan partner and the firm's chief expert on the Far East. He married Dorothy Payne Whitney whose names indicate the family alliance of two of America's greatest fortunes. She was the daughter of William C. Whitney, New York utility millionaire and the sister and co-heiress of Oliver Payne, of the Standard Oil "trust." One of her brothers married Gertrude Vanderbilt, while the other, Payne Whitney, married the daughter of Secretary of State John Hay, who enunciated the American policy of the "Open Door" in China. In the next generation, three first cousins, John Hay ("Jock") Whitney, Cornelius Vanderbilt ("Sonny") Whitney, and Michael Whitney ("Mike") Straight, were allied in numerous public policy enterprises of a propagandist nature, and all three served in varied roles in the late New Deal and Truman administrations. In these they were closely allied with other "Wall Street liberals," such as Nelson Rockefeller.

The New Republic was founded by Willard and Dorothy Straight, using her money, in 1914, and continued to be supported by her financial contributions until March 23, 1953. The original purpose for establishing the paper was to provide an outlet for the progressive Left and to guide it quietly in an Anglophile direction. This latter task was entrusted to a young man, only four years out of Harvard, but already a member of the mysterious Round Table group, which has played a major role in directing England's foreign policy since its formal establishment in 1909. This new recruit, Walter Lippmann, has been, from 1914 to the present, the authentic spokesman in American journalism for the Establishments on both sides of the Atlantic in international affairs. His biweekly columns, which appear in hundreds of American papers, are copyrighted by the New York Herald Tribune which is now owned by J. H. Whitney. It was these connections, as a link between Wall Street and the Round Table Group, which gave Lippmann the opportunity in 1918, while still in his twenties, to be the official interpreter of the meaning of Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points to the British government.

A final word

Please use caution when reading this. There is a broader context to this that I am unable to address in this space. Quigley's Tragedy and Hope is over 1300 pages and these citations are scattered seamlessly throughout.

The point is not to assert that there is a secret group who is pulling the strings of the modern world. It is far more complex. It is possible that there still exist the inner circle of "initiates." But I have no evidence for it. In fact, the evidence strongly suggest that after 1910 or so, the whole organization took on a new character. And it certainly got uglier.

The point is to draw light on this hidden part of our history and the inner workings of the one percent of one percent. They love the shadows and secrecy. They control the flow of information to a horrifying extent. They have untold influence over our government in ways most people can't imagine.

And they have a perilous vision for our world.  Who has jurisdiction over a transnational economy. Who can regulate it? What democratic institution can even stand up to it?

This is the central downfall of the globalization idea. As David Rothkopf observes in this Newsweek column, having a global economy is great for the pirates, but is devasting for democracy, sovereignty, and justice.

The current financial crisis is another such example, producing  serious questions about the influence of the superclass. Of the world's  elites, none has strutted the world stage for the past decade like  global investment bankers. Masters of money, they created something  new: global markets and a constantly evolving array of securities that  were both beyond the reach and the comprehension of regulators. Now,  the value of some of the complex investment vehicles they created is  proving to be illusory.  

As a consequence, the world  economy was set for the crisis that is currently unfolding. There was  no effective global regulator to keep the system in check, and there  was no real voice for the average Joe. The Federal Reserve stepped in  to stabilize the burnout of one of these major market makers—even  though they have no jurisdiction over investment banks, even though  many of those supporting the bailout/buyout were the same who have long  clamored for "self-regulation," even though many were the ones who had  cited the moral hazard of helping to bail out homeowners and  encouraging their bad borrowing behavior. And so you have a financial  leadership structure that bails out investment bankers worldwide, but  not homeowners.

I'll leave you with this video clip I excerpted from the publisher of Harper's and Texaco heir Lewis Lapham's movie, The American Ruling CLass

"The ruling class is so able to manipulate our democracy that they really control democracy, I feel." - Walter Cronkite

Originally posted to TocqueDeville on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:01 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  End of Part 1 (308+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SME in Seattle, wozzle, Ed in Montana, DeminNewJ, vicki, chrississippi, jps, Odysseus, grollen, SarahLee, NYCee, gogol, Ivan, miasmo, RonV, sen bob, Shockwave, LynChi, cotterperson, meg, rhubarb, GayHillbilly, Mnemosyne, kdub, devtob, Cambridgemac, Voodoo, marjo, RFK Lives, shpilk, Bob Friend, object16, An American Living in London, musicsleuth, exNYinTX, Creosote, bigforkgirl, Gustogirl, opinionated, calipygian, TracieLynn, leveymg, Shadan7, dlcampbe, Euroliberal, dionys1, megs, pucklady, srkp23, CoolOnion, chuckvw, cosmic debris, roses, dqueue, luku, ctsteve, bewert, Cedwyn, sidnora, dksbook, Eddie C, wader, lulusbackintown, Janet Strange, baad, TexDem, oldjohnbrown, mrkvica, American Zapatista, weary hobo, Kentucky DeanDemocrat, dwcal, immanentize, Kidspeak, Bulldawg, Dale Read, inclusive, Oy the Billybumbler, joliberal, lcrp, Pohjola, migo, dkmich, walkshills, General Disarray, bwintx, Donna in Rome, side pocket, fran1, AlwaysDemocrat, Krum, Josiah Bartlett, bibble, BDA in VA, Gowrie Gal, weelzup, skippythebox, rapala, G2geek, tovan, Bluesee, marina, Pokerdad, radarlady, 3goldens, escapee, Tinfoil Hat, NoMoreLies, Jeffersonian Democrat, bellevie, el dorado gal, CTPatriot, Bodean, LostInTexas, Halcyon, irate, willibro, panicbean, frandor55, Simplify, truong son traveler, tomfool, ChemBob, eru, farmerchuck, Sun Tzu, Overseas, lotlizard, Ice Blue, Joy Busey, bmaples, The Bulldog Manifesto, rb608, FunkyEntropy, northanger, Lindy, mojavefog, Ekaterin, Indiana Bob, psyched, danger durden, viscerality, xaxnar, Jim R, begone, ksingh, occams hatchet, Paul Ferguson, Tin hat mafia, mary4, Jennifer Clare, trashablanca, propitious2, tarheelblue, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Keone Michaels, PatsBard, Pinko Elephant, ej25, Clytemnestra, Opakapaka, Aliosman, BlueInARedState, Gorette, cookseytalbott, Prognosticator, martyc35, KenBee, greenearth, blueoasis, people for truth, triv33, sravaka, TalkieToaster, StrayCat, imabluemerkin, NC Dem, armadillo, CTLiberal, Preston S, Dinclusin, doinaheckuvanutjob, ilyana, profh, va dare, Stripe, means are the ends, kurt, MadMs, duha, Temmoku, AllanTBG, Opposite Reaction, bigchin, One Pissed Off Liberal, marykk, ibonewits, Balam, dotsright, donnamarie, Cottagerose, MrChip, BruceMcF, yoduuuh do or do not, power2truth, DvCM, LillithMc, Matt Z, SJLeonidas, Jimdotz, terabytes, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, LamontCranston, DWG, horsepatsy, todd in salt lake, mouser68, brentmack, TheCorkBoard, Moderation, rogereaton, Wreck Smurfy, madgranny, ImpeachKingBushII, TexasTwister, MichiganGirl, oxon, mathGuyNTulsa, Empower Ink, alkalinesky, flowerfarmer, pollwatch, A Simple Man, zerone, golconda2, Johnny Rapture, Lujane, ronny mermaid, CenFlaDem, Jake Williams, daddy4mak, envwq, mofembot, Rachel Griffiths, luckylizard, GWboosebag, BYw, ScienceRocks, chauie, Executive Odor, princess k, Leo in NJ, fayea, ryangoesboom, maggiejean, driftwood, aufklaerer, ARS, ceebee7, snackdoodle, JG in MD, fearisthemindkiller, banjolele, Rabbithead, sweeper, m4gill4, SciVo, mkor7, John Shade, dRefractor, geodemographics, Leslie in KY, sanglug, kevinpdx, Shelley99, PhotogHog, etara, Emalene, Finchmeister, greenmt, Julia C, NCrissieB, Amber6541, Just Bob, BigVegan, jwcisneros, Alec82, rb137, That Crazy Mom Over There, winkster, foolknot, budr, ArtSchmart, roadbear, Loli, Insha, TheWesternSun, chrome327, ainglis, wvmom, Ronald Singleterry, Melissa J, BonnieSchlitz, electrum, SoCalHobbit, InfiniteNether, eyesonly, husseins da man

    Part 2 will be about three methods and how that evolved into modern times.

    •  How The Ruling Class Rules (66+ / 0-)

      There should be little question that the ruling class plots and schemes (conspires) and utilizes various secret or at least secretive organizations to advance its interests. The problem with conspiracy theories is that they believe that this fact explains the workings of the world.

      Conspiracy theories simultaneously overestimate and underestimate the power of wealth. They overestimate it by ignoring the effects of competition within the ruling class. Attempts to establish globe-spanning mechanisms of control notwithstanding, there are constantly emerging pressures on individual capitalists to break ranks, resulting in a real world of ever-shifting factions and alliances within the ruling class. Obama and McCain are both beholden to the larger U.S. ruling class and will both ruthlessly pursue certain consensus objectives (U.S. control of major hydrocarbon reserves for example), but they also represent competing fractions within that larger class that are not easily broken down by industry or region.

      Conspiracy theories UNDERestimate ruling class power by their consistent failure to understand the structural logics of capitalism -- how a world organized around production for profit produces a "common sense" among the populace that confuses the present social order with "human nature" and how capitalist values permeate all the institutions of capitalist society irrespective of the particular plots of this or that secret cabal to "control" the media, the schools, etc...

      People who are serious about understanding how this system works should all take the time to read the foundational critique of capitalism as a system. The first few chapters are a bear and its best read in a group, but without its insights real understanding of our predicament is impossible. If you haven't read it but think you know what it says rest assured that you don't.

      Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
      "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

      by Christopher Day on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:24:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Looks like it will get the attention it deserves (21+ / 0-)

      this time.

      I look forward to reading Part 2!

      There are rules, laws, and the rule of law. George W. Bush has disregarded all three.

      by geodemographics on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:37:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Read Thucydides: This isn't new . . . . (56+ / 0-)

      He tells the story of how, during the Peloponesian War, there was an oligarchical coup in Athens, which ended up completely overthrowing the ancient Athenian democracy for a time.   He says that the aristocrats now openly controlled everything.  But then he adds as an afterthought, that even under the old "democracy" the aristocrats were really running the show anyway.

      See, the nature of money, fortunes and property is that when you have lots of it, you have the power to manipulate and influcence the masses.  That's just the way things are.  You have the resources to get your message out, you have the resources to hire lobbyists, fund think tanks, make campaign contributions, get with other wealthy players with common interests and pool your resources together to influence policy in various directions.  And these principles especailly work in a democracy.  

      In the United States, the corporate media serves the function of being the propaganda mouthpiece of the ruling class.  It shoves their ideas, their agendas, their schemes, their outlooks, their philosophies, their values, their ways of looking at the world down the throats of the American people.  And, to be fair, the American people WILLINGLY turn on their TVs (no one puts guns to their heads, after all) and listen to their radios, and read "liberal" propaganda rags like the NYTimes or watch "conservative" propaganda rags like FOX, and imbibe the notions and ideas that serve the interests of their rulers.

      Shit, didn't anyone think it curious that from the beginning of the primary season the Democrats were told that they largely had a choice between Obama and Clinton (two not-so-progressive Democrats, although one of them talked with a smoother rhetoric and had not voted for the Iraq War), and that populist Edwards was completely marginalized?  And look at who the people ended up voting for.

      I mean even Kossacks are susceptable to this propaganda.  

      And to be clear, this is why I hold out no great hope that much is going to be different under an Obama Administration as opposed to a McCain administration.  Because the facts are that whoever wants to be president in this country, is going to have to end up doing the bidding of the ruling class.  Otherwise, such people will be marginalized such that they never even get near the office, attacked if they succeed in spite of this marginalization, and possibly even assassinated if they actually get into power and threaten to change things too much against the interests of the rulers.

      Our "representative democracy" is largely an illusion.  The super wealthy control this society, and while they do a lot of this controlling behind the scenes and in back room deals, so much of it is out in the open through the propaganda they routinely spew out over the corporate media.  

      •  The conclusion does not follow from the ... (33+ / 0-)

        ... argument:

        And to be clear, this is why I hold out no great hope that much is going to be different under an Obama Administration as opposed to a McCain administration.

        Rather, that is why despite the fact the nominee comes, once again, from the corporatist wing of the party, an Obama administration will be substantially different from a McCain administration.

        Because it is not a committee of Illuminati meeting and deciding everything and then dictating their orders ... it is an establishment system, working to maintain and expand the power of the already powerful, and so it makes a difference which faction of the Corporate Party is in power.

        It is far better for the progressives amongst us to have the Obama administration to fight against than to have a McCain administration to fight against, because there are more opportunities under an Obama administration to make positive gains, and less of our time and effort has to be devoted to defense of democratic institutions themselves.

        •  It makes a LIMITED difference which faction (14+ / 0-)

          is in power.

          "I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

          - Thomas Jefferson

          The monied interests are in control of the purse strings.  As soon as the president is sworn into office, the calculations begin in earnest for re-election.  Obama will cave in to the special interests, just as McCain will.

          The only difference will be in the magnitude.  That is a difference, but be honest, the monied interests will always get more out of the deal than 'we the people'.

          "Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature can not be fooled." -Richard Feynman

          by Tin hat mafia on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:12:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Any differences could be characterized ... (7+ / 0-)

            ... as "limited" differences.

            The only difference will be in the magnitude.  That is a difference, but be honest, the monied interests will always get more out of the deal than 'we the people'.

            But there will be specific differences in actual policies. For example, McCain will gut federal support for rail, Obama will increase it. Now, as instituted, certainly the support for rail will come with economically unnecessary flows of money to rich people ...

            ... but there is a big difference for the ordinary person between giving the wealthy an unfair share of growth in the pie, and giving the wealthy more when the pie is shrinking.

            •  at least one can hope...(n/t) (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueoasis, bigchin

              "Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature can not be fooled." -Richard Feynman

              by Tin hat mafia on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:21:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am going to point to the example of ... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Janet Strange, G2geek, Number5

                ... Clinton and Bush. Both pursuing different policies wanted by the corporate elites, and both putting the interests of the corporate elites over the interests of ordinary working families.

                But the moderate corporate approach result resulted in income growth for 80% of Americans, and the radical reactionary resulted in stagnation ... which means that when the recession bottoms out, ordinary Americans stand a good chance of being worse off, on average, than they were when the 2001 recession bottomed out.

                I have very modest hopes for what can be won during the Obama administration, and assume that most gains will be over the opposition rather than with the support of the Obama administration.

                But we know what we are getting with McCain, and its four years of fighting to limit the size of the steps in the wrong direction.

                •  But what FAR reaching things were also done? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  moiv

                  With NAFTA and "that giant sucking sound"
                  that paved the way for the exporting of American manufacturing and textile jobs to Mexico.

                  With "Welfare reform" that created a new class of "working poor" who couldn't accept foodstamps/welfare unless they quit their jobs.

                  Increased police budgets led to a militarization of domestic police forces, with some small towns having a SWAT type unit before they have full-time EMTs.

                  While the economy may have looked great under Clinton, there was some serious internal bleeding going on.

                  "Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature can not be fooled." -Richard Feynman

                  by Tin hat mafia on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:15:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, and with Bush ... (0+ / 0-)

                    ... you don't get those things?

                    No, you get them, plus more on top.

                    The primaries are over ... the option of a candidate who does not represent the Corporate party is no longer on the table.

                    What is on the table is a choice between the moderate wing and the radical reactionary wing, just like in 1992.

          •  Overthrow, Here and There... (7+ / 0-)

            Stephen Kinzer has written extensively, in truth teller mode, about our history of overt and covert imperial conquest of other nations/movements. This happens when they "threaten" our "national interest" (national interest = euphemism for economic control and dominance, by and for the few.) See a discussion of his recent book, Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, on DN, where he lays out the pattern.

            Recently, at a talk on this topic, he was asked about a particular candidate selling hope & change.

            Questioner: Do you think an Obama presidency will be more likely to break from this pattern?

            Steven Kinzer: Well, I wouldnt say dont hope, but do hold onto your wallet! (knowing laughter)

            I have. No gushing and no blank cheque. He has a lot of fans on Wall Street and from the conservative ranks, both in politics and business. He wants to shed partisan bickering in the interest of change... But whose interests will prevail at this "purple" (not red, not blue) table? I say, rather than hope, proceed with extreme skepticism.

            As it is over there, so it is over here.

            Why would a nation which is historically (to present) so intent on controlling (crushing) other nations/rebellions, in line with its "interests," leave its own populace alone? Obviously, it does not. It just controls us with a different style, one that works for us, for domestic consumption. And anyone who aspires to be president had better damned well prove themselves safe to the powerful elite, willing to wear the strings that pull us in.

            Look at Obama on Cuba and Israel:

            A example of how compliant Obama demonstrates he will be is seen in his regressive old line policy on Cuba. Little Cuba! The useless, harmful, wrongheaded, tired embargo on little ole Cuba will stand, he says, WITH preconditions for change. (First, Cuba must be more democratic, do regime change... Ho hum, ha ha... China, anyone? I thought he said that preconditions thwart the purpose of negotiations... I guess it doesnt apply to little Cuba, so great a threat is it!)

            It is also seen in his approach to the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict, in his contortions (And they said the 3-pointer in Kuwait was something!) to pretend he is fair while showing the requisite extreme bias toward Israel, according to the old imperial playbook. Here, he has shown the powers that be that he is not a threat (change). Given this, unless he is a Trojan horse, chock full of evenhanded brokers ready to break out once he gets in the gate (causing AIPAC, Republicans and Democrats in Congress and elsewhere to explode), there is no indication here of the "just" solution King Abdullah warns must be brokered, and pronto, if there is to be peace. There is no indication of real change.

            I still believe in the power of people to effect real change, change that is truly in our interest (not the phony "national interest" version that keeps the MIC bloated, which Obama promises to fatten, as usual). But it has to be a massive, business-as-usual-gear-halting effort by the people, if it is to be for the people. See: Italian and French workers/students for examples of how this is done. Americans, on the other hand, have a complacent belief in their so-called democracy, but, in its elitist-capitalistic manifestation, it has us. We, with our full flavor Google are as managed as the Chinese with their strictly censored vanilla only version.

            It's not that we dont have the tools, it's that we are missing something ... and the absence of that makes us not use them. For evidence of this, look no further than impeachment, an excellent, necessary tool for preserving our democratic republic, rusting in the deep freeze while all hell breaks loose.

            Obviously banking on Pelosi or Conyers to save us was not that tool. And Obama?

            Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

            by NYCee on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:15:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  when will we americans realize that if we want to (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              G2geek, Number5

              change policy we have to exercise our democratic rights not just by voting but by demonstrating. I hope Obama calls on every american family who is struggling to march! that is its done in europe! and thats how it should be done here!

              McSame is a 'don't tax-still spend' repug

              by deutschluz on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:17:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your post is laughable (0+ / 0-)

                The thought that Obama will call on all Americans to demonstrate (assuming that they really do any real good) to change things is a fantasy.  

                Obama is another stooge of the ruling class.  ANYONE WILL HAVE TO BE AS WELL IF HE OR SHE WANTS TO BECOME POTUS.

                Why would a stooge of the ruling class want or be expected to upset the order?

      •  The analogy of the cave and enlightenment (22+ / 0-)

        The Platonic dialoges express the idea that we should be led by the best and brightest. Ideally this takes the form of the philosopher king who is wise and just.

        The question then arises of who is wise. The answer is that honorable men are wise so this gives rise to the suggestion that we should chose a Timocracy of honorable men or military men to lead us.

        The question then arises of who is honorable. The answer is that noble men are honorable so this gives rise to the suggestion that we should chose an Aristocracy of noble men or powerful men to lead us.

        The question then arises of who is noble. The answer is that men who are rich and famous are accounted noble so this gives rise to the suggestion that we should chose an Oligarchy of rich and powerful men to lead us.

        Its not hard to discover who is rich and famous because of their status symbols so they get labled our best and brightestr and tasked to be our philosopher kings and to lead us. Some do this well, but because what you know is what you do, others do this not so well...

        Their rich and infamous children then become so used to the licentious liberty of Democracy that they publically abuse their self interests until the few decent people remaining call for a tyrant to restore the wisdom and justice of law and order.

        The tyrant makes his own laws, starts unnecessary wars, ruins the economy and engages the anger of the gods. The old gods then unleash the anger of the rule of heaven in the form of fire, flood, storm, earthquake and every sort of plauge, pestilence, famine and disaster.

        Thats when We the People get wise, throw off the injustices of leaders and work together to do the right thing.

        Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Impeach, Incarcerate

        by rktect on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:56:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You forget (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rktect, G2geek, willibro, ksingh, brentmack

          that sometimes the Tyrant is wise, noble, and virtuous, and establishes a rule which while not precisely democratic is widely acknowledged as Good and Just and is supported by the majority of the plebians, while continuing resistance from members of the former Oligarchy, who want the power which has been wrested from them, force this leader to occasionally commit brutal acts of suppression and tarnish his good name.  Such tyrants can generally maintain their power from decades to a lifetime; the good ones actually die in bed (I think Quaddafi is likely to do this), although most are eventually overwhelmed by the unified opposition of the former Elite.  OTOH, there's always the possibility of a purely random divine intervention like the plague that took Pericles.

          •  Absolute power corrupts absolutely (0+ / 0-)

            I'm hard pressed to think of a tyrant who is

            wise, noble, and virtuous, and establishes a rule

            Its the establishment of standards which are good and just regardless of how they are acknowledged  that is the testable hypothesis for your thesis above.

            continuing resistance from members of the former Oligarchy, who want the power which has been wrested from them, force this leader to occasionally commit brutal acts of suppression and tarnish his good name.

            A ruler who is wise, noble and virtuous shouldn't have a lot of opposition. Such a ruler measures, weighs and judges what is right and proper for oligarch and democrat alike with wisdom.

            If any ruler, including a tyrant, establishes the nobility of law and order accordingly and makes the establishment of law and order virtuous by his practice then brutality isn't required because its in peoples interests to adhere to his rule.

            To the extent that his policies fail so do his wisdom, nobility and virtue.

            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Impeach, Incarcerate

            by rktect on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:05:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But Men are Imperfect (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rktect

              and thus even the best fail of perfect wisdom, nobility, and virtue.  Furthermore, those who have had supreme power previously are loathe to part with it even when the new rule is advantageous in its just apportionment of both goods and praise.  Men are not only imperfect, when it comes to dominance conflicts, they're downright irrational.  And there are always some who are just downright nasty, and nothing will do to put them down but a decisive and painful kick in the rear.

              Practically speaking, justice requires a Sword.  If you don't know this, then you haven't spent many nights serving the wine while the king was tearing his beard out.

              •  Questions of how to rule go way back in time (0+ / 0-)

                In Plato there is a lot of discussion about standards.

                The point of the dialectical standards is that they serve as guidelines to the discussion making it a lot easier to analyze what it is that makes it what it is and what it is that makes it not something else.

                The discussions have the statesmen of rulers apply their standards to measure, weigh, judge and do what is right and proper.

                The quidelines that allowed Plato and other Greeks  to analyse and predict the consequences of an action were picked up in Egypt as paired dialectical opposites.

                Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Impeach, Incarcerate

                by rktect on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 03:44:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  The U.S. is based upon 1 principle: Free Contract (16+ / 0-)

          Under such a society, bargaining power is everything. Everything that goes on around us is all about various individuals, and groups, trying to increase their bargaining power.

          The best the little guy can do is work to level the playing field.

          Keeping the playing field level has only been a problem from, ironically enough, the Civil War: the United States, in the aggregate, had a broader, more even distribution of wealth in 1860, before the civil war, even with slavery, then it did in 1890, 25 years after the civil war. Why is that? It's because the invention of the modern limited liability corporation in 1862 (first in England, but shortly there after, everywhere in the western world).

          Corporations created our plutocratic structure. That structure received a huge set back in 1929. It finally got it's game back when Bush became president. We are now going backwards, despite the fact that the old economics eventually hurts everybody and the new Rooseveltian economics made everybody rich. The problem the plutocrats have is that New Deal Economics, even though it made them rich, reduced their bargaining power advantage. They've got it all back now, are arming the ramparts to consolidate their gains in the counter movement that is sure to come, hoping they can withstand it and create a new American social contract precedent that leaves us all permanently disempowered.

          In the mean time each of us has got to remember to vote for the candidate who offers the best chance of increasing your bargaining power.

          It bothers me no end, that my parents, in their late 70s, who benefited immensely (indirectly) from the existence of Unions, who live off of Social Security and Medicare, continue to vote Republican every chance they get.  The generation before them fought hard to deliver them the quality of life they so enjoy, and every time they vote they make it harder for the generations that follow to so enjoy it.

          In my mind, that means you have to vote for Obama. He'll increase your bargaining power at least as much as Clinton did. If we get universal healthcare out of the deal, then you will have gotten a better deal, and will have even more bargaining power than  before.

          •  Very well put (0+ / 0-)

            The generation coming of age now seems to realize that they have been totally screwed.  Looks like they're prepared to go to the polls to get themselves some of that bargaining power.

            try habitat restoration - good for you, good for all

            by jps on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:20:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Too late. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              moiv

              The train has already left the station.  The damage has already been done, and NO ONE--certainly not Barack Obama--is going to do anything to really try and bring it back or truly undo the damage.

              It simply goes against the ruling class' interests.

              The beauty of our two-party system is that it takes the genuine desire for change, and coopts it through establishment controlled candidates like Barack Obama.

              It's like a lighting rod takes the energy of the clouds, attracts that energy, and channels it harmelssly into the ground.  That's how our political system works.

              The young people can vote for Barack Obama all they want.  But the reaility is that they are just voting for another establishment/ruling class controlled candidate . . . .  who will really do nothing to upset the interests and agendas of that ruling class.

              •  And so you'll eat worms? Life is over with? (0+ / 0-)

                Looking at your comments, I see no effort on your part to do anything other than discourage young people from voting.

              •  Obama enhances your bargaining power (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rktect

                there's no debate.

                It may be a little, or it may be a smidgen, but regardless, you will have more bargaining power if Obama get's elected, than if McCain gets elected.

                Simply put, you have to act in your own self interst, and you have to act to gain bargaining power.  

                Things are not as innert as you suggest. Yes their is an upper class.  But many of the upper class believe in liberalism. Guys like Warren Buffet and George Soros come from no where and they bring their values with them.

                You either can give up and eat worms, or fight the fight that helps yourself, and everyone else too.

                •  How does Obama enhance our bargaining power (0+ / 0-)

                  By taking our money and then voting for FISA?

                  The way I see it our choices are

                  1.) choosing one of the so called best and brightest by picking Obama.

                  2.) choosing a so called man of honor by picking McCain.

                  3.) choosing to vote for the principle of justice for all by voting for someone like Dennis whose positions we like but whom the pundits have labled unelectable.

                  4.) going along with the fan club to select one of the the rich and famous like Hillary or Romney as VP setting them up for a future election.

                  5.) voting for licentious liberty in the form of a third party, or

                  6.) voting for a tyrant like Bush who mongers fear and then promises to make you feel safer.  

                  7.) realizing that it doesn't matter who we vote for, the selection process has been manifestly out of our hands since at least 2000 and in all likelyhood long before then, possibly going back to when this country was founded.

                  Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Impeach, Incarcerate

                  by rktect on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:07:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Because you stand to make more money (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rktect

                    It's all reletive. Obama is to the right of LBJ, JFK, Truman and Roosevelt.  But Obama is more to the left than McCain. So there you are.

                    Employment and wages always go up under a democratic president. If you dig up the data, for almost the last hundred years the economic growth is almost always higher under Dems.

                    In addition to giving tax breaks to the rich, Bush has signed executive order after executive order expanding the number of h1b visas.

                    This is all relative. Obama enhances your bargaining power in relation to Bush or McCain. If you had the choice of Roosevelt over Obama, Roosevelt would give you more bargaining power - because Roosevelt enabled unions.

                    Now you can write in another more liberal candidate, but it's only when a more liberal candidate gets in than the present one, that your bargaining power expands.  Nader won't get elected. He's more liberal but he won't get elected. Do what you want to do.

                    It's not a perfect world, but you have some lattitude in you vote. The best you can do is enhance your bargaining power, even if it is only marginally. Make or break is in the margins.

                    •  That lesser of two evils stuff (0+ / 0-)

                      really doesn't do justice to Obama.

                      US money is striving to be the closest thing to worthless this side of Zimbabwe so its far from empowering to see ads on TV that I should be getting rid of all that old gold cluttering up my junk drawers and trade it in for dollars.

                      Bargaining power that was tied to ideas so that its possible our candidate would be looking for ways to do more than just promise change might work.

                      Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Impeach, Incarcerate

                      by rktect on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:58:46 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Clinton increased my bargaining power by (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            moiv

            putting into place international trade deals that had the effect of shipping good paying jobs to other countries.

            NAFTA and China's "Most Favored Nation" trade status (pre WTO), immediately come to mind.  

            Both of those mechanisms favored the interests of the ruling classes at the expense of much of the American people.

            •  Yep, with this I agree. (0+ / 0-)
            •  What deal would you rather have? W or C? (0+ / 0-)

              Your comparison is false.  

              The choices aren't George Bush versus Franklin Roosevelt. The choice in 2000 was Gore or Bush. Are you going to sit there and tell me your bargaining power would be the same with Gore as with Bush?  

              I think that's ridiculous.

              Would Gore have ended NAFTA? Probably not. Would you be better off had Gore been elected instead of Bush?  I think if you had Baby Huey as president you would be better off than Bush.  

              Your arguement is, since we can't get Roosevelt's new deal, why bother. Might as well just vote Republican.

              The republicans didn't get here overnight. They moved the frame of our politics, inch by inch, to the right. The finessed for bargaining power, and as they increased it, they finessed for more.

              Your decision this time around is McSame or Obama.  Obama might be too much like Bush for you, but there you have it. One will give you more bargaining power than the other. You have to choose accordingly.

      •  You actually disproved yourself (7+ / 0-)

        when you said:

        whoever wants to be president in this country, is going to have to end up doing the bidding of the ruling class.  Otherwise, such people will be marginalized such that they never even get near the office, attacked if they succeed in spite of this marginalization,

        In fact, Obama is being treated with a clear double standard by the media, with the intention to marginalize him into being a popular candidate who, in spite of that, doesn't win the election, in other words, doesn't get the keys to the establishment's car.

        This proves that the establishment vastly prefers McCain. If Obama and McCain are different enough for them, they are for me too.

        •  The establishment owns them both. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gogol, blueoasis, geodemographics

          Why do you think Obama caved on FISA?  And I'll tell you what part of the ruling class establishment forced that cave:  The Democratic House and Senate members in Congress that were either already behind or compromised by Bush's illegal spying, or by the corporations that had bought them off.

          It's just different factions of the ruling class establishment that "fight" each other.  But make no mistake:  At the end of the day, they have more in common with one another than they have not in common with one another.

          •  In the first incarnation of this diary (5+ / 0-)

            ToquedeVille made a really good point about the FISA fight, which (if I remember correctly) essentially boiled down to the fact that Obama could not afford to turn his back on the major powerbrokers on the Intelligence Committee (Rockefeller et al.) without harming his future political capital.

            Quid pro quo.  There are some feet you don't want to step on.

            There are rules, laws, and the rule of law. George W. Bush has disregarded all three.

            by geodemographics on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:24:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Just choose which position you want to argue. (0+ / 0-)

            You can't argue them both. You try, and accordingly, your FISA example is full of distortions, including that Obama 'caved'. if every democrat had voted like obama, we wouldn't have a telecom amnisty.

            Maybe Obama didn't want to alienate the people in Congress he needs to get elected and to govern. That's political realism that any reformer must display at one point or another, and in his place, i probably would have done the same thing, knowing that it would pass whether or not I lay myself down on the tracks.

            It's the voter's job, not Obama's, to take the seats away from the blue dog appeasers. Don't expect him to do the job for him.

            •  Obama DID cave. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              corvo

              On a whole lot of levels on FISA.

              He didn't help fillibuster.  And he came out and supported the bill in the end.

              As presumptive nominee, he could have done a lot of things to lead a more vociferous opposition to it.  If he had done so, however, he would have run the risk of alienating people who's support he needs to get elected--namely, other prominent Democratic congresspeople that were on board with the whole arrangement.  There was no way that Obama was going to oppose them in any substantive fashion, and still hope to win the presidency in the fall.

              That's the way things work.  He was not going to go against the ruling class and their puppets (the politicians) they have in their pockets.

      •  So, if that's all true, why are you still (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        walkshills

        here, bothering to take such an interest? I just want to understand.....

        IT TOOK five years, the deaths of 4,100 US soldiers... to make Iraq safe for Exxon. ~ Derrick Z. Jackson

        by Gorette on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:50:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Apropos of Candidates Beholden (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        walkshills

        Barack Obama, when he was discussing how all children should be able to go to college, said "regardless of . . ." and he named the usual: race, religion, etc. But he used the word "class" on the list and I'm so hoping the Trad Media and the Rethugs won't pick up on it.

      •  "I mean even Kossacks are susceptable to this" (9+ / 0-)

        Does this even need to be said? I guess so. The influence of  so much environmental, psychological  control is quite insidious. I'm a psych grad, and it is shocking to me that I have had heated conversations with professors that have bought into fear propoganda, or right wing spew. They fall for some of the very techniques they teach!

        No, nobody is immune. If we are to be inoculated against the influence that the diarist describes, in order to to even begin to free our minds of its influence, we must work very hard at it. It begins with simply being aware that it is taking place.

        This is the irony of manipulation. If the it is done well, the manipulated will believe their ideas are autonomous events of their design, and based on absolute objectiveness.

        "My dad was a sailor on the ocean. He knows all about the ocean. What he doesn't know is why he quit being a sailor and married my mom." (James, age 7)

        by Kairos on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:16:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks TocqueDeville, this is fascinating.. (6+ / 0-)

      I went right to my library account and put a hold on Quigley's tome.  Rather then theory, these elite organizations are conspiracy fact.  Anytime there is secrecy involved as an operational tenet of an organization for the sole benefit of the members of that organization, to the detriment of others (either intended or anticpated), there is conspiracy.  

      The question is, what can we do about their influence upon the global market place and governments?

      "Let us not be conservative with compassion. Be generous with compassion."

      by ilyana on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:48:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I hope... (17+ / 0-)

      ...you have a first edition copy of Tragedy and Hope as the second and third editions were sanitized for the benefit of the unwashed. I told my cousin about this epic work years ago when he was finishing his Ph.D. He obtained and read a third edition copy and disagreed with my analysis. I searched long and hard and him found a first addition copy for him in, of all places, a rare bookstore on the island of Tasmania. He was amazed at the changes, and declared that the nearly complete revision of the First edition copy and the near disappearance of those copies was the most successful case of book burning he had ever seen.

      When Bush41 first announced Globalism he called it what Quigley had in Tragedy and Hope, The New world Order. In a nut shell in Tragedy and Hope besides describing the New World Order and it's history Quigley said that the secrecy of the movement was destroying it and corrupting it's noble purpose as public opinion could not hold its membership to its high principles (power corrupts and all that sort of thing,) therefore the movement should go public. That is most likely why Bush41 first referred to the movement and the New World Order but too much openness didn't fly so Globalism replaced the original name so feared publicized by the John Birch Society.

      The John Birch society had discovered the book years ago and it increased their paranoia about a hundred and ten percent (by the way if you know any old Birchers some of them are clutching first editions on their tired old hands, but you might get one of them to give up a copy.) A retired FBI deputy director and history professor at BYU, Dr. W. Cleon Skousen wrote a review of Quigley’s tome of about 300 pages entitled "The Naked Capitalist" in which he sees the work through jaded eyes and which makes no sense unless you have read a first edition copy of Tragedy and Hope. That review may be why the first edition copies nearly vanished.

      By the way I nearly fell out of my chair when I heard Clinton’s remarks about Quigley at the convention.

      The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the old man who will not laugh is a fool. George Santayana

      by Bobjack23 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:28:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hi Toque, thanks for this... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Prognosticator, golconda2

      It's a good summary, to be sure.  But (sorry to say) I have a real problem with it.  Specifically this part:

      The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations?

      No where do you back this up or even have anything else to say about it.  And the truth is, that's a pretty big assertion without anything else to follow it up.  Based on what I have seen, BIS is working to allow third world countries access to banking, which is something that they need for their survival.  It can be debated what their motives are - but that's a topic for discussion and research, not a one-liner.

      I think we should be careful when we point a finger at the center of something without having any evidence of the truth of that assertion.  No offense.  I like the rest of the diary, and would welcome further discussion from you as to why you feel BIS was to be the center of the domination of the world.  Some say they are working to prevent the outcome you discribe.

      Can you share with us how you came to that assertion?

    •  excellent stuff, yo. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zzyzx, walkshills, geodemographics

      In the past I've tended to dismiss this sort of thing, but you've got it pegged.

      Ultimately they derive their power from money, which they get by harvesting it from all of us small fish in the pond.  The first step to throwing them out is to choke off their money supply.  

      This is where Marxists have it half-right and half-wrong.  The real class war isn't between the workers and the owners they can see: it's between 99.99% of humanity and this 00.01%: the ones that live in the stratosphere where we can barely see them.

      For a useful illustration, someone should juxtapose a photo of a typical wealthy American "mansion" against that enormous castle you have in the diary.  Do it in the same scale, so the difference in size is obvious.  

      When's your next installment coming?

    •  Part 2 (0+ / 0-)

      Looking forward to the next installment.

  •  I tip'd and rec'd a story... (12+ / 0-)

    ...that appeared earlier.  It seemed substantially similar.  I know you deleted the story from a couple of nights ago.  Is this the same?

  •  Tipped and rec'd by me too... (19+ / 0-)

    Looking forward to Part II.  Although I know nothing about any of this, I am so not surprised.  

    ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

    by dkmich on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:31:52 AM PDT

  •  yep... (23+ / 0-)

    good work diarist. i've felt manipulated since the sixties...well, soon the powerful will reap what they have sowed...a world of shortages, pestilence and more bill o'lie-lees they you can shake out of a dust mop...we are truly screwed and tatooed...but hey at least i have my health..cough cough.....yikes!

    Hey, how 'bout we impeach the people who are supposed to do the impeaching and get some other impeachers who are more impeachy?

    by ronny mermaid on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:40:08 AM PDT

  •  I was hoping you'd repost this!! Thanks! -nt (9+ / 0-)

    When employees and stock-holders aren't different people, I'll find something else to do.

    by oxon on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:49:23 AM PDT

  •  Looking forward to part 2. (12+ / 0-)

    Thanks for the diary.

    I am really interested in how these folks influenced the lefties. Beyond funding them, I mean. How did they steer the left? Dies Quigley write much about that?

    John McCain and George W. Bush: Let them eat cake. August 29, 2005.

    by rb137 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:07:10 AM PDT

    •  The Newly Republican was an obvious one (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zzyzx, G2geek, Prognosticator, rb137

      because it cheered on the War in Iraq, which seems to have been a big deal for the plutocracy.

      There are lots of other little details: For instance, consider what the Rhodes scholarship is. Now consider that almost all of our American history textbooks are published by British companies. In fact, a great many of our educational textbooks, period, are published by British companies. We've almost completely forgotten who we used to be allied or friendly with (Russia, France, Turkey) and who we were opposed to (England).

      Not to say that we should not have gone into WWII, but what the British were doing is desperately recruiting us against socialism because they feared, in the wake of the Great Society, that we were going socialist. Not fascist; socialist. "We almost lost you," on British academic told my mother.

      Note that I'm not proposing that we hate on England, either. But we should be aware that they are a different nation and we fought for independence because we didn't like their politics or their economics.

      No laws but Liberty. No king but Conscience.

      by oldjohnbrown on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:07:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  another book (33+ / 0-)

    that i would recommed to anyone wishing to understand the global manipulation  of governments for economic gain (written in a non-tinfoil hat way) is The Shock Doctrine-The rise of disaster capitalism by Naomi Kleine

    Its a very well written account of the corporatist takeover

    take back the election process from the parties, register unenrolled.

    by ex99125b on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:08:06 AM PDT

  •  I've been reading up on this stuff too, (19+ / 0-)

    but most of what's on the web is RW and anti-semitic (or at least anti-Rothschild as symbol for all Jews). It's tough to stomach the invective, but the facts are there. Thanks for posting this.

  •  Just What I've Been Looking For! (20+ / 0-)

    ToqueDeville, you are uncanny. The past week has been What's the real story? week here in my home office. First I absorbed the history of the CIA, then The Creature from Jekyll Island (both on Youtube) to build on what I had learned earlier about the Federal Reserve.

    And now you come up with a survey of modern history to finish up my July self-education.

    Looks like a three-pointer to me. Thank you.

  •  For Others Whose Learning Style is Youtube (16+ / 0-)

    I recently learned how I learn, which is to say, by listening and paying attention. Yes, I read, but not so much any more. So I'm going to list the videos that taught me the history I mentioned earlier, without the CT overtones.

    That's What the Fed Is??

    The Federal Reserve in all her glory (not).

    A 5-part series on the Federal Reserve.

    Some of them load in fits and starts. I paused and let them load for a while, then came back and watched.

    •  I find knowledgeable people (16+ / 0-)

      and get them caffeinated.  And then I listen while they rant, declaim, lecture, and otherwise monopolize the conversation for hours.  If they're very knowledgeable, I feed them.  And I always ask good questions and stroke their egos.  While the method lacks documentation, it's very good for getting an overview and usually includes references for further research.

      •  I Love It! (6+ / 0-)

        Can I come over to your house and play?

      •  terribly manipulative and cynically stated. (0+ / 0-)

        Hey folks, do you wonder how the global elite manage to be so manipulative and cynical?  Just read Cynndara's comment above.  It is a paradigm case of the same attitude.  

        Cynndara obviously doesn't think much about the people s/he is dealing with: they "rant, declaim, lecture, and otherwise monopolize the conversation for hours."   Cynndara "always" asks "good" questions and "stroke(s) their egos" (thus they are also seen as egotistical and yet gullible enough to fall for getting "stroked").  

        Cynndara "get(s) them caffeinated" and "if they're very knowledgeable, (s/he) feed(s) them."  Sounds like how corporations treat expendable employees, doesn't it?

        I have no problem with the idea of finding knowledgable people and learning from them.  Doing it honestly is OK, for example, "Hey yo, you're an expert on such-and-such, can I invite you to lunch and pick your brain?"   No problem, it's an honest transaction.  But viewing them as creatures to be manipulated, and manipulating them in such shameless terms, is downright disgusting.

        If you wonder about the cynical manipulative attitudes of the global elites, look around: those attitudes are common enough that you might find them in your own back yard, including here on dKos.  

        We could root out every member of the global elites, and take them out and unceremoniously shoot them, but if we don't fix the underlying attitudes first, including in our own midst, it will be a pointless exercise.  "Meet the new boss / same as the old boss."  

        •  oi vey ... (0+ / 0-)

          I'm shocked, just Totally Shocked, that you would impute such vile attitudes and motivations to my cheerful self-deprecation.  Of course I accuse myself of base and cynical manipulation.  It's what I was taught lies at the root of all human behavior, and I must acknowledge the self-serving underpinnings of my own actions honestly.  I also simply enjoy listening to intelligent people tell me about things I don't know.  And because I am enjoying myself, I try to make them happy with good food and drink -- is that not also the basis of human interconnection?  Fie upon thee.  My nature is that of impure mortality; it is imperfectly virtuous.  Nevertheless, I do not utilize people as if they were machines, and I do not chew them up and spit them out when they are no longer of use to me.

  •  this seems plausible (17+ / 0-)

    and the source definitely credible.  I like how you mentioned how John Bircher CTs actually help these people by masking what is really going on.

    I could never bring myself to believe that a handful of powerful people could control the world without suffering from murphy's law.  There's just no way.  However, as you wrote, it is more like a movement that adapts to the changing environment.  That is much more plausible.

    Makes me wonder if the current financial crises is of their own planning or a result of murphy's law that just out of control.  If the world currencies crash, as some like Roubini at NYU is predicting, then their bytes of wealth would be worthless too.  Only hard and material capital will have any value.

    It looks just like a Telefunken U47...you'll love it! - with leather...?

    by Jeffersonian Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:22:32 AM PDT

  •  So as the admin of this site, (6+ / 0-)

    what you're really saying is....

    ....Kos really does rule our world!

    Fascinating!

    [/snark]

    Good read, Tocque.

    My signature beat up your signature.

    by Stand Strong on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:29:51 AM PDT

  •  Not sure what's scarier - the past (25+ / 0-)

    or my write-up of the 'consensus future' based on a survey of Kossacks I took last fall...

    Because that write-up, a forecast of the future of the world in 2030, reads very similarly...

    The Consensus Future: Dragons Guarding Their Treasure

    This is the middle of the road prediction, based on the aggregate of the 14 sets of responses I obtained from my Kossack peeps. It's not pretty.

    There is enough of everything, but unless you are one of a superclass of perhaps 80,000,000 -- either a member of one of perhaps 50,000 extended families or a trusted servant of their will -- you go without something. For the best-off of the 8 billion poor -- if you are not super-rich, you are some kind of poor -- perhaps it is credit or data or vitality extension that you sacrifice. For the worst-off, it is the absence of water, food, clothing, shelter, warmth, literacy, dignity, sometimes ownership of one's own body -- and this is not just a metaphor for pro-choice. Slavery is back, and a growing business. Even in countries like the United States where it does not exist, it is everywhere. What were once illegal migrant workers are now black market property. And now that is so, the matter is considered resolved for many Americans.
    It is not that this outrage exists in silence or darkness; information is everywhere. It is common, open realtime-accessible knowledge.

    And despite the sense of gathering storm, no one has shown the ability or the will to do anything to change things. It is as if the perplexing despair of the American 2008 election, when the Democrats chose to hold the door open for a Republican takeover, became the paradigm for the age -- for once-free men and women to step back, to bow and curtsy before power, pursestrings and privilege, and hold the door open for their betters.

    Why, how? Easy -- The American left of the 2000s, grossly naive in comparison to its counterparts in Europe, were unprepared for the true nature of power -- that is it a contest among monsters -- highly resourceful, intelligent dragons who guard their hordes of treasure to the last devastating breath, who think nothing of killing millions of creatures and consider it a responsible activity -- of keeping down the numbers of the herd before it outstrips its habitat. Faced with this reality, many on the left were terrified of the implication -- that everything they held to be core values could not be defended unless it was defended with preparations to accept and mete out punishment.

    It was the gradual ideological migration of the many betrayed partisans of the middle and right that brought home the message -- There was at the end of the matter only one Us and Them -- the Dragons and Humanity. Recriminations flourished; loss of trust in institutions of any sort was rampant. There was a flight to loose, demogogue-plagued affinities of ethnicity, religious sect and region. Violence directed as representatives of government, clergy, or corporate global-dom were de rigeur. Likewise was the default dealings of various clusters of power with one another -- intimidation, deceit, misrepresentation, bluff, sabotage, espionage, assassinations and from time to time open strife. It was all of a continuum, and the now-vast private combat consortia hire out to non-Super interests -- another way to extract rents from a starving, thirsty, run-down world.

    Humanity is set against it itself, highly focused on its own staying afloat. Other species' concerns have been tabled; Few extend the effort, save where there is a clear economic, strategic or propaganda advantage. The slaughter of whole species is comparable to the onset of the European Expansion...we expect it to become much worse, and unless something is done soon, we may lose everything.

    No one scoffs at global warming now; it's impossible to do so. The Supers and their corporations refuse to acknowledge it in dealings with the Infras -- that's everyone else -- and that is but a ruse to block all negotiations of any sort from the outset. Concessions are not to be offered, only removed as punishment for insufficiently swift obedience.

    People are angry, with themselves, with their world, with one another. Fights break out often, anytime and anywhere. The melees are often deadly. Unless an incident has a body count in the four digits it is no longer noteworthy...and on the fair and balanced broadcasting that is the backdrop for real conversation, there is nothing but good economic growth and security for free citizens who earn it, who deserve it, who keep doing the right thing.

    On average, healthcare is better, an unintended consequence of treating the toxins that fill the deregulated global economic order. If you can afford it, or gain the blessing of provided vitality care, you be as fit as a 40 year-old at age 80 ...and that is often done as it serves the purpose of reducing pensions, healthcare costs and introducing a potent lever of dependency on the Supers. People sell themselves and their children into slavery to obtain an estimated 100 years of life..all they must do is work 95 of them, and the Supers will take care of those that remain decent, hardworking, deserving citizens. Free, of course, to be slaves.

    For those who do not, the differential in life expectancy and vitality is fast becoming that one thing too many. However, there are few places outside the reach of the Supers now, and such places are where the great contests over remaining oil and coal resources -- mostly for the plastics and chemicals, not as transport fuel. The Persian Gulf is at last domesticated, with Baghdad being the effective capital of the planet. Had the American-subsidized colonization of Iraq been interrupted, that land would never have been depopulated, transformed like Dubai into an oasis of heavily-guarded plenty, a model for all the world to look on and envy. The Trade of East, West, North, Middle and South passes to and through metaphorical Babylon. The combat consortia guard the approaches; there are, after thirty years of war, no more concerns -- not officially. Any time a flare-up of violence occurs, the population was removed -- all of it -- for roughly 200 meters in every direction. if intransigent, an especially powerful IED left by terrorists would just happen to blow up.

    Approximately eight hundred such superbombs were, officially, left by terrorists in metro Baghdad; approximately six thousand relocation missions were conducted over the same time, sometimes repeatedly in the same district.

    In this age of accurate, easily available information, the fate of the relocatees is one of a very few absolute black holes where no information, official or real, exists on the net. Persons who make inquiries, even obliquely, disappear into that space. The world city of Baghdad, now renamed Babylon, is a project in which Russian, European, Chinese, Indian, Arab, African, Brazilian and Hispanic families among the Supers are very heavily invested.

    There is no safe haven, no dissensus whatsoever in this matter among the powerful. Officially, all the Shia Iraqis were relocated to Iran.

    That there are now fewer Shia in Iran than there were relocated from Sadr City alone is another question that is never broached electronically. This was the price that the Sunni Super Families demanded for their acceptance of Babylon -- rid us of the Persians and our apostate brethren the Shia Arabs.

    The Americans, who had their chance to take the other path in 2008 and chose otherwise, were happy to oblige.

    Their own price for acceptance - No one dare question their choices, methods and motives for military action on behalf of world peace and prosperity, not ever again.

    So no one does.

    There is no dissent among the Supers for this arrangement.

  •  There has always been class warfare in America (33+ / 0-)

    and the upper class has won every battle, save for a few fights in the 1930s.

    The Republicans want to cut YOUR Social Security benefits.

    by devtob on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:31:19 AM PDT

    •  But the Republicans say it is not true (15+ / 0-)

      or even claim it is the rich that are being persecuted.  (Of course, they have to say that because they need their working class supporters to buy into their morality and security bullshit without looking too closely at the pirates at the helm.)

      Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

      by DWG on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:41:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Paul Krugman (20+ / 0-)

        Points out in his book, Conscience of a Liberal how the giant mansions of the 1920s rich families on the north shore of Long Island all but disappeared by the 1950s and 60s. Krugman points out that much of this was due to the increased income tax rate on the very wealthy (as much as 75%-90%) and the rise of the middle class with a living wage.

        The extremely wealthy couldn't afford to keep the mansions up, and they couldn't afford to pay their servants (which they had in the 1920s) a living wage when there were so many better jobs available.

        Don't think the wealthy have forgotten this, as you can see by their efforts to get rid of the estate tax.

        Who will stop this war of lies? Keith Olbermann May 23rd, 2007

        by Ed in Montana on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:50:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Speaking of mansions, (4+ / 0-)

          today's Albany Times Union had a Page 1 above-the-fold story about the building of mega, $10-million-plus mansions on Lake George.

          The lede is:

          Alas, $1 million doesn't buy much on the Queen of American Lakes anymore.

          Indeed, some Gilded types pay $1 million for a lakefront lot, tear down what's there, and spend $10 million or so:

          They tore down the old house and paid $500,000 to blast 10 feet into bedrock for a foundation, terrace the steep slope to the lake and truck in tons of gravel for a storm water management system. An adjoining parcel came up for sale. They bought that, too.

          The couple's 21-year-old daughter desired privacy, so they built a cottage with a loft, deck, gourmet kitchen and bath with Italian glass tile.

          A partial tally of their lakefront compound reveals: 15 bedrooms, 13 bathrooms, 6 kitchens, 18 plasma TVs, eight security cameras, one infinity edge pool, one sauna, one steam room, one boccie ball court, one Hummer, one Corvette, one Harley, two horseshoe pits, five kayaks, three Jet-Skis, two canoes, three golf carts and a boathouse with four motorboats.

          Another Gilded type recently built a $20-million-plus on the tip of Assembly Point:

          Bragging rights for most valuable property on the lake probably belong to Phillip H. Morse, vice chairman of the Boston Red Sox, who amassed a fortune developing cardiac catheters. He has homes in Boston and Jupiter, Fla., and owns a Gulfstream jet.

          Morse's newly completed estate on the northern tip of Assembly Point on the east side of the lake is estimated to be worth more than $20 million. The main house exceeds 10,000 square feet.

          The Republicans want to cut YOUR Social Security benefits.

          by devtob on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:47:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  May be about time to take the battle to them , (7+ / 0-)

      and not in such gentlemanly fashion. I think of guillotines .

      •  One thing you can say (11+ / 0-)

        about the French Revolution ... it went through a messy period, but by the gods, they DID get rid of most of the problem people and manage to restart with a mostly clean slate.  There are wealthy people in France today, but there is also a real democracy.  And the Paris sewers work, and I've seen myriad photos of SUNNY days.  In Paris.  I know you one-timers don't believe this, but that just didn't exist in 1300.  Or 1450.  Or 1780.  They cleaned up a LOT of crap with one no-holds-barred year of madness.

      •  as much as i don't like the death penalty... (0+ / 0-)

        you may be right.  (and don't anyone push the HR button from reading only the first paragraph below)

        The Bolsheviks in Russia executed the Tsar and his entire family.  Cruel, barbaric, and all that, but in light of the subject of this diary, I wonder about this:  would it in fact be better to wipe out the entire ruling elite and, since they operate as dynastic families, their offspring in order to prevent them growing back like toxic weeds?

        And yet, as Russian/Soviet history shows, very quickly another sociopath rises to take their place and slaughter millions.  

        The underlying problem is the attitude: the sociopathic attitude that these people have toward others, that enables them to smile smugly while making decisions that condemn billions of humans to a life that is barely at the level of survival, and another couple of billion to a life that is devoted entirely to keeping  their noses above water, and the entire planet to ecological catastrophe, and countless species to extinction.  

        That attitude appears to be normally-distributed throughout the population.  If you kill off the sociopaths you can see, another crop will tend to arise in their place.  

        So ultimately we have got to fix that attitude.  The attitude is what has to be brought to the proverbial guillotine, but more accurately, brought to the doctor's office and cured, or brought to the public square and shamed until it withers away.  

        This doesn't mean we shouldn't slay the present dragons where we find them, but rather that the roots of this go a lot deeper than those dragons.

    •  Not true. A certain Republican president named (6+ / 0-)

      Theodore Roosevelt was our first trust buster--he successfully cracked down on some of the wealthiest businessmen in the country.  (J.P. Morgan was the most notable.)  

      The whole point of Roosevelt's Square Deal was he didn't mind if you became rich as long as you did it fair and square.

      People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election. --Otto von Bismarck

      by Ice Blue on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:35:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  diary of an economic hitman (29+ / 0-)

    if you haven't read that book, i recommend reading it.   Just another part of this whole story.

    It is amazing how few people actually have a clue what is happening.

  •  bill hicks and your government (23+ / 0-)

    This was hicks' take on it:

    "I'll show you politics in America right here," Hicks told audiences, miming like a puppet master. "'I believe the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'Well, I believe the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets! 'Go back to bed, America, your government is in control. Here's Love Connection, watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer.'"

  •  Coupla points (9+ / 0-)

    Absolutely, Rhodes - and more importantly, Colonial Secretary Chamberlain - did try to bring about an Imperial Federation, the idea being that the Dominions of Settlement - Canada, Australia, etc. - were to elect MPs to the Imperial parliament at Westminster. Their problem was that even at the high point of Empire, there wasn't ever much enthusiasm for the idea outside of Tory circles in England itself.

    That idea was nixed first by the secession of the Irish Free State in 1922 and then by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. What happened instead, rather than the establishment of a Greater Britain functioning as a single monolithic super-state, was that the Dominions and Britain jointly formed what was called the COmmittee on Imperial Defence and Imperial General Staff, both of which coordinated the defense of the Empire. That proved a very unsatisfactory instrument especially in WWII, when Australia and New Zealand signed the ANZUS treaty with the United States, while many of the Dominions of Rule, chief among them Singapore, fell to Japan.

    So I'm not really sure that your narrative stands up.

    Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

    by MBNYC on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:36:55 AM PDT

    •  I don't follow the last sentence ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens

      ... nothing you recount here conflicts with the narrative of the diary.

      Rather, it supports the narrative of the diary.

      •  It's simple, really. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musing85, Bouwerie Boy, sofia, tecampbell

        The diarist asserts that there was an undertaking to unify, basically, the white Dominions. I'm pointing out that the idea failed and how, and that in consequence, it's probably a step too far to assert an ongoing conspiracy, if that's the right word.

        Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

        by MBNYC on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:30:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So you both argue that the effort ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cotterperson

          ... was there, you both argue that the actual conspiracy fell flat in its original objective, you argue that there is not at present any "big evil conspiracy" running things, and the diarist says that the diary is not trying to make any such claim:

          The point is not to assert that there is a secret group who is pulling the strings of the modern world.

          Seems an awfully lot closer to agreement than disagreement to me.

          •  It was not a conspiracy. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            musing85, sofia, tecampbell

            It was wide out in the open. Nobody who's in any way familiar with the history of the British Empire would be surprised by this story; so if conspiracies require an element of secrecy, that wasn't the case here at all.

            Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

            by MBNYC on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:43:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nobody who's familiar with the history of ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gogol

              ... the British Empire is surprised by the story, because the connections between the groups were uncovered and are part of the historical record.

              But they were not public knowledge at the time.

              •  Again... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                musing85, sofia, tecampbell

                ...that's simply not true.

                Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

                by MBNYC on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:26:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So, your main disagreement with the diary ... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... is the extent to which what neither of you characterize as a conspiracy today was a conspiracy a century ago.

                •  Never Mind, Some People Just Want to Belive... (13+ / 1-)

                  ...everything is a conspiracy.  It's neater to categorize reality if there are only a few causal factors.  

                  In case you didn't already know, this diarist asserted in the past that it would only take a handful of hackers to rig an entire national election.

                  The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                  by Dana Houle on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:50:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh, He's Also Accused Meteor Blades of All People (10+ / 1-)

                    ...of being some kind of apologist for fascism or something or other.  

                    Clear thinking with undisputed evidence and supportable but unspectacular conclusions aren't interesting to him.  

                    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                    by Dana Houle on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:51:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Warmongering on Iran iirc (6+ / 0-)

                      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                      by Dana Houle on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:00:42 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Meteor Blades recommended this diary (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      G2geek

                      in its first incarnation.

                      There are rules, laws, and the rule of law. George W. Bush has disregarded all three.

                      by geodemographics on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:40:06 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  He's More Forgiving and Tolerant Than I Am (7+ / 0-)

                        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                        by Dana Houle on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:48:44 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Scumbag (5+ / 7-)

                          I've told you before, repeatedly, that you are mis-characterizing my statement, that I never said "rig an entire national election", but "throw a national election" by just rigging a few key areas - like Ohio.

                          And yet you continue to spread this lie.

                          You're a scumbag and have no integrity.

                          •  Sorry... (14+ / 0-)

                            ...and I have no idea what this argument is about and little inclination to get involved in it, but scumbag here and fucking lying piece of shit cross a line.

                            Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

                            by MBNYC on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:30:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, you think profanity crosses a line (7+ / 0-)

                            But running around libeling someone does not?

                            Trolling those lies which aren't even on topic for this diary?

                            This asshat has hijacked this thread for the sole purpose of spreading lies about me in an attempt to try and discredit me.

                            I have told asshat repeatedly that I never meant a few hackers could rig a national election. I have explained to him that I meant they could throw a presidential election by just rigging enough precincts in Ohio for example.

                            No one who understands electoral process AND computers dispute this except idiots and liars.

                          •  Well... (9+ / 0-)

                            ...this thread starts out with me making some observations about the historical context of your diary which tend to undercut your central premise of a conspiracy, to which you haven't responded, so I don't think a hijack is possible per se.

                            But again, I have no knowledge of or opinion about what it is that you two are going on about, nor am I much interested in acquiring any. That said, scumbag crosses a line, and you've been here long enough to know that.

                            Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

                            by MBNYC on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:44:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're a moron (6+ / 9-)

                            "It is imperative to understand, this is not a conspiracy."

                            That was in my diary.

                            Meanwhile, I'm supposed to take your "observation" over Quigley, of Harvard, Princeton and Georgetown.

                            Please, who the fuck are you but DHinMI's little pal.

                            I've been her long enough to know that DHinMI is an abusive asshole. That is a majority consensus. He is the first Frontpager troll combo.

                            I'm not going to take his shit and I'm not going to take yours.

                            Your first comment, where you put forth your "observations" seemed like a legitimate discussion to have. BUt DHinMI, like a good troll, decided to hijack that discussion with ad hominem attacks, lies, and innuendo.

                            He's a fuck disgrace to this site. And only an asslick frontpage wannabe would defend it.

                          •  Heh. (14+ / 1-)

                            Yeah, and you can go fuck yourself too, you self-important asswipe.

                            Like I said, I'm not interested in your fight with DH. Not a bit. Never met the guy, no relationship whatsoever, no opinion either way. I do know, however, two discrete things: that Quigley's narrative, based on your analysis of it, doesn't withstand scrutiny on the aspects I'm familiar with, and that you're having something of a meltdown here.

                            I don't know about you, but meltdowns in progress don't normally inspire confidence in the people having them as far as I'm concerned.

                            Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

                            by MBNYC on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:14:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What's going on here? (5+ / 0-)

                            Why has TocqueDeville freaked out? Why are you two insulting each other?

                            This makes me sad. Two good men engaging in a spite-fest :-(

                          •  I really don't know. (5+ / 0-)

                            DH showed up, Toc started to freak, and the rest is history. Looks like those two have a bit of same.

                            I have no idea, and I'm already regretting getting involved.

                            Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

                            by MBNYC on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:59:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yeah, well they should just get a room. Alone. nt (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC

                            "We Deliver Opportunities"

                            by Karl Rover on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:53:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Smootches! (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            musing85, PaintyKat, sofia, MajorFlaw

                            I wuv you too!

                            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                            by Dana Houle on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:17:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yo dude don't fall for it. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rusty Pipes, drache

                            Dude, you took the bait and started taking shots at your own foot.  Don't fall for that crap, it's not only a digression, it hurts your own case.  

                            I'm with you on the issues, but you gotta' cool it with the language.

                          •  Fair enough (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            G2geek, corvo, Catrina, Jacob Bartle

                            Slandering people and calling them liars is acceptable as long as you don't cuss.

                            Got it.

                          •  in effect, yes. (5+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rusty Pipes, corvo, callmecassandra, Catrina, Jacob Bartle
                            Hidden by:
                            MBNYC

                            Once you start cussing and using ad-hominem language, the game becomes "dogpile on the rabbit," and then all of their sympathizers have an excuse to join in.  And then the HRs fly, the thread or the entire diary gets hijacked, and the arseholes win a battle or perhaps the entire war.  

                            Some of those guys are master baiters, and they got you to swallow their load.  

                            See, one can do this sort of thing quite effectively with nothing more than clever use of language.  The most-clever use of language is that which bypasses all the knee-jerk reactions but instead sets a time-bomb in their brains that goes off later.  

                            It's not hard to learn the techniques, and it can actually be kinda' fun to deploy them and watch what happens.  

                          •  This dairy had passed anyway (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rusty Pipes, corvo, Catrina, Jacob Bartle

                            I honestly don't know what to do about a frontpager stalking my diaries and spreading slanderous lies about me.

                            I can't sue the bastard. So I figured, since this diary had passed anyway, I'd bite back and maybe he'll leave me the fuck alone next time.

                          •  personally i don't worry about.... (5+ / 0-)

                            ...individuals' "status" around here, e.g. front-pagers or whatever.  Markos is the editor & publisher, ultimately he can make the rules around here, and so long as that's in the open, it's not a problem (that is, he publicly claims the rights of editor & publisher, and then largely keeps hands-off and lets the community run itself).  

                            But anyway, I don't bother to keep track of social status systems, frankly I tend to ignore such things.  "Ideas stand or fall on their own merits" regardless of who is propagating them.  So if someone shows up and posts something nasty or stupid, I'll go after the remark rather than worrying about how popular the individual is or may be.  

                            Also sometimes the most effective way to dispose of a nasty or stupid remark is with a deliberate understatement.  One of the nay-sayers you were fighting with got into it with me about voting machine rigging, and he closed with some comment about "geeks who think they know it all," and I replied by saying something along the lines of "we dont' know it all, but we know more about the technology than you do, and assertions to the contrary are flat-earthism."  

                            The goal is to make the nasties go away, and aside from simply ignoring them (and taking attention off them, for example by posting something else that's interesting and is just above or below the nasty remark, so people will skip the nasty for the interesting), "mild discouragement" works wonders.  It's like challenging someone to have a fist-fight with a giant marshmallow: every punch they swing just gets their fist stuck in sticky goo, and they spend so much time licking off the goo that they can't wage an effective fight.  

                            The giant marshmallow wins every time.  

                          •  I've tried that (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rusty Pipes, G2geek, corvo, Jacob Bartle

                            I've tried subtlety, humor, civility, everything. They're trolls. Whatcha gonna do?

                            You're probably right that my current method won't work either. But it was worth a shot.

                            DHinMI has been puling this shit for years now. I started ignoring him. But when I did that, he started up with this lie that I said a few hackers could "rig" a national election again. He pulled it a while back, again in a diary that had nothing to do with elections, and I reiterated my position.

                            But then he pretends that never happened and does it again! Incredible.

                            The point of him being a frontpager is it makes it hard to get rid of him. CLearly Kos's worst decision continues to disgrace this site with his trollery, dishonesty, and patent nastiness.

                            If I could sue him I would. I probably should anyway. Just for the sake of it.

                            What do you do when someone starts slandering your reputation with lies?

                          •  As another software geek, when all else fails, (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TocqueDeville, Rusty Pipes, G2geek

                            automate!

                            (I haven't investigated your claim that DHinMI does this so this is a totally abstract response)

                            You are describing a needling attack -- and what works against that is "impenetrable wall of boredom".  Verbal martial arts, ya'know ;).

                            I would just prepare a stock response and paste it if and when he does this.  Don't get invested in the attack -- get bored with it.

                            Really, if you think you are being bullied, do what makes all bullies go away .. stop giving them what they want.

                            You say you've tried using humor to deflect -- but have you tried actually being amused?

                            "My reputation" as far as DKos goes is not all that important.  Maybe it is moreso for you.  But anyway, I think G2Geek's advice is good.

                            The opposite of war is not peace, it's creation - Jonathan Larson (-6.62, -6.26)

                            by AndyS In Colorado on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:38:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  how to sink a swift boat? (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            raboof, TocqueDeville, Catrina

                            If we had an effective answer to that, Kerry would be in the WH right now.

                            What I would try is something like this:

                            header:  "Dude, at least get your facts straight."

                            comment, using the tactic of "making someone out to be a nut":  "What I actually said was (blah-blah, quoted from previous diary).  The way you keep following me around to all my diaries with a deliberate misquote tells me you have some kind of grudge.  Tell it to the good doctor, I don't have time to play shrink right now."  

                            or, comment, using the tactic of "making someone out to be an idiot as well as slightly nutty":  "What I actually said was (blah-blah).  I've explained this to you the last three times you chased after me with it.  Please take the time to get informed before you fling poo, otherwise it sticks to your hand and ends up on your face."  

                            or, comment, using the tactic "exposing the ignoramus":  "What I actually said was (blah-blah).  That's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of every independent computer security expert who's examined those systems.   Are you telling us you know more than they do?   Are you an expert in computer & communications security, and have you examined those machines first hand?  If not, you're just making yourself out to be a fool and that really hurts your credibility around here."  

                            In fact I successfully dispensed with this pest in your diary.  Do a general search for the text string "he's right about that" and see what I did with him.  He never bothered to reply to my comments because I had him cornered and that was that.  Game over, I won my round.  

                            IMHO the guy is riding a hobby horse, and he's probably a Republican plant.  The fact that he got front-paged just shows how deep-cover agents can occasionally get into advantaged positions.  

                            Either that or he's got some kind of a stake in the system that's compromised his objectivity.  Those people are a dime a dozen.  

                            See also my comment under keyword "hobby horse" for another example of a tactic that makes use of a counterintel method in the last sentence.  

                            One of these days it would be interesting to do a network analysis of these people, by way of who recs who in these kinds of fights, and see what the connections are.  If it turns out that there's an apparent nest of spies at dKos, that would be quite a revelation, and it would put everyone else on notice to be more alert to this kind of crap.  

                            However, best thing to do at this point is ignore him.  Or take the subtle approach and let him be the one to go ballistic.  

                            Generally, going ballistic is a losing tactic: he who blows up first loses the arguement.  The trick is to keep a cool head so the other guy blows up.  Laughing at them is another useful way to get them to do that.  

                          •  Generally . . . (6+ / 1-)

                            Generally, going ballistic is a losing tactic: he who blows up first loses the arguement.  The trick is to keep a cool head so the other guy blows up.  

                            . . . but not always.  Always depends on the depth and breadth of your fan base.

                          •  Yeah, speaking of which... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            musing85, PaintyKat

                            ...thanks for recommending

                            And only an asslick frontpage wannabe would defend it.

                            ...out of hidden comments. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

                            Hypocrite much?

                            Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

                            by MBNYC on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:35:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Showing Your Fine Character... (5+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            musing85, vcmvo2, sofia, MajorFlaw, MBNYC

                            ...by throwing around zeros.  Nice job.

                            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                            by Dana Houle on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:16:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  SHowing you character by (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            corvo, Jacob Bartle

                            lying about me, yet again even after I corrected you.

                      •  Which means, ultimately, nothing (n/t) (8+ / 0-)
                    •  Fuck you liar (2+ / 4-)
                      Recommended by:
                      corvo, NeuvoLiberal
                      Hidden by:
                      musing85, PaintyKat, vcmvo2, bluestateonian

                      Cite where I accused MB of being an apologist for fascism.

                      But you won't cite it because your just a liar.

                      •  Oh, for Pete's sake (6+ / 0-)

                        Once again, someone give you some criticism and you're off the deep end with the name-calling and the "fuck yous."  This is a pattern, and I should think you'd be far better off, were you really so certain of the depth of your scholarship, to either brush such criticism away or ignore it.  That you again take such hard offense tells me that you really do not have much faith in the academic rigor or credibility of your subject, and thus forced to defend Quigley with invective rather than reason.

                        Your choice, I suppose, but it's hard to take a diary such as this seriously.  

                        •  I know (3+ / 5-)

                          To some people, lying is no big deal. So calling someone a liar is no big deal either. It's just what people do I guess.

                          But not to me. When DHinMI pops in and starts slandering me, claiming I said things I have previosly explained to him I did not, what do you think the response should be.

                          If he weren't a FP'er, he would have been troll rated out of existence.

                          How would you respond if someone stalked you diaries, making false claims about you, and generally trolling for strife? You would have fought back, probably without the fuck you's, but you would fight back.

                          DHinMI keeps running around claiming that I said something I did not say. And he does it even when the topic is entirely unrelated.

                          You talk about a pattern for me? This is a pattern for DHinMI, clearly the most despised FP'er Daily Kos has ever had.

                          This shit follows him around. I'm just not afraid to call him on it. And if he continues to slander me, I will break out the old Nexis database and shine some serious light on this motherfucker. I'm sure many of the gay community here would love to read some archived news stories about Mr MI.

                          And unlike DHinMI, I won't have to resort to lies.

                          •  Are you saying (9+ / 0-)

                            And if he continues to slander me, I will break out the old Nexis database and shine some serious light on this motherfucker. I'm sure many of the gay community here would love to read some archived news stories about Mr MI.

                            that you will out his personal life on dKos?  That's not very wise.

                            Don't confuse this confusion with disorganization, because we're not that organized yet. -5.13/-3.38

                            by Grannus on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:06:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry, ToquedeVille. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TocqueDeville, tecampbell, Karl Rover

                            It took me two hours to write my comment below but your comment is way out of line with both the site rules and the socially accepted norms of this community.

                            I have to give that comment a HR, much as I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

                            There are rules, laws, and the rule of law. George W. Bush has disregarded all three.

                            by geodemographics on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:23:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And I liked your diary a lot, FWIW. (0+ / 0-)

                            There are rules, laws, and the rule of law. George W. Bush has disregarded all three.

                            by geodemographics on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:24:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So much for staying out of the pie fight. n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            There are rules, laws, and the rule of law. George W. Bush has disregarded all three.

                            by geodemographics on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:30:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            corvo

                            He is an editor, his real identity is listed on this website. And he has a professional history in the party.

                            He is partly an editor because of his professional status as a democratic operative. And as an operative, he has a public record.

                            Nothing I could shine light on is not already in the open.

                            Me shining that light would be no different than me discussing Kos's previous book.

                            So, not that I care, remove your HR. I'm not talking about outing anyone, nor would I ever do so.

                          •  I can't believe I'm talking about meta at 3 AM. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TocqueDeville, tecampbell

                            Look, you wrote an awesome diary and he came in and provoked you.

                            I understand why you are angry.

                            I think you are both wrong.  I think he is wrong to provoke you, and I think you are wrong to respond the way you did.

                            I hate to see this type of infighting.

                            It is counter-productive.

                            I really don't have much more to add.

                            There are rules, laws, and the rule of law. George W. Bush has disregarded all three.

                            by geodemographics on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:02:54 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yet AGAIN... (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            taylormattd, musing85, PaintyKat, vcmvo2

                            ...you show your ignorance!

                            When Markos asked me to be a contributing editor in 2003, he didn't know my name or much of anything about me other than what I commented.

                            Keep showing that inability to think, use evidence and come to conclusions AFTER you look at the data rather than start with the conclusion and try to force data to support conclusions it can't support!

                            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                            by Dana Houle on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:07:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, I'm not saying that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rusty Pipes

                            He is an editor, his real identity is listed on this website. And he has a public, professional history in the party.

                            He is partly an editor because of his professional status as a democratic operative. And as an operative, he has a public record.

                            Nothing I could shine light on is not already in the open.

                            Me shining that light would be no different than me discussing Kos's previous book.

                            So, not that I care, remove your HR. I'm not talking about outing anyone, nor would I ever do so.

                          •  Are you spamming this comment now? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PaintyKat, vcmvo2

                            And why are you bringing inferences about the 'gay community' into this thread.. which up until your above comment had nothing to do with that human rights issue?

                            We have become what they fear.

                            by tecampbell on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:01:09 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Just don't want to retype it (0+ / 0-)

                            And just forget it. I was pissed, there's nothing to it.

                          •  I didn't HR you. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TocqueDeville, tecampbell

                            Check the HR's before you flail wildly at everyone.

                            Don't confuse this confusion with disorganization, because we're not that organized yet. -5.13/-3.38

                            by Grannus on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:05:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry (4+ / 0-)

                            I'm trying to unflail as we speak.

                            DH has a way of really pissing me off. It's unbearable. My apologies to all.

                          •  try looking (3+ / 0-)

                            at the fucking "about us" page. Jeez.

                            John McCain, 100 years in Iraq "fine with me"

                            by taylormattd on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:28:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hidden, (6+ / 0-)

                            for threatening to 'shine some serious light' on another user's personal life.

                            You've now lost any pretense of respectibility here.

                            We have become what they fear.

                            by tecampbell on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:42:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's not his personal life (0+ / 0-)

                            He is an editor, his real identity is listed on this website. And he has a professional history in the party.

                            He is partly an editor because of his professional status as a democratic operative. And as an operative, he has a public record.

                            Nothing I could shine light on is not already in the open.

                            Me shining that light would be no different than me discussing Kos's previous book.

                            So, not that I care, remove your HR. I'm not talking about outing anyone, nor would I ever do so.

                          •  This is unacceptible: (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            taylormattd, musing85, PaintyKat, vcmvo2

                            I'm sure many of the gay community here would love to read some archived news stories about Mr MI.

                            The fact that you pretend to defend it after what you said above is sad.

                            So, no I will not remove my HR.

                            We have become what they fear.

                            by tecampbell on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:54:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well then you're a ratings abuser (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rusty Pipes

                            The fact is, I have no intention of writing anything about DHinMI. I was pissed and am not really sure how to prevent him from continuing to spread malicious lies about me.

                            But he doeasn't interest me that much. I wish he would just stay the fuck away from me. Maybe I'll file the first online restraining order.

                            But his record as a political operative is on the record, it is not personal, and if I were to play his game of trying to spread nasty information about people, I could.

                            But alas, I suspect I'll just go back to ignoring him. If I can.

                          •  Funny you should talk: (4+ / 0-)

                            link

                            link

                            Don't talk to me about ratings abuse.  Your comment should be hidden.

                            We have become what they fear.

                            by tecampbell on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:04:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The 2nd one wasn't yours. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            taylormattd, TocqueDeville

                            I retract that.

                            We have become what they fear.

                            by tecampbell on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:05:56 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're roght (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tecampbell, geodemographics

                            HR removed from that comment. I should never blog angry.

                          •  You will have to file it somewhere else then (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            musing85, tecampbell

                            You post a diary here and any community member is allowed to critique and it is encouraged.

                            If your diary can not stand the scrutiny of historical scholars without you having a meltdown and claiming personal attacks, then you shouldn't post diaries.

                            It is an educational method and could help you develop your diaries.

                            So anyone is allowed to read and critique your diaries, so what basis do you plan to use for your online restraining order.

                            PaintyKat

                            WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

                            by PaintyKat on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:47:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're Pathetic (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            taylormattd, musing85, PaintyKat, vcmvo2

                            What are you going to expose, that I ran the campaign AGAINST the stupid marriage amendment in Michigan?

                            Of course, in this comment, you expose the heart of your idiocy and inability to responsible deal with ideas, evidence and conclusions.  You're threatening to set out to write a diary concluding that I'm anti-gay, without even having a modicum of accurate knowledge about me, what I've done, and who I am.  Consistent with your entire approach to writing, a pathetic display of thinking, and a revealing lack of personal and blog ethics.

                            But then I knew that about you.  It's great, however, that you've revealed that to others.  

                            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                            by Dana Houle on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:04:57 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Know your FAQ (0+ / 0-)

                            DHinMI has broken several site rules in your diary.  Starting by being off-topic (threadjacking is troll-ratable).  Then smearing your character (also HRable).  Making unsourced claims about you (demand his links).  Yes, he started it.  I've seen him goading people on this site for over three years (which is also against the FAQ); then when they have lost their tempers and used profanity, he has been able to brand them as trolls.  It is especially effective against newbies.

                            DKos claims to be the reality-based community.  Demand that your detractors stick to the facts and source their claims.

                            Reel Bad Arabs: a crash course on Orientalism

                            by Rusty Pipes on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:03:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  I think the reaction was extreme (9+ / 0-)

                          but I guess I'll be the devil's advocate here.

                          In all honesty, if I'd been working on a diary for 14 hours, if it had spawned a ton of interest and risen to #2 on the Rec list and had included an engaging discussion of ideas, only to be offhandedly dismissed as conspiracy theory by a someone critical of my writing in the past, I don't think I'd be too pleased either.

                          The firestorm wouldn't have occurred if DHinMI hadn't showed up and fanned the flames.  Which is not to say that he or anybody else doesn't have the right to drop in and criticize someone else's thoughts.  If you look at the time stamps, though, his posts are clearly provocative.

                          I am not a fan of deterministic historical theories in general, but I think that ToquedeVille was well-intentioned and tried to be objective in his presentation of this material.  Theory is omnipresent in our society, whether it be political theory, economic theory, social theory, or the dreaded "conspiracy theory."  Quigly was (apparently) an extremely avid reader and free thinker who had ideas of his own, just as we all do.  There is nothing wrong with debating whether or not his ideas were grounded in historical fact, nor is there anything wrong with questioning their factual credibility.  That's why we are here, anyway– to have a discussion.

                          I am a skeptic by nature, but nothing I have read about Quigly leads me to think he was fudging the historical facts to just to fit his own narrative.

                          What do I know?  I could be entirely wrong, and that would be fine.

                          I have no idea what has been posted in the two hours that it took me to formulate these thoughts, but I hope this post will be understood as an attempt to contribute to a more constructive discussion of ideas such as these that are often (erroneously, perhaps) misconstrued as conspiracy theories.

                          Just my .02.

                          There are rules, laws, and the rule of law. George W. Bush has disregarded all three.

                          by geodemographics on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:10:23 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  He wasn't fudging (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            corvo, Catrina

                            But I don't consider him much of a free thinker. One of the things that made Quigley a great historian was his application of the scientific method to history. He was very meticulous.

                            But he was also an establishmentarian, so I have little use for him other than his accuracy as a historian. This is what he says about it in his book:

                            This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the ... Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.

                            The myth he is referring to is the right's conspiracy theory. Funny.

                            He thought he was setting the record straight a bit and later he defend these guys even more.

                            I also just Googled my title to see if anyone else had picked it up. A lot of people have. And many are the wacky conspiracy sites that use Quigley to feed their own misconceived world views.

                            One lambasted me for "conveniently" leaving all the Jews out of it. As though I'm in on some Jewish conspiracy.

                            I've had this diary pretty much written for over 2 years. I kept not posting it because I knew that some would run with the conspiratorial nature and take it into fantasy land. And that others, like the Sophists here, would then use that to try and discredit it.

                            I figure there are two groups, each making up about 10% of the population. One believes every conspiracy theory they run across - didn't go to the moon, aliens, the Twin Towers were nuked etc.

                            The other repels at the mere thought of powerful people conspiring behind closed doors.

                            Both groups are equally ridiculous. I believe in some conspiracies - Watergate, Iran Contra, the presid4ency of George W Bush which as far as I can tell, is one big criminal conspiracy.

                            As for the Round Tablers and the CFR, they are more like a pluralistic political group which, as I said in my diary, is not to unlike our own progressive movement - just with a lot more power and money. But they do operate almost entire in secret. They have public events. But no one knows what goes on inside. And one law the ruling elites almost never violate, it's talking outside their class. You could see this in action in Johnson and Johnson heir Jaimie Johnson's documentary Born Rich.

                            But the globalist agenda is a movement. It was somewhat conspiratorial in the old days because their aims were very unpopular to the masses. They still are unpopular to some extent, but their power to shape the media has aided them in making globalization seem palatable, if not inevitable, and certainly outside the Overton window of acceptable critique.

                            But there are a lot of people on line who go around bullying anyone who gets even remotely conspiratorial. This is dangerous in a democracy. Conspiracies do occur all the time. And our willingness to dig into the dark recesses of power, and to shine light on them is essential to democracy.

                            Anyone who unjustifiably prohibits that digging with their own paranoia about being called a conspiracy theorist is an enemy of progress, and the best interest of the people.

                          •  Well, look: (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            musing85, MBNYC

                            You really need to cool it as far as DHinMI is concerned. The problem is that when you tell people that you got dirt on them, you're being no different than the Anglo-elites that you say you're against. People like J. Edgar Hoover used to do that sort of thing all the time -- he always had dirt on people so nobody ever crossed him.

                          •  You really need to stay out of it (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Catrina

                            Why don't you ever tell DHinMI to cool it? Him stalking my diaries, spreading lies about me is a-ok with you but when I call him on it, and use a few curse words, suddenly I need to cool it.

                            When he goes around spreading "dirt" on me, which are actually lies, you call me a Hoover for telling the truth about him.

                            I don't have dirt on him by the way, I have facts on the record. It's not a secret. I just don't think most people around here understand what a special person he is.

                            Stalking people, slandering them with no regard for the truth is troll behavior. I'll cool it on asswipe when he stops trolling me.

                          •  This is not going to help you. (0+ / 0-)

                            If you're going to tell people that they are either with you or against you, then that means that you are being just like the elites that you say that you're against. And the reason that I'm jumping on you as opposed to him is that you're the one who says that this country is controlled by wealthy elites, and you're the one who is acting like them. In other words, if you want to rid the system of these elites, then don't act like them.

                            If he jumps your diary again, don't act like Hoover or the rest of these slimy elites -- debunk his ass. Write a diary debunking him and explaining why he is wrong.

                  •  Yeah, true. (5+ / 0-)

                    We seem to get a lot of that recently.

                    Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

                    by MBNYC on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:29:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  What? Are you saying that people who do security (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    G2geek, corvo, Catrina

                    for computer systems are wrong when they say a sixth-grader could hack the system and change the vote totals, and that you are right? Of course, chances are they want the Democrats to win so they could blame everything on Obama, trying to turn Obama into a one-term President. Republicans DO rig election counts, which is how Chambliss won in Georgia, and that was not voter suppression, but count rigging. Of course, Democrats have done it, too, or Nixon would have been President in 1960. (Think about THAT in the face of the Cuban Missile Crisis.)


                    -7.25/-6.41 Consumerism is the disease that allows the ruling classes to thrive; therefore, not buying is a small but necessary first act of rebellion.

                    by sravaka on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:42:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If You Think All Computers... (5+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      vcmvo2, Bouwerie Boy, sofia, MajorFlaw, MBNYC

                      ...used to tabulate results are connected, and that it wouldn't take thousands of people to hack all the computers nationally, you're out of your element and really shouldn't demonstrate that you don't have sufficient knowledge to talk about election administration, which isn't just about code and computers but all kinds of other stuff.

                      As for your conspiracy thinking on the Republicans letting Obama win so they can blame him, I guess my comments about about your understanding of election administration probably apply to politics in general.  

                      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                      by Dana Houle on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:48:18 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Scumbag (5+ / 3-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Bulldawg, G2geek, corvo, NeuvoLiberal, Catrina
                        Hidden by:
                        sofia, MBNYC, Shane Hensinger

                        I've told you before, repeatedly, that you are mis-characterizing my statement, that I never said "rig an entire national election", but "throw a national election" by just rigging a few key areas - like Ohio.

                        And yet you continue to spread this lie.

                        You're a scumbag and have no integrity.

                      •  ride that hobby horse! giddyap! (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Bulldawg, Catrina, eroded47095

                        Dude, apparently you have an objectivity-compromise here, otherwise you wouldn't be riding this like a hobby horse and taking it into diaries where it's a complete digression.

                        What, exactly, is your stake in this one, eh?  

                        You're just flat-out wrong, and even though the diarist went ballistic on you, the fact remains obvious to anyone who doesn't knee-jerk on the profanity, that you've been  deliberately provocative, digressive, aggressively wrong about the specific issue, and in summary, acting like a royal arse.  

                        So, again, what's in it for you, eh?

                        BTW, the pizza coupons they hand out in exchange for points at the McCain website are only good at Domino's, which is crappy pizza.  There's a much better pizza place near you, and the Large with two toppings is a pretty good deal.  

                        •  Heh (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          PaintyKat, vcmvo2

                          Yeah, when someone disagrees with you, they're obviously being paid to disagree with you.  You're not a narcissist, no, you're so obviously right that no sane and smart person could disagree with you except for nefarious reasons, and so obviously important that your comments must be counteracted by paid operatives intent on squelching your thoughts.  

                          Not surprising that with that mindset you love conspiracy theories.  

                          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                          by Dana Houle on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:14:04 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  where, exactly, did I say (4+ / 0-)

                            ...that you were being paid to disagree with me, or with what's his name the diarist who you've been stalking?

                            Where, exactly?

                            Please be specific including relevant quotations from my comment above.  

                          •  Don't hold your breath. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            G2geek, Catrina, geodemographics

                            I'm still waiting for him to document that astonishing attack on MeteorBlades he's blaming the diarist for.

                          •  for your eyes only :-) (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Catrina

                            No mention of monetary compensation in my post, so he won't be able to do it.  "What's your stake?" refers to anything that can compromise someone's objectivity, for example ideological blinders, grudges, etc.  And the item about pizza coupons doesn't count because that's not money either.  

                            Basically I designed that posting as a hypothesis test, and got the result I was expecting.  The hypothesis was that he over-interprets data according to some kind of subjective bias.  For example with the voting machine item with the diarist, and now with this item.  By analogy, if there are two cats in the back yard, saying "this place is infested with cats."  

                            Fact is, many/most of us do that frequently.  But also, most of us are willing to recognize it when it's pointed out to us, rather than hopping on it like a hobby horse and riding it all the way into the sunset.  

                            Also most of us are willing to let go of arguements relatively quickly, meaning days or a week or two rather than months or years.  Now that I think of it, didn't you & I get into a pretty feisty one about a month or two ago?  But if so, I can't even remember the subject matter.  Whatever it was, that was then, and time passes, and here we are now.  

                            The combination of a) over-interpreting data and b) holding grudges is particularly counterproductive, and leads to positive feedback cycles.  In fact it is exactly what we see in the tribal warfare of the Middle East, where "stuff" going back generations and in some cases thousands of years, keeps spiraling to new heights of violence or reaches a plateau and keeps going at that level because it can't escalate further with the resources at hand.  

                            Fixing either of those two variables can stop that cycle.  

                            Humans need to learn how to do that, or our tenure on this planet is going to be severely limited.  

                    •  And the Key Aspect You Seem to Have Missed... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...is that this diarist claimed a handful of people could hack the entire election nationwide.  Not that the machines can be hacked in some specific locations, but that the entire national election could be rigged by a handful of people, which is magical thinking.  

                      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                      by Dana Houle on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:50:33 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  O Ye of little faith. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        G2geek, corvo

                        So tell me again, please tell me again, oh kind all-knowing sir, how they patch the systems in computer machines when they (who are all so trustworthy) need to patch things. Oh tell me how, oh kind sir. Why it's by internet, perhaps by FTP, into the system. You don't expect them to go to each location that has an electronic voting machine to do it, do you? Well, do you? These things have been documented. Of course, there was no intent to change the vote, only to cover up the bad code to begin with. You make too many assumptions about people you don't know. For instance, me, who's 'been around the block' as they say.

                        And, of course, I'm all ears as you tell me what happened in the last two stolen elections. Why it was the stupid voters who wanted to have a beer with the President! Let me tell you something, a criminal conspiracy such as we have in the White House with the consigliere Karl Rove, and the media mouthpieces, wouldn't do anything legally that they could do illegally. You can take that to the bank, but be careful which bank you take it to. Not all banks will last.


                        -7.25/-6.41 Consumerism is the disease that allows the ruling classes to thrive; therefore, not buying is a small but necessary first act of rebellion.

                        by sravaka on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:05:30 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Actually, If You Knew Anything About This... (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          PaintyKat, vcmvo2, sofia, MBNYC

                          ...subject you would know that in many jurisdictions they actually do tabulate the results at the site of voting, and call or email in the results.

                          But hey, you have your mind made up, why should complicating factors like facts get in the way of your neat theory?  

                          And 2004 wasn't stolen, and 2000 had nothing to do with changing the tabulation of votes, it was about obsolete equipment assigned to Dem areas, about undervotes, about shitty ballot design, about caging, about a corrupt election administrator at the state level, about the SCOTUS, and about far more than the one or two causal factors you seem set on attributing to the final result.  

                          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                          by Dana Houle on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:22:11 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Wrong (5+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            G2geek, corvo, sravaka, Catrina, eroded47095

                            2000 had very much to do with mistabulation of votes. From a single machine that took away 16,000 votes for Gore.

                            Or didn't you watch the HBO movie Recount. Since you refuse to even read on the subject which you claim is "poison" lest it make people doubt the integrity of their elections, perhaps the movie would suit you better.

                            You pop into my diary and start slandering me with lies, then you start spewing misinformation?

                            Dude, your a real piece of work. Your presence continues to disgrace this website.

                          •  You seem to be the only one claiming (0+ / 0-)

                            this sentiment, even though you claim some majority of folks against DH.

                            Good sense would dictate your giving it up because it is you, alone, who is making you look bad.

                            Your threats of exposing DH to this site from news articles is way over the line.  If you are unable to defend the information in your diary without taking it personally and resorting to threats and name calling you shouldn't post a diary.

                            You didn't bother with any other historians other than Quigley or any other supporting data and then you fly off the handle and start calling others names and swearing.  

                            The biggest problem I have with your attitude is that the method of critiquing data is such a major part of the educational system and you decide to react so personally.  When any thesis is presented the committee critiques and asks questions concerning the data.  Sometimes folks have to expand and further defend certain parts of the presentation.  It is part of the process.

                            And your statement claiming the theory is not a CT does not make it so.  If others think it is conspiracy, they state that fact.  Why resort to accusations they are calling you a liar.

                            PaintyKat

                            WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

                            by PaintyKat on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:04:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Are you retarded? (0+ / 0-)

                            My problem with DHinMI wasn't from any critique of my diary. It was from him lying about me on an entirely unrelated matter - what I didn't say about e-voting.

                            My problem with Musing83 was him claiming I was lying avout Cliveden hous when he really just misinterpreted what I said.

                            If you're too stupid to read and follow the argument, you should stay out of it.

                            None of these idiots has leveled a critique of the diary worth responding to. THeir sole line of attack is to try to discredit Carroll Quigley, which is amusing. A bunch of losers trying to discredit an esteemed academic with far better bonafides than anyone here.

                      •  Scumbag (0+ / 0-)

                        I've told you before, repeatedly, that you are mis-characterizing my statement, that I never said "rig an entire national election", but "throw a national election" by just rigging a few key areas - like Ohio.

                        And yet you continue to spread this lie.

                        You're a scumbag and have no integrity.

                  •  You are a fucking lying piece of shit (3+ / 5-)
                    Recommended by:
                    G2geek, Catrina, publicv
                    Hidden by:
                    clonecone, GOTV, PaintyKat, sofia, MBNYC

                    I've told you before, repeatedly, that you are mis characterizing my statement, that I never said "rig an entire national election", but to throw a national election by just rigging a few key areas.

                    And yet you continue to spread this lie.

                    You're a scumbag and have no integrity.

                  •  I'm staying out of this pie fight. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Pager, drache

                    I see the two of you have some shared history.

                    I do think it is disrespectful to the people who have left substantive and insightful comments in this diary for you to deliberately provoke someone with whom you have had disagreements in the past.

                    Just my 2¢.

                    There are rules, laws, and the rule of law. George W. Bush has disregarded all three.

                    by geodemographics on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:04:22 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  he's right about that. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    corvo, Catrina, drache

                    "it would only take a handful of hackers to rig an entire national election."

                    TRUE.

                    25 years in the geek universe speaking here.

                    Go read anything by the computer security experts who have studied Diebold and similar election systems.  

                    Bottom line is, yes, it would only take a handful of hackers, or insiders if you prefer, to change the outcome of a national election.  

                    The diarist was right, you're mistaken.  

                    Don't fling poo where you don't know the target, or the target might bite back and make you look foolish.  

                    •  Apparently You Know Nothing About... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      sofia, joehoevah

                      ...election administation.  

                      Most of the computers aren't connected, so they would need to be individually hacked, ballot order is rotated between precincts so hacking based on a ballot position wouldn't work, they don't score names but only ballot position and columns, etc.

                      But hey, you guys know it all...

                      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                      by Dana Houle on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:13:36 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  boot-loader hacks, (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        corvo, Catrina, drache

                        operating-system hacks, etc. etc. etc.  ... can all be performed centrally, before the machines are shipped.  

                        Last-minute software updates performed on-site by "trusted" company personnel with no oversight by local election authorities....

                        Physical keys to the secure card storage compartment, that are standard low-security keys, identical with the keys to hotel mini-bars and cheap office filing cabinets...

                        One doesn't need to hack the entire system nationwide.  Just a few key precincts in a few key states will do the trick.  Saddam Hussein liked to "win" his elections by 99% landslides.  Bush and his cronies were smarter than that: all they wanted was the proverbial 50% +1.  

                        All of this stuff has been so well documented, including with hands-on videos that have been widely publicized, and including in the mainstream media, that your resistence to the point is basically flat-earthism.  

                        We don't "know it all", but we know more about this than you do, and you are frankly making yourself out to be an ignoramus on this issue.  

                        •  Ha! (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          vcmvo2

                          Right, before they're shipped, even though they don't recognize names, and in some jurisdictions the names are in different lines on the ballot.

                          Again, you don't know what you're talking about.  

                          Oh, a few key precincts nationwide?  HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!  Right, those won't stand out.  And they'll never be recounted.

                          BTW, your theories are mostly dependent on paperless, touchscreen voting, which are going by the wayside, and were never as prevalent nationally as most people think.  One of the main problems with you and the other fraudsters is you only know about the machines, but not about where they were and weren't used, where there was and wasn't paper for recounts that would expose the hacks, and the obvious problem that if you have one set of results corresponding to one kind of technology and another based on all the other kinds of technology used (as happened in Florida in 2000 with the punch-card voting vs all other modes of voting and tabulation) then the manipulation would be exposed.

                          But continue to think that because you're a tech guy, you know everthing, continue to think that code explains everything (even when it doesn't), continue to think that a complex issue is simple, and continue to expose the magical thinking (and arrogance) at the heart of your worldview.  It's entertaining, and takes me back to the hilarity of the fraudster moment in late 2004-early 2005.  

                          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                          by Dana Houle on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:20:39 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  I am uprating (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    corvo, ratador

                    all HRs on Tocque and Tocque's HR's of DHinMI (because neither is a troll.)

                    Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! His war hawking is why!

                    by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:24:44 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  So simple, and so wrong (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zzyzx

          I'm pointing out that the idea failed and how, and that in consequence, it's probably a step too far to assert an ongoing conspiracy

          That's just a non-sequitur.

          But worse, you try to characterize what the diarist is saying with a loaded word that doesn't describe it at all, at least in the extremely narrow sense in which you use it, and then you use this pseudo-argument to impugn the whole 'narrative'.

          Sorry, but if you were trying to convince anybody, and not just make him mad, you will have to try much harder than that.

  •  I wish I could I am shocked (15+ / 0-)

    The only word I can think of that describes greed on this scale is evil. Funny thing - the control of resources and information under the cloak of secrecy is very much central to Bush/Cheney administration. It must be a coincidence.

    This says it all:

    As David Rothkopf observes in this Newsweek column, having a global economy is great for the pirates, but is devasting for democracy, sovereignty, and justice.

    Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by DWG on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:37:42 AM PDT

  •  A Google search (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt, Argyrios

    reveals that most of the sites praising Carroll Quigley's theories are
    antisemitic, or John Birch groups, or antisemitic,  or extreme right-wing, and the like.

    The fact that a "prominent" person subscribes to a conspiracy theory doesn't make it less of a conspiracy theory. I'm really surprised this ended up on the Rec List.

    •  very close to trolling, sunshine (20+ / 0-)

      The fact that a "prominent" person subscribes to a conspiracy theory doesn't make it less of a conspiracy theory

      The fact that some groups of whackos get their jollies off of taking some things out of context does not make the life's work of a highly respected person like Quigley 'conspiracy theories'.

      "You know what the real fight is? The real fight is the definition of what is reality." Bernie Sanders

      by shpilk on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:56:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let me say something about the term "conspiracy (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gogol, G2geek, Prognosticator, Zydekos

        theorist" .I'm not always sure how the person  typing in a comment in an online discussion here or there might use the word , but the meaning of the speaker has been very , very , clear to me when it has been used in a face to face conversation . Whether I was being referred to as a "conspiracy theorist" or the user of the term was talking about a third party or some abstraction.
           It is used in speech, in my experience, as "troublemaking malcontent whom I've not got the sand to actually call a nutcase , which you/they obviously are , because you've got to be CRAZY to suggest that anything be changed that might endanger my opportunity to be so comfortable as an asslicking , donothing parasite". I have never heard it used , in face to face speech , by anyone, not once , who was not an asslicking ,donothing parasite , backstabber , useless POS like every one of us enconters in the workplace at some point in our lives , or even each workday. shpilk , i trust you realize i am interjecting this remark at this point just as a long delayed boiling reaction to the sight of the term "conspiracy theories " ,not your use of it , and certainly not you. I have been able to avoid venting this for some years now , except in close company of close friends and family , but , By Shitmonster , the people who go about sneering "conspiracy theory /theorist " are generally asslicking , donothing parasites. Have a nice day , and fight fascism , even if Yer Mom be one.
           

        •  CT (7+ / 0-)

          I believe that "conspiracy theorist" came into frequent common use immediately after 9/11 when George Bush, in a major speech, effectively labelled all questioning of the "official explanation" as subscribing to conspiracy theories.  

          His use of this term effectively limited  free inquiry into what had actually just happened. It made anyone who thought independently and questioned the official story into a crackpot.  

          This is a form of thought control exerted very skillfully by  the current regime.

          I may be wrong, but I don't recall hearing that term used pre-9/11.  Is there a way of searching the Internet for frequency of use of words in a particular time frame?

          Bush hijacked the US with lies about 9/11 and crashed it into Iraq, killing over 500,000 human beings. So far, he's avoided arrest and prosecution.

          by Zydekos on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:09:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't know, as far as the lexicograohy. IIRC it (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Prognosticator, Zydekos

            was a term in some use prior to that , and approximately about then became one very often used. Your desciption of usage and purpose of that usage is very much like mine , with years of anger
            and venom left out , LOL!

          •  You conveniently forget the assassination of JFK (0+ / 0-)

            and all the "conspiracy theories" that emanated from that as snakes out of a den.


            -7.25/-6.41 Consumerism is the disease that allows the ruling classes to thrive; therefore, not buying is a small but necessary first act of rebellion.

            by sravaka on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:49:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hooray! I'm Younger than I Thought! (2+ / 0-)

                     srvvaka, you are correct.    I had forgotten how many attempts people made to explain all the loose ends in that unhappy event.  

              Occams razor  recommends that the simplest explanation is the best, if it includes what is known.  

                     Conspiracy Theory and Scientific Theory---both are attempts to gather the facts and organize them in the simplest way that explains the situation.  

                    Why would anyone want to spend time developing, proposing, and defending  a theory to explain and connect a bunch of separate observations.  My theory  is that we do it to make ourselves feel less anxious about the world,
              less helpless and more in control, even if the sense of control is illusory.  

                      It is amazing how different I feel if someone calls me a CT or if they call me a Scientific Theorist.  The label "CT" stifles inquiry and deadens the inquisitive mind.  Being called a "Scientific Theorist" is  invigorating and freeing.  If somebody calls me a CT, my first reaction is now "What are they hiding? and "Why don't they want me to explore this area?"

              Bush hijacked the US with lies about 9/11 and crashed it into Iraq, killing over 500,000 human beings. So far, he's avoided arrest and prosecution.

              by Zydekos on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:22:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  the phrase is used any time... (3+ / 0-)

            ...something big & bad happens, and substantial mysteries remain about it.

            Anyone who demands to keep digging gets labeled a "conspiracy theorist."  

            The point of doing so is to enable various guilty parties to get partially or wholly off the hook for things that are not conspiracy-level involvement as such, but would be major trouble for those individuals in any case.

            For example, let's start with an obvious blunt fact, about which there is no dispute:  9/11 happened on Bush's watch.  And another blunt fact about which there is no dispute:  Bush dismissed (willfully disregarded) advance intel on Al Qaeda, which, if he had taken it seriously, might have enabled the relevant agencies to arrest one or more of the hijackers and thwart the attack.

            By propagating the phrase "conspiracy theory," Bush effectively puts up a large enough smokescreen that even the two points above don't end up getting much press at times when they reasonably should have been front-page headlines.  

            Sometimes the charge of "conspiracy theory" isn't made to cover up an actual conspiracy, so much as to cover up incompetence or willful negligence that would, if it was known, be the end of the career of the person making the cover-up.  

            These points can probably also be applied to the Kennedy assassination and other events.  

            •  Nice Explanation G2 (0+ / 0-)

                     We posted almost simultaneously and parallel thoughts.  No conspiracy, though.  Dialogue, free thought, and discussion are welcome here.....well, generally.  

              Bush hijacked the US with lies about 9/11 and crashed it into Iraq, killing over 500,000 human beings. So far, he's avoided arrest and prosecution.

              by Zydekos on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:26:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, the Pope cites Jesus all the time (nt) (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gogol, TocqueDeville, geodemographics

      "They're telling us something we don't understand"
      General Charles de Gaulle, Mai '68

      by subtropolis on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:18:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  These are interesting and pertinent questions: (18+ / 0-)

    Who has jurisdiction over a transnational economy? Who can regulate it? What democratic institution can even stand up to it?

    The major transnational corporations have clearly usurped a great deal of power from sovereign national governments.

    There are rules, laws, and the rule of law. George W. Bush has disregarded all three.

    by geodemographics on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:44:44 AM PDT

  •  No doubt that the current financial (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RonV, TracieLynn, Dave925, cynndara

    crisis is Murphy's law at work. The great robber barons and imperialists who run the West have fucked up this time,badly and of course,we in the middle class will suffer the consequences.

  •  Conspiracies of Convenience (30+ / 0-)

    There is a wealth of good research on this.  I wrote a series of international conspiracy novels that, while completely fictional, were grounded in what I call "conspiracies of convenience."

    What I mean by that is similar to what Naomi Klein describes in The Shock Doctrine (linked by another commentor), though I think Klein misses the mark by a (very) tiny fraction.  My theory is this:

    Our world is in constant change, and every change produces challenges and opportunities.  From wars to natural disasters, economic trends to climate shifts, every change creates hardships for those who are "behind the curve," and opportunities for those who are "ahead of the curve."

    The power elites do, in fact, "conspire" of a sort, in that they meet privately to discuss events, try to predict significant changes, and discuss ways to take advantage of those changes.

    I call these "conspiracies of convenience" because, unlike in my novels, most of these power elites are not "pulling the strings."  Events are inherently chaotic, and profound events are often the actions of otherwise insignificant individuals.  From John Wilkes Boothe to Lee Harvy Oswald, Timothy McVeigh to the 9/11 hijackers, the actions of individuals, beyond the reach or control of the power elite, can and do often turn events upside down.  Add to that natural disasters and random outbreaks of tribal or religious violence, and many of the world's most important events are not "controlled" in any sense of the word.

    What these "conspiracies of convenience" do, in most cases, is predict the kinds of events that are likely to happen - somewhere, sometime - and make plans to profit by those events.  They have the resources and flexibility to respond immediately with both a narrative of the problem which fits their agenda, and a proposed solution from which they will profit.

    That's not always or inherently bad.  Sometimes their interests do coincide with the needs of the ordinary people facing the hardships caused by the event.  But that happens only by coincidence.  If it's more profitable to actually help the people in hardship, they'll do so.  If it's more profitable to give the appearance of helping while using the opportunity to seize resources or markets, they'll do that.  They are motivated by profit, not by any sense of the public good.

    The proper role of government, then, is to moderate those efforts toward the public good.  And when any government tries to do so, in any significant way, those power elites will brand that government with whatever epithet is currently in vogue:  communist, totalitarian, brutal despot, or terrorist.  If they can convince enough of the right people, they might even get it overthrown.

    But they might not.  They can't simply make a call and make it happen.  They are the corporate elite, but they have only as much control of government as the politicians cede them.

    And, believe it or not, that's how they prefer it.  Because with government comes responsibility and, eventually, accountability to the body politic ... and that's the last thing they want.

    •  Cheney's Energy Task Force (20+ / 0-)

      Would that then be one of those conspiracies of convenience? Given this story today from Reuters, Oil Majors Profits' to Soar on Record Crude, the oil barrons have certainly found their profit, much to the rest of the world's expense.

      Nothing is ever broken that can't be fixed if enough people are committed ~ Bill Moyers

      by cosmic debris on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:17:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's one example, yes. (27+ / 0-)

        That's a classic example of what I'm referring to.  Cheney's Energy Task Force famously had a map on the wall which one observer described as "carving up Iraq's oil fields like slices of beef."  There were several forces trending toward invading Iraq, not least Saddam Hussein's 2000 decision to accept euros (not dollars) in payment for Iraqi oil, under the U.N. Oil for Food Program.  That was the first major leak in the petrodollar monopoly.

        But there was no way to create a political consensus for invading Iraq to loot its oil and force it back to the petrodollar monopoly.  They knew they'd need some threat or event which they could then describe as a causus belli.  And they knew - judging from recent history - that terrorism would provide such an excuse, because there would inevitably be some terrorist attack, somewhere, that could be pinned on Hussein.

        Enter 9/11, an attack which had nothing at all to do with Hussein, but which was immediately seized upon as an Iraqi operation.  The narrative of the problem (rogue states sponsoring terrorism) and the proposed solution (overthrow Hussein and install a U.S. friendly puppet government) were already packaged and ready to present to Congress and the American people, fictions with just enough fact to skate largely unchallenged past a shocked-into-obeisance (and corporate-owned) media.

        In that sense, the 9/11-into-Iraq "conspiracy" is true; the narrative and the invasion proposal were already packaged, largely in think tanks like PNAC but also in groups like the Cheney Task Force.  But to go beyond that and say that PNAC (or Cheney or Bush, etc.) "planned" 9/11 is to miss the greater power of these "conspiracies of convenience."  That is, the "conspirators" don't need to perpetrate events like 9/11.  They simply wait for one to happen ... and swoop in with an already-packaged narrative and proposal by which to seize the dialogue and then the profits.

    •  I heard a comment by a NY Trader after 9/11.. (7+ / 0-)

      who said (in a radio program) that [paraphrase] while traders don't hope for chaotic events, they know very well that a lot of money can be made when chaos occurs.

      My view: (I doubt the abvoe is true)  What we have is the speculator's ability to cause chaos in markets, the military can, national policy--or lack of it--can, and then, money is made from all this on trading floors, and elsewhere.  There seems to be 'no money' anymore in stability and nominal growth.  It all has to be chaotic now--plenty of slopes and lots of uncertainty.

      I also ask: why can't oil futures be shorted, thus putting downward incentive on that market.  Is it illegal to short certain commodities?

      There's no doubt in my mind that America is being set onto a Third World course.  

      Great diary thank you.

      •  oil can be shorted (9+ / 0-)

        and many people are doing so, just not very successfully so far.   One large firm just went bankrupt with large short positions.  

        The rapid fall of energy company SemGroup LP has startled participants in the oil markets, left creditors struggling to understand how the company's trading went wrong and attracted the attention of federal authorities.

        Until now a little-known, though large, closely held partnership in Tulsa, Okla., SemGroup transports, stores and distributes crude oil and refined products. It filed for bankruptcy protection this week after losing more than $2.4 billion on energy contracts it had entered into. Exactly what drove the company to that fate remains unclear, but clues have started to emerge amid court hearings and other ripples from the implosion.

        .....

        The company said in court filings that $290 million of the losses it sustained were due to trading done through SemGroup by a firm owned by its former chief executive.

        SemGroup had large "short" positions on crude-oil contracts, which were essentially bets that oil prices would fall. As part of its business, SemGroup uses these contracts -- which commit the company to sell oil at fixed prices at future dates -- to hedge its inventory and future oil purchases. But given the whopping size of SemGroup's losses, some analysts and creditors suspect the firm may also have been making speculative trades not directly tied to its core business.

      •  Market saturation (13+ / 0-)

        You're correct in that there's little profit potential in "stable growth" - save for markets like India and China - because Western markets are already saturated.  And the really big profits are always "at the frontiers," new technologies or new markets that yield phenomenal early profits.  Once a technology or market is saturated - products and processes have been optimized, with supply roughly equal to demand - the only profits left are market-share margins.

        So yes, the big money is where it always has been: at the "frontiers" ... and as development reaches its energy ceiling, the only reliable "frontier" is chaos:  violence or natural disaster.

      •  Semgroup went bankrupt shorting oil (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gogol

        They are shorted, there was recent news that a $10B oil company (semgroup) just declared bankruptcy because of oil shorts. Many of the people who are in the market are sheep. They just follow trends. It is difficult and can destroy you if you try to buck the trend which is why there are very few shorts. However, as soon as groups sense weakness in the price of oil they will massively short which will cause an avalanche as all the sheep jump on to short as well. The markets are too liquid and too big for long term manipulation, obviously short term anything can happen. But the speculators take risks and some of them will get crushed - big risks and big rewards.

        http://www.boston.com/...

    •  Good Phrase (10+ / 0-)

      Conspiracies of Convenience

      ...scaled up chamber of commerce "understandings"....relatively harmless in a small town though at times not without a pervasive petty veoom.

      On a global scale the interlocking, reciprocal feedback of overlapping interests has an inbuilt robustness that allows it to flourish for a time and even spread benefits to those less connected. But the modern world's newer structures, pace and technology allows more fine tuning of the world economy and more stray profits to be tracked down and siphoned away from the majority. And the very pace of change virtually guarantees that the unchecked greed will destabilize the whole system.

      On top of that, necessary adjustments to avoid going off the rails entirely may not be popular in the amorphous grouping that amounts to a global elite-inner circle. And there is no way to legislate or control a group who is so vague and oblivious to anything but the immediate bottom line. And ironically while  vital remedies will not be implemented in time to avoid wide ranging dislocations they will be in the best position to exploit the changed economic landscape. And, while they have the scope and mechanisms to save themselves from mos of the inconveniences...as the old Joke Soviet/Russian saying goes: "The shortages will be shared equally by the peasants/workers"

      Their unofficial motto might be: "I'm All Right Jack" also see Urban Dictionary's definition/origin and their unoffical cheer may as well be "Long live trickle down"

      The emergent property of The 1% of the 1% pooling their intent is a virtual, headless oligarchy. It needs no overall head though there are no doubt those who fancy themselves as virtually the COB of Earth inc. or at least as good as.

      Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie

      by IreGyre on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:47:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Where's Robin Hood? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NCrissieB

        It seems to me that the only profits available today for those who are not born or bought into the Elite must come from preying on them -- they're the only ones who, realistically, have anything worth stealing.  Why doesn't somebody do it?

    •  There's a great book about the Power Elite ... (7+ / 0-)

      ... called, surprisingly, The Power Elite, by C. Wright Mills.

      He also says that, to paraphrase, "you don't need conspiracies when you have grapevines." Centuries' worth of intermarriage, attending the same universities, hiring each other, getting each other elected, etc., is sufficient to ensure that your "crowd" get all the world's goodies.

      First, oversight; second, investigations; third, impeachments; fourth, war crimes trials!

      by ibonewits on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:49:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Conspiracies of Convenience" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brentmack, geodemographics, NCrissieB

      are what make the world function, no matter the scale.

      What a wonderful post! Thank you.

      Mikolo

    •  Exactly right! (4+ / 0-)

      It is pretty disheartening to read all the comments above. This one though hits the nail on the head. The capitalists are not some mystic entity, and the things those individuals do are the things that most people (should) do - they try to maximize the value of their money and they try to increase their net worth.

      Things work exactly as ncrissieb described, which is logical and does not require any kind of conspiracy theory. For example I run a small company and I attend an economic forecast presentation once a year that forecasts events over the next few years. The current crisis and next years recession was forecasted in the 2005 presentation. My job as president of the company is to ensure that my company survives and thrives. My interests are aligned with those of my employees in that if my company thrives then so do they. In the past I have sustained losses and I am the one that takes the capital risk of things going badly and I am the one that gains the profit reward when things go well.

      Right now we are hoarding cash to try to weather next year's storm and trying to branch out into areas that are counter-cyclical.

      In addition on a personal level, Im saving up cash to take advantage of the inexpensive property that will be coming available next year. Is that wrong?

      The reality is that most americans choose not to do this, they are not prevented by some mysterious cabal. When my parents were graduate students and dirt poor with one child, they still saved 30% of their income. Asian immigrants do this every day and are famous for building wealth from nothing. 80-90% of americans could save money to invest at their current level of income, if they would just reduce their spending.

      Right now financial services companies are taking a beating. They are a great investment. Take advantage of the capitalists by buying a piece of them at a discount.

      •  Not all are similarly situated (0+ / 0-)

        There are three factors that make conspiracies of convenience possible: (1) good forecasting; (2) common interest; and, (3) accumulated resources and resource mobility.

        Good forecasting was once the exclusive province of the power elites, but that's no longer true.  With the rise of the internet, anyone with the time and inclination can access good event forecasts; we too can reliably estimate the kinds of events that are likely to happen somewhere, at some time.

        But that's where our equal situation ends.

        The power elites share an single, overriding common interest: profitability.  In fact, they have no choice; they have a legal duty to maximize profitability for their shareholders.  But citizens balance conflicting interests: financial, familial, social, ethical, legal, and aspirational.  That is healthy, but it does place us at a disadvantage vs. power elites sharing a single, common interest (in their roles as power elites).

        But even if we had equal information (and we can) and a single, common interest (and we shouldn't), that would not level the playing field.  The power elites have far greater accumulated resources, and far greater resource mobility.  That means they can avoid dangers and seize opportunities that most of us can't.  A hypothetical example:

        Given the much warmer than normal sea surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, 2008 is likely to be a very active, very dangerous hurricane season.  For power elites, this is a cue to shift resources from property insurance to construction holdings.  That is, the property insurance industry will take a beating during a very active and dangerous hurricane season, but the construction industry will see a boom afterwards.

        By contrast, the ordinary citizen doesn't have many (if any) spare resources to shift around.  And for those of us whose lives (homes, jobs, families, and the like) are in hurricane country, well, we don't have the resource mobility to just move away.  We can prepare to minimize the damage as best we can, but if we get hit we're going to suffer.

        So TXCon's notion that we ought all to act like power elites is simply not reasonable.  People are not mere micro-corporations.  We balance divergent interests, mostly with very limited resources, and with very little resource mobility.

        Thus we rely on another organization - government - to level the playing field for us, to ensure that every new event doesn't simply siphon more of our meager gains into the power elites' pockets.

    •  Very interesting perspective. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      geodemographics

      This line of thought would make for a very interesting Diary.

      Care to share titles for the curious amongst us?  :)

      you were sick, but now you're well again and there's work to do- vonnegut

      by zzyzx on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:42:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I thought it was a military coup (10+ / 0-)

    Led by Private Interests, Major Incompetence, and General Chaos.

    McCain's 3AM ad is really a Flomax commercial.

    by jhecht on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:51:19 AM PDT

  •  Who Rules America (25+ / 0-)

    This excellent site has some of the same ideas from a sociological rather than historical point of view.  But it makes the same point: the major policy debates in the US of the last fifty years have all been within the wealthiest 0.5% of the population.  As in this essay, there's not a vast conspiracy, but rather a class of common interests with divided views on strategies.  The divisions are largely between conservative and ultra-conservative elements, with the ultra-conservatives most recently being on top in form of the Bush administration.  This succeeds in part due to the enormous wealth controlled by this tiny group, but also due to social cohesion in this group, and social, religious and ethnic divisions in any counter group from the masses.  

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

    by mathGuyNTulsa on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:54:39 AM PDT

  •  asdf (8+ / 0-)

    Bush was a great president for the ruling class - corrupt and corruptable.  

    If you are in DC see Man of La Mancha at the Church Street Theater opening 7/10/08

    by BDA in VA on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:57:56 AM PDT

  •  my reading of J.T. Gatto's (17+ / 0-)

    An Underground History of American Education explores many similar themes, and like Quigley he stresses he is not putting forth conspiracy theories.  His focus is on the specific influence on education and how our present system was shaped by these same forces.  And why all our attempts at education reform have not gotten us what we really need in that arena.  
    An Underground History of Education

  •  Tip'd 'n rec'd (5+ / 0-)

    I'm gonna wind up with a copy of that book. This shit is just too creepy...

    - thanks for posting

    Free University and Health Care for all, now. -8.88, -7.13

    by SoCalHobbit on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:08:49 AM PDT

  •  A single page (17+ / 0-)

    of a single book can open the door to a whole new world of knowledge. Thank you.

    Many of the names are familiar, and the fix we find ourselves in today have clearly been orchestrated.
    The outcomes are obvious from our de-regulation morphed into self-regulation, written by the "outsiders" who all along have wielded greater influence than previously acknowledged.

    Our politicians bemoan, but perhaps they just feign such disdain for lobbyist influence. It makes sense that Rockefeller is in charge of our 4th Amendment, and FISA now has broader more secretive powers. Hillary can talk about the powers of the Health Care industry and how we have to co-op them into writing a new healthprogram for America vs handing them the rules and letting capitilism determine how to make a buck with the set parameters...yet nothing changes for the middle class.

    The American people are forced to foraging a life out of soaring energy costs, predatory lending, stifling education loans and the loss of jobs, all the while having to take a "buyer beware" stance when purchasing food, drugs and even toys.  

    The less informed, a large base of unsuspecting neocons, the schills, those I refer to as "a haircut away from being a skinhead" rant against the left and government as the problem, all the while, the sword they wield is the same one they are simulataneously going to fall upon. They will be an angry and confused bunch..as they are now...those 54 million people that voted George Bush into a second term must be turned around.

    •  Well-said, eyesonly! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gogol, Dave925, brentmack, geodemographics

      The American people are forced to foraging a life out of soaring energy costs, predatory lending, stifling education loans and the loss of jobs, all the while having to take a "buyer beware" stance when purchasing food, drugs and even toys.  

      The less informed, a large base of unsuspecting neocons, the schills, those I refer to as "a haircut away from being a skinhead" rant against the left and government as the problem, all the while, the sword they wield is the same one they are simulataneously going to fall upon. ...

      --with my emphasis from eyesonly.

      That "haircut away..." line is brilliant. And I do exactly feel myself that I have been left to "forage" a life......as you say.

      IT TOOK five years, the deaths of 4,100 US soldiers... to make Iraq safe for Exxon. ~ Derrick Z. Jackson

      by Gorette on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:21:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Didn't blow my mind, didn't read teh book (22+ / 0-)

    I grew up with teens being trained for their places in the ruling class. They don't get the same sorry education that most kids get in the public schools.

    Wealthy people are willing to pay the money necessary for a good education.

    That is they are willing to pay it for thier children, not yours.

    "It's the planet, stupid."

    by FishOutofWater on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:15:42 AM PDT

    •  speaking of sorry education... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gogol, brentmack, geodemographics

      heard this AM on NPR that 50% of HS grads in this country are not sufficiently well educated these days to pass the military aptitude test.

      I suppose that intentionally undermining public education is part and parcel of outsourcing - save money here at home by underfunding education and social services more generally, export industry to cheaper labor markets, and import people educated on someone else's dime in other countries for medicine, research etc. That maximizes the marginal value of the dollars invested.

      Small part of the equation is missing, tho'. How are such poorly educated people supposed to earn enough money to provide the 2/3rds of our economy from consumerism?

      Or perhaps "they" have just decided that a few pennies from billions of people is enough to keep them ensconced in their wealth?

      Who has held all this paper wealth that has disappeared in the mortgage debacle? Surely some of these wealthy will be less so...

  •  just heard on NPR (16+ / 0-)

    where they were discussing the "Bank Bailout Bill" that is being passed of as a "homeowner assistance bill" even though it was written by Bank of America lobbyists.   The nice man on NPR asked the "expert".  

    "Will this bill help out low income homeowners?"

    the reply was "well...not specifically"  And then he went on to say how it was going to help everyone.

    Anyway, NPR made it sound like a really great bill.   Chris Dodd was also quoted and he said the same.  

    Suckers.

  •  Well then I imagine somewhere in this group (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RonV, JG in MD

    is an answer to why I had to choose my line of activism...and who we who do said are a bit more awar of whom we are up against.

    NOT surprising.

  •  Now you really did it TocqueDeville... (6+ / 0-)

    now your name will be on the no-fly list for sure. BushCo will say you are a terrorist for sure with a diary titled like yours.  Gasp!!  Even though this is a history lesson, they'll reason that us kossacks will surely get ideas and make history repeat itself like you herewith describe.  Gasp!!  Oh no......we are doomed, doomed I tell ya!!
    (snark)

    If the people lead, the leaders will follow.

    by Mz Kleen on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:21:56 AM PDT

  •  A modern Gilded Age or Medieval Feudalism? (4+ / 0-)

    The mind of the Human Bean is stuck in the past. No matter what, people want to become Kings and rule over the serfs or peons.

    All I want is....Impeachment followed by Imprisonment!

    by Temmoku on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:22:50 AM PDT

    •  well (6+ / 0-)

      Medieval Feudalism without a doubt:  wage slaves servicing the finance industries (serfs and indentured labor) and real slaves 27 million (people as property) according to some accounts more than at any time in the history of the world; and the cheap-est global workers & forced labor used by the nomadic global class of power elitists;

      Having a global economy is great for the pirates but is devasting for democracy, sovereignty, and justice. - David Rothkopf

      by pollwatch on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:51:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Slavery (7+ / 0-)

        was not a feature of the European medieval economy.  SERFDOM was actually a profound improvement on the Roman agricultural slavery that had preceded it; the Church guaranteed a list of basic human rights to serfs, including Sundays and a large list of holidays off work (at least one per month), food relief for the poor, and free medical care, such as it was.  Serfs were not bought and sold as individuals; they were a labor force entailed to the land they lived and worked on and as such could not be evicted from their homes regardless of who took over the local administration.  They had local self-government through their villages and the potential for social advancement through 1) secular service either as domestic workers or military trainees or 2) entry into the Church.  It wasn't a great life for most people, but the main problems were the localization of food supplies (you couldn't afford to transport much from far away if crops failed or an army moved through) and the lack of basic medical knowledge.

        •  ok the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gogol, brentmack

          they-serfs were a labor force entailed to the land they lived and worked on and as such could not be evicted from their homes regardless of who took over the local administration.  They had local self-government through their villages and the potential for social advancement through 1) secular service either as domestic workers or military trainees or 2) entry into the Church

          modern wage slaves comparison with medieval serfs may not suit you but the question raised was are we in another gilded age or medieval feudalism

          I have contended for a long while since NAFTA and its offspring of agreements, laws and treaties that created the transglobal  corporate 'free markets' we are now living in the era of  modern feudalism

          I didn't suggest that serfs were bought and sold but compared serfs to modern wage slaves......

          (principle - can't have democracy without a middle class)

          poor or middle class American family can no longer give their children opportunity for a better life this has collapsed with decay of public education;  much higher tuition/expenses barring access to college and the replacement of scholarships and grant monies with big package of loans for those who attend, lack of good paying jobs, with health junk insurance as illusion for health care and lack of access to real health care caused reduction in longevity of Americans, one serious downturn in health individual & families are driven into bankruptcy (most bankruptcies are from medical debt with new the bankruptcy laws can't escape medical debt)

          the indentured labor comparison could be any young adult coming out of college with so much education debt it will keep them 'indentured' paying off the loans into their middle age leaving less money and time to create,support,raise families of their own; or the usury 'pay day loans' plaguing military families the same - indentured status;

          the series of bubble economies impinging on multiple generations (dot.com bubble bursting followed by stock & bond bubble burst, then housing mortgages bubble burst and now banks failures) inability to save and/or devastating bubbles ruining investments, pensions, equity instruments to be used for retirement; people are not retiring they continue working until end of days - -  this trend will continue and grow;

          I see the comparison in the context of social/economic collapsing middle class that severely limits the potential opportunities for individuals to make better life for themselves or to give their children chance for social advancement; those things have so eroded I find 'medieval serf' with ‘modern wage slave’ though different time frame otherwise roughly comparable;

          Having a global economy is great for the pirates but is devasting for democracy, sovereignty, and justice. - David Rothkopf

          by pollwatch on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:17:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not serfdom (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gogol, pollwatch

            Serfs had a powerful advocate for social justice in their backyard: Holy Mother Church.  We have no comparable institution.  Serfs had a localized economy in which their baron NEEDED them -- he couldn't import anything he needed, including more laborers, from the next county over, let alone from China.  Most of the medieval era was characterized by a SEVERE SHORTAGE OF LABOR, making the entailed serfs on estates relatively valuable to their owners.  Modern wage-slaves can be replaced on short notice and therefore are not valued.  Medieval laborers were involved in direct face-to-face relationships with their feudal overlords, creating a personal intimacy that cushioned even adversarial aspects: the Man In Charge KNEW that guy; he grew up with him, had seen him married, knew his father, his wife, and his kids, and had probably been carried home by him at least one time either dead drunk or with a sprained ankle.  Modern managers either don't know the employees from Adam or don't have any control over the business and its overall employment policies, one or the other if not both.

            All of these factors, most especially the local economic dependence, strongly mitigated what appear on paper to be the coercive and demeaning relationships between social classes in the medieval economy.  Lords NEEDED their serfs, they KNEW their serfs, and they had to ANSWER TO GOD (and His deputies) for both their treatment of their serfs and their serfs' "independent" actions ("a master is responsible for  his man").  We have none of these recourses available in this oh-so-wonderful modern world.

            •  that is good descriptive analysis (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gogol

              of the difference you see with conditions and circumstances of labor; it is a big difference between then and now.....

              severe labor shortage promoted some economic stability for serfs gave them social / economic protection from powerful, wealthy employers, owners; the serfs had leverage, bargaining, negotiating position;

              my premise was comparing opportunity between medieval and modern wage-slave labor so that is one facet and it seems you are not arguing that point;

              I agree there is no comparable institution to Holy Mother Church that's true but the promise of American democracy meant 'it' should be/ should have been the powerful advocate for social justice;

              American democracy as it has worked out does not offer the quality of life / protection from harsh contingencies most citizens in 'social democracies' of Europe enjoy; don't think there has been any incidents of New Orleans - like Katrina events where there was designed / planned neglect from lack of civic / government response to mass disaster; since they don't lack protection from ill health and raising family has much more institutional civic support in European nations we have to add the distinctions between 'social democracies' and America's model of democracy to make comparisons of medieval serf to modern wage slave a meaningful debate;

              America founding instruments declared the intent for individual citizens to have rights, responsibilities and the opportunities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; along the way there have been groups of Americans at certain times that missed out on the 'promise' of democracy and that promise is gravely threatened now as we are a nation in decline; the protections from constitutional democracy have been diminished while the transglobal corporate free markets (un-regulated and de-regulated business threw out all the protection for labor; labor barely has any leverage to bargain or negotiate ) as you know un-regulated markets are in fact designed specially not to protect labor;

              so serf and modern wage-slaves can't be specially compared because serfs were protected and modern wage slaves are not they must be contrasted that is a great distinction and it is noted; if we included the context of women's lives medieval to modern looking at their social economic circumstances as it applied to opportunity and protection that would be even more interesting discussion;

              as to the matter of social demeaning relationships between employers and laborers, medieval and modern times not using those defining conditions to make my case because this discussion didn't bring in the difference between medieval women - serf status and modern women

              two areas delineated for working men then and now

              1. range of opportunities for social advancement - - which is comparable
              1. labor having protected status  - - that is not comparable

              loosely associated to idea of contracts: a contract that is based on future benefits is not a contract; there has to be 'consideration' to form contract;

              America has practiced hyper-predatory capitalism quickly morphing into shock-doctrine capitalism where all constitutional and institutional protections being throw out the window; using natural and engineered disaster as 'facilitating incidents' for de-regulation and privatizing has created a whole new world....

              Having a global economy is great for the pirates but is devasting for democracy, sovereignty, and justice. - David Rothkopf

              by pollwatch on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:18:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  There was one even closer than that: (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gogol, cynndara

              customary law. Each manor had its own set of customs, mostly not written down, but very well known to the inhabitants thereof, and they clung to their customs for as long as they possibly could, because they usually granted important rights--the right to collect deadwood in the lord's forest, for example, or to pasture livestock in certain fields at certain times of year, the right to fish in certain streams or hunt on certain patches (at least for small game).

            •  without opportunity or options (0+ / 0-)

              what debt economy does to people
              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    •  Medieval (7+ / 0-)

      feudalism was:

      1. a social contract built on relationships. Economic partnerships were cemented by direct personal intimacy and reciprocal obligations.  Impersonal utilization of human beings as "resources" was made impossible by the nature of the system, which depended on direct interpersonal interaction.
      1. a set of relationships founded in the practicalities of physical security.  Elites were held responsible for the physical protection of the lives, health, and literal nutrition of those bound to them, including the military role of putting themselves in direct physical harm's way in fulfilling this obligation.
      1. a set of relationships founded upon and bounded by a spiritual code of ethics administered by a third party organization, The Church.  It was often the Church's role as "policeman" of otherwise coercive and potentially predatory operational relationships that set up an institutional conflict between that organization and secular rulers/aristocracies.

      I'm not saying that medieval life was all that great.  It was, especially in northern Europe, god-damned COLD most of the time.  But it wasn't as bad as our education (deeply influenced, shall we remember, by these Elite Conspirators who want us to consider this the Best Of All Possible Worlds?) makes out.  The main problem was the lack of central heat and running water.

      •  You haven't lived in the Deep South of USA , (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gogol, Dave925, brentmack, blueocean

        at least not as a member of the working classes if you think feudalism is not a bad thing. I have . It sucks , real bad , and is about what we actually have. You can't learn that from a book , a freeway , or a Florida vacation.

        •  With a difference (8+ / 0-)

          Ideally feudalism in the middle ages required the nobility to protect and defend the serfs- at least those they didn't impress into their little armies to do battle with the Duke next door. But in large part it made sense to obey the compact. After all, the production of all essentials from food to arms was done by the serfs. If they were allowed to perish, then so would the nobility above them.

          Modern Capitalist serfdom differs in that the ruling class takes absolutely no responsibility for the workers they ruthlessly exploit. Indeed, even the suggestion of such a thing will cause violent reaction from these people. We have seen this these past 30 years in their ruthless attacks on the middle and lower classes.

          "Much law, but little justice": Proverb

          by Dave925 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:30:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Righto . Expand that to 180 from 30 years , (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gogol, Dave925

            you have a good picture of the south and it's economic ans other social structure . Not even starting to get into slavery of blacks , genocide of indians , and fierce boot on necks of most outside the small power structure throughout that time and before.

      •  Regarding the South (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gogol

        Abra C. is right; that was (and is, in some cases) comparable to what we have here.

        I've heard people come up to my elderly mother and tell her how her father was a good man and kept them alive during the depression.  These were tenant farmers ("renters" essentially) and their families, mainly, black and white.  This was a working farm, and he provided people with food and goods on credit that he KNEW they could never repay, really.  

        Mother remembers my grandmother tearing up many IOUS proffered during this era.  Decent folks just didn't let "their" people's families starve and go without, and they sacrificed things themselves to support them.  They literally lived and worked on the same farms, knew each others' children and pets, etc.  Their parents had survived Reconstruction together (it was hell on ALL when those wealthy Republican Yankees, the types mentioned in this diary, came in and took everything they wanted.)  

        They DID have relationships, close ones.  We still DO, and we still share what foodstocks, livestock, and game we have, black and white, out in the country and even in the small local town. (Jimmy Carter spoke in one of his books of having slept on the floor, as a child, in a tenant house with the workers' family, before.)

        When shit hits the fan, we in the rural South (black AND white) are going to fare better, I daresay, than most, because of these culturally "old" habits and relationships forged under agrarian conditions, long ago.

        As a youth (I'm in early 40s), I learned the term "noblesse oblige", and its meaning, at HOME - but never saw it at school.  Much of this was a carryover from feudalism or the slave era, I suppose, when people took care of the workers who lived on the farms, no matter what.

        Even back then, big city industrialists didn't take care of "their" people, in this manner, and corporations still don't.

  •  I'm On a Roll with Youtube (6+ / 0-)

    Wealth, Empire and the Future of America by Peter Dale Scott. Fascinating.

    I think I mislabeled this interview earlier as Federal Reserve. It's not, it's CIA and U.S. influence in the deep government, as it's called.

  •  Interesting diary (27+ / 0-)

    In Paul Krugman's book Conscience of a Liberal Krugman goes into the economic and political history of the United States from post Civil War until the present.

    Of particular focus is his term "The Great Compression" from the 1930s to the 1960s, where taxes on the excessive earnings of the very wealthy were used to build the American middle class and the infrastructure of modern America from interstate highways to schools to middle class pensions. All of that has changed drastically since the early 1970s and the rise of the globalists and the neocons.

    Krugman's thesis is that it took a conscious effort by our government (especially FDR) to build an American middle class and that much of it came at the expense of the very wealthy. The very wealthy and what Krugman calls the movement conservatives have struck back hard, and have succeeded in disassembling much of the middle class and have re-accumulated vast wealth in the hands of a few.

    It is all planned, which fits into much of your narrative in this diary.

    Who will stop this war of lies? Keith Olbermann May 23rd, 2007

    by Ed in Montana on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:40:14 AM PDT

  •  Tip'd & Rec'd with Baited Breath (4+ / 0-)

    First, thank you, diarist, for a brilliant analysis and compilation of brilliant analyses.

    As someone who is deeply involved in the Truth movement and distributes literature on street corners on the 11th of every month, I am excited and confirmed that someone with your status and mojo here a dkos is writing about this issue that is so verboten on this site of political "reality."

    As Peter Dale Scott reminds us, there is a deeper reality and deeper politics than most Americans are allowed to see or even allow themselves to see.

    The baited breath is for the site Nazis and what they will do in face of such a strong case for the conspiracy that they so relish in banning from this important site--important because of minds like yours.

  •  The complexity is summarized (17+ / 0-)

    in the Golden Rule.  Them that has the gold, makes the rules.  

    Tips for the great diary.  On the one hand, it's information that I think most people think they know already; but the level of wealth is so far removed from their daily lives that its influence is unimaginable and unbelievable.  The near-impossibility of comprehending such a behind-the-scenes system is what engenders the "tinfoil hat" attitudes whenever it is discussed as a reality.  

    Yet we all know and experience the effects daily.  We know that money and special interests rule politics, we know how labor unions were formed and exist to counter the power of moneyed owners.  We see (and sometimes celebrate) the vast fortunes being made and transferred from stocks, bonds, oil, and other sources; and we're intoxicated by the false promise that it could be ours if we just work harder to grease the cogs of this machine.

    Thanks for the work, looking forward to more.

    When the oak is felled the whole forest echoes with its fall, but a hundred acorns are sown in silence by an unnoticed breeze. -Thomas Carlyle

    by rb608 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:46:57 AM PDT

    •  Other Golden Rule Correllaries (4+ / 0-)

      Do unto others what gets me the gold.

      As a Rule I get the Gold and you are the Fool.

      Grab the Gold and Rule over the others....

      Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie

      by IreGyre on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:54:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly so. (4+ / 0-)

      ... the level of wealth is so far removed from their daily lives that its influence is unimaginable and unbelievable.  The near-impossibility of comprehending such a behind-the-scenes system is what engenders the "tinfoil hat" attitudes whenever it is discussed...

      The wealthy have always conspired, and always will, to preserve their wealth, even to the point of arranged marriages and contrived wars.

      We are fools not to learn the history that repeats, repeats, repeats itself in different eras with different names.  We must study and understand the monster before we can even hope to fight it effectively.

  •  nice work (8+ / 0-)

    There are some other material that I have come across that talk about the further development of this history.

    There is the very long Money Masters on youtube. which is vastly overdramatized and has a very crazy voice over but is largely informative.

    Then there is the really excellent book Web of Debt talking about how the world's finances have been rigged via central banking via groups mentioned in the diary and the repercussions of that. Also traces historical fights against this - Franklin, Jackson, Lincoln...

    Perhaps most conspiratorial is Daniel Estulin's The True Story of The Bilderberg Group. This book is loved by conspiracy theorists because of its cloak and dagger writing style which seriously reduces its credibility as a whole in terms of every conclusion it draws. But it is clear that the political leaders and business elites meet regularly in secret to discuss and influence world affairs. The connection of Bilderberg with the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission is pretty clear.

    Read more about The Bilderberg Group here.

    If even 10% of what Estulin writes is accurate then we have greater opposition than just Republicans for getting truly progressive change in this country and others.

    All of these materials are worth going over in my mind.

    There was a comment above that said that some unsavory supporters came up when doing cross research on Clinton's old mentor Carrol...sadly this diary and the material I have mentioned is deeply embraced by those who ardently believe that a New World Order is in the works - where there is no divide between countries and there is one currency and a ruling class and so on...we'll all become servant robots or something. Those sorts of conspiracists are missing the point and underestimating the willingness of the ruling class to be fairly flexible in how they secure their financial aims.  

  •  ruling class includes rich from ME and Asia now (8+ / 0-)

    there are some great piles of money and power in the countries not run by white guys. Its having an effect. I think Saddam was threat to the ruling class with his oil holdings thats why he was "taken out " as the Pres. said.(i found that shocking language,more cowboy than leader of the free world)

  •  Thank you for supplying me with more pieces... (8+ / 0-)

    of a giant table puzzle that I too have been putting together.  

    I have always maintained that a good portion of this puzzle in regards to the total picture is information that is in "plain sight".  The problem we have is that the pieces are in so many different places, that it's difficult to pull them together to even start the process for the majority of people.  I believe the reason for that is due in part that are so many distractions in our lives, some self made, some created on purpose by others, that it is hard to find the time, place and discipline to conduct the critical thinking of the ideas you have put forth.  

    Thank you for giving me another avenue to read, and research, or, to express it another way, thank you for pointing me more pieces to the puzzle that sits before me, and many others.
     

    "..The paper holds their folded faces to the floor, and every day the paper boy brings more...." - Pink Floyd

    by LamontCranston on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:15:48 AM PDT

  •  Modern civilization seems to have this need to (14+ / 0-)

    corporatize everything.

    Economy of scale, mass production and simply the power of an ever increasingly overt media which inveigles itself into every aspect of our lives. The mechanism for making civilization what it is, which is art, literature and classical liberal thought is trumped by the trappings of mass production, and those who benefit from it.

    We are all mostly willing passengers on this bus: not many of us will drop out. We are all part of the giant machine.  

    Over time, power and wealth becomes more and more concentrated; the illusion of having a just economy in a democracy is just that. An illusion. It's always been an illusion, in every nation, in every community since the dawn of civilization, having a just economy is an illusion.

    The ideals of commonwealth is one method to alleviate the worst of aspects of the gross stratification which happens in every society. It is the very idea of commonwealth that is under attack now by the neoconservatives.

    "You know what the real fight is? The real fight is the definition of what is reality." Bernie Sanders

    by shpilk on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:16:46 AM PDT

  •  Two questions: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson

    First of all, do these elites engage in the kind of smears that we see on Edwards and that we saw in 2004 against John Kerry when there is a threat to their interests?

    Secondly of all, is the user Bernie Quigley any relation?

  •  The wealthy and powerful always want (8+ / 0-)

    stability, since any change is more likely to displace them from privilege. However, attempts to freeze a society in an unchanging state invariably come up against two insurmountable obstacles: internal rivalry for a bigger share of the goodies, and spontaneous development of new mechanisms for challenging the existing order. Take a good look at the events leading up to World War I, and its aftermath. While conspiracies of the great may inflict injury on the weak, ultimately they fail to effectively protect the social order from unforseen development in new directions. (French Revolution, anybody?)

    •  Ever hear of the law of large numbers? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, gogol, Prognosticator, ibonewits

      [From Wikipedia]

      Think of two people playing blackjack.  One bets $5, the other bets $500.  

      Now for sure the one betting $500 will post larger losses, but the odds are actually in his favor of coming out ahead in the long run, as long as he keeps playing.

      They uber rich may loose a lot, but they generally come out ahead in the end.

      "Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature can not be fooled." -Richard Feynman

      by Tin hat mafia on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:34:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is this true? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        geodemographics

        My understanding from reading the Wiki article is that the "Law of Large Numbers" means that if you flip a coin enough times, it will be heads 50% of the time (even though if you only flip in ten times it probably won't be heads 50% of the time).

        If you count cards at blackjack and you can get a 2% advantage, your profit should be 2% regardless of whether your bet is $5 or $500, so long as you play long enough.

        You cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. --MLK Jr.

        by Opakapaka on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:01:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  How about a 4th reason (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, marina, geodemographics

    At this point, if this isn't blowing your mind a bit, it's because you already know all about Carroll Quigley and his revelations, you haven't been reading carefully, or you think I'm off my rocker.

    It goes along with a germ of an idea/thought, I have had a while now.

    If u will not vote for the Dem. nominee, no matter who that is, go apologize 2 the youth of this nation. U've helped put in "100 years of war no Choice McCain."

    by Clytemnestra on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:39:05 AM PDT

  •  Much of this has become almost obvious (8+ / 0-)

    At this point, if this isn't blowing your mind a bit, it's because you already know all about Carroll Quigley and his revelations, you haven't been reading carefully, or you think I'm off my rocker.

    None of the above. What you are pointing out has become practically obvious as the level of political submission becomes extreme to the point of senselessness.

    There is no way a Bush administration (and the Congress that supports it) could exist without something like the structure you are discussing. After all, the world doesn't run itself, and the visible political leaders certainly aren't running it -- they don't have the tools.

    A bigger question is whether there is any realistic alternative to corporate control, given the complexity of the so-called capitalist system and the backward condition of nation-state politics.

    I think the current US republic is finished. The future lies with the major corporations, which must eventually be forced to pay attention to the ordinary people. We need a new Magna Carta, this time an agreement between the corporations and the people. Contrary to intuition, that might even happen eventually, maybe after severe oil shortages bring about the collapse of the international financial and monetary systems.

    "This document is totally non-redactable and non-segregable and cannot even be meaningfully described." *

    by dratman on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:42:34 AM PDT

  •  The Wealthy abusing humanity? I AM SHOCKED!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave925, geodemographics

    Conspiring to get richer? How devious.
    Manipulating Governments? Wow, the genius of it!!
    LYING to accomplish their goals? Diabolical.

  •  But there IS an Illuminati !! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, geodemographics

    It's a game put out be Steve Jackson
    http://www.sjgames.com/...

    /snark

    Sorry, my brain autmoatically does this when there is input of very heavy information

    If u will not vote for the Dem. nominee, no matter who that is, go apologize 2 the youth of this nation. U've helped put in "100 years of war no Choice McCain."

    by Clytemnestra on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:44:21 AM PDT

    •  I have a game set (0+ / 0-)

      And one thing that cannot be emphasized too strongly is that while it is set up in terms of paired-opposites, "government" and "criminal" are not paired (to be blunt, it is perfectly possible for a "government" to be "criminal", and some are).

      "Criminal" has no opposite, in fact, so anything can be "criminal".

  •  Excellent work Tocque. (11+ / 0-)

    Well done.

    "The truth shall set you free - but first it'll piss you off." Gloria Steinem

    Iraq Moratorium

    by One Pissed Off Liberal on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:52:02 AM PDT

  •  Several references (7+ / 0-)

    The old advice still remains pertinent: Follow the money.

    A book that gives some insight into the way these groups operate today is:

    When Corporations Rule The World by David Korten.

    David Cay Johnston has some details on how these groups operate in the U.S.

    Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich--and Cheat Everybody Else

    Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)

    If all of the fact-based reality above is too depressing, the late G. Harry Stine back in 1984 wrote a novel (under the name Lee Corey) called Manna. It's out of print I believe, but you can still find copies. To make a long story short, Stine tells a tale of a future world not all that far from today when the system created by those people operating in the shadows to manipulate and control the finite resources of the earth finally begins to crumble thanks to two inter-related events. 1) The founding of a country led by people who understand how the global system works - and are determined to found a new model based on real democracy and an end to scarcity economics, and 2) the rise of an economy based on the material and energy resources available from a developing space-based economy.

    Back in the 70's and 80's, there was something called the 3rd industrial revolution which never happened. The idea was to build a space infrastructure from ground to orbit and beyond which could tap the unlimited energy available in space and the material resources out there as well. Ultimately much of Earth's heavy industrial activity would be taking place in orbit supported by space-based resources while the planet could be turned into a park. There's nothing technologically impossible about this, and it looks like a hell of a lot better future than our current model of declining energy supplies, a deteriorating environment, and growing shortages of critical resources even as the world's population grows. There's a number of reasons why the 3rd industrial revolution has been postponed, (deliberately?) by the people currently running this world, but probably not the least is that they are still doing very well under the current arrangements and ain't about to allow real change.

    It's a work of fiction of course, with some entertaining sex and violence - but it's also educational in that it shows how things are and how they could be. It's a way of popularizing the ideas above that can slip past the 'accepted' wisdom about the way the world works. Appropriately enough, much of the story is told in the land where Cecil Rhodes made his great fortune and launched his schemes, so it ties in quite nicely with the above. When was the last time you ran across a book that included both spaceships and the Cape to Cairo Railroad?

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:05:20 AM PDT

    •  Korten (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xaxnar, mary4, brentmack

      When I read that book in the late 90's it certainly put some of the pieces together. In particular his ruling class analogy of "Cloud Dwellers" referencing an original Star Trek episode was spot on.

      Korten has a PhD in Bidness from Stanford. He has worked for these people and knows their thinking. It's a must read.

      "Much law, but little justice": Proverb

      by Dave925 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:15:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So Barack Obama is part of this (7+ / 0-)

    And if one has any doubt about the power of the CFR, one merely has to read this bit of homespun wisdom spoken on the Senate floor from Senator Earnest Hollings (D) of South Carolina (Congressional Record, June 30, 1993, S8315):

    If you ever run for President, you get very wonderful, embossed invitations from the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, and you get the coffee and fine china, and, man, you are really a high muckety-muck.
       
    And then what they do is get you to swear on the altar of free trade an undying loyalty and support---free trade, free trade. That is all they want. And they co-opt every one of these young Senators that want to run for President.

    So was Bill and so is Hillary

    wunderfol

    If u will not vote for the Dem. nominee, no matter who that is, go apologize 2 the youth of this nation. U've helped put in "100 years of war no Choice McCain."

    by Clytemnestra on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:05:45 AM PDT

  •  This diary shoud be front paged (10+ / 0-)

    We all know the developing world is and will be dealing with the aftermath of colonialism for a long time to come, but it escapes many of us how the western world is still dealing with the aftermath of fuedalism. It should be no surprise to any of us that the descendants of fuedal leaders would ally themselves with the industrial barons of the gilded age in an activism of self interest.

  •  Okay (10+ / 0-)

    I couldn't figure out why I couldn't find my comment on your diary.  Then realized the other one had been deleted.

    Anyway, on the original diary, here's what I said:

    I think most of us have sensed that such a group exists.  Too many things happen that are exactly the opposite of what should be the logical course of action.

    In the last year or two there was published a list of 14 (I think) families who were the major impetus behind  the repeal of the estate tax.  At the time that story came out, I said "Look at these names.  These people are the 'they' we always talk about."

    Thanks for the diary.

    A couple of other points I would mention are that Bill Clinton ran as a populist during his 1992 campaign but, as Thom Hartmann has often noted, somewhere between winning the election and taking office someone sat him down and explained how things would be.  He, therefore, didn't govern as a populist.

    Also, back in 1980, I was a college student and, for an English class, had to interview someone older.  I interviewed the wife of the man whose grandfather had started the local steel mill.  When I asked her what she saw as the greatest recent historical event, her choice was the election of Ronald Reagan.  I, having been born a Democrat, was surprised that anyone could see this as a great thing, but I wrote it up and basically forgot about it.  Her saying that has echoed in my head the past several years as I now see what she thought was so great about it.  Oh, and seven years later, her husband was named as Reagan's Commerce Secretary.  Checking my facts on this, I read in this NY Times article that he was a big fan of Ayn Rand and free trade.  So, yes, I'd say all this has been planned for a while.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - 9th Amendment

    by TracieLynn on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:09:00 AM PDT

  •  repeat diary (0+ / 0-)

    maybe i'm just confused or maybe the southern hemisphere just has terrible internets but i'm feeling i saw this exact same diary under the exact same title a couple days ago, then it vanished, and then it reappeared under a different title, disappeared and then reappeared as is.

    •  Same diary. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jabu

      ToquedeVille said he worked something like 14 hours on this.  Meteor Blades and others suggested reposting at a time that it would get more visibility.

      There are rules, laws, and the rule of law. George W. Bush has disregarded all three.

      by geodemographics on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:13:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If the ultra-wealthy ruling class is so in (0+ / 0-)

    control, how did they let things get so fucked up?

    •  it ain't fucked up for them (24+ / 0-)

      things are great for the robber barons. They took out enormous wealth during the housing bubble and shifted it to themselves. Things are fine in Baron land.

      •  Pardon me for my silliness! (6+ / 0-)

        You are right and they did it without rousing the masses much at all.

        •  Well (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gogol, G2geek, Prognosticator, brentmack

          It certainly roused me, I was screaming at everybody about what was going on...of course no one was listening.  I wrote a LTE some four years ago about the coming foreclosures. I laughed at the developer doing a 20 acre project in my neighborhood when he said he was told by an 'expert' the crisis wouldn't hit our area...lol.  He is now bankrupt.

          •  and i've been ranting against globalism (0+ / 0-)

            since forever-ago.  

            As the Newsweek writer observed, globalism favors pirates, to which I would add, localism favors "squares" who play fair and play by the rules.  

            What we must do in the wake of the present econo-splat, is to relocalize our economics to the maximum degree possible.  This will not be easy and contradictions will abound for quite some time (e.g. where did the computer I'm writing this on come from?).  However, start with the basic necessities: food, clothing, shelter, and very importantly, TOOLS, and work outward from there.  

      •  Catherine Austin Fitts explains this (8+ / 0-)

        She says tech and housing bubbles were engineered to transfer wealth out, and now it can come back and get assets at low prices.

        http://www.solari.com/...

        •  as a generalization, (0+ / 0-)

          those in power will always seek ways to take advantage of any opportunity to increase their power.  No matter what events occur, so long as there is a "potential difference" or net movement of resources, there is an opportunity for someone to benefit.  The global elite, due to their vast wealth and span of control, are positioned to take advantage of most such events, and they usually do so.  

          For a more obvious example, you can make money when stocks go up, and make money when they go down: so long as there is movement of money in one direction or another, you can harvest something from that movement.  

          Relevant physical science concept: dissipative structures.  Look it up, it explains much about this type of stuff.  

    •  Premeditated shitbaggery. (8+ / 0-)

      See also:

      War in Iraq (M-I complex)
      "Reconstruction" in Iraq (Halliburton)
      Free trade agreements

      etc., etc., etc.

      All various forms of corporate welfare.

      There are rules, laws, and the rule of law. George W. Bush has disregarded all three.

      by geodemographics on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:30:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What's fucked up about (3+ / 0-)

      them getting ever more wealth, power, and control over ordinary people's lives?

      The system works!

      Remember, a distressed, fearful, impoverished, and divided people are an easily-manipulated people.

      Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

      by Jim P on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:33:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  how things got so fucked up. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gogol, TocqueDeville, sweeper

      Combinatorial overload.  The same factor that causes communist command economies to crash.  

      In short, when you try to control too many things, the number of possible interactions between those things grows so rapidly that at some point it becomes computationally infeasible to predict, much less to control, their behavior.  The communications tasks grow to the point where the controlling entity spends more time on those tasks than it does on accomplishing the goals of management.  At that point the ability to manage collapses.  

      One equation for this is i = p (p-1) / 2, where i = interactions and p = participants, which I first ran across in relation to the cryptographic key distribution problem for symmetric-key ciphers.  Before public key systems (RSA, PGP, GPG, etc.), encrypted networks were managed centrally, and key management was handled centrally: the central organization was responsible for supplying cipher keys to each pair of parties that wished to communicate.  As the number of parties increased linearly (the "participants" in the equation), the number of key-pairs among them (the "interactions" in the equation) increased combinatorially.  At some point in the growth of a network, it becomes an impossible task to manage all of the needed crypto keys.  Public key systems solve this by making each participant responsible for propagating their own encryption key to the network.  (Whew!)

      This situation generalizes to any case where a central entity is attempting to manage the interactions between subordinate entities.  One way to solve it is via hierarchy, which attempts to limit the responsibility of any given management unit, to a fixed and "manageable" (heh) number of subordinate units.  However, this only ends up creating a scaling problem: the underlying issue remains below the surface, waiting to re-emerge when the organization grows too large.  

      Applied to media, this situation leads to the preference on the part of managers, for a one-to-many (broadcast and print media) model of communications, rather than a many-to-many model: the content of a one-to-many model can be managed; the content of a many-to-many model cannot.  

      Applied to governance, we see why town-meeting type direct democracy is limited to small towns: above a certain number of participants, it becomes gridlocked.  Applied to shared living situations, the maximum size of household for management by consensus of the members turns out to be about ten people before the management task grows so far that it intrudes into the subsistence tasks of the members.  

      Combinatorial overload was a factor in the downfall of communist-type command economies: beyond a certain scale it becomes computationally infeasible to manage all of the interactions in an economy.  Any attempt to make an adjustment in one place, has the potential to cause unforeseen adverse effects elsewhere in the system: the legendary chronic shortages of various goods in Eastern Europe.  

      So here we have the global elite attempting to manage a globalized economy.   What we have just seen in the past few decades, I would say since 1980, has been the increase in scale of globalization to the point where the controlling elite (the management entity) runs into the computational infeasibility of exercising control throughout the system.  At that point, unforeseen effects begin to accumulate, and at some point they cascade (for example in the present global financial crisis).  

      Thus any attempt at central control on a global scale will eventually fall prey to its inability to manage all that it controls, and it will necessarily crash.  In doing to it may very well give birth to a new elite that attempts to engage in central control; or the old elite may hang on in some way and attempt to start over.  The outcome of WW1 and the path to WW2 may have been an example of this type; the emergence of kleptocracy in the former Soviet Union may have been another example.  

      If we want to get rid of the global elite, the best way to do it (other than shooting all of them (snark)) is to build robust localized economic structures.  Then wait for the globalized system to crash.  Then immediately move to expand those localized structures such that they leave little or no room for the economic structures controlled by the elite.  It's all about local production, local economics, local control.  Localism is the solution to the problems of globalism.  After a system crash, don't give an elite the space to gain the resources to attempt to re-assert control in a subsequent round.  

      BTW, "combinatorial overload" is my own thinking on these issues, you won't find more about it with a keyword search.  I'm eventually going to publish a more detailed treatment of it on my own site.  The Journal of Interesting Times

      •  "build robust localized economic structures." (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek, geodemographics

        Sounds good.

        •  keyword "relocalization" (0+ / 0-)

          Search on that and you'll find plenty of info on ways it's being done.  

          Some of it, such as the "eat local" movement, even has mainstream approval (after the last salmonella outbreak).  

      •  This doesn't make sense... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek

        ...to me.

        Are you saying that a complicated system with no management whatsoever will outperform a complicated system that has managers?

        If there were an elite controlling the world, I doubt we'd have problems like Global Warming (which threaten everyone)

        •  no, I'm saying that... (0+ / 0-)

          ....there is a limit to complexity before things start to break.  

          As a system becomes more complex, the amount of effort needed to manage it increases until it begins to eat into the amount of effort needed for the system to perform its intended mission.  

          As I also said, one way to resolve this is via the creation of effective hierarchies, but even that has its limits, as combinatorial overload is a scalable phenomenon and will eventually recur as the originally-efficient hierarchy develops more and more internal complexity.  

          Think of top-heavy bureaucracies or businesses, or the American health care system with 30% admin overhead.  Our entire goal with health reform is to reduce the needless complexity and overhead.  And in business, the small nimble startups often leave the top-heavy megacorps in the dust.

          Realistically the solution is to break down the size of entities into the smallest possible units consistent with mission.  Again, think of nimble startups working with limited startup investment, and think of small town government by town meeting.  

          This is not about ideology, it's about practical limits.  In fact the first case I applied it to (beyond the crypto key problem) was with regard to democratic management systems, which I happen to have a bias in favor of.  What I discovered was the limit of those systems.  The empirical and logical findings contradicted my preferences, but as with most such cases, beliefs have to change to fit facts, because facts sure as hell aren't going to change to fit beliefs.  That's part of what we mean when we talk about "the reality-based community."  

      •  Very accute analysis (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek

        And my sentiments exactly. This is why I advocate decentralization. A general principle, the centralization of system should be inversely proportional to it's complexity.

        •  Interesting point! (0+ / 0-)

          "The centralization of the system should be inversely proportional to its complexity."  

          That is, the more complex the system, the more it needs to be decentralized.  

          Though, one shouldn't extrapolate from management to technology: for example, communications networks depend on "trunking," the hierarchy between terminals and switching capability.  

          I'm going to have to think about your point in more detail; I suspect it's going to give rise to some interesting insights about how to build societies, governments, and business entities.  

  •  Instead of the conservative vs liberal and (6+ / 0-)

    Democrat vs Republican antagonism, everybody, meaning the 8 billion of us regular folks, needs to get on the same page.

    This alleged ruling class has the money but we have the numbers.

    •  Yeah, I agreed (7+ / 0-)

      and nothing I'd like better than the sweet sound of Marie Antionette, aka, JP Morgan's heiress or McCain's sweety trembling at the thought of an approaching guillotine, but the fact remains they've devoted their enormous wealth to ensuring we aren't on the same page.

      All those ethnic wedge issues, all the social 'cultural' issues that stink of racism and elitism are old hat colonialisms, legacy of Cecil Rhodes--not only do they operate to keep the middle and lower class at each other's throat--they ensure the imprimatur of legitimacy to the white man.

      Cure racism, cure homophobia and your on your way to curing the evil rot that underlies Rhodes and his ilk's power structure. It's no exaggeration to say that they've built their enormously privileged position on humanity's fears and hatreds--or prevented a revolution that would have adequatedly regulated and redistributed their wealth by tapping into human greed, elitism and hatred. 'They' are successful to the extent that humanity is willing to think of portions of itself as inherently flawed.

      We are equal in rights and equal in dignity. That must remain our baseline. And no man/woman is more deserving of a dignified life than another.

      There's a reason they took the word 'equal' out of the Pledge of Allegiance and added the word 'God'. One tends toward a cooperative model of existence, the other toward a submissive and heirarchical. God--the whole notion of one single supreme intelligence-- works wonders for a colonialist. Humans treated with equal dignity? Not so much.

      •  Geez, do you think you are promoting racism? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        brentmack

        "they ensure the imprimatur of legitimacy to the white man."

        Railing against racism kind of seems like taking the bait.  Railing against economic inequality regardless of race seems like a better course.  

      •  They cultivate these traits (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        geodemographics

        of greed, elitism, hatred, racism, etc. by cultivating ignorance, and they control the government and the educational system that ensures such ignorance.

        We are in a world of trouble.  They will now maintain that human "stupidity" is as fault, not faulty educational systems.  

        One's "ruler" will never adequately educate him..

    •  Democrat vs Republican antagonism... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Prognosticator

      I don't want to wade too deep into the subject because it's too easy for people to leap to the wrong conclusion and start attacking me, the messenger.

      But, yes, both sides have been played against each other.  And a lot of those "wacky right wingers" of old (pre-1980 era) were onto a lot of this stuff.

      We thought they were nuts - and they saw US as the enemy.  Ends up that we were both wrong.

      If we can ever bridge these two groups - we've got a fighting chance.

      The problem is that the post-1980 era right-wingers are largely hopelessly brainwashed.

      •  They probably think the same... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        brentmack, geodemographics

        "The lefties are 'largely brainwashed'..."

        Hell, we might both be RIGHT, not wrong.  No doubt we're all "brainwashed" to some extent, but it's more a matter of ignorance, I think - there are many things we don't know.

        The more both camps learn of how things really are, the more we will find ourselves allies, I'm sure.  There just aren't THAT many true elites ("running" us all)!  Our enemy is crafty, indeed...

  •  robber barons redux (7+ / 0-)

    I took them many years but those you write about were also reacting to unionization and civil liberties being espoused by unions and their allies. It was the time of the rise of the working man above his meager existance at the robber barons hands. For a time wages rose, populism and unionism were acendant and the Barons lost some of their clout. The wealthy middle class in America was born and became a driving engine of the world economy.

    After WW2 they decided to use the GOP and to bring it to power by splitting the working class using race as the fulcrum. By decades of clever propaganda and money they have been able to make sure a significant portion of ther American electorate will vote against their own best financial interests. Their social engineering has worked for the most part which has left the economy in the Robber Barons hands once more.

  •  I started believing in this (6+ / 0-)

    when I read Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins.

  •  It has been ever thus ...but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt

    let's not turn this into a "secret society" theory situation.

    Wealth and power have always ruled the day but there is no underlying agenda/secret headquarters etc. etc.

    Getting caught up in this stuff is counter-productive...fight the good fight by helping to elect progressives, help your schools etc. etc.

    "...and I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords." --Kent Brockman

    by dhshoops on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:37:28 AM PDT

    •  Class-based analysis (17+ / 0-)

      is not "conspiracy theory".  Historical materialism is a powerful and extremely objective method of social and political analysis, far more accurate and far more objective than any "great man" school of history that is pushed at us all the time as the hegemonic narrative does.  It is the denial of the importance of class, not just as effect but also as cause of injustice and social  conflict that keeps us locked in apparently unreformable status quo in which the rich and powerful grow ever more so, as do the poor and precarious.

      A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. ~Edward R. Murrow

      by ActivistGuy on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:48:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Out dated criticism of history education... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gogol, G2geek, Abra Crabcakeya, JG in MD

        While no doubt many of our students in this country are ill-informed about their country's true history, the public school history curriculum I teach is rife with "class struggle" issues e.g. Haymarket riots, Pullman strikes, Reagan's firing of air traffic controllers etc. etc etc. It is not taught in a "great white man" mode.

        I don't doubt much of the research/analysis stated in this diary, just that to get too caught up in it and not fight against it in a productive fashion is counter-productive.

        "...and I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords." --Kent Brockman

        by dhshoops on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:09:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  While I understand what you are saying (6+ / 0-)

          it is important to know exactly what you are fighting against.

          Discussing the role that economic ideology plays in influencing political decision-making is most definitely not a counter-productive activity for progressives.

          There are rules, laws, and the rule of law. George W. Bush has disregarded all three.

          by geodemographics on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:36:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  But , dhshoops , you're not in charge of what (5+ / 0-)

          gets taught in history classes around the nation. From your comment , without knowing you , maybe that is our loss. Very little of what actually occured in America got into the books i had threough elemntary school though high school , or into the heads of any but a very few teachers . (50s and 60s) Only one teacher in high school , a brilliant and extremely demanding , also my first black teacher ever , had some idea of WTYF has gone on. I didn't really get that until I ws in college a couple of year s, an Anthro major , and in touch with a greater variety of people , their ideas , and the names of the books they read and erecommended. My education mostly happened as it still does , with the internet taking the place of campus area bars and a few mega bookstores the place of traded dogeared paperback editions of most incredible things. A few professors , either foreign born , or foreign travelled as part of their research were the only official educators who joined in the process of opening young minds and alowng them the opportunity to expand. I think my experience is maybe typical , or maybe a little luckier than typical.

          •  History is very difficult to teach (4+ / 0-)

            to high schoolers for a variety of reasons. I won't belabor all the problems here now but I will say in general it's (US History) being taught (or students are exposed to more) better than when you or I took US history hs classes from the 50's to the 80's...the internet being a big part of this.

            One major constraint however is the curriculum is being mandated to a great extent by the state/nation, which does lead to many events/people not really getting their due etc.

            "...and I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords." --Kent Brockman

            by dhshoops on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:25:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Aristocracy adapts to survive (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek, Prognosticator

        Thanks for opening up this discussion,apparently the whole notion of class has been allowed to be disregarded and dismissed even by the middle class in a supposedly classless society.
        Call a specific economic group of influence any name,although the difference is very marked with the term aristocracy because it is favorably accepted by citizens and governments but is nevertheless a reserved class in a minority of the population but has learned to survive and adapt.
        With the age of Industrial Revolution, the monarchy and the masses were in a period of radical change and felt threatened but it was  aristocracy that had the common sense to accept and adjust with the corresponding advice to governments and rulers.
        It all depends on the level of honor within the always present aristocracy.Consequently,one with talents should consider the "allowing only to seen as one wants to be seen by those whose attention you wish to be garner and serve.

    •  There is an underlying agenda. (8+ / 0-)

      It just happens to be based upon economic, rather than political, ideology.

      Wealth IS power.  That is one of the diarist's main points.

      There are rules, laws, and the rule of law. George W. Bush has disregarded all three.

      by geodemographics on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:01:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  OK, but . . . (10+ / 0-)

      "Wealth and power have always ruled the day but there is no underlying agenda/secret headquarters etc. etc."

      There are powerful people and they do meet somewhere.  Not one headquarters, and maybe not secret but private and exclusive -- a number of boardrooms and clubs, I would think.  And they do have an agenda: preserving wealth and power.

      •  And 250 million Americans help them preserve (9+ / 0-)

        their wealth every time they gas up.

        Maybe people ought to get a little smarter about how they spend their money.

      •  That is basically what I meant.... (5+ / 0-)

        I put it "inartfully" as BO would say. Without a doubt some of the most important issues/pieces of legislation etc. etc. were discussed/formulated at exclusive clubs througout the last 150 years or so. My point is there is no "one secret society" which is directing economic/political policy in this country/world.

        "...and I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords." --Kent Brockman

        by dhshoops on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:57:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They jostle for power and influence (5+ / 0-)

          among one another, I would think.  Plutocracy, with agreements far outweighing differences, which are generally cosmetic and distracting.

          If one group did something wrong that other groups would not do, but the results of the wrongdoing are favorable to the other groups and exposing the wrongdoing would result in loss of legitimacy and power, I imagine secrets would be kept.  

        •  Okay. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          G2geek

          My point is there is no "one secret society" which is directing economic/political policy in this country/world.

          But the diarist himself made this point well enough, without your belabored parroting.

          The point is not to assert that there is a secret group who is pulling the strings of the modern world. It is far more complex.

          Hm.  Teaching our children, eh?

        •  not one but probably three (0+ / 0-)

          because oligopoly is a stable configuration and thus we should expect that oligarchy is similarly stable.  

          But whether one or three, they're killing us, and killing the planet.  

          Think about that for a moment: if these people wanted to, they could put the brakes on the climate crisis.  They have chosen not to do so.  Why?  Do they think they're going to take advantage of it in some way to further increase their wealth and power?  

          They're playing chicken with the entire planet.  And anyone reading this who isn't expecting to die of old age in the next decade or so is going to find out first-hand what that feels like.  

    •  there is no underlying agenda/secret headquarters (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      Looks like it was presented in pretty good detail to me.

      Believe me, it's a club - and you're not in it.

      And neither am I for that matter...

    •  move along, nothing to see here.... (0+ / 0-)

      RIIIIIGHT.  

      Go back to your pods, plug in your eyepieces and earbuds, tune in some violent media to work out your aggros, and don't make trouble for the boss tomorrow.  

  •  One thing missing ... (6+ / 0-)

    The early comment about the original faction being tied to the British Cecil family, and supported by a Lord Grey ...

    Robert Cecil was Queen Elizabeth I's spymaster and an important force in the clique that brought her to power, a secretive Protestant faction influenced by, believe it or not, the Rosicrucians, who took their name from a Roman custom of marking private discussions by use of hanging a rose over the table.  The Rosicrucians of that time were a secretive group of Protestant reformists active in attempting to stabilize Protestant political control in Britain and the Netherlands, which were then ruled by Catholic Spain. Mystical teachings and claims may have derived from early Protestant contacts within the Amsterdam Jewish community in the process of attempts to re-translate Scripture from original sources.

    The Grey family was descended from two sons (by a prior marriage) of Lady Elizabeth Grey, Queen of Yorkist King Edward IV, whose bevy of relatives were noted for their political move from obscurity into the major power circles through her influence.  Despite the final defeat of the House of York by Lancastrian Henry Tudor (VII), the Greys maintained their influence by marrying Elizabeth's eldest daughter (also Elizabeth) to Henry, and continued their political machinations until a major setback when they attempted to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne as a Protestant successor to Edward VI, in opposition to the Catholic (later "Bloody") Mary, daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon.  Those surviving the subsequent purge were, of course, returned to political centricity when Elizabeth I became Queen.

    So, it looks to me like this particular conspiracy has roots going back to moves for English/Protestant supremacy over Spain in the sixteenth century .... quite a successful political bloc, historically speaking.

    •  Rec'd because you've (0+ / 0-)

      obviously done some studying!  (And for the summary sentence, because I damn sure started skimming - ha).  No doubt it goes back...

      I always figured that the Brits, after the Revolution, certainly never got their hands out of American affairs - not by a long shot - because of the families, wealth and interests they had here.  They just kept in the shadows...

  •  This is just disturbing enough to be true nT (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek, brentmack
  •  I knew it. (8+ / 0-)

    For many years, I've suspected that a relatively small group of wealthy people had much more influence on politics/media than all of the starry-eyed believers in democracy would ever imagine.

    Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

    by dfarrah on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:19:36 AM PDT

  •  Part I (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brentmack, geodemographics

    Cogent, coherent and well written. I will be reading Professor Quigley's book and I look forward to Part II

  •  I highly recommend (2+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    musing85, sxp151
    Hidden by:
    G2geek, ibonewits

    Here begins the excerpt section. It's a hard read with many unfamiliar names - and some you will know. But I highly recommend reading it. There is far more treasure in here than I outlined.

    .....yawning. Tin foil hat and umbrella crap.

    This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected.

    by Batbird on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:46:29 AM PDT

  •  key political events (8+ / 0-)

    great diary and I appreciate all the book references by all the commentaters. more research is needed re this subject. as some have commented some are a bit anti-semitic but then again the House of Rothschild was involved and they were unbelievably greedy.
    now the key political events that enables this transfer of wealth and power all happened around 1913 and they are:

    1. creation of the Federal Reserve as a private holding company.
    1. capping of the House of Representatives. and seniority system.
    1. creation of Federal Income tax
    1. and lastly the solidification of the legal status of a corporation as having legal rights and being allowed to exist.

    Henry Dribble "if all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail." Phish/Wittgenstein

    by henry dribble on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:00:18 AM PDT

    •  Yes, I've always thought 1913 was a (5+ / 0-)

      particularly bad year, given items "1" and "3".

      How they conspired to foist the Federal Reserve Act of '13 onto us is interesting.  That really got going in 1910 at the secret Jekyll Island meeting of "elites", and is detailed in G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature From Jekyll Island".

      They snuck around and finally co-opted the Democrats to achieve their goal of creating a central bank.  (Renamed the bill, got a Dem to sponsor, and essentially bought (D) Woodrow Wilson the presidency in 1912.)  

      Supposed attendees of the 1910 Jekyll Island Conference:

      Sen. Nelson Aldrich
      Frank A. Vanderlip (Vice-President of the Rockefeller owned National City Bank)
      Henry P. Davison (of J. P. Morgan and Co.)
      Abram Piatt Andrew (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, an Assistant Professor at Harvard, and Special Assistant to the National Monetary Commission during their European tour)
      Paul Moritz Warburg (of Kuhn, Loeb and Co.)
      Benjamin Strong (Vice-President of Morgan's Bankers Trust Co.)
      Eugene Meyer (a former partner of Bernard Baruch, and the son of a partner in the Rothschild-owned Lazard Freres, who was the head of the War Finances Corporation, and later gained control of the Washington Post)
      J.P. Morgan
      John D. Rockefeller
      Col. House
      Jacob Schiff (of Kuhn, Loeb and Co.)
      Herbert Lehman (of Lehman Brothers)
      Bernard Baruch (appointed by President Wilson to be the Chairman of the War Industries Board, which gave him control of all domestic contacts for Allied war materials [during WW1], which enabled him to make $200 million for himself while working for the government)
      Joseph Seligman (a leading Jewish financier, who founded J. & W. Seligman and Co., who had helped to float bonds during the Civil War, and were known as "World Bankers," then later declined President Grant's offer to serve as the Secretary of Treasury)
      Charles D. Norton (President of the First National Bank of New York)

      Biggest contributors to Wilson's campaign:

      Jacob Schiff
      Bernard Baruch
      Henry Morgenthau, Sr.

      Thomas Fortune. Ryan (mining magnate)
      Samuel Untermyer
      Cleveland H. Dodge (of the National City Bank)
      Col. George B.M. Harvey (an associate of J. P. Morgan, editor of the Morgan-controlled Harper's Weekly, and President of the Harper and Brothers publishing firm)
      William Laffan (editor of the New York Sun)
      Adolph Ochs (publisher of the New York Times)
      and the financiers that owned the New York Times:

      Charles R. Flint
      Gen. Sam Thomas
      J.P. Morgan
      August Belmont

      (Found those lists looking for something else at

      this site with a piece on the creation of the Federal Reserve)

      You're right - there's a LOT that needs to be researched, before we can even begin to understand how "enmeshed" these power players are, and how LONG it has been so.

  •  The history of the Masons in this (3+ / 0-)

    country must also be accounted for, for the economic and political structure from the early formation of Wall Street, trade, government, and education.

    "People are only as happy as they make up their minds to be" Abraham Lincoln

    by carolh11 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:02:28 AM PDT

  •  There is a fine line between exposing... (0+ / 0-)

    Monied elites formulating policy and sounding like Charlie's dad in "So I Married an Axe Murderer" who thought the Rothschilds and Colenel Sanders of KFC were colluding to get people hooked on "the Colenel's chicken fortnightly!!!"

    "...and I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords." --Kent Brockman

    by dhshoops on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:08:09 AM PDT

    •  And this diary clearly crosses that line (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gideonse, Kickemout, Vitam Vas

      Of course, it reinforces what many people emotionally want to feel - that there is an organized conspiracy by "evil" people, which creates a clear "enemy", and provides a simple "answer" - overthrow the evil enemy, and all will be well. It give the illusion, in the same way mainstream religions do, that things are completely under control - that it is possible for things to be under control - and that the only problem is that the "wrong" people are under control.

      Simple answers to what ails the world are tremendously appealing - particularly when they absolve the reader of any personal responsibility for the mess. This is the secret religions, authoritarian philosophies, and revolutionary rants employ - it is "Us" vs. "Them", "They" are simply "Evil", and we need to overthrow Them and then all will be well.

      Ironically, this kind of narrative actually perpetuates the status quo - because the problems we face are systemic, not simply a matter of personnel. A corrupted system encourages and rewards amoral, self-serving behavior and inhibits and penalizes socially constructive, generous behavior - and that will not change by changing the logos on the jerseys.

      Change the faces, and the system quickly corrupts the new folks in charge - as we learned from many a revolution throughout history that was not matched with a change in systemic dynamics and structure.

      And, this is exactly the same kind of narrative the extreme Right uses to whip up irrational emotions, playing into ignorance, fear, and hate. Substitute a few villains and victims, and you have precisely the kind of thing sold by the demagogues on the Right - from Ron Paul to Lou Dobbs to Pat Roberton to Ollie North.

      The author cleverly discounts conspiracy theories, all the while weaving a hoary one, using all the classic, irrational appeals to emotion that convince the gullible from arguments from authority (quotes from this or that public figure of the nature: "if you doubt me, listen to this:") to assuming causation when only correlation has been demonstrated (or, in many cases, merely asserted).

      The "monied elites control the world" narrative is just one step away from "New York elites control the world" - which is just one step away from "Jews control the world".

      The "moneyed elites infiltrating the Left" narrative is just one step away from the McCarthyesque "Commies infiltrating Hollywood" narrative (which quickly degrades to blaming the Jews, too).

      Protocols of Zion did it all before. Color me unimpressed with this new spin.

      And all those applauding and lauding should ask themselves - am I approving of this because the facts actually check out independently - have I even bothered to do some independent research of the claims the diarist makes - or merely because the message lines up nicely with my own biases, gripes and wishes?

      The premature ejaculation here about this narrative reveals one of the weaknesses of this medium, for all its strengths - thoughtful, complex, rational discourse tends to be overwhelmed by simple, binary thinking, simplistic worldviews and discourse reduced to simplified sloganeering.

      As Quigley's own obituary (1977 in the Washington Star) notes,

      Unfortunately, many people interested in Carroll Quigley take entirely out of context the references he made in his book Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time about a high-level Anglophile conspiracy that, he said, flourished before World War II.  It seems that many people believe Quigley thought this vast conspiracy somehow continues to operate right up to our own day.

      But as Dr. Quigley once told me, the reality is much scarier. Instead of a secret cabal now being in charge, there's no one in charge.

      One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

      by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:48:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please re-read part of what you just said: (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek, Prognosticator, nodal aim

        the problems we face are systemic, not simply a matter of personnel. A corrupted system encourages and rewards amoral, self-serving behavior and inhibits and penalizes socially constructive, generous behavior - and that will not change by changing the logos on the jerseys.

        Change the faces, and the system quickly corrupts the new folks in charge - as we learned from many a revolution throughout history that was not matched with a change in systemic dynamics and structure.

        Do you not understand that the diarist would agree with this?

        There are rules, laws, and the rule of law. George W. Bush has disregarded all three.

        by geodemographics on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:21:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is a critical distinction (0+ / 0-)

          between narratives that seek to personify evil, and narratives that explore how systems affect behavior. The diarist pursues the former narrative, I argue that the latter both better reflects reality, and addresses the real cause of injustice. I am not sure you noted that I wrote "amoral" rather than "immoral".

          I do not believe the diarist would agree with me, satisfying conspiracy theory that appealed to him or her, and then, in typical irrational fashion, he or she proceeded to seek affirmations of the narrative and ignore refutations.

          As have most of the people who have read and commented on this thread.

          It is the opposite approach to critical thinking, and I think we have had enough of that kind of irrational approach to the world and to solving our problems. Tin foil on the Left is no more helpful than tin foil on the Right, or anywhere else.

          One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

          by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:36:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  This diary is not an indictment (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TocqueDeville, G2geek, shopkeeper

        of "evil" moneyed interests running the show.  

        The point has to do with how these moneyed-machinations affect, and are related to, the United States of America's bold experiment in "little People" governing THEMSELVES. Common (poor) people governing themselves and wealthy interests governing them are at odds.

        This diary is a step in the right direction of helping We the People to understand, and ultimately deal with, that particular reality.

      •  move along, nothing to see here. (0+ / 0-)

        Go back to your pods and continue consuming.  

    •  yes, and you're blurring the line yourself. (0+ / 0-)

      Why?

  •  How does the elite you describe... (3+ / 0-)

    ...get along with the neocons?

    My guess is that they consider them reckless albeit similar in ultimate goals.

    There seems to be a natural tendency by self made powerful men through history to try to rule the world by buying influence.  This Rhodes was more ambitious than most.

    I can also see how someone like Lyndon LaRouche can get it wrong but not without occasionally being on target.

    Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action -1.75 -7.23

    by Shockwave on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:17:56 AM PDT

  •  Goes w/this: Iraq & corps there, my soldier (9+ / 0-)

    friend, just home on a two week leave from Baghdad duty as an Army Sgt., told me he believes it will be another five years until we are out of Iraq.

    Why? Because of all the entrenched financial interests, the contractors, kbr's of the world. He believes they had it all planned out for years before.

    IT TOOK five years, the deaths of 4,100 US soldiers... to make Iraq safe for Exxon. ~ Derrick Z. Jackson

    by Gorette on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:27:13 AM PDT

  •  Summary? Abstract? thanks n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Best Diary of the Year? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/23/03912/3990

    by LNK on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:34:20 AM PDT

  •  I always wonder ... (4+ / 0-)

    how the underworld of illegal drugs and arms sales fits into the picture.

    Against silence, which is slavery. -- Czeslaw Milosz

    by Caneel on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:55:18 AM PDT

  •  This is why we have a second..... (4+ / 0-)

    ..amendment.

    Please don't tell me you feel sorry for Ben. Ben is a well cared for dalmatian and has not been harmed by my political views.

    by Bensdad on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:17:46 AM PDT

  •  Many of those prominent Brits married Americans (4+ / 0-)

    for further riches and influence. Lady Astor was a social climber from Virginia. (For that matter it isn't often remembered that Lady Jennie Churchill, Sir Winston's mother, was American also.)

  •  Not Everything that Took Place at Clivenden - (5+ / 0-)

    Dealt with world domination - -

    Lady Astor to Sir Winston Churchill, "If you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."

    To which he responded, "Madam, if you were my wife, I'd drink it!"

    So there were cracks in the Waterford.

  •  Perhaps one of the most powerful (8+ / 0-)

    narratives of the wealthy elite is that any attempt to rightly articulate what they have and are doing is viewed, not as a description of what all can readily see, but instead categorized as a Conspiracy Theory Rant - which automatically disqualifies the speaker as a Kook.

    The other day I yelled to a friend, "Look! A Unicorn!", to which the Unicorn gave reply: "That's nothing. I saw an undecided centrist voter last year."

    by Johnathan Ivan on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:35:50 AM PDT

  •  then the internet as we know and love (3+ / 0-)

    is in danger as the flow of information is currently uncontrollable.  Donate to EFF or else AYBABTU.

    if you're not supposed to eat aquarium gravel, why do they make it taste so good?

    by bnasley on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:58:47 AM PDT

  •  wow! what a diary! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Prognosticator, brentmack

    i'd love to hear your thoughts on the instatement of the fed.

    "Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise." Thomas Paine, Common Sense

    by Cedwyn on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:02:54 PM PDT

  •  Sovereignty is so quaint... n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tanya, brentmack, Amber6541

    There's a whole lotta "there" there. (in your diary)

    Thanks, good work... very disturbing though.

    Tipped & Rec'd.

    "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."- Voltaire - [Fran├žois Marie Arouet] (1694-1778)

    by markthshark on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:06:15 PM PDT

  •  So... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yoduuuh do or do not

    So what if I told you that the powers of financial capitalism (bankers etc.), had a far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands, able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.

    I'd say, what else is new?  

    The greatest crimes take place in plain view.

  •  How the U.S. Helped Finance War (5+ / 0-)

    in the 20th century, including those who were waging war against us, both cold and hot.

    An Interview with Anthony C. Hutton

     Anthony C. Hutton is a scholar from the supposedly conservative Hoover Institute who was told to stop writing and speaking about one of the fundamental facts of life: US banks and corporate technology transfers made the Nazis and the rise of Communism possible. —From the video caption

    Parts of it are a stretch, but there's a lot of information in this interview.

  •  When Does the Movie Version Come Out? (0+ / 0-)

    Will Nicholas Cage be the leading man? Will there be a part for Angelina Jolie? Is Danny DeVito going to direct? Can Arnold play himself?

    Remember, THEY hate us for our Freedom! The freedom for the President to do as he damn well pleases.

    by Tuba Les on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:15:17 PM PDT

  •  You totally forgot... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Prognosticator, Tanya, brentmack

    the Federal Reserve Board.  Nothing in this country has done more to destroy the fundamental concepts of liberty than the creation of that Board.

  •  Order out of chaos (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Janet Strange, G2geek

    is a favorite catchphrase that the elitist racist super-wealthy rulers and plutocrats believe and have used for centuries. For them most men are nothing more than animals and eaters, anyway.

    Mostly influenced by the military/religious orders of Ahknaten, Caesar, Black Popes (not racial black) and feudalisic Kings, shock and awe style tactics help create the chaos and the well-schooled moneychangers create the order.

    For a long time I have believed that the Progressive's best chance of realistically starting to regain some measure of democratic and economic control is to target the strengths of our adversaries. Namely take on the black market, modern legal slavery (unfair incarceration-mostly blacks), and unfair competition to independent farmers and crop solar energy production by oil producers-  all in one revolutionary piece of legislation.

    Fixing the War on Drugs deftly does this and this is why the Right and many Dinos have so virulently opposed fixing it for so long. This is a winnable fight we are in if we plan for the long-term and rely on reason, not fear. Lets hope Obama and the new Congress will do this and start restoring hope, promise and dignity to us "commoners". If we win this early major battle then true economic independence from the far-flung globalist financial matrix may be just around the corner.

    Black male incarceration rates: South Africa (1993 apartheid- considered racist) 851 per 100k. USA (2006) 4,789 per 100k.

    by ebiker on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:32:16 PM PDT

  •  What About Prescott Bush? and his Nazi connection (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Preston S, nodal aim

    Seriously, there are several reputable articles on BBC news that describe how Prescott Bush tried to overthrow FDR and establish a fascist government, as well as loaned money to the Nazis via his German bank.

    Considering GW stole the election and is politicizing the justice department and starting random wars of aggression I think this needs to be included.

    MAKE TRADE FAIR DAMMIT! And impeachbush.org! (1 mill+ names already)

    by siamesewonka on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:40:56 PM PDT

    •  that Alex Jones is full of shit. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RandomActsOfReason

      I'm sorry but Alex Jones is full of shit.  It shames me much that Alex Jones' own personal beliefs that he shouts out happen to reinforce "ultra nationalistic" candidates like Ron Paul (according to Chomsky) and people who think they don't have to pay income taxes.  He shouts about the global elite and then supports Republicans?  especially republicans who want businesses supported by the military and has greatly helped the uber-rich plunder our economy by encouraging gold investments.

      MAKE TRADE FAIR DAMMIT! And impeachbush.org! (1 mill+ names already)

      by siamesewonka on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:44:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In the scope of this diary, (7+ / 0-)

      Prescott Bush was a relatively minor player.  The Bush/Walker family's lust to be a part of this elite was what drove Bush 41 to Texas to estasblish a family fortune... The Bushes are aspirers to the guild --  "helpers" in the definitions laid out by the diarist.  In short, the Bushes work for the elite, and as payment they are tossed the occasional crumb -- such as a presidency now and then.  The Bush family has been much too visible to ever be welcomed into the fold -- plus, they're not very smart.

      Kick apart the structures.

      by ceebee7 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:59:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So what else is new? (5+ / 0-)

    Not to denigrate this excellent diary, but one doesn't need a whole lot of specific evidence to support the quite rational assumption that in a world in which there are very rich and powerful people, families and organizations with deeply entrenched interests, they would do whatever they could to protect and expand these interests, including forming secretive associations, fronted by better known organizations, to pull whatever strings they felt needed pulling, to ensure this. Hell, it's what I'd do if I were a rich and powerful industrialist who wanted to protect my loot and the prerogatives that it granted me.

    There's nothing inherently "evil" or "conpiratorial" about this. It's what rich and powerful people do, to remain rich and powerful, in a world in which they are vastly outnumbered and not necessarily well-liked. Medieval kings and nobles built huge fortresses and castles to protect their interests and selves, and enlisted the help of church, warrior and when needed banker (the precursors of today's rich, btw, and one of the main links between those times and ours) to help in this effort. Today it's about controlling politicians, judges, laws, the media, banks, etc. Different means, same ends. The "evil" comes from the extent to which the specific means that they use to protect their interests deviate from accepted moral norms.

    I am somewhat comforted by the realization that it's impossible to construct anywhere near a perfect "conspiracy" or secret endeavor. Too many internal conflicts, mistakes made, weak and stupid people, external realities, forces and events that cannot be completely controlled or predicted, older generations dying off, newer ones complicating things with their own ideas, goals and methods and enlarging the number of people in these groups, etc. These things tend to come apart eventually, by becoming internally unwieldy and incohesive, and by becoming externally too conservative and risk-averse and thus unresponsive to emerging trends and developments. And then, when finally alerted to the seriousness of their situation, they tend to do a 180 and attempt desperate maneuvers to save themselves, only to hasten their downfall.

    Medieval kings and nobles brought about their downfall by ignoring the growing power of the rising commercial middle class, to whom they became increasingly indebted to finance their endless wars. This middle class formed the core of today's upper ruling class, and themselves have come under attack from a growing underclass that they have been exploiting for over 150 years. They were a lot smarter about protecting themselves from it, though, than were their medieval predecessors, and so are still in power. But things inexorably change, and the very thing that they have eagerly persued for over 100 years to further enrich and empower themselves--globalization--has enabled this underclass to slowly and steadily gain the political and economic power to stand up to these elites. The internet is but one of those by-products of globalization that is now working against these elites.

    They're going to have to either adapt and learn to share the loot and power, or else be taken down by the very forces and realities that they helped unleash. This will not happen, or need to happen, in some Marxist or Leninist top-down revolutionary and violent manner (although there will almost certainly be that, not in the US but elsewhere). It will simply happen. Vast, diverse and complex forces are at work today that even these elites cannot entirely control, and they can either learn to work with them, or be taken down by them. Secret societies or not. There's a new and rising technology-enabled middle class, an increasingly restive lower class, and all sorts of economic and other disasters on the horizon, and I don't believe that these elites can protect themselves and their privileged positions against them.

    It's Evolution 101: adapt, adjust and yield--or die.

    Sic transit gloria mundi - ancient Roman proverb

    by kovie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:41:42 PM PDT

    •  Another sane comment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kovie

      the conspiracy theorists are crazy - this comment along with nchrissieb above are much simpler and much likelier to be true.

      The motivations are exactly as described above. They want to grow their businesses. Why? because it is a challenge. They enjoy doing what they do - building enormous businesses and making a profit is a way to keep score.

      You can look at your city government to see the types of things that happen on the world stage. There probably is some plotting, scheming and backroom dealing. The people involved though probably think about it more as working with people they like and trust.

      Every organization or ecosystem of people works in the same way. On the local or world stage, there are people that are rich and completely selfish and there are rich people that are selfless. Rich people are just like you and I, some of you "liberals" are probably very bad people, some are probably pretty good. Is everyone who posts a diary on the daily kos a saint?

      •  Another Sane Comment, Huh? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Prognosticator, geodemographics

        the conspiracy theorists are crazy...

        Man, you just don't get it.  And frankly, I've read every word between the diary and the comments to this point - so I'm too tired to try to explain.

        But this country has been fleeced for the last few decades and it doesn't sound like you're prepared to do anything about it.

        I don't believe there's any substitute for "Know your enemy" - the old saying derived from Sun Tzu's The Art of War.

        •  Um... (0+ / 0-)

          Accusing people of essentially not being "part of the team", which you're doing here with "it doesn't sound like you're prepared to do anything about it" is considered to be bad form at the very least and HRable if persisted in. Pushing a "my view and way is right, yours is wrong, you are part of the problem, not the solution" attitude is not what this site is about. So just cut it out. It's fine for people to express their views. Not fine for them to accuse others of bad intentions or faith because they don't agree. This site isn't about lockstep or squelching dissent via ad hom.

          Facts are facts, but opinions are always debatable.

          Sic transit gloria mundi - ancient Roman proverb

          by kovie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:44:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not saying we have nothing to worry about (0+ / 0-)

        There are some bad and powerful people out there up to no good, and they've got friends, plans, means and intent, and they're always looking for opportunities. And we need to be on guard against them. But I'm just cautioning against the simplistic view that there's a bunch of moustache-twirling evil old men sitting in some back room secretly plotting to enslave the whole world, and that unless we expose their evil plot, all is lost. The diarist isn't claiming this, but I've come across more than a few dopes who essentially are. Most likely overgrown adolescents with Che posters in their rooms eagerly awaiting the Great Collapse so that Revolución Ahora! can finally begin.

        Ech. Stupid, simplistic, naive, unhelpful, and frankly quite boring.

        Sic transit gloria mundi - ancient Roman proverb

        by kovie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:51:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  In all this analysis, you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Preston S

      forget who owns the elite science.  There is no doubt in my mind that they have developed pathogens for which a limited supply of antidote is available.  (Remember Cheney, et al, were put on Cipro days before the US Anthrax even "got delivered"?)

      This "new crop" of elites of which you speak will not fall to the middle class so easily as their predecessors, as you note. (You then seem to change course, and say these elites "can either learn to work with them [general population], or be taken down by them".)

      In any event, current elite rulers no longer need many people, and certainly not the numbers of people we now have, to sustain them. I would not be at all surprised if they have 100 years of supplies and artificial systems to survive on.  And now they've got Dubai for vacations.  (ha)

      Enabled middle class, my ass.  More like "manipulated, dumbed-down middle class who THINK they still have control over their lives".  If the elite so desire, they'll take our health, savings, and homes, like they're doing.  Further, if they so desire, they'll smack us dead like their predecessors have, just on a relatively larger scale, and more "easily", I imagine.

      But I can't argue with "adapt, adjust and yield - or die".  But die we all must, and it might help up-and-coming generations immeasurably to die fighting for a cause.

      Problem is, we don't even know enough (as a population) to know clearly what to fight, much less how. But educating ourselves on the history of how we "got here" might just clue us as to the "who"... and to look more closely at their pet institutions and what THEY are up to.

  •  From today's Wall Street Journal: (5+ / 0-)

    The Rich Keep Getting Richer

    In a new sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service data.

    Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. The group's share of the tax burden has risen, though not as quickly as its share of income.

    You don't say?

    There are rules, laws, and the rule of law. George W. Bush has disregarded all three.

    by geodemographics on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:49:10 PM PDT

  •  Very happy to see this getting so much (5+ / 0-)

    attention.  Eager to see Vol. 2.

    Other sources -- Zinn's "People's History..." and the web site Cyrano (http://www.bestcyrano.org), although that site is not kind to Obama.  Cyrano's Jason Miller occasionally posts here, to little avail.  His articles are so dense with facts and analysis that my eyes generally glaze over half way through.

    As is stated in other ways in comments herein, every baby born in America is thoroughly and unknowingly indoctrinated with the evils and deviltry of communism starting before he/she starts school.  The propaganda efforts of those you discuss are incredibly effective.

    I would add, among others, Richard Mellon Scaife as a modern world villain/practitioner in concert with the theme of this diary.

    Thanks for articulating precisely what we are really, truly up against.

    Kick apart the structures.

    by ceebee7 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:49:25 PM PDT

  •  guillotine! guillotine! eom (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek
  •  My head hurts (0+ / 0-)

    So the wealthy control (or at least influence) everything?  What else is new!  Name a society where this wasn't the case?  Even in the so-called communist societies, wealth accumulates into the hands of a few.  The big question has always been - what can be done about it?  Communism was clearly not the answer - it's totalitarian in nature.  Capitalism is clearly easily perverted.  So what's the answer?  I think the best we can do is to regulate the activities of the wealthy so they don't overwhelm those of less means.

    Am I missing something?  I heard all of these connections before and am hardly surprised at them.

    Anyway, it's a good collection of the entities that exert world influence.  It couldn't hurt to know who the players are behind the curtain so to speak.

    •  What's the answer, indeed? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Janet Strange

      I think the best we can do is to regulate the activities of the wealthy so they don't overwhelm those of less means.

      We've been trying this in the USA experiment.  It isn't working, either, given the facts that the elite now clearly own the "People's mechanism" for such.

      People of "less means" must have power to do this, and the wealthy elites have simply aggrandized THEIR power over the past few hundred years by usurping the vast natural resources of this continent, and the whole "New World", essentially.

      Yeah... what IS the answer?  A "French correction" every now and then?  What?

  •  I don't think any of those were bombshells (0+ / 0-)

    Well-written diary, but really, this isn't breaking in anyway that many people assert these views of history.

    Boris: You're a tyrant, and a dictator, and you start wars!
    Napoleon: Why is he reciting my credits?

    by B man on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:29:42 PM PDT

  •  Interesting bit... (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Prognosticator, geodemographics
    Hidden by:
    mrblifil

    <q>As a consequence, the world  economy was set for the crisis that is currently unfolding. There was  no effective global regulator to keep the system in check, and there  was no real voice for the average Joe.</q>

    Global Regulator, Voice for the Average Joe. Those two phrases sent a shiver down my spine.

    The problem with figuring out what they've done is that you keep finding yourself asking the question, 'What are they going to do next?'

    - Its time we stopped dealing in words, and started Dealing in Lead.

    by walkingshark on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:31:12 PM PDT

  •  JFK in 1961 (4+ / 0-)

    "For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations."

  •  Umm, who? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MajorFlaw, MBNYC

    Carroll Quigley is such an eminent historian that I've never heard of him--and considering I spent all of last semester and most of this summer boning up on the British Empire for one of my Ph.D. field exams, that's saying something.

    Your picture of Cliveden looks suspiciously like the one on the Wikipedia site for that place. And if it is, you might at least have bothered to link to it, so folks could see that your assertion that it was a "typical" Gilded Age house is a blatant lie. The present structure was built in 1851 for the Duke of Sutherland. The Astors did not buy it until 1893.

    As to the rest of this tripe, it's not worth the electrons you recycled to post it.

    •  And who gives a fuck what you think (1+ / 2-)
      Recommended by:
      NeuvoLiberal
      Hidden by:
      musing85, anotherCt Dem

      Your mother and a few more?

      And by the way, hows your blog. Don't give up. Someone may comment eventually, even if it's only a spammer.

      •  Nice (4+ / 0-)

        When you haven't got anything substantive to say (and you don't), go for the ad hominem. Have some pastry on me.

        •  Rating abuse (0+ / 0-)

          Loser. I gave you plenty of substance in my diary. Now you want me to retype for your snarky, mindless comment?

          The thrust of your argument 'I've never heard of Quigley and I have a PHD, so he must be nobody."

          You're a joke.

          •  Wrong on all counts (0+ / 0-)

            You gave nothing of substance in your diary. You pasted quotes at random from a 42-year-old book whose reputation is less than sterling, coupled with speculations based on nothing even resembling facts or evidence. I don't yet have a Ph.D., though I'm working on one in modern European history. Among my major fields are colonialism and empire/nationality--meaning that if Quigley's book were all that, I would absolutely have heard of it. I haven't even seen it in a footnote. And when questioned, you didn't respond to the substance or attempt to rebut anything I said. Instead, you went straight for an insult. As such, your comment was legitimately bageled. If I were you, I'd back slowly away from the computer, have a nice adult beverage, and come back and apologize for this flameout in the morning when you have a little better perspective.

            •  "Reputation is less than sterling" (0+ / 0-)

              You're a pathetic sophist.

              It is you who have no credibility. You keep talking about your education as though I'm supposed to be impressed.

              You need to reread my dairy about why your PHD is worth only the money you bought it with.

              By the way, Quigley was the youngest person to receive a PHD at Harvard. But I'm supposed to
              be impressed by you.

              But the real reason I'm so hard on you, other than your delusions of grandeur, is you called me a liar. Something you certainly would not do to my face.

              People who have no honour don't give a second thought to questioning the honor of others.

              Perhaps you need to step away and think about who you are as a person to be so quick to call someone a liar.

              •  Well, let's see: so far (0+ / 0-)

                You've gone through ad hominem and appeal to authority. Care to try for the rest of the logical fallacies, one by one?

                Idiots can graduate from Harvard just as easily (more so, in fact, given their "legacy" admissions policies: as witness the Boy Who Won't Be King Much Longer) as from Podunk State U. Quigley's book is not cited by any academic historians writing in the field today--unlike AJP Taylor, whom you've dismissed as a "hack," presumably because he dissed the guy you think hung the moon. I read several reviews, in academic journals, of Quigley's book. They were universally cool-to-lukewarm. All of them said the book was far too long, not cogently written, and had a tendency to wander off on tangents. These were written by his peers--people who had spent a lifetime studying history. They had a right to their opinions. You, at least on the evidence of this diary, not so much.

                I absolutely would call you a liar to your face, when you try to pass off the estate of a major noble family as a typical Gilded Age residence. I would also call you a hack to your face if this diary is in any way typical of your writing style, your level of historical understanding or sophistication, or your manners. When you tell lies, expect to get called a liar. And I'm not in the habit of taking moral advice from liars, so you're free to take yours, fold it until it's all sharp corners, and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

                •  I never claimed Cliveden was "typical" (0+ / 0-)

                  Nor is it entirely atypical.

                  And claiming you would call me a liar is easy from the anonymous safety of your computer you little coward.

                  As for Hope and Tragedy, this was an informal book from Quigley. It has no footnote, bibliography. It is unusual.

                  But your attempt to attack his credibility, along with DHinMI's little posse of losers, demonstrates your dishonesty.

                  "In addition to his academic work, Quigley was a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration, which went on to establish NASA."

                  Again, who the fuck are you. An assclown with an internet connection.

                  •  Yeah, so? (0+ / 0-)

                    Only makes it even less likely that he got anything right in his non-scholarly book that the professional historians all panned: he was writing outside his discipline. Quigley appears to have been what we would nowadays call a historian of science or technology. This qualifies him to write about British colonial policy how?

                  •  Oh, and you lie. Again. (0+ / 0-)

                    You say here that you never claimed Cliveden was typical.

                    But in your diary, you said this:

                    This was during the Gilded Age and it is difficult to even comprehend the wealth of these people (I posted a pic of one of their houses just to convey)

                    "One of their houses" certainly looks like an assertion that Cliveden was typical of the Gilded Age, when in fact it was a country estate of a super-rich member of the upper nobility (built for a duke, and Lady Ascot was a viscountess).

      •  Is there any particular reason for this flameout? (5+ / 0-)

        Just wondering.

      •  What's wrong with you? (5+ / 0-)

        You wrote a great diary which inspired a lot of conversation and now you're flaming out - spectacularly. Walk away from the computer, take a nice long shower or bath and go to sleep. You'll regret this tomorrow.

        •  There's nothing wrong with me (2+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Iranaqamuk, eroded47095
          Hidden by:
          drache

          I just decided to give an appropriate response to some arrogant little prick calling me a liar.

          First DHinMI spreads lies about me, slandering my reputation, then this prick calls me a liar. And you ask what's wrong with me.

          What's wrong with your fucked up value system. Why aren't you condemning assclown for calling me a liar and saying my diary is tripe.

          And don't presume to tell me what to do. I have a right to defend myself in whatever way I see fit.

          •  No, actually, You don't. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shane Hensinger

            Not here, at least. You can't call people pricks and use fuck as every third word here; even if your argument is sound.

            "The road goes ever on." JRR Tolkien --- "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" J.M.Straczynski

            by Cofcos on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:24:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You're a hateful person (0+ / 0-)

            There was no need to be so mean to me. You deserve to be HR'd.

            •  I'm not hateful (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              eroded47095

              I just don't think it is acceptable. a)to have a FPager running around lying about me, b) for another person to call me a lair because he misinterpreted what I said, and c) for you to imply there's something wrong with me for busting their balls for it.

              When you start of a comment with "What's wrong with you?", you are saying "There's something wrong with you."

              You think that's polite?

              You think that isn't insulting?

              But using "fuck" and "prick" is?

              Not one of you has called musing or DH out for their dispicable comments, yet you get your hind feathers ruffled cause I use a few epithets.

              Maybe in your world, being a liar is not that big a deal, so being called one is not a big deal either.

              But to me, it is as bad as any insult one can level against another person.

              But to you, the great sin was my launguage.

              Pathetic display of real American values. The big dog would be pleased.

          •  i don't care what you know or what your think you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shane Hensinger

            know.

            Calling someone a prick is just not right and not apporiate and not something that should be tolerated in terms of a polite discussion. And thus you get a rare donut from me

            Not to mentio the rest of your curse words.

            Let's just assume your right for a second and this is all not your fault; how does that even begin to justify how you're acting?

            Answer: it doesn't

            •  So... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              eroded47095

              ...calling someone a liar, without any evidence is OK as long as you do it politely?

              I don't think so.

              •  the point is that 2 wrongs do not make a right (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Shane Hensinger

                even if you're right, even if you're the wronged party here that doesn't make using curse words okay.

                And as I said that's even taking your arguement at face value, if your arguement is wrong then what you just said is even worse.

                Thus which ever way you look at it, cursing at someone just isn't right.

                Yes even if they called you a liar.

                •  You're right (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  drache

                  I lost my temper when DHinMI popped in a started attacking me on an entirely off topic issue that was based on a lie that he has to know is a lie by now.

                  Then, if lying about me wasn't enough, dude popped in and called me a liar over something I didn't even say.

                  I don't know what else to do when people pull this shit but to attack back.

                  •  i would suggest (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Shane Hensinger

                    that you fight back, but do so in a way that isn't name calling and that doesn't involve cure words.

                    Though you should also understand and then accept that people will subtly or not so subtly call you a liar among other things and probably worse then that.

                    I've been accused several times of being a McCain troll, even picked up a bunch of HRs for comments cause people didn't like them.

                    That's just the nature of the system and you need to be able to brush off that criticism.

                    The way I look at it, who cares what someone I never met is  doing to what almounts to a bunch of zereos and ones?

                  •  Ok, I know this is going to sound dumb. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    luku, geodemographics

                    (Apologies) but words don't really work to attack people at least and especially as far as the "audience" is concerned.

                    I've been going back and forth in this thread (why? I don't know -- I shouldn't be).  I'm admittedly ill equipped to figure out who's right and who's wrong, and I'm no longer being educated by anybody, just subjected to a big soap opera, and all the insults and posturing don't do anything for me but muddy all sides.

                    You can call DHinMI and musing trolls, and they can call you a liar.  But if I wasn't predisposed to take sides based on at least something called knowledge I can wave around like a flag, none of that is going to do anything for me.

                    So what I'm left with is there are factions about history that hate each other.  And "but you did it first" or "this person is stalking me" don't help either.

                    Sometimes the best defense is just to try to act with dignity and class.

                    This isn't directed against you, TDV -- it's directed against the donutfest in general.  It's not really accomplishing anything as far as I can tell.

                    The opposite of war is not peace, it's creation - Jonathan Larson (-6.62, -6.26)

                    by AndyS In Colorado on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:16:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  My apologies (0+ / 0-)

                      I just don't know how else to respond when a frontpager pops into my diary and hijacks the thread by slandering me with lies.

                      DHinMI, to paint me as an idiot conspiracy theorist, claimed that I said that a "few hackers could rig a national election."

                      I have repeatedly explained to DHinMI that I never said that, and that what I said was that a few hackers, or more specifically, employees of a voting machine company, could THROW a national election by rigging only key precincts in a key state like Ohio.

                      This assertion is indisputable, but even if it's wrong, it is not what DHinMI keeps claiming I said.

                      What do you think I should do when a frontpager goes around hijacking my diaries with slanderous lies?

                      There's a history here. DHinMI and his little posse of people who I guess want to be made frontpagers some day so they run around with their asses permanently affixed to his arse, have been swarming into dairies they don't like for years.

                      They pop in like the bully brigade and start leveling ad hominem attacks, first against anyone that criticized the Dem leadership. Then, when those criticizing the Dem leadership became an overhwelming majority, they shrunk up like cowards.

                      Now it's anyone who challenges the establishment they so want to be a member of's view of history.

                      This has been going on for years. So what to do about them? I see no choice but to fight back.

                      •  You know, there are other people I feel this way (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        TocqueDeville, geodemographics

                        about on Daily Kos.  For example being an apprehensive and not totally lockstep Obama supporter is really hard here.  It's easier to support Obama when I'm away from this place.  The Obama supporters that are here hurt their own case AFAIAC.

                        I digress, but I understand the feeling intimately.

                        I understand the need to feel like you have to "fight back" especially when, as in your case, it's personal.  It's that animalistic "defend yourself instinct" we all have.

                        What I'm trying to share (since I'm not you in this case, and can be dispassionate) is that words are weapons that just as often blow up in the face of the wielder as actually work to "attack" the other guy.

                        No matter how much you "fight back" in your way, it's not going to accomplish much except put you in the same mudbath.

                        Trusting others to draw their own conclusions -- and even making an effort to acknowledge the "concerns" of your persecuters (right or wrong) might work better.  It will make you look good anyway.  The people who read are not all automatons who have to be led to certain conclusions by the hand.

                        OPOL "defends himself" against people getting medieval on his ass much better than you do, IMO.  Not saying that to criticize you, but to give you an example to follow of what I think works better.

                        But he virtually never lets himself get too ruffled.  By maintaining perspective and staying above the fray, the people attacking him begin to look bad.

                        (For the record, on some of the issues, I lean more your way, and on some others, I lead musing85's way.  I particularly think people who look into the details of what happened in the 2004 election tend to believe more than some serious election rigging was going on.)

                        I have people who really dislike me too on this site.  But I do better when I adopt the attitude of "I'm not going to let the bastards get me down" and that I can change (i.e. I'm wayyyy more flexible and intelligent than the people who dislike me give me credit for).

                        I shouldn't say it this way, but what you "need" to do is recover your equanamity.  You'll look better when this stuff happens, and you might feel better, too.

                        The opposite of war is not peace, it's creation - Jonathan Larson (-6.62, -6.26)

                        by AndyS In Colorado on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:54:07 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

      •  You give a fuck (0+ / 0-)

        Or you wouldn't be here.

        "The road goes ever on." JRR Tolkien --- "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" J.M.Straczynski

        by Cofcos on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:21:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        ratings abuse. the diarist was baited with an ad hominem insult first with "As to the rest of this tripe, it's not worth the electrons you recycled to post it." Hence no HR was warranted on his response comment.

        Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! His war hawking is why!

        by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:39:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

          That was a true statement. This diary is tripe.

          •  Michael, what I find troubling is... (0+ / 0-)

            ...someone still in college disses something by asserting that since he hadn't heard of an author, and that he was studying that subject, and will be/is an expert in it, the diary is tripe.

            Some of us who went to school 20+ years ago know that you learn a lot more afterwards. Rather than blindly blasting the original source, Quigley, why not read him and add a little substance to your piss? After all, isn't that what scholarship is?

            "In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." MLK, changed to this during the 2008 FISA fight

            by bewert on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:23:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As someone who has been "in school" (0+ / 0-)

              for twenty-six years, I've probably read more than most people--on many subjects. The doctorate I'm currently pursuing will be my fifth academic degree (sixth, if you count a double bachelor's as two separate degrees).

              Have you ever seen a Ph.D. field exam in history? If so, then you know that you prepare for it by reading upwards of fifty books covering a wide swathe of the intellectual territory on which you're to be examined. As I mentioned previously, I've been prepping for such an exam on the British Empire--which was the topic of the Quigley book mentioned by the diarist. As that book first came out four decades ago, it should have had plenty of time to establish itself in the field. As such, I would certainly expect it, if not to be on the reading list my examiner gave me to prepare for the exam, at least discussed in some of the books on it, or mentioned in their footnotes.

              As I also said previously, none of that is true. The book was not assigned for me to read. Neither has it been discussed in anything that I've read thus far (and I'm more than halfway through my reading list). It hasn't even been footnoted. The diarist's claim that Quigley is an "eminent historian" is, therefore, questionable at best.

              Not only that, but the reviews of the book when it first appeared were dreadful. Every one of them commented on how long the book was, how it had a tendency to ramble far and wide, and how it was poorly organized and lacked cogency. Reviews like that are tantamount to praising the woodwork on the Titanic--there's definitely stuff to admire in it, but it's doomed to plunge to the bottom of the ocean all the same.

              Then there's the fact that, from what I can gather online, Quigley's area of specialization was the history of technology. The book the diarist is lauding to the skies is, by his own admission, largely a non-intellectual digression that isn't sourced or footnoted. In other words, the author was writing out of his discipline and observed none of the usual academic forms like providing sources for the allegations you make.

              I stand by my characterization of the book--and this diary based loosely thereon--as tripe. And no, I will almost certainly not be adding it to my reading list. I have way more reading to do than I have time for already. If I want a diversion, I'll find something that's actually interesting--or if fantasy, at least selling itself as such.

  •  good diary... (0+ / 0-)

    I almost missed this...

    "It's better to realize you're a swan than to live life as a disgruntled duck."

    by Mumon on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:47:07 AM PDT

  •  What's sad (0+ / 0-)

    This place generally encourages people to write diaries.

    So a person writes a diary.

    Then, as a fine example of everything wrong with the internet, somebody comes along, supposedly who would know better, and insults the diarist, ignoring the meat of the diary completely.

    This is called ad hominem.

    And then the diarist takes offense, of course, and now, as a result of all the diarist's hard work on his or her diary, he or she probably loses TU.

    And THAT is why I don't write diaries.

    People just LOVE to go around picking on people's diaries.

    Good diaries get derailed by insult or sometimes even cuteness.

    It's exTREMEly childish.

    Making me agree more with that poor guy who got his diary scrolled off the page by the actions of the children a couple weeks ago.

    As far as making diaries goes:

    WHY BOTHER?

    The Daily Outrage: It's like being a punk rocker, but without the optimism.

    by eroded47095 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:15:04 AM PDT

  •  Bad news for you Obamaniacs. (0+ / 0-)
    Obie's Homeland Security Advisor is on the Council of Foreign Relations, he was just on CNN talking about something.  So that means that these people have their hooks in Obie too.

    I am running for Idaho State Rep. D.7 (Nez Perce County) Seat B. David Mosher - Indie Write-In.

    by Kharmatos on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 06:22:28 PM PDT

Leslie in CA, Louise, wozzle, claude, Ed in Montana, stillman, jgkojak, DeminNewJ, Ducktape, grollen, copymark, SarahLee, NYCee, roonie, Trendar, gogol, Ivan, moon in the house of moe, Jeff Simpson, RonV, Gooserock, Tuffy, nicolemm, whataboutbob, maynard, theboz, Emerson, tommurphy, Shockwave, CleverNickName, meg, rhubarb, The Baculum King, polecat, Apex, kdub, devtob, Cambridgemac, Voodoo, frisco, marjo, gjohnsit, shpilk, object16, musicsleuth, Caneel, zeitshabba, redtravelmaster, bigforkgirl, undersiege, upnatom65, Gustogirl, not4bushwa, opinionated, joel3000, Babsnc, TracieLynn, sprhoto, wonkydonkey, Shadan7, dionys1, pucklady, Baldwiny, grrtigger, CoolOnion, CalNM, cosmic debris, scamp, bowtiejack, vmibran, farmerhunt, roses, SAQuestor, oslo, dqueue, luku, Spindizzy, bwide, Cedwyn, Alna Dem, admiralh, dksbook, Eddie C, wader, lulusbackintown, Janet Strange, baad, Getreal1246, psnyder, hangingchad, danthrax, sockpuppet, TexDem, oldjohnbrown, Stand Strong, mrkvica, weary hobo, Tracker, Kentucky DeanDemocrat, bloomster, PaulVA, Kidspeak, laughingriver, Dale Read, inclusive, hoplite9, Oy the Billybumbler, joliberal, snakelass, hartboy, The Walrus, onemadson, Timbuk3, lcrp, Pohjola, migo, Dave925, dkmich, walkshills, outragedinSF, bwintx, Donna in Rome, side pocket, Redbug, lfin, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, Deward Hastings, fran1, TexasLefty, AlwaysDemocrat, rolet, Krum, bibble, maggie sarah, BDA in VA, environmentalist, Gowrie Gal, G2geek, tovan, mediaprisoner, maybeeso in michigan, Bluesee, marina, radarlady, 3goldens, escapee, Tinfoil Hat, IamtheReason, Jeffersonian Democrat, bellevie, el dorado gal, CTPatriot, relentless, LostInTexas, InExile, Halcyon, OpherGopher, irate, corvo, Flint, willibro, truong son traveler, tomfool, ChemBob, Calamity Jane, eru, Mz Kleen, GUGA, Sun Tzu, jimreyn, podster, lotlizard, bmaples, twalling, northanger, Lindy, mojavefog, Ekaterin, viscerality, fhcec, xaxnar, Jim R, Jim P, CCSDem, SoulCatcher, third Party please, occams hatchet, LeftOverAmerica, propitious2, 3waygeek, tarheelblue, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Keone Michaels, PatsBard, rcbowman, ej25, Clytemnestra, Opakapaka, Aliosman, BlueInARedState, ActivistGuy, Gorette, cookseytalbott, Prognosticator, martyc35, KenBee, greenearth, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, SherriG, RockNAwe, people for truth, triv33, sravaka, TalkieToaster, global citizen, StrayCat, Tanya, gpoutney, gatorcog, imabluemerkin, NC Dem, FatPath, armadillo, CTLiberal, Preston S, MarciaJ720, Dinclusin, middleagedhousewife, quantumspin, ilyana, ICtheLight, spotDawa, rsie, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, va dare, Stripe, means are the ends, ohiojack, MadMs, Jbeaudill, airmarc, Picot verde, duha, Temmoku, AltruisticSkeptic, markthshark, jabu, Opposite Reaction, nilajean, bigchin, One Pissed Off Liberal, J Royce, nathguy, out of left field, ibonewits, Balam, dotsright, Cronesense, Fredly, oklacoma dem, Cottagerose, BruceMcF, TripleChin, yoduuuh do or do not, jds1978, danwood, FishOutofWater, power2truth, DvCM, lynmar, Mary Mike, yowsta, ebiker, Jimdotz, terabytes, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, DWG, horsepatsy, londubh, eOz, Unbozo, bnasley, brentmack, TheCorkBoard, millwood, Geiiga, Moderation, jhop7, nodal aim, rogereaton, Wreck Smurfy, leonard145b, LWelsch, ImpeachKingBushII, JML9999, Zydekos, TexasTwister, MichiganGirl, konscious, oxon, mathGuyNTulsa, Empower Ink, cynndara, alkalinesky, AlexanderChee, flowerfarmer, pollwatch, a poet at heart, ynp junkie, railsplitter, karin x, zerone, SmedleyButlerUSMC, siamesewonka, Calamity Jean, Lujane, ronny mermaid, Jake Williams, daddy4mak, Missys Brother, Ladyhawk, rubine, saildude, envwq, mofembot, temptxan, Rachel Griffiths, royalscam, LaFajita, Abra Crabcakeya, RickinDallas, luckylizard, GWboosebag, nklein, chauie, Executive Odor, magicsister, shortgirl, princess k, ryangoesboom, gjd99, maggiejean, multilee, loftT, driftwood, aufklaerer, ARS, ceebee7, snackdoodle, divineorder, JG in MD, eroded47095, banjolele, Rabbithead, Kairos, imchange, sweeper, SciVo, Patch Adam, panamaniaco, zackamac, John Shade, delillo2000, dRefractor, geodemographics, Framlingham, TheOpinionGuy, LiberatedClown, Leslie in KY, sanglug, kevinpdx, PhotogHog, 45387, etara, ohmproject, Emalene, David Kroning, NCrissieB, Amber6541, Just Bob, StrongCenter, dalys, ppl can fly, Alec82, rb137, That Crazy Mom Over There, winkster, budr, roadbear, Loli, Elitist Latte Drinker in Ca, BenDisraeli, KayEmarr, seishin, whisperinghope, Futumpsh, wiprogressiveguy, wvmom, Ronald Singleterry, Melissa J, 2questions, Man from Wasichustan, BonnieSchlitz, Kharmatos, electrum, SoCalHobbit, ThirtyFiveUp, unperfect, husseins da man, RoyalBlue

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site