Who Rules the World? How a Concentration of Wealth and Political Power Undermines Democracy

[Octafish]

Mr. Dangl makes an important observation: The people who got the United States into the present situation are the same people who benefit from the situation being what it is. Time to rethink strategy, including who rules -- runs -- the Democratic Party, and the rest of Washington. Personally, I side with Democracy.

Baron DeRothschild and Sen. Prescott Bush enjoy a moment and an official photograph together, ca. 1954.

How a Concentration of Wealth and Political Power Undermines Democracy

Who Rules the World?

by BENJAMIN DANGL
CounterPunch, Nov. 20, 2014

EXCERPT...

Just as most of the world’s wealth is in the hands of a few people, according to a recent article in the academic journal Climatic Change, two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions were produced by just 90 companies, with Chevron, Exxon and BP leading the list as the biggest polluters. Half of these emissions were from the past 25 years.

“There are thousands of oil, gas and coal producers in the world,” Richard Heede, the author of the journal article, told the Guardian. “But the decision makers, the CEOs, or the ministers of coal and oil if you narrow it down to just one person, they could all fit on a Greyhound bus or two.”

Confronting climate change requires a systemic transformation of how our economies are run and who runs them. Part of this radical change will involve disempowering the global 1% and the disaster-producing industries they profit from.

Across the US, we are living in a dream state; crisis is the new normal. In the face of global catastrophe, the leading political parties of the country typically offer more business as usual, meaning more corporate power to fuel democracy, more capitalism to fight inequality, more war to fight for peace, and more pollution to fight climate change.

We cannot depend on the 1% of the world to lead us away from disaster – they caused our global crises in the first place, continue to profit from them, and cannot bring about solutions from the top-down. It has to be the people’s movements leading the way from below, deconstructing capitalism and building a better world from the bottom-up.

SOURCE: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/11/20/who-rules-the-world/

Today's Helpful Hint for Democracy: Wealth from the top seldom does more than trickle down.

For proof look at what happened to the average person before the Depression and after Ronald Reagan. From FDR through LBJ's Great Society, life got better and the Middle Class grew in size and power. The rest of the time, it's pretty much a steady state of the Rich getting Richer and the Poor getting Poorer -- which is where the Middle Class is going.

[dmosh42]

1. Also helps the rich when the voters are a bunch of ass-kissing nitwits!

[Octafish]

3. True. Who makes them dumb? LACKademia and Corporate McPravda.

Part of their Big Picture for public consumption, heh heh heh.

The Propaganda Model Revisited

Edward S. Herman
Monthly Review, July, 1996

In Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (Pantheon, 1988) Noam Chomsky and I put forward a "propaganda model" as a framework for analyzing and understanding how the mainstream U.S. media work and why they perform as they do. We had long been impressed with the regularity with which the media operate within restricted assumptions, depend heavily and uncritically on elite information sources, and participate in propaganda campaigns helpful to elite interests. In trying to explain why they do this we looked for structural factors as the only possible root of systematic behavior and performance patterns.

The propaganda model was and is in distinct contrast to the prevailing mainstream explanations -- both liberal and conservative -- of media behavior and performance. These approaches downplay structural factors, generally presupposing their unimportance or positive impact because of the multiplicity of agents and thus competition and diversity. Liberal and conservative analysts emphasize journalistic conduct, public opinion, and news source initiatives as the main determining variables. The analysts are inconsistent in this regard, however. When they discuss media systems in communist or other authoritarian states, the idea that journalists or public opinion can override the power of those who own and control the media is dismissed as nonsense and even considered an apology for tyranny. There is a distinct difference, too, between the political implications of the propaganda model and mainstream scholarship. If structural factors shape the broad contours of media performance, and if that performance is incompatible with a truly democratic political culture, then a basic change in media ownership, organization, and purpose is necessary for the achievement of genuine democracy. In mainstream analyses such a perspective is politically unacceptable, and its supportive arguments and evidence are rarely subject to debate

CONTINUED...

http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/199607--.htm

Add a big dash of Goebbels and a heaping helpin' of Orwell and the few are dressed for oppress.

[hifiguy]

5. We think alike, sir.

[Wella]

2. So how is Rothschild involved with the Bushes?

Just wondering if this is Alex Jones material.

[Octafish]

4. Don't know. The connection is not in official biographies of either House.

Do know what Big Money does to History. And it doesn't take Alex Jones to see that it goes the way of the Swells.

As for the circles of Rothschild and Bush: Big Money, Big Oil, and Israel. Here's Prescott's take on Iraq's booty from back in '59:

To Preserve Peace Let’s Show Russians How Strong We Are

By Prescott Bush
U.S. Senator from Connecticut;
member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
The Reader’s Digest July 1959

MAN’S GREATEST danger, it is said, is ignorance. In a very real sense, the Soviet Union’s ignorance of our military strength may be the source of her gravest peril—and ours. Kaiser Wilhelm started World War I because he miscalculated Allied power. Hitler, mistakenly thinking he could blitz the world, launched World War II. Kruschev today lacks firsthand knowledge of our country; he may be given what others think he would like to hear—rather than an objective report on our actual military strength. Although it seems impossible that any sane person could start a war, we would be wise to take no chances.

Why not invite the Soviet high command to the United States for a conducted tour of our military might? We are bringing Russians to see our farms and factories, our scientific laboratories and research centers; we exchange dancers and musicians. Why not have their military leaders over for the most beneficial look of all? Our expressed policy, the aim and purpose of our entire defense system, is to deter the Kremlin from starting a war. What better way to deter than to show?

What we could show is nothing more nor less than the greatest military might ever assembled in the history of the world. If the Soviet high command could see what we have, they should be of our mind—that for them to start war today would be an act of insanity.

We could start in a Pentagon briefing room. There, with maps, globes, films and sound-projection equipment to help illustrate our points, we could give them a good hard look at the distribution of American power. Then we could fly the group to Mountain Home Air Force Base in Montana, where bombers of the Strategic Air Command are on 24-hour alert, many ready to take off within 15 minutes. We could see an awe-inspiring line of B-47’s, any one of which can, in a single mission, deliver explosive power equivalent to that of all the bombs dropped by all sides in World War II. We could invite the commander of the Soviet air force to ride in one of these planes, and see it refueled in the air, thus quietly demonstrating that, while most Soviet bombers would have to fly one-way missions, ours can strike any target in the world and return nonstop.

SNIP...

The demonstration at SAC should effectively dismiss from Soviet minds any speculation about the possibility of their gaining an advantage from all-out war any time soon. But we must face the fact that in a few years the Russians may be able to zero in our SAC bases with ballistic missiles. To drive this temptation out of their minds, we could show them other deterrents.

SNIP...

It’s fortunate for them that we want only peace with justice. Our entire record attests to that. We have no history of aggression, profess no desire for world domination, as do the Communists. Only by their continued menace have we been forced to take these measures for defense.

I ASK, “Why don’t we show the Russians many of these defense measures?” What I would not show them is any self-satisfaction on our part about the future, any slowing-up of plans to produce the new weapons which must inevitably take the place of the old ones. I believe we are in a continuing struggle to keep on top in this business of declaring war. I think that the Russians are never to be underrated. I also believe that the Communists are master bluffers that they seek to put us off by arrogant threats to Berlin and to the peace of the far Pacific, and, while our people are preoccupied with these threats, [font color="red"]they may try to take over Iraq as the Chinese Reds have conquered Tibet.[/font color]

SOURCE: The Reader’s Digest, July 1959, pp. 25-30

Gee. Sounds like the oil has been pretty important for the movers and shakers in the Military Industrial Complex. Some say it is a big reason for all the hypocrisy in the Middle East following World War I. I don't know because, for some reason, the media don't have the time to ask "Why did Prescott's son, George Herbert Walker Bush, and grandson, George Walker Bush, lie America into immoral, illegal, unnecessary, disastrous and most-profitable wars on Iraq?"

PS: I wonder what Prescott wrote when Nixon failed to become the next president?

[LongTomH]

9. And, we're still spending trillions on our nuclear 'deterrent' decades after the end of the Cold War

There was a recent NPR piece which included a discussion of the 'need' to upgrade and modernize our nuclear 'triad' -- ICBMs, submarine-launched missiles and bombers (Yeah, we're still using those!).

[FiveGoodMen]

6. Only taxing the rich will solve it

If you want a free world, you have to limit how rich anyone can get.

(Yes, yes, I know that means that THEY'RE not free to dominate the rest of us -- tough shit)

[hifiguy]

10. You might want to check this out.

An essay inspired by Octafish and woo me with science posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025817654

[99th_Monkey]

11. Totally!

That is exactly what is needed. There's strong historic evidence supporting
doing just that. Everyone benefits, even the most greedy .01%ers benefit,
because it keeps their host alive in perpetuity to feed the greed.

[certainot]

7. democracy can beat those fuckers but not while the left ignores their best propaganda tool

--- republicon radio

that's made the big difference the last 25 years but there is NO organized opposition to it by the left's many organizations nor the democratic party- probably the biggest political mistake in history considering their successful use of it to delay action on global warming.

here are some things democracy loving americans can do to legally dismantle the republican radio monopoly and open more stations for liberals:

1) Get our schools out of Republican radio.
They help a significant number of stations. More than 28% of stations carrying Rush Limbaugh (170+) depend on publicly funded schools (70+ major universities and colleges). The percentage might be similar for all Republican radio.
If a few schools started honoring their mission statements and committed to finding apolitical alternatives to broadcast their sports, others will follow. This may be the most effective action with the most effect. Stations would have to change their formats or offer balance to maintain those important relationships.
2) Expand the Limbaugh advertiser education actions/boycotts (StopRush) to all Republican radio stations and their advertisers.
3) Include radio stations in protests/picketing. Almost every progressive or Democratic Party issue worthy of protesting can appropriately be protested at an appropriately located Republican radio station. Those stations are Tea Party headquarters and the most important messaging assets the Republican think tanks have. Such protests would be unique and may be more media worthy than the same protests at state capitols, with fewer people. They could link the issue with the failures of corporate media at the same time.
4) Monitor Republican radio and make its propaganda readable and searchable. The secret of its success is that the people and issues it lies about and attacks are unaware of the damage until the lies have been established. It is practically invisible to those it harms the most.
A software combination that would automate recording and transcribing (with SNOWTAPE and DRAGON DICTATE) the main talkers in a state, like Wisconsin, and make it available for searching every few days or sooner near elections, could be valuable. this is something the democratic party could organize for every state or most county headquarters, but it also relates to all liberal activism attacked on radio. by knowing what is being sold it makes it much easier to convince democratic senators that those constituencies (eg pro KXL, anti immigration) in their states they worry about are not legitimate and they won't be as slavish to their pollsters, etc.
5) use 4 to reference talk radio and limbaugh and sons more often. its better since stoprush. MSNBC seems to reference them, but most is relative to sexism, racism, and other outrages. include their positions on the issues as if they were sitting there. "that's what limbaugh says but the fact is...." should be a regular retort to republicans in media. discrediting the talk radio gods will help undo some of the cumulative damage and alternate reality that republican radio has created the last 2 decades.
6) Include questions in polls, or directly poll talk radio listeners on issues to see how talk radio influences (as opposed to fox-related polling).
7) Expand on exposing their use of paid callers and their national and local coordination with Republican friendly think tanks

[99th_Monkey]

8. I'll Add This to My Already Very Long List of Reasons for Open Revolt nt

[G_j]

12. yep

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. The invention of the the US middle class was for Cold War propaganda....

The US would flaunt it's middle class to the world telling other people, "This is what Capitalism can do for you".

Now that Communism is no longer a threat the middle class is not needed anymore and, let's face it, it is a hell of a big expense to support a whole community with profits that could (and should in their minds) go to Wall Street.