Realcent.org

Have not finished this draft but, it was time to post it anyway. May finish it later, maybe not.

Back in February, Ray started the topic Daily Reckoning Library Link here: http://realcent.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=37122 . Check the link and you'll see where I'm coming from. I've now read his latest book and perused his newsletter. The end result is as follows regarding who controls our world, how and why. I paraphrase his words and work:

The Global Elite run the financial and political aspects of our world. Alliances of the Elite direct the flow of money globally to preserve the power, influence and wealth for "select groups". Goldman Sachs and Morgan are two examples of such international power alliances. Goldman's connections to back to the Depression when Goldman head Sidney Weinberg hooked up with Roosevelt. Morgan's goes back to 1907 panic and Teddy Roosevelt.

Rickards' vision of the world imagines the world as a giant corporation. Each country with power represents a division of the corporation. Each division has power, some more than others like the United States division. The government, central bank, to big to fail private banks, and large multi-national corporations are the heads of the divisions. These heads form each country the overall board of directors who's goal is to influence world events for their benefit.

They make the decisions that shape the economic reality of the world. They operate to continually grow and retain their power. While not done necessarily by design it is done because of the political and financial incentives, social and organizational status, historical legacies, bloodlines and family associations and relationships. These relationships shape the world around us by shaping the global markets and world economies, ultimately shaping the way we live, invest and work.

Only one Presidential candidate is referred to as "Madame President". The rest are referred to as their name, first or last. It doesn't matter who you vote for, the Elite win. This election Super PACs out contribute individuals 5.5 - 1.0 to all candidates except Bernie. None of the candidates will break up the Big Banks except Bernie. The Big Banks are Morgan Chase, B of A, Citi, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley in the US. They have been wielding their power over events for more than 100 years, not to mention the mergers along the way). "Democracy and elections are a facade through which citizens get to choose those particular elites who rule them for specified terms in office. But elections do nothing to change the fundamental dynamic of elite rule".

Elite rule is not a conspiracy. The Elite are out of touch with reality because they do not interact with those of us in the trenches keeping the world running. They rub elbows with each other because they are to important to talk to us. They suffer from a lack of cognitive diversity. Opposing the Elite is dangerous. They can and have the ability to hurt you with taxes, regulations, investigations, negative publicity and death. Kiss their arse and you can be favored with tax subsidies, research grants, favorable treaties and tariffs and often shielded from the law.

The current agenda of the Elite appears to be world: Money; taxation; government; digital money; negative interest rates and inflation with debt monetization. The Elite play by rules: Elite help Elite; Elite do not criticize other Elite; silence is golden; patient loyalty is rewarded.

My only question is, does he really think this way or is his marketing screen so good that I am target marketed because I already believed what he says above and it just reels me in?

The thing is - we'll never know for sure. Could be partially, mostly, or totally true. Or not at all. But we aren't connected with that strata in any way that would allow us to check any of the facts with any certainty.

Rickards is an insider. from his books you learn that in college he studied the gold markets. doesn't say where his first job was but i'm sure it was PTB-placed. He went on to become general counsel for Long Term Capital Management and brokered a Fed bailout that was very profitable to the large banks that feasted on LTCM.

he uses an elite tactic called limited hangout. he divulges some truth, yes, but it not the whole truth.

johnbrickner wrote:Only one Presidential candidate is referred to as "Madame President". The rest are referred to as their name, first or last. It doesn't matter who you vote for, the Elite win. This election Super PACs out contribute individuals 5.5 - 1.0 to all candidates except Bernie. None of the candidates will break up the Big Banks except Bernie. The Big Banks are Morgan Chase, B of A, Citi, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley in the US. They have been wielding their power over events for more than 100 years, not to mention the mergers along the way). "Democracy and elections are a facade through which citizens get to choose those particular elites who rule them for specified terms in office. But elections do nothing to change the fundamental dynamic of elite rule".

I cant say if the rest of this is true or mostly true for sure but this part is interesting to me...

Actually bernie has two unaffiliated super pacs just like trump does. Bernie did ask them to back off and trump has thanked the groups supporting him but they both have 2 the last I looked. Trump also has more super pac money being raised directly to oppose him then being raised in his name.

If you look up who wallstreet supports you find lists like this one, with trump well below sanders although sanders still very low.

Top recipients of Wall St. donations in 2015

Candidate

Party

Total

Rank
Jeb Bush R $34,564,344 1
Hillary Clinton D $17,256,075 2
Ted Cruz R $12,211,000 3
Marco Rubio R $9,936,001 4
Scott Walker R $8,175,775 5
Chris Christie R $7,774,833 6
Rand Paul R $4,345,147 7
Carly Fiorina R $2,807,016 8
Lindsey Graham R $2,478,050 9
John Kasich R $1,405,300 10
Bobby Jindal R $477,250 11
Ben Carson R $290,612 12
Martin O'Malley D $202,400 13
George Pataki R $80,200 14
Rick Perry R $72,120 15
Bernie Sanders D $55,226 16
Lawrence Lessig D $37,035 17
Mike Huckabee R $29,400 18
Rick Santorum R $24,850 19
Donald Trump R $11,970 20
Jim Webb D $8,400 21
Jim Gilmore R $5,400 22

How is sanders going to "breakup" the big banks anyway? Its been a few weeks but all I saw from him when I looked were vague emotional references. I saw nothing about retaking the power given to the federal reserve. We certainly shouldnt have bailed out the banks, nor empowered the federal reserve instead of the gov itself to control the currency but otherwise are big banks even a negative? What would be the outcome of keeping the federal reserve while "breaking up" the big banks?? Maybe I missed it but I did look and as far as Ive seen sanders doesnt mention the federal reserve at all, how could you alter the banks influence on politics while not addressing this?

" It doesn't matter who you vote for, the Elite win. "
Is this true? Ross perot had 40% of the support according to polls before he dropped out. He re joined and ended up with like 19% of the vote, with rumors he was forced out, but in my lifetime we nearly saw the current paradigm completely upended. Remember the issues of the era? Debt, sending jobs elsewhere.... So if events happened only slightly differently at the time the dem versus rep nonsense would have been severely hindered. We always hear though how voting doesnt matter. HMmmm then why are they spending so damn much on these elections? 3 times more at this point then even other recent big spending elections. I think they matter very much, we just failed ourselves horribly at picking people worth voting for. Both can be true though and I think that is what we are seeing. The elite always win, because thus far we keep electing people they own. This is NOT mandatory even if they insist it is and tell us this constantly. Ist it interesting that so many "alternative" sources fail to portray the perot campaign in context?? I mean go look at the numbers had his support remained and he hadnt dropped out of the election he have likely won, and even if you disagree with him, it was very clear he sold a different paradigm then the democrats and republicans. Yet you almost never see it portrayed tht way even by sources that on the surface act like they speak out against the current paradigm. Or are they helping ensure things stay as they are? Most will take apathy away from such articles and stances. apathy ensures we cannot change it. Back in 1992 I remember well many totally thought perot COULD win. and he literally was on track to do so had he not dropped out. Yet when you bring up third parties currently everyone "knows" they cant win. So since they "know" this it is indeed true. If elites exist in the context articles like this portray, then there is no doubt they DO think elections are important because they are spending more money on them then ever and they desperately want US to think they dont matter. unfortunately they seem to be winning on that front most people think only a D or R can win even though collectively most are fed up with both to varying degrees and most of the time hate the other side more then they actually like their side.

"Elite rule is not a conspiracy. The Elite are out of touch with reality because they do not interact with those of us in the trenches keeping the world running. They rub elbows with each other because they are to important to talk to us."

I used to think this was true, I highly doubt it now. I like to watch several left, and right , and alternative sources of many flavors, especially their comments sections. We can see direct ways, like sanders related supporters being led to protest trump rallies through "alternative" news sources tied directly to soros. That is hardly the only alarming trend I see here though. The internet in theory gives you access to whatever you like and on the surface one might assume more people would see truth or closer to truth. The exact opposite seems true in practice though, people can seek out the truth they WANT to be true and associate only with those inside their mindset or living dream. It is easier then ever to wall yourself off from outside opinion and heck through mst sources you will see the "other" stance rebranded in such a way the left in large part amongst themselves is debating a right that doesnt exist and vice versa. They dont even know or understand the other sides stances in many cases because they had the other sides stance defined for them rather then having looked themselves. (many exceptions but this is increasingly true in my exp) This magnifies our inability to meet in the middle and clean up politics. So if th elite exist as articles like this portray I would lean to thinking they understand most of us very well and are adept at guiding public opinion, including through alternative sources most currently think are outside their influence. You cant guide people this well if that is indeed what is happening by not understanding your target. There are other things Id call redflags in this article but these two I addressed especially. Both of them are seen as obvious to many but are not and only serve to solidify the elitist position. They understand us very well and clearly they think election matter because they spend more and more on them by the year. But when one decides elections dont matter, BUT maybe there is a chink in the armor of the elite because they are so out of touch you end up in a place you are less likely to bother caring to much about a vote or seeking out real candidates while simultaneously not realizing how well the elite really do understand us and thus can direct public policy through emotion. These two mindsets ensure the elite stay the elite more then most anything else.

Zack:

As always I appreciate the world view thru your eyes. You do your homework and because I respect your written work, I went back over my notes and sources to where their was disagreement and discovered I had inserted a personal bias into the work I attributed to Rickards. I have made the correction. TY Sir. I will have to check my passion when writing.

I think you make some good points zac about people using the net to justify their views rather than seek truth. That said, I still:

1) believe in the existence of absolute truth.
2) believe the differences between left and right have never been further apart, but not because the right has moved further to the right (if anything, the right is moving left itself) but because the left has taken itself to very near the maximum left positions that are conceivable compromise in that situation is essentially impossible for anyone of conviction (on either side).
3) believe there is no happy way out of this. One side will dominate the other, and it will likely turn ugly and violent on a large scale.- or else we will find ourselves taken over by a totalitarian government that holds the "peace" with an iron fist.

68Camaro wrote:the differences between left and right have never been further apart, but not because the right has moved further to the right (if anything, the right is moving left itself) but because the left has taken itself to very near the maximum left positions that are conceivable compromise in that situation is essentially impossible for anyone of conviction (on either side).

i would say they are moving closer together. if you go too far right or left, you end up at the same place - authoritarianism. was there really a meaningful difference between Hitler and Stalin?

elections don't matter because both alternatives work for the same cabal

Lemon Thrower wrote:elections don't matter because both alternatives work for the same cabal

If elections dont matter why are we spending so much on them and at steadily increasing rates? We have calls for election finance reform rising from both sides in response to this as well, one of the few issues the left and right could meet in the middle on. Not that it is likely this happens but it is one of the few issues that offer the potential for the left and right to agree.

Starting to get off topic and at the verge of where my interest in continuing wanes, but there is something to be said for the approach mattering, so yes I think there was a difference in the path between those two that allowed people with discernment in Germany to escape in the 30s whereas people in the ussr were trapped.

I agree that the end result of the two was similar, but that is because they both ended up at despotic totalitarian dictatorships.

But more importantly I don't view fascism as the ultimate form of conservatism, but rather an alternate form of totalitarianism which lies on a different vector. The universe of political forms are more complicated than a single line.

68Camaro wrote:I think you make some good points zac about people using the net to justify their views rather than seek truth. That said, I still:

1) believe in the existence of absolute truth.
2) believe the differences between left and right have never been further apart, but not because the right has moved further to the right (if anything, the right is moving left itself) but because the left has taken itself to very near the maximum left positions that are conceivable compromise in that situation is essentially impossible for anyone of conviction (on either side).
3) believe there is no happy way out of this. One side will dominate the other, and it will likely turn ugly and violent on a large scale.- or else we will find ourselves taken over by a totalitarian government that holds the "peace" with an iron fist.

1) so do I actually but I dont think any human ever had a true inkling o it yet.
2) I basically agree, except I think this might have been by design. The internet is driving this. Many issues from the right side of things imo, but the left is off in la la land in my experience.
3) Well... I wish I could disagree with that. Although Im not sure it will be an iron fist in the historical sense of the word. I expect more freedom of thought and action then in most dictatorships, as a pressure release valve of sorts and also so they know who are real threats to the new paradigm. Whatever shape it comes I dont expect it to be directly opposed to the people as most dictatorships are, china currently for instance. I dont think you can win a direct assault like that against a nation like ours for atleast a few generations even as far as weve fallen in certain respects. Rather situations would likely have to force many to think there were no better options.

Lemon Thrower wrote:
i would say they are moving closer together. if you go too far right or left, you end up at the same place - authoritarianism. was there really a meaningful difference between Hitler and Stalin?

I basically agree except not sure its relevant in this conversation. The current right is trending to be less authoritarian. If ww2 happened today few would support camps for all japaneese descendants in the US for instance although theyd be happy with surveillance. The current left though is getting angrier by the day and based on reading comments sections of various left leaning sources Id think many would be in full support of the types of authoritarianism most associated with the left. They see them as answers to the current issues. Many will say the same about the right wanting secure borders or being stricter with muslim immigrants but this is silly in a historical context. We have 10s of millions here from another nation and discussed the issue for decades with little real action on it. Go look at how mexico treats its illegal immigrants, or the world for that matter. Id even argue the wild stances we always hear defining how the right is because many of them want to stop illegal immigrants is part of what is being used to radicalize the left. This interpretation imo tells us more about the nature of the left then it does the right. Go look at historical issues that are related and how people talked about it, the current right in relation to the illegal immigrants are as tame as it gets. Reading alternative left leaning sources youd get the idea the right is dangerously close to breaking out into pure fascism any day now, and that could be true if you mean some neo fascism both democrats and republicans support, the american empire etc but if they mean in the historical context as is generally implied they are just relying on their emotional responses to things not real meat and potatoes stuff. While the left IS having their forms of authoritarianism rise in their ranks. Situations could change and get the right to accept some form of authoritarianism, but they arent begging for it. The left begs and begs for it at increasing levels. My take anyway. Based on reading comments sections of various right and left media sources. The part of the left I am talking about doesnt see it this way at all of course, which those driving such societal shifts rarely do.

i don't see anyone on the right tearing down the TSA or anything that matters. And whether you consider him to be on the right, Trump is much more authoritarian than anyone right now and is leading for the republican nomination.

i think you are underestimating the right.

its shaping up like the German election in the 30s. They voted Hitler in because they were afraid of communism.

No one on the left is standing against the TSA in any meaningful way either of course. Rand paul made the most waves over those issues.

What is more authoritarian about trump then the others? I know the left links him to fascism because he wants our borders as secure as the rest of the western worlds borders and wanting muslim immigrants to have greater scrutiny but neither position is terribly extreme. Have you read from trump supporters? They will list things like the idea they think he is not bought off, the border, his lack of being politically correct, his plan to try to alter trade deals, the fact he acknowledged our current economic paradigm is unsustainable. I never saw one loving some authoritarian stance he had. The more radicalized right? That is the group in my experience that is least likely to support our current authoritarianism, the left tells themselves this, then all but true anarchists among them want the government to have even more power in very real ways. Hillary is a complete authoritarian in all aspects and most of the left isnt questioning this at all. As are her supporters, many of whom beg for more top down control. Are trumps supporters begging for top down control? Is the right much different then it was in the 80s? Had the tech we have today existed during the cold war I have no doubt the same percentage from the 80s would have begrudgingly accepted it, just as most of the left does. Go to the more politicized sites, you might find as I did that the anti establishment right seems angrier about this then the left. The left seems obsessed with rich people and seem to ignore globilization and trade deals and debt entirely, they think these greedy rich guys hold all the wealth they need to have all the cool social programs they can dream up. They will believe this even if you show them the numbers. Its a very emotional thing. They are very angry about it.

It touches on what 68 said but most of what is currently considered extreme about the right was there decades ago. The goalposts have changed. If trump had said everything he did with the same attitude we were trained to perceive as "presidential" he wouldnt even seem half as extreme as he does. But then of course he wouldnt have nearly the support.

Also Im not actually saying the right couldnt be dangerous, but I dont see dangerous mindsets rising the way many portray it as at all. I do see these trends rising sharply on the left though. The right is as small minded and authoritarian as it always was from what I see. The left is increasingly so and getting more violent in their speech. I could see the right sliding into a full scale authoritarian regime if the conditions were right, especially if it was a major war with a world power. The left might still question things during a major war I doubt most of the right would. I could see the left creating an authoritarian regime on purpose. If the right were to rise up in violence Id expect it was because a dictator rose. If the left rose up in violence Id expect it would be to force their social ideals on everyone else. Conversely if we were to retake control of our government I would guess it would be the right who pulled it off they seem more likely then the left. Im not silly enough to think I cant be dead wrong but I do indeed read especially the comments sections on articles from many left and right and alternative sources to get a feel for where things are going.

Left vs Right. All looks like a game to me to get us to choose one side or the other so we are veiled from seeing the real picture. I just want it all decentralized. Left, Right, Federal, and Corporate, power "redistributed" (go ahead call me a socialist for using the word) back down to the state, regional, local community, and individual levels where it belongs. "Down with the bloody big head!(s)" (Mad Hatter and others, Alice in Wonderland 2010).

Treetop wrote:

Lemon Thrower wrote:elections don't matter because both alternatives work for the same cabal

If elections dont matter why are we spending so much on them and at steadily increasing rates? We have calls for election finance reform rising from both sides in response to this as well, one of the few issues the left and right could meet in the middle on. Not that it is likely this happens but it is one of the few issues that offer the potential for the left and right to agree.

in the film the Godfather, there were what, 5 families vying for control? they put a lot of effort into trying to be the lead family. Outside the mafia, it didn't matter if things were run by family number one or family number two, they were still crooks. but within the mafia, the difference was huge depending on where you sat and therefore worth a great investment.

Lemon Thrower wrote:

Treetop wrote:

Lemon Thrower wrote:elections don't matter because both alternatives work for the same cabal

If elections dont matter why are we spending so much on them and at steadily increasing rates? We have calls for election finance reform rising from both sides in response to this as well, one of the few issues the left and right could meet in the middle on. Not that it is likely this happens but it is one of the few issues that offer the potential for the left and right to agree.

in the film the Godfather, there were what, 5 families vying for control? they put a lot of effort into trying to be the lead family. Outside the mafia, it didn't matter if things were run by family number one or family number two, they were still crooks. but within the mafia, the difference was huge depending on where you sat and therefore worth a great investment.

Simplistic view imo. Those groups can only stay in power because we keep electing within those groups. Both the dems and reps have their party set up to try to ensure this but if enough cared we could change it. We hear different factions blaming corruption, big money, insiders, good ol boys etc etc, but the truth is where our system failed us is WE THE PEOPLE have never truly held our elected officials accountable. We let the good ol boys club get established and enough people believe their TVs when it tells them XYZ candidate is electable that we arent changing it. Heck enough people dont vote to completely over power the whole system if they magically all started voting and in the same direction. That same power structure you speak of are exactly the ones who want you to believe voting doesnt matter, they have fostered this for some time now.

I forget which one atm but one of the founders as we call them warned of this. Notice how when the power structure takes more power the bulk simply roll over? They dont demand or seek out people to roll back these trespasses. The commerce clause case for instance Wickard v. Filburn where the feds essentially declared they could be dictators and did either or both parties try to change this? nope just went along with it. Each side conditioned to focus on often token isues while the power structure continues to take more and more control. This is a given though, power will always seek more power. We were the most important check and balance and we entirely failed. Yes the power structure also conditions us for this but we dont have to believe them, most are just to lazy to care in my experience.

You say that it only matters as different groups vie for power but if enough people cared on or more such groups could be about solid governance but not enough want it currently. Oh a few might get killed? PFFFT. You can get away with killing a few key people here and there perhaps but if we had a voting block interested in real change it couldnt be stopped. Unless perhaps the group currently in power threw us into a world war, but even then if we survived said war if the survivors could do it. Even a full scale dictatorship needs its people to submit, which is why such governments use such a high amount of their resources to force and maintain compliance, enough that many of them have a hard time even feeding themselves. So in a sense "voting" or the will of the people eve matters deeply in extreme dictatorships.

Generally mob mentality rules obviously and the power structure is adept at manipulating the herd, but not all of us are herds animals. It certainly isnt likely on our current track but we could re take the reigns of this nation if we try, and ultimately it is indeed going in the direction we were conditioned to support. The biggest chance out of this cycle I personally see is local politics, state level especially so they will potentially get national coverage. There are enough people fed up with our current path that if the right blend of left and right ideals manifested in trust worthy state level politicians we might start to see things change, again not saying its likely but the window certainly exists. In my study of this I also think the power structure also desparately understands this potential as is set up to try to keep it locked down as best is possible. It is interesting reading international/UN based stuff as they are irate with countries like the US who arent so easy even in our current top down state to push around. you have to warp the views of a large portion of the VOTING population first. They dot give a crap what non voters think at all.

johnbrickner wrote:Left vs Right. All looks like a game to me to get us to choose one side or the other so we are veiled from seeing the real picture. I just want it all decentralized. Left, Right, Federal, and Corporate, power "redistributed" (go ahead call me a socialist for using the word) back down to the state, regional, local community, and individual levels where it belongs. "Down with the bloody big head!(s)" (Mad Hatter and others, Alice in Wonderland 2010).

The best chance for this imo is as our economic issues start unraveling. I expect to see various states and regions attempting to make their own decisions. That imo will be our best chance at bringing some of the power back to the local level.

The current left and right certainly seem to operate like this, but they appear also to be supporting the same power structure and against any anti centralization view points no matter the source. So they really arent truly opposing on what I consider the most important aspects. Although Im not sure it is different corrupt groups as lemon sugested, I think it is more likely to all be one entity/power structure seeking to preserve and expand itself. Notice when we switch which "side" has power they never reverse what the last side did? only expand on it. (at the federal level) It doesnt even need to be anywhere near as coordinated as some believe to have the same outcome and direction in our culture. Our current power structure builds up those who want to centralize things out of both the left and right, such minds think this is the ideal apparently. This is a common mindset historically of course and in my reading of how the nation formed that is why we got the structure we did to attempt to block this centralization of power which might even be inevitable albeit slower with even honest good people.

It will change though IF and only if enough of the masses decide they want it. Im not even sure we lost having a government of and for the people at all, we jst have an over ripe power structure that drives such mindsets to the top. We did and let this happen it wasnt done to us as a dictator seizing power at all, we did it and submitted piece by piece by piece. Then taught our kids to salute it all in our schools. lol I have alot more thought on all this but then I have to get into details likely to offend many so I wont go there. Most of you are from the generation of americans that submitted more then any other and raised their children in such a way many of them arent capable of standing outside of manipulated groupthink.