1%, nationality and the year of the protester

Posted: 21/01/2012 in Struggle
Tags: ,

I am guilty of saying Americans cause the problems, and for that I apologise. The Americans are not the problem, the 1% are.

But who are the 1%? You will not find names here, except the usual names of Rockefeller, Rothschild etc. And why don’t we know their names? Because they are scared. If their names were known there would be someone who would want to kill them. Not crazy people, but revolutionaries who know that these people cause all the problems. In no way do I advocate any form of violence, for the simple reason that the people (99%) are not ready. A democratic or populist revolution has no strength unless it is all of the 99% united against the 1%. When it is all the people revolutions can work – as with the Sandinistas in Nicaragua in 1979. But when a revolution is vanguard-led, such as the Bolsheviks, counter-revolution follows with years of war and hardship, simply because not enough people are backing it. And who suffers? The people.

It is also important to understand that these 1% do not have any special charisma or self-worth above ordinary people. They are simply totally uncaring addicts, completely suppressing their natural compassion, and fulfilling a role of soulless existence within the echelons that are the 1%. If they were assassinated their shoes would quickly be filled by other soulless people who give up quality of life for financial quantity of dubious worth. These personifications of greed require a ruthless soullessness that few ordinary people can live by. In revolutionary circumstances if an attempt at an overthrow occurs the 1% are so addicted to their greed and power they will not let go; so it needs to be all of the 99%. So the 1% remain anonymous because they are scared, they hold to their addictive practices until the majority of the 99% say “enough is enough” – maybe when enough homes have been foreclosed.

The term 1% started as a mathematical description. This Guardian URL has an animation concerning the original use of the term 1%, so to begin with it might have been seen as the highest level of income. For me, and I suspect for many people, it has become symbolic. They are the 1% who exert the influence which is controlling the world – the 0.01% in the clip. You cannot always say it is the people whose income is the top 1% (on a cumulative frequency curve above the 99th percentile). The cost of living is drastically different across the world. In some countries income that would provide a good standard of living would in others be little above poverty. So the 1% is not just about income, it is about position and power. Significant in understanding who the 1% are is to recognise the power and influence of transnational corporations. It could be that CEO’s of transnationals from poorer countries might have less income than many senior middle-class people in the first world but those CEO’s are of the 1% whereas despite their self-delusions the senior middle-class are just well paid lackeys – deluded but members of the 99%.

Let’s look a bit more deeply into the 1%. First that comes to mind is the Bilderberg group, with them are the Carlyle group and Trilateral Commission. Undoubtedly US politicians are in their pockets, Republicans for sure, and despite the power of his rhetoric, Obama. Throughout his cabinet are Wall Street puppets, and Hillary is a clear voice on 1% policy. Behind the scenes there are influential groups such as CFR and Heritage foundation whose direction is clearly 1%-directed. The Koch brothers might be names that could join those of Rockefeller and Rothschild, any organisation they fund will show you where the 1% want to go.

Crossing the pond Blair showed his worth and was rewarded in the Quartet. Gordon Brown helped by deregulating encouraging more speculation and profit-making in the Square Mile. Then Cameron stepped in to do their bidding. Behind the scenes Chatham House shows 1% direction.

In Europe the double act of Merckel and Sarkozy are doing 1% bidding in Europe. Throughout the Greece discussions they were promoting the Euro, obviously important to the 1%. When the Greek prime minister said “let’s ask the people”, all hell broke loose behind the scenes, the 1 % completely took over the G20 Summit, and by the end the prime minister withdrew the referendum and America printed some bailout money for Europe. What a shame as the Greek people were beginning to move into barter mode (watch clip).

Zionist Israel is obviously a key player for the 1%. Current Israel was created as a buffer against Arab dominance of oil, and their destabilisation continues to this day; Netanyahu is bankrolled by a US gangster – a casino owner named Adelson. The ruling family of Saudi are key to the status quo in the Middle East, the repression in Saudi is total and when the people of their subsidiary, Bahrain, spoke out they were totally repressed. Medical people imprisoned for treating protesters is certainly a good sign of a caring government.

Wealth generated in China and India are beginning to figure on the financial world stage so the 1% need a strategy to include them. China quite sensibly does not allow capitalist ravages to damage their currency, and diplomatically are criticised for this. China’s thriving industry is fuelled by US money that wants the cheap labour, but when pundits claim that the US is in debt to China I am unsure what they mean. China is a dictatorship although not as repressive as say Saudi, and Chinese people support their government far more than American people support theirs. I have no idea how China fits into the 1%, but with their wealth the 1% will want to include them. I know even less about India and how they fit in.

The 1% significantly manipulate another aspect of the global landscape – finance. Global financial behemoths do the bidding of the 1%. By these behemoths I mean the global finance organisations that Race and Class once called the modern-day conquistadores – IMF, World Bank, GATT, WTO etc. The common rhetoric of these organisations is that they are there to help finance primarily in the Third World, their practices are far from this. In the latter half of the last century loans were given to dictators that did not benefit the people and yet the people are indebted through taxes. African countries reluctantly sought finance through the IMF because they knew that the needed finance would come with strings – conditionality – that benefited the existing trade inequalities of the 1%. Similarly AID money is given to governments provided they purchase from the host countries. An example I remember is that the British lent an East African country money that bought Leyland buses, buses that never reached the country because they couldn’t negotiate the desert. Such global finance is littered with inconsistencies when you listen to the rhetoric of the organisations, but make complete sense if you see their origination in 1%-land.

Why I tend to slip and blame the Americans is that the military of the 1% is the US security apparatus. But even that is now less true as NATO’s colours are showing more and more the flag of the 1% – think of Libya. Without a military to keep the people in line no country can survive, 1%-land survives because the forces of NATO protect it. At the same time 1%-land controls the UN, although that could change if the 99%-land countries stood up to them.

The 1% are best understood as a landless country. They have their own rules that use the rest of the world – the 99% – to profit from. The 99% are enslaved by the military forces of this country and by the neo-colonial strategies of the transnationals of this country. The politicians of 1%-land have many nationalities, although primarily western. Some people want to call this the New World Order, I don’t mind that, but I do question the politics of some that are using this term. Who gives Alex Jones his money? Is Thrive a business? And why do I question these politics? Because they are divisive. There is only one solution to the control of the 1%, and that is the action of the 99% standing up together.

And that is why 2011, the year of the protester is so important. Download and watch this Democracy Now from January 2nd to see the advances that people standing up have made during 2011:-

Were you supporting them? Did you call Occupiers the great unwashed? Then the deaths of these protesters are on your hands. Sitting back allows the status quo to continue, and the status quo means the increasing accumulation of wealth and power to 1%-land. It is time to choose. Stop the forces of the 1% occupying our land.

Watch this Real News Network clip from Madrid on Spain’s indignados talking about what happened and the way forward.

Update (18/2/12):-

here are some nice one minute video clips of who the 1% are.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. […] have previously described the 1% – and here are some nice clips as to who the 1% are, and explained why I consider they are […]

  2. Zandtao says:

    […] When you watch this movie it is definitely worth considering the level of control being exerted by the “robber barons”. The advantage that Alex Jones has is that he is financially well hung – strong right-wing sponsorship. This enables a level of research people on the left cannot afford. That is the advantage of this movie he has the money to trace back and make the connections of the powers-that-be – I made some of the connections here. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s