Quote:K:
I see it as long term strategy plan.
I am afraid I don't quite understand what the rest of your post is all about. But it seems to me like you get greatly provoked whenever I mention this particular subject of a ruling international financial elite. I wonder why this is so charged for you?
Ah. Second attempt...
Nahhh, I'm not provoked, I'm simply exploring the implications of what it *seems* like you're saying: to wit, there's an enduring strategy of exploitation by one group, a ruling international financial elite, at the expense of another group, unnamed, but whom I'll assume to be the proletariat and the petite bourgeoisie, and this is not a reference to the Marxist definition, they are terms of art in economics.
And I believe that something that fits the description of one fairly distinct group exploiting another such, larger, group exists out there--it's just that we're like the proverbial blind men feeling up an elephant: you think an elephants is a lot like a rope, while I think it's more like a tree.
It's not so much that the idea of a "ruling international financial elite" sounds perilously like an allusion to the Illuminati or the villainous Freemasons--and in fact it sure *does* sound like that--but it's that within my own experience and observation, the members of such a group are far too motivated to knife each other over fairly minor advantages that it's just not possible for them to smugly meet in a cabal-like session behind closed doors, light up big cigars, and chortle at the riff-raff as they exploit them in an ordered, enduring strategy, all the while patting each other on the back, and lighting their cigars with 100 Euro banknotes.
Let's back it up to Marx, shall we?
He accurately has identified the dynamic social tension of modern class warfare: those owning the means of production vs those who supply the labor to work those means. He is woefully incorrect when he comes to the prescriptive part: enlightened workers' councils making informed strategic decisions on production/distribution for the betterment of all. There has been adequate time to see these social structures develop in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc., and none of them has. And here's why: Nietzsche.
Now for Nietzsche, he correctly assesses human nature, in my opinion: the common man and the exception man, and postulates the existence of a will to power (better understood as the enabling of of the desire to advance one's personal position in material ways) in all men. I believe that I see this in operation, also, just as I've seen the class warfare.
And Nietzcshe, like Marx, fails miserably when he comes to prescriptive ideas, since not even one percent of the world's population would be docile enough to live in such a system without constant turmoil.
And yet these two phenomena exist: class struggle and exception individuals exercising the will to power.
So what I *think* is out there is a vertical struggle within both the elites and the proletariat of exception individuals exercising a will to power. And it is of supreme importance to understand that while we refer to one group as "the elites", each group has its own elite group of exceptional individuals. The road to success is somewhat different for each group's leaders, in that the leader of the proletariat, like Fidel Castro, must necessarily rely on cooperation from many willing contributors, often ideologically or religiously driven (see Mohamed for an example of the later, Mao for the former), while the exceptional individual who is a member of the elite can essentially buy or coerce allies to a much larger degree--although charisma also helps them, too.
So you have fairly fluid power struggles within each group, and the top dog emerges as a sort of warlord *of each respective group*. The two groups then struggle, during which time it's possible for either leader to stumble, causing their group to falter, as well.
If the elites win, they continue to be the herdsman exploiting the herd in the ways that they have done in the past, with internecine struggles continuing, and if the proletariat wins, in extreme cases they upend the old system of exploitation and set up a brand new one, which may or may not work (see the Reign of Terror), or they simplify rename the same old systems and continue the old ways of exploitation (see the USA).
And during this process, the incompetent elites are somewhat buffered from the consequences of their mis-steps by their position and wealth (see the current British royal family), while the incompetent individuals in the proletariat fail still more miserably, or are simply exploited as before by their more able leaders.
In the end, it's a giant boiling cauldron of exception individuals exploiting whatever situation they are faced with; there will be temporary alliances that last only so long as it's convenient for both parties, and the instant one party sees an advantage, that's the end of the cabal.
Best answer for the individual? Try to be an exceptional individual in some way, or successfully attach yourself to, or align your material interests with, the interests of the exceptional.
So that's how I see the elephant...
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~