Friday, January 11, 2008


"Back in 2004, Microsoft's Steve Ballmer said that there were approximately 600 million users of Microsoft products -- as with most business estimates, it's likely to be on the positive side. With such a large market share, the 600 million users is likely to be the maximum number of users who own a computer. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are currently about 6.6 billion people in the world, which works out to be about 9% of the world's population that might own a computer. A more accurate count is almost guaranteed to be less than that."

"In launching comScore World Metrix, the company announced that 694 million people, age 15+, used the Internet worldwide from all locations in March 2006 ..."

---- The global population is now at 6.6 billion. Over 3 billion live on less than $1 a day. These billions have little to no opportunity to access the Internet or fret over politics. Understandably, they will follow the creed of warlords or missionaries or anyone offering sustenance.

If we deduct the number of folks who own a computer with Internet access and use the net for gaming, porning, selling snake oil, myspace and facebook socializing - the number of folks surfing seriously for political enlightenment is very, very small indeed.

Deduct the social and political websites that are manipulated and/or managed by the powers that be and the truth shrinks even more.

Thus, the number of folks with access to technology and information along with a desire to change the world to benefit all, is a tiny, tiny, tiny number. With over 3 billion surviving on less than $1 a day, and billions more in the so-called "civilized" West existing hand to mouth, paycheck to paycheck, Big Mac to Big Mac - very few Netizens are online for political enlightenment and of those who are serious - most are following the ideas and candidates presented by TPTB.

Which means the number of political world change-minded folks who can consistently act rational and have no personal agenda - is infinitesimal - close to but greater than zero.

For thousands of years the masses have been given an equally infinitesimal number of heroic "change agents" - Moses, Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, etc. - hope offerings. The beneficial "change" brought about by these agents is limited - and in some instances is negative - intentionally counteracted by the powers that be. Jesus saves but subsequent church leaders use His name to justify the inquisition, witch-hunting, slavery. Civil Rights/MLK open doors and behind doors #2, 3, 4, and 5 there is crack, welfare, white flight, blight, bling, etc. Compared to world population size the number of lives changed for the better is infinitesimal.

Basically, hope and agents of change are commodities sold to the masses by the masters.

Compared to 6.6 billion, the ruling class is very small - that's why they're in charge. A small group has cohesion. A small group has unity. They may in-fight on which nation or race to plunder next but they will always rid themselves of members who disagree with the consensus of the group, who put the status quo at risk - in the end the ruling class stick together for the good of the "family." The global ruling class runs itself as cosa nostra; a family thing. (They're not out to save the world.) They keep their eye on their prize - money/power.

Meanwhile, the infinitesimal number of the masses fortunate enough to have information access, some intelligence, and desirous of a different world divides itself into subgroups on hundreds of various issues and then compete for funds to finance their agenda - funds from corporations, foundations, or governments. "Grassrooters" dependent on the very entities they want to "change." They keep their eye on their prize - a little money/name recognition.

Grassroots - nice term isn't it. According to Wiki the term implies activity that comes from "we the people." A term said to have been coined by the Progressive Party in 1912 in which the Progressive Party came from grass roots - grown "from the soil of people's hard necessities."

Faking a grassroots movement is known as astroturfing. Astroturfing is similar in practice to the grassroots movement, except that the lobbyists behind it hide their agenda by pretending to be individuals voicing their opinions.

There's been a lot of astroturf laid.

Is there a road that leads to change? Sure. But the masses wouldn't like it. It's a long road. It's a hard road. It's a road that leaves billions along the wayside with a promise to the future. It's a road that sweeps bullshit aside and those who are shoveling it - bullshit spotters are necessary.

It's a road that backs away from the status quo ruling class government rather than demanding more crumbs from it - like JFK said - ask not what your country can do for you ... cause your country has been doing it to you for a long time.

It's a road where agents of change clobber you over the head with truth and waste no time pussyfooting. But, again, only an infinitesimal number of folks could/would work for real change because the Pavlovian masses prefer astroturf advocacy - artificial, but it looks real if you squint, and don't look too close.


Anonymous said...

I read a saying somewhere recently (I cannot remember where or who) that this post reminds me of:

"There is only one war, and it is a class war."

Kate-A said...

Class war, I suppose that's a good term for it, although I rarely think of it in such terms.

Maybe b/c there are so many "classes" - extreme poor, lower, working, middle, upper, affluent, wealthy, etc. - all controlled by the ruling class who hold the power and I don't believe many members of these classes are fighting the classes above them or the ruling class, rather they strive to mimic or idolize.

For example - Bill Gates or Nadhmi Auchi are billionaires, putting them in the wealthiest "class" but they have no power per se, other than to set up foundations/institutions which maintains the status quo while giving the appearance of altruism and social conscience.

Such monied men and women have power over most of the masses simply b/c they have the money to buy what they will - they can make life miserable for competitors and others - but among the ruling class they have no power - they too mimic and idolize the "ruling class" - buying their tickets to the royal soiree.

Such men sup with the devil with a short spoon. The true "ruling class" hide behind the men/women on Forbes rich list. Among the ruling class, folks such as the Bush family are hired help. But it's a damn comfortable living.

Anonymous said...

Interesting talk about the ruling class.

A few years ago I read in a fashion magazine that a fashion model had married into one of the ruling class families. Was it the Rothchild's or the Rockefellers's? At the moment the family she married into is not coming to me. Also, I do not remember her name. However, I seem to recall that the marriage was forced into dissolution and I believe the terms of the divorce settlement called for her not linking herself to the family in any way. Though the writer of the article in the fashion magazine did link her to the family, otherwise how would I know about it?

Darn, I wish I could remember more of the details. Right now just fragments of info about the article are coming to mind. Now that there is so much talk about the ruling class, it would be good reading.

Kate-A said...

Perhaps model Annabelle Nielson to Nat Rothchild.

Anonymous said...

It very well could be and probably is Annabelle I read about in that article so long ago. One link reports they were married in 1995.

Another marriage from a ruling class family, if the Bronfman's are part of the ruling class, was the marriage between Edgar Bronfman Jr and Sherry Brewer. That one also ended I believe.

Kate-A said...

I consider the true ruling class those the public seldom hear of - the old bloodlines from Belgium, Denmark, UK, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway,Spain, Sweden, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Russia. Many now have "elections" for PMs and parliaments or presidents but the bloodlines still hold the power. They intermarried for a few centuries (after inbreeding idiots, although I wonder about Prince Charles) and they're much more connected now globally and geographically. They've also had to dip further down in the gene pool, i.e. Charles and Diane were cousins although very distant cousins.

While the royals of Japan and Saudi have not married into the Anglo bloodlines the ol' royal white boys have settled for economic treaties. I doubt we'll see an heir to the Emperor of Japan or the heir to the House of Saud marry a European royal.

The Rothschild family is considered Jewish royalty with a member occasionally known as the "King of the Jews" - but I don't believe they're directly descended from King David.

To the "ruling class" bloodline is very important - as an amateur genealogist researching my own family I can understand it. We are our family tree, as far back as we can go. Which is why it pisses me off unbearably to see the social attitude of white liberals who have for 3 decades aided and abetted Black America's illegitimate birth rate (70%). Millions of young Black women with 5-6 children by as many absent fathers - going on the 3rd generation of this - no roots, shallow roots. "They" call it social programs, safety nets, concern, caring, etc. - but white America has essentially lynched the Black family unit. "They" are the same folks who shriek the loudest about America tromping around the globe "killing brown people" as they demand more funding for rope at home, out of the goodness of their heart of course. But, that's another rant.

Content © 2005-2020 by Kate/A.