WHO'S RELATE TO WHOM? TAKE A LOOK. THIS IS DOCUMENTED IMPECCABLY, AND IT IS SIMPLY FACT.YES, MANY IN THE SPOTLIGHT HERE IN AMERICA DO, INDEED, HAVE COMMON ANCESTORS. THAT'S NOT WHAT'S MOST SURPRISING, GIVEN THAT ALL OF AMERICA'S FIRST SETTLERS TO THE "NEW WORLD" CAME FROM EUROPE.
BUT, WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT ALL BUT ONE OF OUR "ELECTED" PRESIDENTS HAVE ONE COMMON ANCESTOR, ALL OUR PRESIDENTS EXCEPT MARTIN VAN BUREN?
WHAT ARE THE ODDS THAT ALL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE LITERALLY BLOOD-RELATED?
FROM THE FOUNDING OF THE UNITED STATES TO PRESENT DAY, FROM A POPULATION OF 1 MILLION TO A POPULATION APPROACHING 4OO MILLION, WHAT ARE THE ODDS?
I'M SURE MOST WHO READ HERE HAVE COME ACROSS THIS STORY BEFORE, THIS "FAMILY TREE" OF OUR PRESIDENTS, AND REALIZE THAT THESE ARE THE FACTS...BUT THERE'S A BIT MORE TO THIS THAN INITIALLY MEETS THE EYE.
<<ALL PRESIDENTS EXCEPT ONE (Martin Van Buren) ARE DIRECTLY DESCENDED FROM ONE MEDIEVAL ENGLISH KING.>>
A 12-year-old girl, BridgeAnne d'Avignon, from Salinas, California, did the research and created the family tree linking 42 of 43 U.S. presidents to King John "Lackland"
Plantagenet of England, who signed the Magna Carta in 1215...BUT WHO ALSO TRIED TO BACK OUT OF THAT LATER.
SOME HISTORICAL FACTS ON "DEAR JOHN", MERRY OLD KING OF ENGLAND.
JOHN WAS A DESCENDANT OF ADELAIDE, THE EMPRESS OF GERMANY, AND OF THE HOUSE OF CHARLEMAGNE, AND WAY BEFORE THAT OF DIOCLES OF SICAMBRIA (c. 353 BC/BCE), AND FURTHER BACK TO FRANCO DER SYTHIANS (c.1125 BC/BCE) AND THEN BACK TO STRYMO VAN TROYE, (c. 1300BC/BCE) ....
AND BEFORE THAT?
NO ONE KNOWS. NO ONE CAN FIND OTHERS OF THAT LINE BEFORE 1300 BC.
WE DO KNOW THAT SCYTHIANS HAILED FROM PERSIA, WHICH WE CALL IRAN TODAY.
WHERE DID THE GREEKS COME FROM, THOSE OF TROY?
FROM THE MYCENAEAN - PHOENICIAN CIVILIZATIONS, WE'RE TOLD.
WHERE DID THE PHOENICIANS COME FROM?
NO ONE CAN SAY DEFINITELY, BUT THEIR SEMITIC LANGUAGE GIVES CLUES.
THEY WERE CONNECTED TO EGYPT IN THE ANCIENT PAST, AND THE EGYPTIANS CALLED ONE OF THE PHOENICIAN CITIES "BYBLOS", WHICH THE GREEKS "BORROWED" AS THEY CAME INTO BEING TO MAKE THEIR WORD 'BIBLIOS', FROM WHENCE WE GET THE WORD BIBLE.
BUT HOLD ON! ISN'T IT SAID THAT THE PHOENICIANS WERE PERHAPS AN OFFSHOOT OF THE SUMERIANS?
AND NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THE SUMERIANS CAME FROM EITHER, DO THEY?
BUT WE CAN SEE EGYPTIAN SYMBOLS ALL OVER THE NATION'S CAPITOL, ALL OVER OUR CURRENCY, ALL OVER. THAT'S BEEN POINTED OUT SINCE DAY 1 OF 'AMERICA'...SINCE DAY 1.
BACK TO "GOOD" KING JOHN...
John had a falling out with Pope Innocent III over the appointment of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury. John refused to accept Langton and the pope eventually retaliated by excommunicating John in 1209. At this point, John is said to have sent an embassy to Spain consisting of a priest known as Robert of London and two knights, Thomas de Erdington and Ralph Fitz Nicholas. The three men conferred with the Islamic Emir Al Mounenim also known as Mohammed Al Nassir and they were alleged to have proposed some sort of a deal whereby John would switch to the Islamic faith if the powerful Emir would support him as King of England. Of course, John likely intended to welch on the deal as he tried to welch on the Magna Carta, but the Emir declined the offer anyway.
[For details of this episode, see Richard Thomson: An Historical Essay on the Magna Charta, London, 1829, pages 10, 483 & 484.]
John had uncounted numbers of illegitimate offspring, though several have been named, so who can say how many in America are related to the old boy?
We do know for certain that one group of children he had by a daughter of William de Warenne, 3rd Earl of Surrey, were genetically also his third cousins! You see, that daughter of Warenne's was John's first cousin.Those children went by the last name of "Fitz Roy"
(See Douglas Richardson: Plantagenet Ancestry, Baltimore, 2004, pages 12, 48 & 49, p.9-13 Roberts p.403 Weis, Ancestral: 1-23, 26-27, 27-27, 259-30 )
SOME HISTORICAL FACTS ON "DEAR JOHN", MERRY OLD KING OF ENGLAND.
JOHN WAS A DESCENDANT OF ADELAIDE, THE EMPRESS OF GERMANY, AND OF THE HOUSE OF CHARLEMAGNE, AND WAY BEFORE THAT OF DIOCLES OF SICAMBRIA (c. 353 BC/BCE), AND FURTHER BACK TO FRANCO DER SYTHIANS (c.1125 BC/BCE) AND THEN BACK TO STRYMO VAN TROYE, (c. 1300BC/BCE) ....
AND BEFORE THAT?
NO ONE KNOWS. NO ONE CAN FIND OTHERS OF THAT LINE BEFORE 1300 BC.
WE DO KNOW THAT SCYTHIANS HAILED FROM PERSIA, WHICH WE CALL IRAN TODAY.
WHERE DID THE GREEKS COME FROM, THOSE OF TROY?
FROM THE MYCENAEAN - PHOENICIAN CIVILIZATIONS, WE'RE TOLD.
WHERE DID THE PHOENICIANS COME FROM?
NO ONE CAN SAY DEFINITELY, BUT THEIR SEMITIC LANGUAGE GIVES CLUES.
THEY WERE CONNECTED TO EGYPT IN THE ANCIENT PAST, AND THE EGYPTIANS CALLED ONE OF THE PHOENICIAN CITIES "BYBLOS", WHICH THE GREEKS "BORROWED" AS THEY CAME INTO BEING TO MAKE THEIR WORD 'BIBLIOS', FROM WHENCE WE GET THE WORD BIBLE.
BUT HOLD ON! ISN'T IT SAID THAT THE PHOENICIANS WERE PERHAPS AN OFFSHOOT OF THE SUMERIANS?
AND NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THE SUMERIANS CAME FROM EITHER, DO THEY?
BUT WE CAN SEE EGYPTIAN SYMBOLS ALL OVER THE NATION'S CAPITOL, ALL OVER OUR CURRENCY, ALL OVER. THAT'S BEEN POINTED OUT SINCE DAY 1 OF 'AMERICA'...SINCE DAY 1.
BACK TO "GOOD" KING JOHN...
John had a falling out with Pope Innocent III over the appointment of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury. John refused to accept Langton and the pope eventually retaliated by excommunicating John in 1209. At this point, John is said to have sent an embassy to Spain consisting of a priest known as Robert of London and two knights, Thomas de Erdington and Ralph Fitz Nicholas. The three men conferred with the Islamic Emir Al Mounenim also known as Mohammed Al Nassir and they were alleged to have proposed some sort of a deal whereby John would switch to the Islamic faith if the powerful Emir would support him as King of England. Of course, John likely intended to welch on the deal as he tried to welch on the Magna Carta, but the Emir declined the offer anyway.
[For details of this episode, see Richard Thomson: An Historical Essay on the Magna Charta, London, 1829, pages 10, 483 & 484.]
John had uncounted numbers of illegitimate offspring, though several have been named, so who can say how many in America are related to the old boy?
We do know for certain that one group of children he had by a daughter of William de Warenne, 3rd Earl of Surrey, were genetically also his third cousins! You see, that daughter of Warenne's was John's first cousin.Those children went by the last name of "Fitz Roy"
(See Douglas Richardson: Plantagenet Ancestry, Baltimore, 2004, pages 12, 48 & 49, p.9-13 Roberts p.403 Weis, Ancestral: 1-23, 26-27, 27-27, 259-30 )
Princess Diana was Bush's 11th cousin, twice removed.
This is all well-known, not disputed, but seldom looked at in the way of WHAT ARE THE ODDS?
WHAT ARE THE ODDS THAT ALL PRESIDENTS OF THE U.S. BUT ONE WERE/ARE RELATED, AS THEY WERE/ARE ALSO RELATED TO THE CANDIDATES WHO HAVE OPPOSED THEM?
COINCIDENCE?
This is all well-known, not disputed, but seldom looked at in the way of WHAT ARE THE ODDS?
WHAT ARE THE ODDS THAT ALL PRESIDENTS OF THE U.S. BUT ONE WERE/ARE RELATED, AS THEY WERE/ARE ALSO RELATED TO THE CANDIDATES WHO HAVE OPPOSED THEM?
COINCIDENCE?
"The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It"is a book by Angelo M. Codevilla that "introduces readers to the Ruling Class, the group of
bipartisan political elites who run America. This Ruling Class,
educated at prestigious universities and convinced of its own
superiority, has everything to gain by raising taxes and expanding the
reach of government. This class maintains that it knows what is best and
continually increases its power over every facet of American life, from
family and marriage to the environment, guns, and God. It is becoming
increasingly apparent that this Ruling Class does not represent the
interests of the majority of Americans, who value self-rule and the
freedom on whose promise America was founded. Millions of Americans are
now reasserting our right to obey the Constitution, not the Ruling
Class. This desire transcends all organizations and joins independents,
Republicans, and Democrats into 'The Country Party', whose members embody
the ideas and habits that made America great. The majority of Americans
feel that the Ruling Class is demeaning us, impoverishing us,
demoralizing us, and want to be rid of it."
Angelo M. Codevilla is professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University. Educated at Rutgers, Notre Dame, and the Claremont graduate university, Codevilla served in the US Navy, the US Foreign Service, and on the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. He taught philosophy at Georgetown, and spent a decade at Stanford's Hoover Institution. He has written 10 previous books.
Codevilla divides America into two classes: those who feed the political elites and the political elites themselves.
Equality of opportunity has been supplanted by equality of outcome. A Republic has been replaced with an Oligarchy. The rule of law has become the rule of man.
Leaders have been replaced with rulers.
Historic events are NOT AT ALL random NOR unconnected but fall within an intelligible political/economic context.
THOSE WHO HAVE THE MONEY USE THE MONEY TO RULE, USE THE POWER-HUNGRY WHOM THEY FINANCE, WHO ARE THEN INDEBTED TO THEM.
THAT'S JUST HOW SIMPLE IT REALLY IS!
Dr. Codevilla's original article, which forms the heart of this volume was published in the July-August edition of The American Spectator.
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the
<<Never has there been so little diversity within America’s upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America’s upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California, Texas, and Florida, the industrialists of Pittsburgh, the Southern aristocracy, and the hardscrabble politicians who made it big in Chicago or Memphis had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and “bureaucrat” was a dirty word for all. So was “social engineering.” Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday’s upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed.
Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America’s ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.
The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century’s Northerners and Southerners — nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, “prayed to the same God.” By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God “who created and doth sustain us,” our ruling class prays to itself as “saviors of the planet” and improvers of humanity. Our classes’ clash is over “whose country” America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what. The gravity of such divisions points us, as it did Lincoln, to Mark’s Gospel: “if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”
While Europeans are accustomed to being ruled by presumed betters whom they distrust, the American people’s realization of being ruled like Europeans shocked this country into well nigh revolutionary attitudes. But only the realization was new. The ruling class had sunk deep roots in America over decades before 2008. Machiavelli compares serious political diseases to the Aetolian fevers — easy to treat early on while they are difficult to discern, but virtually untreatable by the time they become obvious.
Angelo M. Codevilla is professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University. Educated at Rutgers, Notre Dame, and the Claremont graduate university, Codevilla served in the US Navy, the US Foreign Service, and on the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. He taught philosophy at Georgetown, and spent a decade at Stanford's Hoover Institution. He has written 10 previous books.
Codevilla divides America into two classes: those who feed the political elites and the political elites themselves.
Equality of opportunity has been supplanted by equality of outcome. A Republic has been replaced with an Oligarchy. The rule of law has become the rule of man.
Leaders have been replaced with rulers.
Historic events are NOT AT ALL random NOR unconnected but fall within an intelligible political/economic context.
THOSE WHO HAVE THE MONEY USE THE MONEY TO RULE, USE THE POWER-HUNGRY WHOM THEY FINANCE, WHO ARE THEN INDEBTED TO THEM.
THAT'S JUST HOW SIMPLE IT REALLY IS!
Dr. Codevilla's original article, which forms the heart of this volume was published in the July-August edition of The American Spectator.
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the
<<Never has there been so little diversity within America’s upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America’s upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California, Texas, and Florida, the industrialists of Pittsburgh, the Southern aristocracy, and the hardscrabble politicians who made it big in Chicago or Memphis had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and “bureaucrat” was a dirty word for all. So was “social engineering.” Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday’s upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed.
Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America’s ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.
The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century’s Northerners and Southerners — nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, “prayed to the same God.” By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God “who created and doth sustain us,” our ruling class prays to itself as “saviors of the planet” and improvers of humanity. Our classes’ clash is over “whose country” America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what. The gravity of such divisions points us, as it did Lincoln, to Mark’s Gospel: “if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”
While Europeans are accustomed to being ruled by presumed betters whom they distrust, the American people’s realization of being ruled like Europeans shocked this country into well nigh revolutionary attitudes. But only the realization was new. The ruling class had sunk deep roots in America over decades before 2008. Machiavelli compares serious political diseases to the Aetolian fevers — easy to treat early on while they are difficult to discern, but virtually untreatable by the time they become obvious.
Who are these rulers, and by what right do they rule? How did
America change from a place where people could expect to live
without bowing to privileged classes to one in which, at best, they
might have the chance to climb into them? What sets our ruling
class apart from the rest of us?
The most widespread answers — by such as the Times’s
Thomas Friedman and David Brooks — are schlock sociology.
Supposedly, modern society became so complex and productive, the
technical skills to run it so rare, that it called forth a new
class of highly educated officials and cooperators in an ever less
private sector. Similarly fanciful is Edward Goldberg’s notion that
America is now ruled by a “newocracy”: a “new aristocracy who are
the true beneficiaries of globalization — including the
multinational manager, the technologist and the aspirational
members of the meritocracy.” In fact, our ruling class grew and set
itself apart from the rest of us by its connection with ever bigger
government, and above all by a certain attitude.
Regardless of where they live, their
social-intellectual circle includes people in the lucrative
“nonprofit” and “philanthropic” sectors and public policy. What
really distinguishes these privileged people demographically is
that, whether in government power directly or as officers in
companies, their careers and fortunes depend on government.
The ruling class’s appetite for deference, power, and perks grows. The country class disrespects its rulers, wants to curtail their power and reduce their perks. The ruling class wears on its sleeve the view that the rest of Americans are racist, greedy, and above all stupid. The country class is ever more convinced that our rulers are corrupt, malevolent, and inept. The rulers want the ruled to shut up and obey. The ruled want self-governance. The clash between the two is about which side’s vision of itself and of the other is right and which is wrong. Because each side — especially the ruling class — embodies its views on the issues, concessions by one side to another on any issue tend to discredit that side’s view of itself. One side or the other will prevail. The clash is as sure and momentous as its outcome is unpredictable.
Suppose that the Country Party (whatever its name might be) were to capture Congress, the presidency, and most statehouses. What then would it do? Especially if its majority were slim, it would be tempted to follow the Democrats’ plan of 2009-2010, namely to write its wish list of reforms into law regardless of the Constitution and enact them by partisan majorities supported by interest groups that gain from them, while continuing to vilify the other side. Whatever effect this might have, it surely would not be to make America safe for self-governance because by carrying out its own “revolution from above” to reverse the ruling class’s previous “revolution from above,” it would have made that ruinous practice standard in America. Moreover, a revolution designed at party headquarters would be antithetical to the country class’s diversity as well as to the American Founders’ legacy.
If self-governance means anything, it means that those who exercise government power must depend on elections. The shorter the electoral leash, the likelier an official to have his chain yanked by voters, the more truly republican the government is. Yet to subject the modern administrative state’s agencies to electoral control would require ordinary citizens to take an interest in any number of technical matters. Law can require environmental regulators or insurance commissioners, or judges or auditors to be elected. But only citizens’ discernment and vigilance could make these officials good. Only citizens’ understanding of and commitment to law can possibly reverse the patent disregard for the Constitution and statutes that has permeated American life. Unfortunately, it is easier for anyone who dislikes a court’s or an official’s unlawful act to counter it with another unlawful one than to draw all parties back to the foundation of truth.
The ruling class’s appetite for deference, power, and perks grows. The country class disrespects its rulers, wants to curtail their power and reduce their perks. The ruling class wears on its sleeve the view that the rest of Americans are racist, greedy, and above all stupid. The country class is ever more convinced that our rulers are corrupt, malevolent, and inept. The rulers want the ruled to shut up and obey. The ruled want self-governance. The clash between the two is about which side’s vision of itself and of the other is right and which is wrong. Because each side — especially the ruling class — embodies its views on the issues, concessions by one side to another on any issue tend to discredit that side’s view of itself. One side or the other will prevail. The clash is as sure and momentous as its outcome is unpredictable.
Suppose that the Country Party (whatever its name might be) were to capture Congress, the presidency, and most statehouses. What then would it do? Especially if its majority were slim, it would be tempted to follow the Democrats’ plan of 2009-2010, namely to write its wish list of reforms into law regardless of the Constitution and enact them by partisan majorities supported by interest groups that gain from them, while continuing to vilify the other side. Whatever effect this might have, it surely would not be to make America safe for self-governance because by carrying out its own “revolution from above” to reverse the ruling class’s previous “revolution from above,” it would have made that ruinous practice standard in America. Moreover, a revolution designed at party headquarters would be antithetical to the country class’s diversity as well as to the American Founders’ legacy.
If self-governance means anything, it means that those who exercise government power must depend on elections. The shorter the electoral leash, the likelier an official to have his chain yanked by voters, the more truly republican the government is. Yet to subject the modern administrative state’s agencies to electoral control would require ordinary citizens to take an interest in any number of technical matters. Law can require environmental regulators or insurance commissioners, or judges or auditors to be elected. But only citizens’ discernment and vigilance could make these officials good. Only citizens’ understanding of and commitment to law can possibly reverse the patent disregard for the Constitution and statutes that has permeated American life. Unfortunately, it is easier for anyone who dislikes a court’s or an official’s unlawful act to counter it with another unlawful one than to draw all parties back to the foundation of truth.
How, for example, to remind America of, and to drive home to the
ruling class, Lincoln’s lesson that trifling with the Constitution
for the most heartfelt of motives destroys its protections for all?
Suffice it to say that the ruling class’s greatest difficulty — aside from being outnumbered — will be to argue, against the grain of reality, that the revolution it continues to press upon America is sustainable. For its part, the country class’s greatest difficulty will be to enable a revolution to take place without imposing it. America has been imposed on enough.>>
IF WE BUT THINK, LOOK AT HISTORY, WATCH THE STEADY PROGRESSION OF EVENTS, TRACK DOWN THE SOURCE OF THE TROUBLE WE'RE IN, ON EVERY LEVEL, WE MUST, AS SANE, RATIONAL PEOPLE, SEE THAT WHEN CAMPAIGNS BECAME A GAME OF WHO COULD RAKE IN THE MOST MONEY, WHO COULD ENTICE THE BIGGEST BACKERS, WHO COULD COZY UP TO THE MOST INFLUENTIAL FAMILIES, THE TWO RULING CLASSES, OR REALLY, THE ONE WAS FORMED...THE FEEDERS AND THE EATERS....THE RICH AND THE POLITICALLY POWER-MOTIVATED....THE POLITICIANS AND THEIR FINANCIERS. ..THOSE BRED TO RULE AND THOSE WHO GIVE BREAD TO THE RULERS.
THIS, THIS, AMERICA, IS WHY THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, NO DIFFERENCE SEEN NOR FORTHCOMING FOR CHANGE IN AMERICA.
THE POLITICIANS ARE ALL RELATED BY BLOOD. THE RULING ELITE HAVE BACKERS WHO BACK ONLY THE RULING ELITE.
BOTH THE BLOOD LINES AND THE MONEY LINES GO AS FAR BACK IN TIME AS WE CAN TRAVEL LOOKING FOR THOSE SAME CONNECTIONS, OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
IT'S AS PLAIN, AS OBVIOUS AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE, AMERICA.
NEITHER PARTY GIVES 2 CENTS WHAT YOU WANT.
BOTH PARTIES CONSIDER YOU AND I MERE CONTRIBUTORS TO THEIR UPKEEP, TO THEIR WILL.
WHY ELSE DID THE OLD FOUNDING FATHERS CREATE THAT ELECTORAL COLLEGE?
THEY DIDN'T CONSIDER THE MASSES CAPABLE OF ELECTING, BY POPULAR VOTE, THE ONES WHO WERE BRED FOR THE JOB OF RULING NATIONS.
THEY DIDN'T THINK "COMMON MAN" WAS CAPABLE OF INTELLECTUAL CHOICE.
THEY KNEW THAT EVENTUALLY, COMMON MAN WOULD REBEL, SO THEY TOOK CARE OF THAT PROBLEM BY PLACING THAT ELECTORAL COLLEGE BETWEEN COMMON MAN AND THE RULING ELITE.
AND AFTER VOTING MACHINES CAME INTO BEING, AFTER THE ELITE HAVE BOUGHT THE COMPANIES THAT MAKE THOSE, AND BOUGHT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AND BOUGHT THE NEWS MEDIA, AND BOUGHT THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM TO FURTHER DUMB-DOWN COMMON CITIZENS, AND FOUND A WAY TO USE RACE TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER (SEE THE CIVIL WAR AS PRIME EXAMPLE), AND LEARNED THAT THE DRUG TRADE COULD FINANCE AN EMPIRE, AND....
WELL, MONEY TALKS, AND MONEY SAYS WHO'S NEXT UP TO BAT.
AND WE ALLOW IT, AMERICA.
WE ALLOW THIS.
WE BEND OVER AND TAKE "ONE FOR THE GIPPER" EACH NEW DAY.
THE PEOPLE WHO FIGURED OUT THIS GIGANTIC MANIPULATION KNEW WE WOULD.
WHEN HISTORY WAS MADE THEY WERE THERE!
WHEN RULERS WERE CHOSEN, THEY WERE ALWAYS THERE.
THEY KNOW HOW TO MAKE SURE HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF....
AND WE GO RIGHT ALONG WITH THE PLAN.
READ, THINK, QUESTION...AND THEN ACT.
WE CAN LEARN, OR WE CAN PERISH.
Suffice it to say that the ruling class’s greatest difficulty — aside from being outnumbered — will be to argue, against the grain of reality, that the revolution it continues to press upon America is sustainable. For its part, the country class’s greatest difficulty will be to enable a revolution to take place without imposing it. America has been imposed on enough.>>
IF WE BUT THINK, LOOK AT HISTORY, WATCH THE STEADY PROGRESSION OF EVENTS, TRACK DOWN THE SOURCE OF THE TROUBLE WE'RE IN, ON EVERY LEVEL, WE MUST, AS SANE, RATIONAL PEOPLE, SEE THAT WHEN CAMPAIGNS BECAME A GAME OF WHO COULD RAKE IN THE MOST MONEY, WHO COULD ENTICE THE BIGGEST BACKERS, WHO COULD COZY UP TO THE MOST INFLUENTIAL FAMILIES, THE TWO RULING CLASSES, OR REALLY, THE ONE WAS FORMED...THE FEEDERS AND THE EATERS....THE RICH AND THE POLITICALLY POWER-MOTIVATED....THE POLITICIANS AND THEIR FINANCIERS. ..THOSE BRED TO RULE AND THOSE WHO GIVE BREAD TO THE RULERS.
THIS, THIS, AMERICA, IS WHY THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, NO DIFFERENCE SEEN NOR FORTHCOMING FOR CHANGE IN AMERICA.
THE POLITICIANS ARE ALL RELATED BY BLOOD. THE RULING ELITE HAVE BACKERS WHO BACK ONLY THE RULING ELITE.
BOTH THE BLOOD LINES AND THE MONEY LINES GO AS FAR BACK IN TIME AS WE CAN TRAVEL LOOKING FOR THOSE SAME CONNECTIONS, OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
IT'S AS PLAIN, AS OBVIOUS AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE, AMERICA.
NEITHER PARTY GIVES 2 CENTS WHAT YOU WANT.
BOTH PARTIES CONSIDER YOU AND I MERE CONTRIBUTORS TO THEIR UPKEEP, TO THEIR WILL.
WHY ELSE DID THE OLD FOUNDING FATHERS CREATE THAT ELECTORAL COLLEGE?
THEY DIDN'T CONSIDER THE MASSES CAPABLE OF ELECTING, BY POPULAR VOTE, THE ONES WHO WERE BRED FOR THE JOB OF RULING NATIONS.
THEY DIDN'T THINK "COMMON MAN" WAS CAPABLE OF INTELLECTUAL CHOICE.
THEY KNEW THAT EVENTUALLY, COMMON MAN WOULD REBEL, SO THEY TOOK CARE OF THAT PROBLEM BY PLACING THAT ELECTORAL COLLEGE BETWEEN COMMON MAN AND THE RULING ELITE.
AND AFTER VOTING MACHINES CAME INTO BEING, AFTER THE ELITE HAVE BOUGHT THE COMPANIES THAT MAKE THOSE, AND BOUGHT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AND BOUGHT THE NEWS MEDIA, AND BOUGHT THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM TO FURTHER DUMB-DOWN COMMON CITIZENS, AND FOUND A WAY TO USE RACE TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER (SEE THE CIVIL WAR AS PRIME EXAMPLE), AND LEARNED THAT THE DRUG TRADE COULD FINANCE AN EMPIRE, AND....
WELL, MONEY TALKS, AND MONEY SAYS WHO'S NEXT UP TO BAT.
AND WE ALLOW IT, AMERICA.
WE ALLOW THIS.
WE BEND OVER AND TAKE "ONE FOR THE GIPPER" EACH NEW DAY.
THE PEOPLE WHO FIGURED OUT THIS GIGANTIC MANIPULATION KNEW WE WOULD.
WHEN HISTORY WAS MADE THEY WERE THERE!
WHEN RULERS WERE CHOSEN, THEY WERE ALWAYS THERE.
THEY KNOW HOW TO MAKE SURE HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF....
AND WE GO RIGHT ALONG WITH THE PLAN.
READ, THINK, QUESTION...AND THEN ACT.
WE CAN LEARN, OR WE CAN PERISH.
No comments:
Post a Comment