And things are about to become even more polarized as the coming
economic apocalypse swallows up the average American. If you have my
book, look in the chapter entitled World War III and review the quotes
I give from pre-WWII authors, describing how an eerily-similar Jew/
Gentile economic divide in Germany led to the overwhelming uprising
and mass reprisal generally ascribed to a single man. In reality, the
Third Reich was a reaction - to an equally avaricious and oblivious
Jewish overclass.
We have a saying here in America: pigs get fat and hogs get
slaughtered.
Did you know that there are about 6 million Jews in America today?
Coincidentally, there now happen to be just about 6 million Jews in
Israel, as well.
6 million ... 6 million ... hmmmm, where have I heard that figure
before?
-ed
Some news items should be read in conjunction: otherwise, they make
little sense. Recently we were informed by Vanity Fair, that Jewish
element with the US elites crossed 50%. Five years ago, it was
*****sed at 30%, now we are up to more than half. In the artcle below,
a Jewish editor feels happy about this achievement. But how non-Jewish
Americans should view it? Why should they care? And here we offer you
a second news item, saying that social disparity gap in the US reached
new heights.
This is the answer: more Jews at the top, more social disparity at the
bottom. In short, when it is good for Jews, it is rarely good for
anybody else. Read these two articles in conjunction:
(1)
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/joe/aaron101007.php3
Feel the power
By Joseph Aaron
I just can't help it.
This kind of thing gives me a big thrill. And a big chill.
It's not that often that you find the entire state of Jewish life
today encapsulated in one place. So when you do, it's worth taking
note of and learning from.
The place of which I speak is the October issue of Vanity Fair
magazine. Vanity Fair is one of the most fascinating magazines around,
one that every issue features an amazingly eclectic collection of
articles, from the very serious to the completely frivolous.
Indeed, while the October issue features such stories as "How $9
billion in cash vanished in Iraq;" "Inside Bush's bunker;" "How the
Media Gored Al Gore in 2000;" and more, the cover features Nicole
Kidman wearing a sailor cap and opening her ****rt to reveal her
nautical necklace and her brassiere.
Vanity Fair is nothing if not on the cutting edge of where society is
and is going. Vanity Fair is definitely not a Jewish publication.
And yet, in this one issue, it tells us more about the Jewish world as
it is today than any lecture or book or class out there.
It does that in two ways.
The first is its annual list of what it calls The New Establishment,
the 100 most powerful, most influential people in American society.
What is absolutely amazing, stunning about the list is how many Jews
there are on it. Jews make up about 2.5 percent of the U.S. population
so there should be two or three Jews on the list.
Guess again, bubeleh.
The list of the Vanity Fair 100 includes, get ready, 51, yes 51 Jews.
Minimum.
I say 51 because that's how many I'm sure are Jewish. There may be
others on the list who are Jewish but who I don't know are Jewish and
whose names are not obviously Jewish.
But let's say I got them all. That means that more than half the names
on the list of the 100 people who are the most vital to this society
are Jewish. And this is a list that includes Apple's Steve Jobs and
Oprah and Bill Clinton and Warren Buffett, to name a few of the few
non-Jews on the list.
That is absolutely nothing short of astounding.
Talk about us being accepted into this society, talk about us having
power in this society, talk about anti-Semitism being a thing of the
past, talk about Jews no longer needing to be afraid to be visible and
influential.
And it doesn't stop there.
The magazine also has a separate list of what it calls The Next
Establishment, younger people it believes destined to make the big
list some year soon.
Of the 26 names on that list, 15 are Jews. That I'm sure of. 15 of 26.
More than half.
And it doesn't stop there.
The magazine also has a separate list of what it calls The Pit-Stop
Club, those who have made The New Establishment list in the past but
who didn't make it this year but are fairly certain to make a comeback
in a future year.
Of the nine names on this list, eight are Jews. Eight out of nine. Don
Imus is the only non-Jew on the list.
I mean, it's just unbelievable.
This is a big country with lots and lots of very talented, highly
educated, tremendously motivated people. And no one has its finger on
the pulse of the people who make this country what it is more than
Vanity Fair.
And when it came time to pick the 100 who most move and shake things
in America, more than half-more than half-are Jews. And on the list of
those who will one day be on that list, more than half-more than half-
are Jews. Not to mention that almost 100 percent of those who were on
the list and are poised to make a comeback are Jews.
Tells you so much about the place of Jews in this country, about the
amazing people Jews are.
That's something we should never take for granted, something we should
always be blown away by, feel very, very good about.
Instead, however, the Jewish world is so much about kvetching and
worrying.
When will we learn to fight fights that matter. When will we learn not
everything needs to be made a big deal of. Not everything we don't
like is a threat, indeed some of the things we don't like only become
a nuisance because we make a big deal out of it.
We are powerful, very powerful. We play a major, pivotal role in the
life of this country. And yet we are always acting like scared little
mice on the verge of annihilation.
And if you think how we are doesn't have consequences, please look at
something else in this Vanity Fair issue, something that also tells us
much about Jewish life today.
There is an article in the magazine called "Talk of the Town." It
tells the story of the intense rivalry between two of the most
powerful men on Wall Street, Henry Kravis and Stephen Schwarzman.
Both, as you may have guessed, are Jews. Both are at the very top of
the private equity world, which is where the financial action is these
days. Both control tens of billions of dollars worth of assets.
The first thing that struck me about the story is what jerks both are,
each trying to top the other, destroy the other, outdo the other. Not
to mention the abominable way that each treats their employees. Each
acts in ways that are not very much in keeping with the teachings and
values of Judaism.
That's sad, but that's not what got to me. What got to me is how much
these two do, how much these two give, to all kinds of good causes-
libraries and museums and hospitals and universities and on and on,
all mentioned by name in the article. You read and see how much energy
each puts into his charitable work, how much money each donates to
charitable causes. Doing so, it is very clear, for the social status
and clout it brings.
What is also clear is that it seems neither is involved in or gives to
Jewish causes, at least not in any significant way.
That too tells you a lot about Jewish life today.
For they are not alone. The fact is that, as survey after survey has
shown, most very wealthy Jews in this country do not give to Jewish
causes. Certainly not the tens of million dollars they so eagerly give
to a university or a museum.
The question is why they feel so little allegiance to their own
community, their own people, why they so much look elsewhere to devote
their resources and their energies.
I think it's because we have made Judaism such an unpleasant place.
Judaism has so many powerful people among us, as the Vanity Fair 100
list shows. We are such a part of this society, have such impact on
this society and yet we're always unhappy, always feel victimized,
always kvetch about this and that. It's always another Holocaust
around the corner, there's always the next Hitler on the scene, Israel
is always embattled, we're always worried, always scared, always sure
the end is near.
Well, who the hell wants to join that little party?
Because we so squander all the good that has come our way, too many of
us are simply opting to go their own way, to be part of things that
don't involve guilt and neuroticism.
More than half those on the Vanity Fair 100 are Jews. And yet we don't
feel powerful, indeed, the very fact of the list makes us even more
nervous than we were before. Instead of being pleased and taking
pride, we fret that it's not so good to be so visible, bad that the
gentiles see how much influence we have. And so we take even an
occasion for joys and make it one for oys.
Is it any wonder then that if we always make out that Jewish life,
despite all evidence to the contrary, is a scary and dreary place,
that those who have made it, want nothing to do with it?
(2)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/usa-o16.shtml
Social inequality in US hits new record
By Bill Van Auken
16 October 2007
The Internal Revenue Service issued a re****t last week do***enting
record levels of social inequality in the United States. According to
the data released by the IRS, America's wealthiest 1 percent accounted
for 21 percent of all income in 2005, while the bottom 50 percent
earned just 12.8 percent of the total national income.
While the share of income taken in by the wealthiest 1 percent rose
steeply--up three points from 19 percent in 2004--the share for the half
of the population at the bottom of the economic ladder fell during the
same period by 0.6 percent.
The IRS data, published in the Wall Street Journal last Friday, are
based on "adjusted gross income" reflected in tax returns for 2005.
This measure provides a starker and more accurate picture than other
indices of the staggering polarization between wealth and poverty in
America.
It records individual income after deductions for such expenses as
alimony or individual retirement accounts, and includes capital gains,
a major source of income for the very rich. It also breaks down the
figures relating to the wealthiest social layers, spelling out the
obscene levels of income raked in by the top 1 percent and top 0.1
percent, as opposed to other re****ts that lump this relative handful
of multimillionaires and billionaires together with average figures
for the top 10 percent.
The share claimed by this wealthiest layer has now surpassed the
previous record recorded during the stock market boom of the 1990s.
And, while the IRS has kept such data only since 1986, it is believed
that the present percentage of the national income going to this layer
is higher than at any time since the period that preceded the Wall
Street crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.
Even George W. Bush is compelled to acknowledge the prevalence of
social inequality in America. In an interview with the Wall Street
Journal, the president said, "First of all, our society has had income
inequality for a long time." By way of explanation, Bush, the
offspring of a family worth many millions, declared, "Skills gaps
yield income gaps."
The Wall Street Journal was more candid than the president,
acknowledging that while the IRS did not spell out the source of
rising income for the wealthy, the "boom on Wall Street has likely
played a part."
The newspaper went on to point out the enormous ac***ulation of wealth
on Wall Street itself, citing a recent study from the University of
Chicago showing that twice as many Wall Street executives count
themselves in the top 0.5 percent income bracket as their counterparts
in other sectors of the economy. One of the authors of the study,
Joshua Rauh, told the Journal, "It's hard to escape the notion" that
the increasing monopolization of wealth at the top is a "Wall Street,
financial industry-based story."
Summarizing the study, the Journal re****ted that "the highest-earning
hedge-fund manager earned double in 2005 what the top earner made in
2003, and the top 25 hedge-fund managers earned more in 2004 than the
chief executives of all the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500
stock index combined." The study also found "profits per equity
partner at the top 100 law firms doubling between 1994 and 2004, to
over $1 million in 2004 dollars."
The data released by the IRS indicated that the minimum annual income
needed to make it into the top 1 percent rose 3 percent between 2000
and 2005 to $364,647.
On the opposite end of the social scale, the median income of tax
filers had fallen 2 percent between 2000 and 2005 to just $30,881,
with fully half of the population struggling to get by on less than
that.
Earlier data released by the US Census Bureau established that every
section of the population outside of the top 5 percent saw their real
income fall between 2000 and 2005.
According to one recent study, while real income for the bottom 90
percent of the population fell by 11 percent between 1973 and 2005,
those in the top .01 percent bracket, comprising some 14,000
households with annual incomes averaging nearly $13 million, saw their
take increase by 250 percent over the same period.
What emerges from the data are the effects of a long-standing social
policy involving a massive transfer of wealth from working people, the
great majority of the population, to a handful of the super-wealthy,
who have enriched themselves at the expense of the rest of society.
This is not merely an American, but rather a global policy that has
been carried out on the backs of the working class of every country. A
study released last week by the Boston Consulting Group found that the
world's 9.6 million millionaires--comprising just 0.7 percent of the
earth's population--now control $33.2 trillion in wealth--roughly a
third of all the wealth in the world. According to the study, the
world's wealthiest 0.1 percent--those with $5 million or more in
financial assets--now owns 17.5 percent of global wealth.
Meanwhile, half of the world's population--some 3 billion people--live
on less than $2 a day.
The social cost of this vast ac***ulation of wealth by the financial
elite grows daily. A re****t issued last week by the Center for
Economic and Policy Research and the Center for Social Policy at the
University of Massachusetts in Boston found that 41 million working
families in America--one in five--are unable to cover the costs of basic
necessities with the money they earn working for low pay and no
benefits.
The study found that many of these workers are ineligible for federal
sup****t in the form of child care assistance, the Earned Income Tax
Credit, Food Stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid or the State
Children's Health Insurance Program, and Tem****ary Assistance to Needy
Families. Eligibility for such assistance has been steadily tightened
by federal and state governments.
The demagogy of the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates
about defending the "middle class" notwithstanding, these policies
have been enacted by Democratic and Republican administrations alike.
The growth of income inequality in America has continued unbroken
since 1973, spurred by the high-interest-rate, recessionary policies
enacted by Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker--Democratic
President Jimmy Carter's appointee--with the deliberate aim of driving
up unemployment, sla****ng wages and unlea****ng a big business
offensive against the working class.
It was under the Clinton administration that the top 1 percent set
their previous record share of the national income--20.8 percent in
2000, Clinton's last year in the White House. This was up from about
14 percent when he first took office.
The increased concentration of wealth was fueled by the Democratic
administration's deregulation of the financial markets, which spurred
the financial bubble of the '90s that gave rise to much of today's
financial elite. At the other end of the social ladder, the Clinton
White House carried out a ruthless war against the working class and
poor, carrying through its pledge to "end welfare as we know it" and
sla****ng other areas of social spending.
From the beginning of the Bush administration, the Democrats have
helped pass round after round of tax cuts for the rich, running into
the trillions of dollars. Even a limited proposal to close a tax
loophole that has allowed hedge and equity fund managers earning
hundreds of millions of dollars a year to pay a lower tax rate than a
bus driver or an office worker was shelved earlier this month by the
Democratic Senate leader****p, in deference to the party's well-heeled
contributors on Wall Street.
The inequality that pervades every facet of American society
inevitably finds its expression within the Democratic Party, which,
while posturing as the party of the people, remains a political
instrument of the ruling financial elite. Among the Democratic
candidates, the three front-runners--Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and
John Edwards--are all millionaires.
Roughly half of the US Senate is made up millionaires, many of them
Democrats. The House, meanwhile, is led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who
in her latest financial disclosure forms re****ted that she and her
investor husband conducted some 30 stock sales and purchases last
year, many of them involving sums up to $1 million each. She also
re****ted owning a California vineyard, valued between $5 million and
$25 million.
The Democrats will do no more to reverse the growth of social
inequality than they will to end the war in Iraq. In the final
analysis, the explosion of militarism abroad and the destruction of
working class living standards at home are two sides of a common
political agenda aimed at funneling the wealth of the US and the world
into the coffers of a financial oligarchy.
Copyright (c)2007, Edgar J. Steele
Forward as you wish. Permission is granted to circulate both the
written and audio version of this Nickel Rant among private
individuals and groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in full
in all not-for-profit publications. The audio version of this Nickel
Rant may also be freely used in its entirety by for-profit
broadcasting entities, but is not to be included in any recorded
format which then is sold to others. The audio version may be
rebroadcast, either live or archived on the Internet, either copied or
linked directly to my web site, profit and nonprofit alike, so long as
it is used in its entirety. In fact, I encourage any and all radio
hosts to use it freely. Contact author for all other rights, which
are reserved.
On-Line link to this rant in HTML format:
http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/counting.htm
|
