The Super Rich Deprive Us of Fundamental Rights

Click here to follow ZeroHedge in Real-time on FinancialJuice

We used to say that money made the world go round. But, that was a whole invention from the start of things just to make it look good and to make the world believe that we would not be able to revolve on our axis had the concept of monetary exchange not been thought up. Today it’s time to get to the real truth behind what money actually does. It doesn’t make the world go round any more than anything else. It’s just a motor for power and it creates nothing more than a divide between those that have it and those that don’t.

We have two sides. Those that are on the winning team have the money and they have the power to change the goalposts, to play the field and win that game and they will be left standing at the end alone on the podium. Those that are on the losing team (and that means that they were always destined to lose) have little or no power despite the fact that they have immeasurable numbers waiting on the touchline, sitting on the bench waiting to take part and kick the ball around.

Money means power. Money only deprives people on the losing team of their fundamental rights in society and it’s money that makes the world go round.

Money is power and power is money and it’s a two-way relationship these days even more so than ever before.

Money Deprives Us of Fundamental Rights

Whether it’s in Russia, China or in the USA, people that have the power are a handful of the few that are wallowing in the money. They bathe in gold and it’s not anything to do with spreading that money around and having the Midas touch. The powerful rich are the few that exploit, condemn, decide and amass whatever they might be able to get their hands on.

Money still does one thing that we used to say. It attracts more money. Not having money does nothing more than maintaining people that are poor in slavery of the masses and what’s surprising is that it’s money that is the object of all desire in society still today.

People (or most) are out there to amass as much as they can get, because they have been shown by example that getting rich means striking the reserve of power. The game is so unequal that just the sheer numbers of the masses of poorer people should be able to get their hands on what they want. But, for that, it would take a revolution and even then it wouldn’t change much. We replace monarchs with oligarchs and we chop off heads (of state) just to replace them with other wealthy people that take over the power and for a time allow the poor masses to believe that they are living in a democratic environment.

UK

The British did it when they ordered their Divine King to get down on his knees and pledge allegiance to the Parliament, chopping off his head to transform their country into a constitutional monarchy, with a handful of the elite taking the power today in the country. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister descends from William IV and he was formatted at the most elite school in the UK, Eton College, the hotbed of aristocracy and bourgeoisie.

At the UK General Election in 2010 which brought Cameron to power after the hung parliament, 6% of the Conservative Members of Parliament went to the same school as Cameron (costing $46, 491 per year).
That means that thanks to Cameron the number of Eton-educated elite in the UK Parliament has risen from 14 to 20 people.
Since when was that representative of the rest of the UK?
34% of current UK MPs went to private school.
The national average stands at just 7%.
54% of Conservatives were privately educated in the country’s top schools.
41% of the Lib Dems were privately educated also.
24% of all MPs went to Oxford University or Cambridge University.
That figure stands at 32% for the Conservative Party alone.
27% of Conservatives have worked in the financial sector.

France

The French took their Bastille and marched en masse on the Palace of Versailles to chase after the fleeing monarch and his ‘Austrian woman’ (as she was known) to simply have today a set-up in which the elite buddy-system was there to play out a fantastic public show of Republicanism and democracy.

Democracy is the ‘power of the people’, but they forget to say that they defined ‘people’ in other ways. The plebs don’t have power. Today, just like all French politicians, you have to go to Sciences-Po to become a leader. But, even that is not enough to filter out the plebs. You have to study at the vanguard of bureaucracy, the elitistly revered École Nationale d’Administration.

There are few countries in the world where going to school determines so very much your career prospects. Want to get to the top?

Then, go to the schools like the ENA that cost the state 11 times more than going to any other school in the country.
The ENA costs 83, 000 euros ($112, 000) per year per student.
Yes, the democracy of France turns elitism into a byword for freedom and power.
Get into the ENA and the state will pay for your schooling so that you can become the elite of the elite, the crème de la crème, lapping up the salary that will be paid to you (yes they pay students there) for you to study in the hallowed walls of the school.

USA

Education was meant to be the great ‘equalizer’. But, which university wants a poor kid? They cost too much. Rich kids go to rich schools and it’s the rich kids that grow up to become rich(er) adults. You can be as high-achieving as you want, but if you have the poor label on your back, you aren’t going to get into the Ivy League or any league for that matter.

As from 2011, US admissions directors increased their efforts to get ‘full-pay’ students enrolling at their establishments by 35%.
70% of colleges today in the US need to increase their revenue and believe that this is the way to do so quickly and easily.
States are spending out 28% less than in 2008 to finance tuition per student in colleges these days.
The money has got to come from somewhere.
Depriving the plebs of education means that that they will be deprived of a fundamental right: access to knowledge.
They will therefore be deprived of the ‘power of the people’.
The wealthy won’t.

The Ivy League is a training ground for power and money. The system has taken on dysfunctional proportions and the politicians are today ‘untrusted’ due to their privileges and ‘discredited’ because of their associations and ties with the banksters.

Today there is a growing feeling that shellacking will happen one of these days and the politicians will have to give up their place or have it taken from them. It’s either that or have them lunched, by turning them into lunchmeat.

Alternative

Let’s stop condemning the caste system that drove a wedge between people in a country like India. Let’s start condemning the people that maintain the underlings in inferior positions so that those at the top can amass the wealth, the money and the rights that go with it. Elite-bashing? Maybe, but it’s certainly time things were turned around. Our leaders and the wealthy were never trained to succeed in the world; they were only trained to succeed in the corridors of power in the respective capitals from where they dish out their orders.

That’s why their success in the global economy has constantly failed.

T
here’s a growing number of people that espouse the random selection of politicians from the public. Yes, this is no joke. Everybody would get a chance to be elected and randomly chosen from the public to get a revolving seat in Congress. Lottery-style selection would be the viable alternative of taking privilege away from the elite and putting the power back in the hands of the people.

Lottocracy: Power to the People

Lottocracy would be much better than democracy, which really never existed in anything more than text-book myth. The people that would be selected would not be vying to get to the top, they would be chosen randomly and that means that their decisions would probably tend to be much more responsive to the expectations of the people. It would mean that lusting after power and the distortion of interest would be a thing of the past. Political power has been allowed to accumulate in the hands of an elite few. It’s our turn to rule and they need to get a taste of what it actually means to be ruled by someone else.

Those who wish to govern in today’s politics are the least suited to do so it might seem.

How is there a hope of giving the power to the people when the people that have the power are the elite of the nation because they have the money to maintain that position? How is there a hope that money will be more equally shared around when the majority of people that govern countries have worked in or are intrinsically linked to the financial world? There’s little wonder that the world’s banking system is hardly going to be about to change, just a little and even far less in radical terms, when the people that rule the countries are financiers themselves. Why did we ever let them take the power in the first place and why do we condone the position of elitist leaders by complacently accepting what they say and do?