I read a very well written article earlier and while I was commenting on it I realized that I was so excited to respond to the topic that I had written over 600 words and should probably just write an article of my own expressing my thoughts about it.

The article, "In Defense Of The Rich", is quite good and, though I don't agree with the notion, I would recommend it to anyone who is concerned about the current state of economic conditions or anyone who is simply interested in political economics and its relevance to our lives sociologically.

When people say we need to give the rich a break I wonder who they're talking about. Do they mean those with a few million bucks (not powerful) who started off poor and made their money by owning the locally run lumber yard, or whatever, or do they mean the guys with billions (are powerful) who were given that money by their families or earned it by being opportunists and strangling every last cent out of millions of people?

You CANNOT earn a billion dollars ethically, no matter what people say. I mean, come on, it costs them the same amount for a hamburger as the rest of us. How can you have enough money for thousands of lifetimes, not share it, and not be considered an A$$? Having that much means you are inherently a hording, selfish, person. Period.

When they claim we all need to leave the rich alone because everyone benefits by having all the low-paying jobs, that barely allow folks to make ends meet, while they slide steadily through middle age, and eventually the Walmart employment website, I can't help but wonder what they mean, really.

Evidence exists all around us that the benefit from those jobs is only a benefit because it fits within the current framework of our civilization "as we know it" and "as it has been designed". There is no evidence that without those particular jobs in this particular modality things would not be better in a "different framework" based upon different "modal causalities and preconceptions."

If our current model of civilization in which the many work for the few actually worked and benefited the many we would not see such a drastic inequality within the distribution of wealth. 99.99% of the wealth is owned by only 0.01% of the population, not the commonly touted 98% to 2% ratio. This becomes obvious once you realize that the Rothschilds alone OWN more than 51% of the EARTH, not just the land, but the banks, companies, people, and governments. One family.

That means that over 51% of all people pay their car payment, house payment, medical bills, food bills, electric bills, etc - all their money, literally, for their entire lives - to only one family. Sound outrageous? It is completely outrageous, but, unfortunately, that does not change the fact that it is true.

By the time you add the other couple hundred most powerful families to this staggering number you end up with about 7 billion people splitting up the remaining 0.01%. There is no way that 98% to 2% is close to reality, which would be bad enough, but they tell us that because it is easier to swallow than the real numbers which are hundreds of times worse.

Remember, the difference between 1%, or 1 in 100, is ten times fewer than 0.1%, or 1 in 1000, and 0.01% is ten times fewer yet, or 1 in 10,000.

If we changed our mode of concept to a different model we would see that these people are not benefiting us at all and exist at this point only to suckle off our lives like parasites. The mentality that they are our saviors in a time of economic strife is ludicrous; their hording is what creates an environment where people work all the time and yet there is economic strife.

The current belief structures are taught to us by those who profit from the beliefs, not those who are victimized by them. So whose thoughts are these in our heads? Ours? Or theirs?

I support this with two brief thoughts.

1) If a hundred feudal peasants in the Dark Ages were presented with the same topic and asked for their thoughts most of them would have claimed that "Lords or Ladies" were responsible for their successful survival due to having "granted" them access to lands for them to work.

Only a small percentage actually realized and resented the fact that because they were "born" into that culture they really had only the facade of free will and permission to use the land was arbitrarily regulated and controlled by people who had no right to "issue" it in the first place. The ability to exist and be fulfilled is not theirs to issue and should not require permitting, aka permission.

If those lords did not control them they could "still" have used the land anyway because they were BORN on it. They would have used it by default and without the permission, fealty, punitive structure, or taxation of this elitist group of opportunists. The native Americans knew this, and so does the ruling class. Hence the swift and excessively violent response to social or political revolt and the incessant propaganda associated with convincing us "this is the only way, trust us and feel grateful for what you do have..." Hogwash!

We would "have had" what we "have" and more "anyway" were they not able to control us and siphon off our energies through controlling governing bodies, education, media, and punitive control structures. The belief that we have these things because of them is the greatest illusion ever created in our history as a species.

It is much like extortion; you have the "right," to pay "us" to protect you from some unknown possible threat that really is "us" to begin with. "If you just pay us, say on Mondays, your shop won't have no more of these, uh, unfortunate fires that seem to be plaguing you since you refused to pay us..." Isn't that circular logic, eh, Mr. Guido?

This is a case of claiming the horse is necessary because of the buggy and the buggy is necessary because of the horse. Again circular logic at best because a new "modality", the automobile, proved that neither were truly necessary to result in the same outcome or result.

2) When you change the overriding principles upon which the entire premise is constructed these beliefs become redundancies that exemplify maintenance of outdated possibilities and ultimately the status quo. We as a species have never "advanced" by maintaining the "status quo." People in control have always fostered this false belief and nobody but them benefits, irregardless of how many low-paying, unskilled, and ultimately unfulfilling jobs they create.

Those that condone their tyranny are really like the slaves who were given whips. Only 1 in 100 slaves needed to be given whips in order to free up the plantation owners to take long strolls in the park or pursue other leisure activities. These whips were only given to slaves who were willing to repress themselves and oppress others.

The minimal benefits of being on the action side of the whip were obviously enough to these specific few to get them to propel the master's agenda instead of their own or those of their peers. "Hey, at least I'm not getting whipped," has never been a mentality that has done anything for the cause of human advancement and has done a lot to enslave humanity.

The most absolute form of slavery is when someone doesn't realize one's a slave. Welcome to Prison Planet. Anyone want to organize a gala in the masters' honor? Not me.