Annual income of richest 100 people enough to end global poverty four times over … Leaders must aim to bring down global inequality at least to 1990 levels … An explosion in extreme wealth and income is exacerbating inequality and hindering the world's ability to tackle poverty, Oxfam warned today in a briefing published ahead of the World Economic Forum in Davos. "We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many – too often the reverse is true." – Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director, Oxfam International (Press release published: 19 January 2013)
Dominant Social Theme: Just confiscate the wealth of one percent of the world and eradicate poverty.
Free-Market Analysis: Oxfam, a world aid organization, is recycling the "one percenter" meme that was made popular by the faux Occupy Wall Street movement. This dominant social theme is most useful to the power elite and thus will likely continue to be recycled even as Occupy Wall Street itself becomes less significant.
Encouraging envy regarding the richest one percent of Western populations is a way of distracting people from the real nexus of the world's wealth, which lies in the control of central banking. That's the reason the top elites want to keep the meme alive.
The real money probably does NOT lie with the world's "100 wealthiest people," as Oxfam analyzes it. Money that can be directly traced to people in this day and age is incredibly dangerous money.
No one who is TRULY wealthy would want to leave traces of significant wealth. We can infer that this list purveyed by Oxfam either reflects a small percentage of the world's REAL wealth or misidentifies the ones who actually manipulate it.
This is another important point. CONTROL is far more important than tangible assets. Muammar Gaddafi retained billions in tangible assets but recent events showed he did not CONTROL them. Control – and the ability to project power – is more important than any paper legalism.
Control these days is exercised via monopoly central banking for such banking, as is practiced today, is a purely artificial enterprise, created by a tiny handful of men. The Bank for International Settlements is the putative mechanism for this control.
One hundred years ago there were only a few central banks. Today there are 150 or so, many controlled by the BIS. If one examines monopoly central banking, a few names leap out – David Rockefeller, John Maynard Keynes, etc. These names are repeated over and over again within the context of the creation of central banking, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations.
It cannot be emphasized enough – and parts of the alternative certainly do try – that a tiny handful of individuals (and families) seems to have organized the world's modern and increasingly centralized infrastructure. It is not a vast leap of logic to conclude that those who organized the infrastructure and their descendents are still in charge of it.
Nothing leads us to believe otherwise. A tiny familial group along with corporate, military, religious and political enablers and associates retain control of the world's economic infrastructure. It has been estimated apocryphally that this group in total is about 6,000 – a truly tiny handful given that the world's population is some six billion.
But even here, one needs to perform a further analysis. These 6,000 are those who "know" about the conspiracy to create one world government and many are not "controllers" but are in the service of the controlling group – which may actually be a few hundred led by one or several individuals.
The larger group is emplaced within military, political, educational, social and internationalist structures. They exist at the very top of these structures and control these structures on behalf of the REAL elite, that tiny handful that makes decisions and controls the world's money via central banking.
This is the way human society works. There is usually one person at the top acclaimed by others. And the larger control is vested in a tiny authority, as well, that makes decisions.
Via exposure of how the Italian Mafia worked in the United States we actually have a structure we can examine. The US Mafia created a single group composed of its "families" that met to decide common policies. It even acclaimed a "head of heads," apparently.
There is no reason to think that those involved in the globalist conspiracy operate any differently. There is a council of sorts and there even may be an acclaimed leader. The idea that there are several bitterly opposed factions is likely a fiction.
There are rivalries, perhaps, even deadly ones. But to maintain murderous hostilities over a long period of time is "not good for business." We can be fairly sure, therefore, that in the larger scheme of things, the various parties cooperate to attain the goal of global governance – a government that they intend to be controlled by them.
How can we be confident of these insights? We know this because we know from observation about how humans create hierarchies. Over and over again we see small groups actuating larger enterprises. It cannot be any different when it comes to the creation of global governance and those who support it.
We've reviewed this hierarchical structure because it provides us with a roadmap to the Way the World Really Works and how a tiny group of individuals, enriched by central banking Money Power can essentially run the world.
The idea that this group is "one percent" of the world's wealthiest is nonsense. This is a dominant social theme purveyed by THEM. This is part of the controlling mechanism.
Occupy Wall Street, now a fading meme, was created as a false flag to oppose a genuine movement in the US called the "Tea Party." By institutionalizing the Tea Party and draining it of its authenticity, the power elite created a Hegelian thesis that they could then utilize for purposes of creating an antithesis and finally a synthesis.
In this way, the elites control the larger conversation. Occupy Wall Street itself proved hard to handle and has been attacked as a movement and is gradually fading, as far as we can tell.
It is notable that the elites created OWS and then found it necessary to attack it. In the era of the Internet Reformation these movements are not so easy to control.
We have speculated that this situation was much the same after the advent of the Gutenberg Press. The creation of the Reformation and numerous other enterprises of the day were funded perhaps by the power elite of the time but spun out of control.
Large informational revolutions are not immediately controllable, so far as we can tell, no matter how the elites work to contain them. Copyright, wars, famines, regulatory authoritarianism are all methodologies of control that were apparently used to combat the Renaissance and create the Reformation, etc. We see these tools being utilized again.
A dominant social theme like "one percent" can certainly be useful to the top elites because it effectively removes scrutiny from the real controllers and places the onus for the world's many difficulties on the emergence of a monied class.
As we've pointed out before, it is monopoly central banking that creates the disparities of wealth via inherent boom and bust mechanisms. As more central banks have been created, the world's riches are continually being concentrated because fewer and fewer people emerge from the continual busts in solvent condition.
As the world's wealth is polarized, it becomes convenient for the power elite to create a promotion around it. The idea is to blame wealthy people for inequity – and by blaming wealthy people redirect analysis AWAY from the actual mechanism of control, which is the mafia-like supervision of central banking by a handful of impossibly powerful men and their families.
Oxfam, doubtless a controlled entity at this, is one of many facilities useful to the top elites in this regard. And we see in Oxfam's latest jeremiad against the "one percent" just how this sort of promotion works. It sounds reasonable even though when one examines the prelude, the actual logic falls apart. Here's more from the Oxfam press release:
The $240 billion net income in 2012 of the richest 100 billionaires would be enough to make extreme poverty history four times over, according Oxfam's report 'The cost of inequality: how wealth and income extremes hurt us all.' It is calling on world leaders to curb today's income extremes and commit to reducing inequality to at least 1990 levels.
The richest one per cent has increased its income by 60 per cent in the last 20 years with the financial crisis accelerating rather than slowing the process.
Oxfam warned that extreme wealth and income is not only unethical it is also economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive and environmentally destructive.
Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director, Oxfam International, said: "We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many – too often the reverse is true.
"Concentration of resources in the hands of the top one per cent depresses economic activity and makes life harder for everyone else – particularly those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
"In a world where even basic resources such as land and water are increasingly scarce, we cannot afford to concentrate assets in the hands of a few and leave the many to struggle over what's left."
Members of the richest one per cent are estimated to use as much as 10,000 times more carbon than the average US citizen.
Hobbs said: "We need a global new deal to reverse decades of increasing inequality. As a first step world leaders should formally commit themselves to reducing inequality to the levels seen in 1990.
We can see a plethora of power elite memes here. The rich are being attacked, which is part of the larger elite agenda – as there should be no wealth except what is concentrated directly in their hands.
The false flag carbon agenda is also mentioned, the idea that we need to drain carbon dioxide from the air in order to prosper as living beings on a "sustainable" planet. Perhaps nothing in the history of the human race has ever been proposed that is loonier than this but, nonetheless, the rhetorical insanity has reached a level where it can be proposed as a matter of course.
Finally, we have seen the pursuit of the class-warfare meme, a dominant social theme that is part of the larger "isms" actuated by the power elite several centuries ago with the advent of such faux social systems as "communism," "socialism," etc.
The idea that one percent of the world's wealthiest citizens ought to redistribute their wealth to help save humanity is merely the latest in an exceptional series of themes that goes back centuries, intended to create divisiveness among societies and classes.
The idea is to distract people from the real problem, which is the existence of a tiny elite that controls central banking and uses Money Power to create the conditions for world government.