Paul Trejo Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) Well, Paul B., I'm quite sincere when I say that America has no royalty. At best "royalty" in the USA is a metaphor; a literary term that describes those in *temporary* economic and political power -- but that is really an abuse of the term, since the term has a long history, thousands of years old, strictly referring to heredity rule by families. The USA has no royalty, and no aristocracy. We have no blue-bloods. We have no families who rule by heredity. The children of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson or Franklin Delano Roosevelt do not have heredity power. If they can get elected by the People, they can rule for short terms. Period... That’s sounds like some whimsical Texas wet dream conjured up on the 43rd floor of Exxon Building. Get real. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2314669/Harvards-billionaires-Ivy-League-college-leads-world-richest-alumni.html Omigosh, Chris, the Daily Mail from jolly old England? Quick, let's have a look at that headline! Harvard tops graduate 'rich list' of colleges that will make you a millionaire but University of Virginia has highest number of self-made men by Sara Smyth for the Daily Mail (4/2013) Oh joy, we get to read how the class-rigid British Monarchy today envies the college graduates from the "Colonies!" What are the subtitles? Harvard leads Yale, Princeton and Stanford in league table of wealthiest alumni Harvard tops list with alumni including 52 billionaires -- twice as many as any other college U.S. colleges dominate world university billionaires league table University of Virginia has highest percentage of self-made super-wealthy with 78 per cent The Boston college produced 2,964 alumni worth $200 million or more. University of Pennsylvania is in second place with 1,502 super-wealthy graduates. Jorge Lemann, Brazilian banker, who is currently the 37th richest person in the world, studied at Harvard. Well, Chris, I wonder if you're getting the real message from Ms. Sara Smyth. She's trying to tempt the British Aristocracy to send their children to Harvard, instead of to Cambridge, Oxford or the London School of Economics. I wonder, Chris, have you considered going back to college? May I recommend Harvard to you? Remember -- it's not just the Aristocracy who go there -- people from poor families also go there (when they qualify for grants).. That's because the USA has no Aristocracy. We have millionaires, and even billionaires -- but no hereditary ruling class. Now do you understand? Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited January 12, 2016 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 We have millionaires, and even billionaires -- but no hereditary ruling class. Now do you understand? Paul, You are missing the point that I was making entirely. Our "Blue Bloods" are a subset of "The East Coast Establishment" who are, in turn a subset of the Ivy League Alumni noted above. All Americans know that we have no natural "Royals" in the manner of the European Aristocracy. You are not "schooling" anyone. Maybe you could tell me about the Rockefellers, the Forbes and the Astors. Do you know why Trump started his club on the island of Palm Beach? I'll give you some clues: some of it has to do with another club on the island and some of it has to do with the Social Register and both those have everything to do with those non existent "Blue Bloods". You are either born into it or you marry into it - no amount of money gets you "in". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) Paul, You are missing the point that I was making entirely. Our "Blue Bloods" are a subset of "The East Coast Establishment" who are, in turn a subset of the Ivy League Alumni noted above. All Americans know that we have no natural "Royals" in the manner of the European Aristocracy. You are not "schooling" anyone. Maybe you could tell me about the Rockefellers, the Forbes and the Astors. Do you know why Trump started his club on the island of Palm Beach? I'll give you some clues: some of it has to do with another club on the island and some of it has to do with the Social Register and both those have everything to do with those non existent "Blue Bloods". You are either born into it or you marry into it - no amount of money gets you "in". Don't sell yourself short, Chris. You can become a millionaire if you really try. Start your own small business and make it grow! It's a Free Market! Why mope about how rich other people are? There are no Blue Bloods in the USA (except for the Reagan family in the TV drama by the same name, who represent Irish police folk in NYC). Not only did Bill Gates not go to Harvard, he actually dropped out of college. Lots of billionaires never spent a day in college. It's all about BUSINESS. Lee Harvey Oswald didn't believe this. He wasn't a leftist, IMHO, but a radical rightist -- as some radical rightists are also anti-Big Business, i.e. National Socialists like Robert Allen Surrey. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited January 12, 2016 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 I thought Milton Friedman was dead? I hope everyone has read The Shock Doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 There are no Blue Bloods in the USA Ok then. Technically, there are no "Blue Bloods" but... I don't know how many more times (or ways) to say this... you are mistaken if you believe that there is no exclusivity in the US East Coast upper middle class and upper class based purely on heredity and marriage. http://www.salon.com/2012/01/17/why_do_the_republicans_nominate_blue_bloods/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Yes Paul - being a millionaire means and proves nothing. I wasn't talking about the freedom to make money. Thanks Chris for chiming in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Here's a research paper on the "Power Elite Debate" that's worth a read: http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=ssci_fac An interesting paragraph can be found on page 2, in the middle, listing G. William Domhoff's 5 major indicators of upper class membership, only one of which deals with income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) There are no Blue Bloods in the USA Ok then. Technically, there are no "Blue Bloods" but... I don't know how many more times (or ways) to say this... you are mistaken if you believe that there is no exclusivity in the US East Coast upper middle class and upper class based purely on heredity and marriage. http://www.salon.com/2012/01/17/why_do_the_republicans_nominate_blue_bloods/ Um, like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Dubya were "Blue Bloods" from the East Coast?!? Gimme a break, Chris. You're leaning too far to one side. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited January 12, 2016 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) Yes Paul - being a millionaire means and proves nothing. I wasn't talking about the freedom to make money. Thanks Chris for chiming in here. Well, Paul B., I suppose you're talking about the political power that being a billionaire brings -- like the Koch brothers, wasting millions trying to get Romney elected? We have had 8 years of the most liberal President in a long time, Obama, who has no connection with the billionaire class. Where have you been? Let me bring this thread back to its roots. All this debate about the super-rich arose when it was remarked that Michael and Ruth Paine both came from money. The insinuation on the part of Carol Hewett and her followers is that there THEREFORE must belong to the CIA and THEREFORE must have conspired to frame LHO for the JFK murder. It's a cheap shot. It's a hasty conclusion for people who are tired of thinking. It doesn't fly. And you can't make it fly by quoting from Liberal Magazines that relish in attacking the super-rich. It's still a cheap shot with no substance. Carol Hewett has to make stuff up to push her case. That's intuitively obvious to the casual and unbiased observer. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited January 12, 2016 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 ...All this debate about the super-rich arose when it was remarked that Michael and Ruth Paine both came from money. ....The insinuation on the part of Carol Hewett and her followers is that there THEREFORE must belong to the CIA and THEREFORE must have conspired to frame LHO for the JFK murder. I don't read it that way. All I see is Paul Trejo's over simplification of a more complicated dynamic, a dynamic that has evolved much since 1963. Obama has nothing to do with the power structure that was in place in the 1950s and 1960s. It's still a cheap shot with no substance. Wow. If the pot has ever called the kettle black... Let me bring this thread back to its roots. I believe that the supposition is that a privileged WASP couple with simultaneous ties to the local defense and oil industry, the local super conservative white Russian exile community and who actively belong to several anti-war religious sects may not have befriended the traitorous communist assassin and his lovely bride purely out of "the goodness of their hearts" but may have had obvious connections to an intelligence organization. That's intuitively obvious to the casual and unbiased observer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 ...I believe that the supposition is that a privileged WASP couple with simultaneous ties to the local defense and oil industry, the local super conservative white Russian exile community and who actively belong to several anti-war religious sects may not have befriended the traitorous communist assassin and his lovely bride purely out of "the goodness of their hearts" but may have had obvious connections to an intelligence organization. Well, Chris, that's actually an able and perceptive summary of Carol Hewett's attacks on Michael Paine. It take direct aim at the fact that Michael Paine was rich. He had a $300,000 trust fund in his name in 1963. That makes him, metaphorically, a "blue blood" in the eyes of Carol Hewett and her proletarian minions. Yes, Michael Paine was a privileged WASP. Yes, his father-in-law got him a cushy job at Bell Helicopter Corporation. Yes, along with his yuppie engineer friends in Dallas he also knew some oil engineers (who were plentiful in Dallas). But Carol Hewett doesn't do her research when she accuses the Paines of having "White Russian" connections in Dallas. It's really a stretch, because the White Russians in Dallas were East European immigrants who spoke Russian fluently, and attended the Russian Orthodox Church. They had a fairly closed circle in Dallas. Now, when they left that circle, many of them circulated in wider circles, i.e. oil engineers. That was George DeMohrenschildt, for example. It's true that when Exiles come to the USA to escape Communism (e.g. the White Russians, the Cubans, the South Vietnamese) they also tend to be among the richer citizens of those countries, and they come to the USA with business knowledge and they often get rich at a faster rate than other people, including American natives. Some people (perhaps Carol Hewett) resent that fact. But there's no evidence that Michael and Ruth Paine circulated among the White Russian community as such. Carol Hewett insists on it, but without any material evidence. Ruth Paine denied knowing any of them, except for one Russian tutor -- and Ruth spoke some Russian. Michael Paine didn't speak one sentence of Russian. So, Carol Hewett is more or less randomly guessing. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 He had a $300,000 trust fund in his name in 1963 http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Inflation_Rate_Calculator.asp $2.3 Million equiv. in 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) He had a $300,000 trust fund in his name in 1963 http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Inflation_Rate_Calculator.asp $2.3 Million equiv. in 2015 Yes, Chris, you're right -- Michael Paine was rich in 1963, just as he remains rich today. So what? Does this, ipso facto, make him guilty of murdering JFK and blaming LHO for the murder? It seems to me that Carol Hewett and her followers are trying to play upon the politics of those who hate the rich -- and little else. I realize that there's a large grass-roots movement in the USA today about the so-called 1% versus the so-called 99%. I agree with that movement to this degree -- that the top 1% wealthiest of American citizens don't pay their fair share of taxes. So the issue can be taken to task here and there. Yet it is simply poor legal language -- trying to use this as an argument to blame Michael and Ruth Paine for a central role in the JFK murder. It's pitiful logic. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited January 13, 2016 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) He had a $300,000 trust fund in his name in 1963 http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Inflation_Rate_Calculator.asp $2.3 Million equiv. in 2015 And that does not include his other trust fund. It was smaller but it would bring his modern net worth to about 3 million today. That is what they were doing on Naushon Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naushon_Island Edited January 13, 2016 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) ....And that does not include his other trust fund. It was smaller but it would bring his modern net worth to about 3 million today. That is what they were doing on Naushon Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naushon_Island Yes, yes, Michael Paine was rich! Nobody is debating that! The pitiful argument is that BECAUSE Paine was rich, therefore he was working with the CIA to murder JFK and blame LHO for it. It's pitiful logic. Yet that's just what Carol Hewett and all her followers work to insinuate. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited January 13, 2016 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now