Re: Because the world is all sunshine and rainbows

What you said is true. For the most part I agree with you. There are some aspects around the edges that are critical distinction that from my observation is often lost on the average person whenever they are speaking about or thinking of historical circumstances well known to have emanated from America and as such have been attributed by the world at large, in one way, shape, form or another, to Americans. Here is a good for instance but it is just an example:

"Over 90% of the world lives at or below (often well below) poverty. America is responsible for some of this in the name of free markets."

In the context of discussion this comment exemplifies, America and Americans are not representative of the absolute terms as originally defined by longstanding tradition. Instead they connote "America" and "Americans", altered meanings of these terms that have increasingly come into use during the past century. The uses of these terms in the latter instances do not truly reconcile .... are not consistent with, how America and Americans are defined in terms of longstanding tradition. Coincidental as it may or may not be, banking ".... World bank (run by Americans)..... " at the global level is a showcase for pointing out some of the clear lines of distinction that have arisen and increasingly come to hold sway for the altered meanings behind these terms.

The primary reason why I believe it is important to be aware of these distinctions is because of how easy it is to be deceived by propaganda. I use that term also in a way that is closer to the origins of it's definition: " a body, or large work, of information". We've all been conditioned over the years to always assume that a large work of information released into the public has been intentionally slanted for reasons and intentions that may not be obvious. I'm not saying that this is not often the case, I'm just saying that the terms of the words we use to communicate have taken on all sorts of extra meanings, and without considerations of this, words ushered into the public consciousness can quickly become swords. People at large might see the phrase ".... a bank run by Americans ..." and in their minds they are likely to immediately assume the image of rank & file regular people who have for the most part not had much if any influence at all over the years in dictating the operations of " ...the World Bank run by Americans ...".

In order to get a more realistic and accurate understanding of the World Bank run by Americans, one must first understand a bit about the presently long-standing American banking system. For starters, it is grossly deceptive to call this the American banking system when it has for nearly two centuries been officially known as the U.S. Bank. Prior to 1913, there has been two iterations of "the U.S.Bank". In all three instances, this U.S.Bank system was conceived, put into operation and subsequently managed by private interests loosely branded as "Bank of England". By extension, whenever a person sees a statement (just as one example of numerous to be found in this world) like " ... World Bank run by Americans....", at the same time that people are building images in their mind of what this kind of "America / American" really looks like, to be consistent in holding this particular deceived view, their mind should also include images of rank & file English people to include "Brits". However, if one also looks into who and what the influences were behind the Bank of England, especially during the era of the early 20th century and earlier, one will find some English people, as well as Brits, as well as French, and Germans, and Italians chief among the influences manifesting collectively as "The Bank of England".


"the World Bank, run by Americans...." in this context really means "the World Bank, run by Americans being run by the Bank of England being run by influences to include British, French, Italian and German to name just a few...." In this context, the World Bank is not really run by Americans per se, it is run by the U.S..

If you understand the drift of what all is being said here, U.S. is also a highly relative term that in this context, one that in this case really means "U.S.", the title of a corporate entity officially chartered by highly dubious legislative acts not limited to but including acts committed during respective era's of this world's more infamous wars; 1780's; 1812; 1871; 1933.

Also bear in mind that putting "America" and "Americans" into perspective in this context thust far has only considered the corresponding components of history attributed mainly to banking history. If one also factors in other components of distinct albeit highly inter-woven history, such as Military Industrial Complex, you can also add a whole 'nother chunk of far-flung foreign interests helping to make up the present and collective "America/Americans"; du Pont.

Just to repeat, I agree with what you said... just thought it worth the while to add some clarification to what you said :)