Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Corporate Rule Is Not Inevitable
7 signs the corporatocracy is losing its legitimacy ... and 7 populist tools to help shut it down.
You may remember that there was a time when apartheid in South Africa seemed unstoppable.
Sure, there were international boycotts of South African businesses, banks, and tourist attractions. There were heroic activists in South Africa, who were going to prison and even dying for freedom. But the conventional wisdom remained that these were principled gestures with little chance of upending the entrenched system of white rule.
A parody of corporate personhood in D.C. (Photo by takomabibelot)
“Be patient,” activists were told. “Don’t expect too much against powerful interests with a lot of money invested in the status quo.”
With hindsight, though, apartheid’s fall appears inevitable: the legitimacy of the system had already crumbled. It was harming too many for the benefit of too few. South Africa’s freedom fighters would not be silenced, and the global movement supporting them was likewise tenacious and principled.
In the same way, the legitimacy of rule by giant corporations and Wall Street banks is crumbling. This system of corporate rule also benefits few and harms many, affecting nearly every major issue in public life. Some examples:
- Powerful corporations socialize their risks and costs, but privatize profits. That means we, the 99 percent, pick up the tab for environmental clean ups, for helping workers who aren’t paid enough to afford food or health care, for bailouts when risky speculation goes wrong. Meanwhile, profits go straight into the pockets of top executives and others in the 1 percent.
- The financial collapse threw millions of Americans into poverty. 25 million are unemployed, under-employed, or have given up looking for work; four million have been unemployed for more than 12 months. Poverty increased 27 percent between 2006 and 2010. And students who graduated with student loans in 2010 had borrowed 5 percent more than the previous year’s graduating class—owing more than $25,000. Meanwhile, those who caused the collapse continue the same practices. And the unwillingness of the 1 percent to pay their fair share of taxes means the the public services we rely on are fraying.
- Scientists say that we are on the brink of runaway climate change; we only have a few years to make the needed investments in clean power and energy efficiency. This transition could be a huge job creator—on the order of the investments made during World War II, which got us out of the Depression. But fossil fuel industries don’t want to see their investment in dirty energy undermined by the switch to clean energy and conservation. So far, by paying millions to climate deniers, lobbyists, and political campaigns, they’ve succeeded in stymieing change.
- Agribusiness get taxpayer subsidies for foods that make us sick; for farming practices that destroy rivers, soils, the climate, and the oceans; and for trade practices that cause hunger at home and abroad.
- Through ALEC, the private prison industry crafts state laws that boost the numbers behind bars, lengthen sentences, and privatize prisons.
- Big Pharma jacks up prices; insurance companies raise premiums and delivers fewer benefits; the burden of inflated care drags down the economy and bankrupts families. But only a very few politicians stand up to the health care industry's war chests and advocate for Canadian-style single-payer health care, which would go a long way toward solving the cost problem.
- Corporations and wealthy executives fund an army of lobbyists and election campaigns, spreading untruths and self-serving policy prescriptions.
It’s not that we, the people, haven’t noticed all this.
In a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, 77 percent of Americans said too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations. In a poll by Time Magazine, 86 percent of Americans said Wall Street and its lobbyists have too much influence in Washington.
And 80 percent of Americans oppose Citizens United, the pro-corporate Supreme Court ruling that turns two years old today. Eighty percent—that’s among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.
Some say corporations have such a strong grip on politicians and big media that it is impossible to challenge them, no matter how many of us there are.
But I believe we can do it. In the past few months, YES! Magazine has been researching ways that ordinary people can challenge corporate power (look for strategies in our spring issue, out in February). And we found that there are actually a lot of tools at our disposal:
- Corporations were created by public law to provide a public benefit. If we the people no longer feel that a corporation is providing a benefit—or if we feel that it is operating in a lawless and destructive manner—we can revoke their charter. That’s what Free Speech for People has asked the attorney general of Delaware to do to Massey Energy, which has been one of the worst culprits in mountaintop removal and which has operated its mines in a lawless and negligent manner, resulting in 29 deaths at the Upper Big Branch Mine.
- We can insist that, in exchange for use of our public airwaves, broadcasters provide free airtime to candidates for public office. If they don’t need to raise millions for media buys, they don’t need to be as beholden to the 1 percent.
- We can get our governments to quit banking with Bank of America and Chase, and start our own state banks—14 states, including California and Washington, are considering such a move.
- We can stand up to specific parts of the corporate agenda by engaging in the sort of direct action that halted the KXL Pipeline.
- We can call for a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, corporate personhood, and the ridiculous notion that money is the same thing as speech. So far, Los Angeles, New York City, and about 50 other towns and cities have done so far.
- We can use mechanisms like clean elections, electoral transparency, citizen review of legislation, and recalls to keep corporate control of our democracy in check.
- Finally, the reason I am most hopeful today: We can take a cue from Occupy Wall Street and continue to name the source of political corruption—something the political establishment and mainstream media have refused to do. We can occupy homes that are slated for foreclosure, as people have been doing all over the country. We can mic check places like Walmarts that intimidate and fire workers who want to unionize. We can set up tents in public places and in other ways join with the Occupy movement to take a stand for a world that works for the 100 percent—a world where we all benefit.
None of these actions will be easy. It will take time—potentially years of work—to make big change. But just as the legitimacy of apartheid crumbled well before the institutions of apartheid went down, the legitimacy of corporate rule is crumbling. So I’m convinced that, with you and me and all the others out there creating alternatives and taking a stand, we will see change.
Sarah van Gelder will deliver these comments at Seattle's rally on the second anniversary of the Citizens United ruling.


136 Comments so far
Show AllWe can get our governments to quit banking with Bank of America and Chase
hahahaha. Just say Yes to drugs. The reason apartheid crumbled was because the injustice affected something like 90% of the population. The Arab Spring resulted from the anger of a majority of a population that had to spend of 40% of their income on food. Only about 50% of Americans are currently somewhat impoverished. There is still a long way to go, and do not forget the power of the Mass Delusion Media. Remember it was the mass media that turned Tutsi and Hutu against each other.
50% of Americans are more than "somewhat impoverished" -- they are at
or BELOW the poverty line. This adds up to 53 million or more without health
care.3 million homeless, or is it more now? 25 million unemployed?
Certainly we should understand the power of the corporate--press to lie to the
public.
We've had more than 50 years of RW political violence which took not only our
president but our people's government. We've seen the results of computer
voting and control of the vote by private organizations counting votes and
controlling the debates.
We saw the lies of 2000 and Bush bailed out by the Supreme RW.
We saw 9/11 and the lies which gave elites cover of two illegal wars of aggression
to pass the Patriot Act and Homeland Security which do violence to the Constitution.
Turn the TV OFF -- not only because to keep it on suggests an uncritical tolerance
for the violence and muck being presented - but because it is an Orwellian tool.
And, lastly but most importantly .....
QUOTE --
•Scientists say that we are on the brink of runaway climate change; we only have a few years to make the needed investments in clean power and energy efficiency. This transition could be a huge job creator—on the order of the investments made during World War II, which got us out of the Depression. But fossil fuel industries don’t want to see their investment in dirty energy undermined by the switch to clean energy and conservation. So far, by paying millions to climate deniers, lobbyists, and political campaigns, they’ve succeeded in stymieing change. UNQUOTE
That's the key to understanding that this is only more propaganda.
We have pretty much NO time left to save the planet. And calling Global Warming "climate change" only echoes the RW propagandist Frank Luntz.
Global Warming makes clear that what we are talking about is the HEATING UP
of the atmosphere which is causing increasingly chaotic weather and changing
our weather systems.
Two facts about Global Warming which aren't being made clear to the public by government or the corporate-press -- in fact, these are facts which are being
hidden as much as possible ...
First -- there was a 50 year delay in our feeling the effects of Global Warming --
that is, we are only now beginning to feel the effects of human activity up to 1960
and beyond.*
Second -- the melting of the glaciers will bring more earthquakes and more severe
earthquakes. This is due to the shifting of pressures/weight on the tectonic plates.
Earthquakes in turn generate new volcanic activity.
Anyone who is telling you that Global Warming isn't the most serious issue that
we face -- and that it was the oil industry and its control of government and Congress
which spent billions to lie to the American public about it is pulling your leg.
WAKE UP, AMERICA!!
* Would just add that scientists have know for 125 years and more the impact
of capitalism on nature - the "Industrial revolution."
The glacier melting began in the 1940's, escalated by the buildup for WWII.
And though the public first heard of Global Warming in the late 1950's the model
for Global Warming was known much earlier by scientists.
I agree with most of what you have to say, esp the business about propaganda.
But, melting ice caps cause incresed weight and pressure on tectonic plates, leading to more earthquakes? You know, in spite of ice having bouyancy, it still has weight - a glass of water with ice in it doesn't weigh any more after the ice has melted. You should be careful about writing this sort of nonsense, because it takes away from the seriousness of the other things you have to say. Peace.
Global warming will cause more frequent and more severe earthquakes
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=no-link-now-between-eyjafjallajando-2010-04-21
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/110316-japan-earthquake-shortened-days-earth-axis-spin-nasa-science/
Earth naturally wobbles slightly as it spins, because shifting surface mass such as melting glaciers and moving ocean currents can throw the planet off balance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland
Scientific American has reported that global warming may cause an increase in volcanic eruptions, due to increased magma formation at lower pressures as glaciers melt.
"no increase in the global incidence of either volcanic activity or seismic activity has been identified to date" and that the time scale on which any geologic responses to climate change would take shape is unclear.
Last line of article.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2010/04/21/a-warming-world-could-trigger-earthquakes-landslides-and-volcanoes/
Hi there ~political_naif~
Is the final line of one article the only thing you read or comprehended? What else did the artcles I posted say?
I do believe that is termed "nit-picking".
What is your point? __ Oh; perhaps because you said what ~conscience~ had written was nonsense? __ Well, it wasn't nonsense and you made an error, accept it gracefully... Everyone errs at times.
According to the scientists global warming can and may cause and some say will cause more frequent and more severe earthquakes and or volcanic activity, When exactly it will do that is not known, as the scientists are not mystics or wizards who read the future to the year, day, hour or minute.
Perhaps you could find a Scientific American or National Geographic article that states global warming will not cause earthquakes or volcanic activity? You may find an Anthony Watts article on the web that states that.... Butttt, we know who Anthony Watts is.
The unloading of melting glaciers may increase seismic activity a bit in ice-capped areas like Greenland, Ellesmere Island, Iceland or Antarctica, and perhaps ice-unloading have a minor effect on volcanoes that were on the verge of erupting anyway. But global warming will have no tectonic effects that are of any concern. The entire earths atmosphere weighs only as much as 12 feet of rock. The effect of the entire atmosphere on the earths crust, or a volcano, is like a gnat on the back of a dog. So, I can hardly see how a change in the temperature or makeup of the atmosphere can have any effects at all. The earths rotates about its center of mass, so it cannot become "unbalanced." The weight of glaciers relative to the weight of the earth is tiny, and cannot have any significant effect.
PJD; you obviously missed the entire point of the article I posted.
Global warming will cause more frequent earthquakes and volcanic activity because global warming is melting heavy glaciers, (ice)... It has nothing to do with the weight of the atmosphere.
Btw, that is ocurring at Yelowstone National Park too, which is the largest sesmic active area on the entire planet.
"The Earth rotates around it's center of mass". WOW- did you apply your "Civil Engineering Background" on this analysis? The earth is not a perfect sphere, the center is liquid, the moon is the gravitational force that created and maintains the momentum, the earth bulges and wobbles: it is not a static spinning sphere. And you intial sentence is the type of practiced lying they teach in "universities". So which is it: will there be increased seismic activity where glaciation is retreating (You mentioned Greenland,Ellesmere Island, etc.-these are here on Earth, meaning THERE IS INCREASED TECTONIC EFFECTS) or is it that there is no discernible effect on tectonic action? A small mass/weight shifting cannot have any significant effect???? Have you ever lived in a house with a ceiling fan? When a fan is unbalanced you place a small weight (like a US Nickel coin) on one of the blades to EFFECT the rotation. The weight of a nickel (5.1 grams) placed on the wrong blade will cause the fan to create an unbalance which will destroy the fan, the weight of the nickel is "insignificant" but it has an effect. Maybe you could describe the phenomenon of "bowling balls" INCREASING THEIR MASS as they fall thru plates of glass once for us- that was one of your MOST FAMOUS EXPLANATIONS FOR THE COLLAPSE OF THE WTC buildings, I have been lately thinking of compiling your intense and extensive understanding of physics for a book of comedy. This refutation of shifting water on the surface of the planet HAVING ANY EFFECT would be a great start to a chapter as well.
Hi there WayneWR,
Your aforementioned "final line of one article" being "the only thing [I] read or comprehended" just happens to be the final line of the article *you* linked (from the Scientific American) - or hadn't you comprehended?
But for your trouble, I'll do you better than referencing a Scientific American article - I'll go to the *source* of that SA article you linked - here it is.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2311.full
Now, have a good time pondering the fifth line of the seventh paragraph - the one where the author states,
"There is strong evidence for a crustal response to the rapidly changing post-glacial climate being elicited by load changes, either as a consequence of unloading at high latitudes and high altitudes due to ice-mass wastage, or as a result of the loading of ocean basins and continental margins in response to a 100 m or more rise in global sea level."
What was that, Dr. McGuire? "...a 100m or more rise in global sea level..." Oh my!
How do you take your crow, Wayne, baked or roasted?
Cheerio!
(PS, I'm ignoring the NatGeo article entirely here because it says nothing germain to the topic of global warming causing earthquakes - read it again if you doubt it. The one line about "shifting surface mass" hardly makes it relevant.)
I know it was the final line of the link I posted and I said so... Don't know what your problem may be and I don't care.
You were nit picking and you still are... In that sentience of mine you quoted me on, I had written (what else did the article I posted say?)... You left that part of the sentene out when you quotrd me.
So again, what is your point?
The article I posted says global warming will cause more frequent eathquakes and volcanic activity due to (ice loss), etc, which you had stated is nonsense... I was only trying to help you relieve your ignorance... It didn't work.
I agree with the scientists of the articles I posted. If you do not that's alrigt with me.
Ignore the Nat Geo article if you wish, I thought it was interesting is all so I posted it too. I don't care what you do or don't do..
Why do you insist upon ignoring the actual words of the original research article written by Bill McGuire et al, of the Royal Society of London, which is the source material referenced by the blogger at Scientific American?
Bill McGuire et al discuss at length the geologically normal and documented effects of changing ocean volumes on seismological activity, from sources as varied as El Nino, to glacial melting, to submarine sediment slides; they then make estimates of increases in these geologically typical activities, due to the effects of global warming.
Regarding my point of contention, ocean levels and their impact on seismological activity, Bill McGuire et al have this to say:
(and I summarize from the article located here)
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2317.full
Known effects of post ice-age glacial melt, which increased sea levels by 100 meters and decreased land-glacier thickness by 50 meters, had significant impact on global seismological and volcanic activity.
Current best estimates for increases of sea levels by 2100 due to global warming vary from 0.18 meters to 2 meters. The impacts of such changes are most likely expected to create seismological activity, if any at all, in the regions of Greenland and Antarctica.
End summary.
Well there you have it. How is this "nitpicking"? How am I off point? I have challenged a poster's thesis, and have gone to the original research to clarify the points made. Bill McGuire and his colleagues themselves implicitly inform us that any earthquakes caused by rising sea levels, should they occur at all, will no doubt be minor, and located at the extremities of the earth.
So it's not a case of "not agreeing with the scientists"; rather it's a case of believing that it is unproductive to emphasize the theoretical and incidental aspects of global warming, when there are larger, demonstrable, and more threatening effects of global warming to be discussed, such as increased rainfall with concommitant flooding, or the increased salinity and acidity of the oceans themselves.
Holy cow,, LOL.. I didn't (ignore) anything in the article I read and (I) posted here.. It was your (*first*) reply and your other coments to the issue I referred to a you were nit picking, and you were..
If you finally agree and cite other paragraphs of the article which I posted, that's' fine... In your first posted comment, you stated "it was nonsense". I only tried to help you understand it is not nonsense.
You are wasting your time arguing what you first wrote, it's still there to read. Check it out.
Conscience wrote:
"Two facts about Global Warming which aren't being made clear to the public by government or the corporate-press -- in fact, these are facts which are being
hidden as much as possible ...
...Second -- the melting of the glaciers will bring more earthquakes and more severe
earthquakes. This is due to the shifting of pressures/weight on the tectonic plates.
Earthquakes in turn generate new volcanic activity."
My response was, and remains, "Exaggerated, hyperbolic nonsense."
.....
WayneWR wtote:
"I didn't (ignore) anything in the article I read and (I) posted here.. If you finally agree and cite other paragraphs of the article which I posted, that's' fine... "
No, but you have ignored the articles that *I* read and *I* posted here.
I haven't "cited other paragraphs of the article you posted" because I have cited paragraphs of the article that *your* article was taken from!
Can you utterly fail to see that I have done more research on this by now than your paltry scan of a single blog? A blog which, it bears repeating, contains incomplete and insufficient representation of the relevant facts? Sweet Jesus but you are thick. I'm done with you.
No, I don't fail to see your point, because I don't know what the hell your point is, except you erred and you won't admit it.... I read both articles long before I ever heard of you... What I referred to was what was written in the article I posted... I've read many GW denier's articles many times.
And if you still wish to say it's nonsense, I don't care. Suit yourself. You are being extremely obtuse btw... LOL... Rave on whatever makes ou fee good.
Wake up naif ------ while it is quite difficult to pile water, Ice does it easily. Thousands of feet thick in some cases. When this melts and runs off, stresses on tectonic plates can indeed be relieved. dh
Yes ~DH~, but quite obviously ~naif~ isn't very bright, so he'd never get it. ... There are many highly qualified scientists who do understand but if I posted twenty links, he'd argue all of them.... He just wishes to argue.
You're right. I suppose there's no use in even trying, huh?
the corporations can't force us to do anything - we have to willingly submit
as in the matrix movie people have the choice - the red pill or the blue pill
turn off the tv
destroy your credit cards - ok - keep one but don't run a balance
pay off your debts, no matter how hard that is
live within your means
return your apple products - ok you can keep the ipod
buy local, food clothing
bank in a local bank
eat real food, no gmo or corporate crap
never eat at macdonald's, burger king or any other "fast food" non-food crap, your colon will thank you as will your heart and stomach
stay out of big box stores
do some exercise
read a book
do something to help your neighbors
love your kids
love your spouse
just a few suggestions
Excellent suggestions. Turning off the tv and staying out of big box stores are the tough ones for us.
Endless lies, corporate and otherwise, made it easy to unplug my propaganda box.
These are all very good suggestions that we should all follow but I would like to add one more easy thing we can all do that can make a major change in ending corporate rule. Admitting we live under corporate rule is the first step to building a democracy in our nation. First we fact the fact that we are ruled by corporations.
Then we need to understand how our democracy was destroyed. I think you may say it was when corporate money flooded into the pockets of our elected officials. Yes, this movement of money followed research that proved the direct relationship with money for TV advertising and the election of our candidates. Politicians learned that getting the money was WAY MORE IMPORTANT voting as desired by their constituents for them to keep their prestigious and very profitable job. .
The problem is not the behavior of the corporations. They are doing just what they are set up to do---make a profit. The problem is with the behavior of the elected officials. Their job is to represent us, but they don't. They vote to please their corporate 'donors' .
What we must do is NOT VOTE for the re election or anyone in Congress now. Vote out the corrupt. Don't vote for any level of evil. Vote for what you want.
Your post is fine except for the HORRIBLE idea to vote out everyone in Congress. You are free to pretend that a total batch of 'rookies' will know what they are doing and that they will not be immediately captured by rich interests. We need a slow evolution of better people to Congress along with a media that truly seeks to tell the truth, at least once in a while. "Don't vote for any level of evil." Right, that leaves out all humans. What then?
Well if our ex- president Thomas Jefferson were still alive, he would say to tar and feather most of them and run em out of DC on a rail, not just vote em out.
And FDR often said,,, "If or when big business rules it is Fascism".. And that is exactly what we have, a Fascst form of government and not, "We the people".
Until lobbying is outlawed, our MSN is not owned by big business and voting is honest, paper ballots again for one, we will have big business and big money ruling us... Until those things are reversed, the only "changes" we will see that we will believe, is things will steadily become worse.
Remember the movie "Gangs of NY?" read Lincoln Steffens "The Shame of the Cities" that speaks of the robber baron days of boodling government officials. This is not new. I would also like to point out that politics cannot be separated from economics. Remember the term "political-economic theory?" Economic policies are made by the government aka politics. Moreover, a fascist structure in one can lead to it in another, In 1997, John Cassidy, a financial correspondent for the New Yorker magazine, told us that Wall Street itself was full of study groups going through Marx’s writings, integrating many of the ideas that were central to his work: “globalization, inequality, political corruption, modernization, impoverishment, technological progress…the enervating nature of modern existence” supposedly “the next great thinker” on the Street. The central ideas of his writings can also lead us to gain a better understanding of the social-ecology problems posed by our evolutionary political-economy and its solutions. One thing this article didn't address is how historical/social knowledge is also privatized for profit, ie tax subsidies for developing technology privatized by industry, especially the mic . I also believe that ows has provided us a good model upon which the people can govern themselves rather than expecting critters to rep us. Lastly, giving up tv is easy when you take up the joy of reading.
I appreciate your Matrix reference because I happen to be a big advocate of the film The Matrix as being a huge allegory for modern life under propagandistic systems.
However, you make a mistake when you say, "as in the matrix movie people have the choice - the red pill or the blue pill".
Neo's pill choice came *only* after he exhibited a strong interest in questioning his given reality, and only afer persistent efforts, and at great personal risk to their own safety and freedom, by Morpheus and friends.
Not *everyone* gets offered the red pill/blue pill choice, only a select few. And at that, the choice isn't even an actual part of their enlightenment; rather it is a last chance offering to run away from enlightenment - it is an emergency escape mechanism, not an aid to enlightenment.
The Matrix has a quite famous analogue in literary histroy - Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" in The Republic. And we would do well to remember that in that allegory, the individuals who escaped the cave, who then make an effort to go and help their former compatriots still in the cave, to help them towards their own enlightenment - those former compatriots violently refuse such efforts, and try to kill the enlightened ones.
(Sorry if I seem like an obsessed geek or something going on about the Matrix, I happen to think it is a really great and deep piece of filmic literature.)
medmedude: Do YOU live by this credo you posted? Where do you get your food--all from the garden? or from CSA farms? I guess you don't shop in regular supermarkets in the US then? where some 50% or more of food products contain GMOs? As to tearing up credit cards, would you recommend someone tear up one's credit cards if it means defaulting on their mortgage and becoming homeless? What if that credit card is their only source remaining to buy food for their family, would you still recommend they tear it up? I'm posting this on an apple product (a MacBook). Why do you think I should give up my MacBook?
My sister could only get her news from the MSN because she was busy bringing up 2 kids and working part time. I gently informed her of what they left out and eventually put her onto this site. It is now her favourite site and she is well informed. Gentle persuasion and turning people from the dark side is important. How many people will my sister influence?
YES it is!
Corporate rule is not externally driven. It is driven internally by the DNA of Great Apes - of which our special contribution is forcing prepubescent H. sapiens into sexual penetration and other sex acts. If H. sapiens are extant on the day our Sun goes supernova, somewhere a child will be screaming: "Take that out it HURTS." If it was possible to end this behavior, we'd have figured it out by now. It's in our DNA.
And in some nearby location a male H sapien - testicles swollen with power - will be engaged in the lustful accumulation of MORE & MORE & MORE and coming in spurts of Ayn Rand justifications. What's frightening is that, at some point in the last 15 billion years, a star went supernova and a new solar system was cobbled together from the debris - and a result was the Koch brothers. Talk about futility!
And so it goes
Trylon
The rich Koch brothers will each die someday. I don't think all their money has purchased them a pass on that end.
There IS definitely work being done on isolating and turning off the gene that begins the "aging" trigger at around 30. So it IS conceivable that age could be cured as easily as cancer may one day be cured, before it ever happens.
These are the ideas of the Cabal, the True Elite .001 percent. They are psychopaths and megalomaniacs and they unfortunately can afford to fund research on a private basis. Their first goal is said to be Life Extension, on the order of 250 years, climbing eventually towards the thousands of years they aim for.
We are very lucky that we won't be here. They will not get along (even four Republican candidates with the same goal are presently nearly killing each other.)
I think that death is a very intrinsic part of life. It defines and identifies life. It gives life meaning, and it gives true achievement value. I don't even want to live past 75! I'm near 65 now and 10 more years will be quite enough for this old girl.
Methinks the demons of the earth will slay themselves once we are gone, and that's not so bad after all. A group of morons that want to live FOREVER. Really?
A good article, but omitting perhaps our best weapon - BOYCOTT
BOYCOTT the "worst of the worst." It's easy - just don't buy it.
BOYCOTT BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Texaco, Bank of America, Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Georgia Pacific, Verizon, AT&T, Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, GE, Cracker Barrel, Amway, Home Depot, Walmart, Target, Fox, WSJ, Coca-Cola, Disney/ABC/ESPN, Sara Lee, Revlon, McDonalds, ClearChannel, Nestle, Starbucks.
Simplify & buy local
I will begin boycotting half of these immediately. Boycotting the other half is problematic.
Why?
There are better alternatives for all.
AT&T is my internet provider. What are the alternatives?
Building on the spreading public protests, we also have Bernie Sanders' Constitutional amendment to let Congress regulate (outlaw) corporate spending on political campaigns. And Dylan Ratigan's Get Money Out (of politics) movement. And budding local laws to declare that corporations are not persons.
Things are happening. The internet is making it impossible for the oligarchy to keep people in the dark (despite today's angry efforts by Rush Limbaugh). And education has been gradually eroding the base of bigots on whom the oligarchy depends for duped voters.
This article by Sarah van Gelder is just more namby pamby yada yada yada.
That she doesn't see that the 1%'s agenda in this situation is to physically murder at least five billion human inhabitants of planet Earth shows that she hasn't a clue as to what is REALLY happening.
No matter how many "tools" she thinks there are available to stop what is happening, until she realizes that the situation is actually life and death serious, there will be no action taken.
And even IF she does all of a sudden realize the REAL reality, all the "tools" in the world can't stop the agenda that was put in motion three decades ago.
Probably the only REAL "tool" that the 99%ers have to avoid being murdered by the 1% is mass suicide.
MEL
MEL - please lead the way. We have better things to do.
JOHN - I see by a subsequent post that you are but sixty years old. I was thirteen when you were born.
I have an incurable, terminal illness on which my life savings have been spent. Had it not been for the fact that I worked all my life, and saved for retirement, I would not have been in the fairly good situation (own my own home, have no debts) when at the age of sixty, I contracted this deadly health issue. Now I live in abject poverty, and were it not for Medicare Parts A, B, C, and D, and Medicaid, I would be already be deceased.
But now that the 1%-ers have bought the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the government for the purpose of doing away with the safety nets so that the poor, ill, and elderly have no alternative, and the 1% hope that the poor, ill, and elderly will just going away and die quietly.
As for me leading the way, that's exactly what is going to happen just as soon as the 1%-ers are successful at eliminating the above mentioned safety nets, which is inexorably coming in the very near future.
The disease that I have does terrible things to a person without proper medical attention and medications. I refuse to put myself through that ordeal. I already have an "exit strategy".
But I think you miss the point, which is that the 1% have decided that in order to save the earth and civilization, that the population of the planet has to be reduced to about two billion people. And they have decided that those who deserve to survive should be ascertained by the amount of money they have. THAT agenda is what is behind their hoarding of the economy's liquidity. That agenda is also what is behind their forcing austerity on the 99%.
Gaia (the earth) also has an agenda, but with this difference: The 1%-er have as THEIR criterion for survival the amount of money one has accumulated. Gaia's criterion has nothing to do with finance or the economy.
Anyway, thanks for the response.
MEL
==The disease that I have does terrible things to a person without proper medical attention and medications. I refuse to put myself through that ordeal. I already have an "exit strategy". ==
Good for you, MEL ! Me, too.
If Gaia comprehends =anything= it's that H. sapiens was a mistake, and has to be put to sleep, for the sake of all other living things. "Don't go extinct mad, just - - go extinct."
Trylon
Hey Trylon,
The "other living things" don't pollute the earth. That's because they're natives. "H. sapiens" pollute because they aren't from here. They're colonials. Everyone is watching and looking for the aliens. We (H. sapiens) ARE the aliens.
I have a feeling that when all is said and done, it's going to be as JBS Haldane said: "Not only is the universe queerer than we think, it's queerer than we CAN think."
Anyway, thanks for the response.
MEL
Mel, I read that the extermination policy was to leave only 500 million (half-billion) of us left. Well, not US, but them. Something to do with the Georgia Guide-stones and the Freemasons. Just sayin'.
Hey JJW,
I saw the Georgia Guide Stone thing too. It's just another example of the rather amorphous generalized agenda.
The half billion figure is related to what whomever is behind the GGS think is a sustainable population level.
It would probably be very difficult to reach that figure.
My calculation of two billion is more in line with all the OTHER amorphous generalized estimates, and there are a lot of them out there.
The one thing that impresses me most is the depopulation's inevitability. There's just no way for the world to support unlimited population growth, especially when wealth is the criterion by which power and policy are decided.
One of the relevant axioms is: "Smart is the NEW wealth."
Still Gaia's immune system isn't going to take wealth, intelligence, or ANYTHING else into consideration. We're just beginning to see the manifestation that are possible.
MEL
I'm with you 100%, Mel. Sadly, the rest of the rocket scientists have jumped into mental masturbation, feet first. I'm gonna grab a chair and a beer, sit comfortably and wait for the "prophecies" highlighted here to come to fruition.
Hey Reb,
One can pretty much tell who is presently affected by the situation, as opposed to those who have yet to be affected. It won't be long before they will be included in the lower five billion poor, ill, and elderly who will be expected to just go away and die quietly. Then they will understand that all those things that they thought were more important to do were just time wasting devices.
Anyway, thanks for the response.
MEL
You are right. Not so slowly but surely, it will happen Mel. What's coming down the pike won't forgive or exempt anyone. I've long argued than in order for anything relevant change to take place, we have to hit rock bottom first. For as long as only 50% or so of the population are affected, those that still have something to hang on to will kick down the rest. Americans are too selfish and inhumane to take pity on the misery of others and act on something that doesn't affect them directly. But it will happen, sooner rather than later.
Cheers!
Hey Reb,
Am reminded that one can't fold any size sheet of paper in half more than seven times.
And reducing the population will be much like that.
The powers that be will find that a reduction from 7 billion, to 3.5 billion will go pretty easily. All it will take is rescinding the "entitlements" on which the poor, the ill, and the elderly have come to rely.
Manufactured shortages of food, and water will decimate a great many. Manufactured shortages of medications and health care will decimate many. Manufactured diseases will decimate many. Harsh living conditions will cause many to give up, and murder/suicide instances will increase dramatically.
BTW, that's already beginning to happening. There was recently an article about Greece, which traditionally has had the lowest suicide rate in Europe, experiencing a 16% increase in the suicide rate due to the present economic conditions.
Resultant wars and uprisings will eliminate many. There may even be nuclear exchanges between the nuclear club members.
When the PTB try to go from 3.5 billion to 1.75 billion, they will start to find increased resistance problems by the survivors, which will become more and more strident as the population approaches 2 billion.
To exterminate more than about 2 billion will be more difficult than it is worth. At about 2 billion, the survivors will finally see that their only chance to continue surviving is to finally rise up and go after those who are driving the depopulation.
At that point, those who are behind the cataclysm will back off and to save their own necks will become conciliatory, presenting themselves as the heroes and saviors of civilization and humanity.
The carbon footprint of but 2 billion people may even delay the impending Gaia-istic immune system response, but I wouldn't bet on it.
It isn't nice (or very smart) to mess around with Mother Nature.
MEL
Thank you Sarah and CommonDreams.org!
With the information and inspiration you and other folks are providing, we will come together and defend our great country.
And to the nay sayers and yea slayers - get on board or get out of the way.
I am 60 years old and I have no time for your moaning and groaning.
Shut up or put up.
John, right on target. " And to the nay sayers and yea slayers-get on board or get out of the way". There are far too many defeatests on many CD threads that keep preaching to the choir. We progressives all see the problems, but what we need is more solutions, like the 99% OWS movement. Too much negative energy without any balance of positive energy is not good. Too many ain't it awfuls. I have also been guilty of this at times without realizing it. Thanks, Paul
Just learned there's a OWS/99% meeting here in Grants Pass, OR at 1:00 this afternoon, inside, thankfully, because we're getting some pretty heavy rains, so I'll finally be able to attend.