Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: There is one particular thing that the 1% are most nervous about...

Posted 6 years ago on March 25, 2012, 7:09 a.m. EST by therising (6643)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Think about what was happening when Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed.... He had just started to link the peace movement with the civil rights movement. The freedom of information act has helped us uncover FBI documents that show the FBI survilleiled King's widow, Coretta, for over two years to make sure she did not connect the same dots publicly. How dangerous it must have felt to the powers that be...the thought that disaffected whites and disaffected African Americans could join together with workers and others to form one movement and ... Become..... The 99%................ And what are we seeing now?

Sure puts the harshness of the response in perspective. What the 1% are most terrified of is the idea that we, the 99% might join together, that we'd see past our petty differences to realize how absurd it is that a tiny minority has been ruling over us and squeezing us for so long. In their darker more pensive moments, these are the fears uttered in the country clubs and board rooms. This is the elephant in the room who will take over when it realizes how damn big and imposing it is.

Here we are again. Ever played tug of war? Ever been on the winning team in a match of tug of war? Why did you win? It was because you all pulled rhythmically at once wasn't it? Time to get our groove on people. Time to all tug at the same time. It's time for us to pay more attention to what we have in common rather than the relatively minor things that separate us. The 1% has actively worked to keep us nipping at each others heals ( black/white, poor/middle class, republican/democrat, young / old). Isn't it time we become the 99% that we are?

Once we unite, we will realize we had the power all along. Once we start paying attention to what we have in common, we'll realize how absurd it was that the tiny minority of the 1% ruled over the overwhelming majority of the 99% for so long. Once we pay attention to what we have in common, we will be able to make decisions from a position of united strength rather than making demands from a position of divided weakness.

Solidarity. There's a reason it scares the 1%. Think about what it must have been like when King was publicly connecting the peace movement to end the Vietnam War to the Civil Rights movement. Incredible how relevant this is to today.

Nonviolent direct action is our most important weapon!



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

divide and conquer, their tactics have worked for a long time, as they use the tactics that have always worked in the past,. their problem is that every now and then there is a jump, or a phase shift. One thing changes, and the old ways no longer work at all,. global instant communication may have facilitated this evolution, however I believe that the shift that will (or has, depending on your reference and understanding) end these old style domination methods of the 1% are more than the net. it is not so much that we can now send messages all over quickly, it is more that we know the others are out there, and that the same 1% is oppressing them there, as they are us here. That is the trigger that can not be undone, even if they switch off the net tomorrow, the raised consciousness will remain. People will link up and take the power back.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

Great point!


[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

If only so many people that vote Republican, and work for the big corporations and investment banks were to realize how they are really backing their own oppressors things could change in a hurry.

We must look past our own short term interests and think about what we are going to have to ultimately face if we don't turn all this around.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

The 1% are really only nervous about one thing. If you have noticed there have been a number of polls in the last year that have shown that on a variety of issues, taxation, healthcare, don't ask don't tell, the Dream act, Medicare, Medicaid, corporate welfare to oil companies, transportation and infrastructure, the list goes on and on. Of course the Dems have been very much in fave or these positions, as we would expect. And Independents have been on the same side but at 10 -12% less, but what has been startling is that Republicans have been supportive of most of these by majorities only slightly lower than Independents.

But you may have noticed that even though the registered and likely to vote republicans are agreeing with Dems and Independents on these issues the GOP in the House votes as a block AGAINST these positions. The Senate GOP's do the same thing. So GOP politicians are thumbing their noses at their constituents. They are doing it blatantly and consistently and have been since 2010. To add to this bizarre situation, after running on jobs and fixing the economy, almost all of their early bills had nothing to do with either of these issues, They were bills on abortion and contraception and social issues. Then they followed by trying to cut regulations on clean air, clean water, safe toys, maintenance of commercial airliners and safety of regional airports. These regulations are supported by their constituents as well. They have sold out 100% to corruption.

So, what is making the 1% nervous is that the libertarians will wake up regarding social issues and the evangelicals will wake up and realize that they have been laid off, have no health insurance, a poor education, unemployment insurance running out, and no prospect for even a decent life, much less the lifestyle of the 1%. Corruption of their politicians by the 1% has stolen their shot at the American Dream.

That is what is making the 1% nervous. The working poor GOP (they have them too), the Tea Party members, the Paulists, all decide that they aren't seeing any benefit of their Representatives voting against the things that they need to survive.

And then they turn on the 1%. The barbarians aren't at the gates. They are inside the gates. If the Tea Party, the Libertarians, and Evangelicals decide to pursue their own self interests, the 99% becomes the unstoppable force.

If you were in the 1%, wouldn't that make you nervous? Can you see this bunch restrained to nonviolent direct action? Direct action, yes! Nonviolent, not so much.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

I see some big changes in the near near future . The 1% had us in the dark and thats how they kept their control over us .. but now with the light being turned on , with the communication of the internet and people speaking their minds , and the spark provided by OWS to initiate this long over due discussion about poverty and wealth .. it's really only a matter of time , the barricades the 1% have built around us will come crashing in on them.

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 6 years ago

the internet has been here since 1990s. Took to this long to come out of the dark? Could you outline a few of the alleged 'barricades' the 1% has built around you?

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 6 years ago

please read the post again and if you're not too daft you may understand. but then, if you're just out to spread misinformation and confusion you already know and are doing your job.


[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 6 years ago

Dont see no list of 'barricades' there homie...


[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 6 years ago

Exactly, nice you agree. There are no barricades. It's just that, its a convenient way to mask your shortcomings and failures in life and blame it on an external factor over which you do not have control.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

I think you're exactly right.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

therising , I can tell by your writing you have an ability to think with abstract thought.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

And probably nowhere were people kept more in the dark than in the Middle East, and northern Africa. There is no putting the cork back in that bottle.


[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 6 years ago

I think that scares them most is economic equality on a global scale. I do belive that this is what we are starting to see.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 5 years ago

The fear is dropping, the people are rising and the barriers are falling.

[-] 1 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 6 years ago

Nice to hear the awakening of one of the rainbow people. Wastealo. Mitakuye Oyasin. Hetchetu welo

[-] 1 points by GeoffH (214) from Jacksonville, FL 6 years ago

Why do you think that so many people are pushing the "racism" cards with the Treyvon Martin case, the Kansas City child that was burned by black kids, etc. etc.? The media (all of them owned by the 1%) are trying to distract us from the reality of what is going on.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

Interesting thought

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

The media is very sly.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

To a degree, you are right, but the Treyvon Martin case can also be linked to ALEC, and that is part of a much bigger problem.

[-] 1 points by Anti385 (58) 6 years ago

Another way to pressure the 1% is to influence their business. This will target the source of their income and is quite feasible to accomplish in the financial industry. All it takes is exerting discomfort onto their customers/investors.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

I agree wholeheartedly.

[-] 1 points by GrandOlParty (10) from Mansfield Township, NJ 6 years ago

Read the first paragraph and stopped, conspiracy theory

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

I'm not sure you understand the definition of "conspiracy theory". What you said here doesn't even make sense.

[-] 1 points by toukarin (488) 6 years ago

What people need to realize is that 99>1.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

I've seen this 99>1 popping up various places. Cool.

[-] 0 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

Ha! Great point!!! That could be a great graphic for Occupy to adopt as a signature symbol. 99>1

[-] 1 points by toukarin (488) 6 years ago

Not sure how many here remember the movie "A Bugs Life," A rather poignant scene from there:

[Hopper has just drowned three dissenting grasshoppers in a pile of seeds]

Hopper: You let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up! Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one and if they ever figure that out there goes our way of life! It's not about food, it's about keeping those ants in line. That's why we're going back! Does anybody else wanna stay?

[grasshoppers shocked - all the grasshoppers "rev up" their wings]

Molt: [motioning a fellow grasshopper] He's quite the motivational speaker, isn't he?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Absolutely true. Without a divided public, the 0.001% lose their ability to manipulate the American people. Even if division is not the result of some deliberate effort by the powers that be, it still benefits them & cripples our ability to achieve a just society.

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

The powerful combination of unity and direct nonviolent action could help us win this thing in the coming months and years of we're vigilant... The movement will grow exponentially if we stay true to these principles.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Maybe, but probably not. I guess it's worth a try, and I'm here because as strange as it may seem, this is the only movement with a rational world view ... but I'm also cognizant of how bad it really is for humanity. Will we clean up the environment soon enough to avoid an extinction event? Probably not, so I'm stuck somewhere between anarchism (which presumes some hope exists) and fuck it nihilism.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

I am impressed that you spoke your opinion so honestly here, and because you did so I will give you, in turn, my honest feeling about this. We all, I think, wonder if events have already passed beyond the point of redemption, in the sense of global salvation. But to me, it goes beyond even that.

The universe seems to have thrown these two choices in our face, the choice, simplified to it's essense, is that of good vs. evil. We have been given free will to make that choice.

It seems to me that this is the fundamental question of existance, and so for myself, I will side with love and justice, freedom and truth, rather than negation. It is all about consciousness, about being; either reaching out towards divinity, or negating itself into nothingness, into the illusory realm of materialism which has at its heart emptiness.

We haven't been presented with this eternal choice for nothing, and what we know scientifically of the meaning of the soul and the possibilities of it's persistance is nothing at all.

And yet I cannot "prove" that my dog dreams while it sleeps, yet I know that it does. Neither can I prove that this choice we are given between good and evil has consequences for the eternal soul. and yet I know it does.

And so, I would say that we should fight the good fight to the bitter end, no matter what that may be, for the sake of our soul and of those we love, and for the sake of our honor.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Cool, but when I say "fuck it" nihilism (I suppose nihilism isn't really a good word for what I'm thinking) I don't mean materialism (I just wouldn't get any personal satisfaction from materialism anyway). What I mean is more like a "drop out" sort of thing. I know we dream, maybe dogs dream, but the idea of a "soul" seems like wishful thinking (to be honest). I really don't view the universe as a sentient creature, nor do I see any evidence of a spiritual realm beyond what is scientifically conceivable. So my hope lies in what I view as tangibly possible.

I know the earth will be fine. Even if there's an extinction event, evolution will bring forth new life. Maybe some humans will survive (extinction events usually don't kill off everything). And frankly maybe we can avoid this (I think we probably can, the question is will we). I do see hope in the human race, there are some reasons for optimism, and to whatever extent we have free will (which I think we have, just within certain parameters), I choose to at least try (but sometimes just saying fuck it is tempting).

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

There IS more here than the material world. Truth, love, justice, freedom, beauty - these things exist. We can't deny their existance, and yet we cannot quantify them with science. Do you see what I mean?

We, as human beings, stand at some kind of amazing crossroad. We are in the middle, betweeen good and evil, light and darkness.

We are consciousness birthed out of unbeing, and we stand at a crossroads. Truth is all it seems to me that can save us, and whether it saves us in the material world is probably secondary to whether it can truely save us.

So if I were you I would continue the fight, even if it appears there is no hope, because we are in the midst of greater forces than we normally allow ourselves to believe.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Truth, love, justice, beauty, etc., can be understood by science (just because these things aren't fully understood "yet" doesn't mean they'll never be). Consciousness, as complex as it seems, will likely also be understood by science eventually (assuming we don't destroy ourselves beforehand). But anyway, I'm not much for discussing religion related issues. We're all entitled to our views (and I respect all views that do not require hurting other people to uphold) :)

Of course this doesn't mean we shouldn't value art and literature and philosophy. The fact that we don't value these things more as a society is I think a symptom of the problem, it's just that in my view valuing these things does not require mysticism ... but reasonable minds can certainly disagree.

[-] 2 points by grapes (5157) 6 years ago

Truth, love, justice, beauty, etc. are all concepts that we had invented to think with -- nothing but labels for physical manifestations. Consciousness is simply the COHERENCE in action and can be eternal and extensible. In the beginning, there was the amorphous unbeing but there was a Will. The two had combined to yield consciousness which is NOT just limited to the Earth. We have mind children at war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have a mind child about to leave our solar system. Why do we care about whether human beings will endure on this Earth since we are all going to die anyway no matter what? It is because deep down inside we all KNOW that we are MORE than just our mortal bodies, from dust they came and to dust they shall return but their organization which came ultimately from the Will endures through physical laws such as the conservation of energy-momentum. Our consciousness can reach out of our mortal bodies, travel across oceans and materialize in a new manifestation, be stored dormant for millennia and revived, or simply put as transcending both space and time. Our concept of ourselves as objects is flawed because objects do NOT really have definite boundaries so deaths are actually rather questionable. We are here to do what we can and for however long we have got. The Will endures.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

What I am talking about isn't religion, but a synthisys of ideas that come out of the highest elements of reason. The truth is that we can come to understand our place in the universe, the meaning of life through reason, and not simple faith. The answers are out there now, we simply haven't put them together yet.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

We can turn this ship. The 1% spread nihilism because it gets people to give up and buy things. Hopeless people are easily controlled. We can definitely get this thing done if we join together. The factories could stop belching smoke tomorrow if we decided they should. 99%>1%.

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Well, maybe we avoid an environmental catastrophe, but maybe it's already too late. In any event, we're sort of obligated to try. I mean, what else can we do? So yeah I do agree, we have to at least hope that we can turn the ship (or else we'll never try, and of course if we don't try, we can be certain that we won't succeed) :)

[-] 0 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago


[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

I completely agree.

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 6 years ago

Dude, no 1% is out there trying to get to you. Everyone is living their life. The 1% of today wasn't necessarily always so and has very likely risen from humble beginnings. So may be you can stop deluding yourself. There is not global/American conspiracy against anyone who does not make more than 380K a year.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

Did you know that the top 1% holds nearly 50% of the wealth in this country and that 90% of that wealth is inherited? So much for humble beginnings and pulling ones self up by the bootstraps :)

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 6 years ago

Could you please provide me with bonafide proof of the second half of your statement "90% of that wealth is inherited".

And in my own short life so far, I have seen plenty of people rising from modest beginnings, not sure how many of them are in the 1% but I am pretty sure all of them are in the top 5%

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 6 years ago

The 90% seems far-fetched, but this claims about half of the 1997 line-up:


"United for a Fair Economy analyzed the 400 individuals and 50 families on the 1997 Forbes 400 list and grouped those listed into five categories borrowed from our national pastime. Those "born on home plate" inherited their way onto the Forbes 400. At the other end of the spectrum, those "born in the batters box" had no discernible special advantages. Keeping with the baseball rule that "the tie goes to the runner," the study team gave list members the benefit of the doubt. For example, if researchers couldn't be sure whether a member belonged on second or third base, they assigned him to second base. Initial analysis of the 1997 Forbes 400 shows:

42 % Born on Home Plate ó inherited sufficient wealth to rank among the Forbes 400. This percentage is higher than that listed by Forbes for inheritors. The reason: Forbes listed as "self-made" people who actually inherited substantial sums or property and then later built that stake into a greater fortune. One example is Philip Anschutz (1997 net worth: $5.2 billion) who is listed as "self-made" even though he inherited a $500-million oil and gas field.

6 % Born on Third Base ó inherited substantial wealth in excess of $50 million or a large and prosperous company and grew this initial fortune into membership in the Forbes 400.

7 % Born on Second Base ó inherited a medium-sized business or wealth of more than $1 million or received substantial start-up capital for a business from a family member.

14 % Born on First Base ó biography indicates wealthy or upper-class background that was to our knowledge less than $1 million, or received some start-up capital from a family member. Due to the study team's conservative coding rule, it is likely that some of those listed as born on first base actually belong on second or third base.

31 % Born in the Batter's Box ó individuals and families whose parents did not have great wealth or own a business with more than a few employees. "

[-] 0 points by monetarist (40) 6 years ago

dude.. $1 million is hardly an inheritance that can propel you to top 400 list. Frankly anyone who made it from there to top 400, it can be safely assumed, they did so on their own abilities. Same for people who got startup capital from a family member. A few thousand dollar of startup capital hardly counts as inheritance. And at any rate your 90% figure is certainly not susbstantiated

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 6 years ago

Yeah 90% is far-fetched. It is more like 55% that had a significant advantage over everyone else. If I won the sperm lottery and had a million dollars to start out, all of my plans would have been put in motion years ago. I would have absolutely no debt, so no reason NOT to experiment, and I could hire people to do things that take up my time that would otherwise be spent working on my business.

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 6 years ago

Sure there are advantages of having a million dollar in your bank account. But to turn that million into billions takes skills and you gotta give a person credit for that.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 6 years ago

Sure. I can go with that, at least on "first base" to "second base." After that, we are talking about a ridiculous advantage that has been given to these people.

Give me $50 million and watch me get my concepts to market by not having to work in a "real" job. I get to spend all day working on my ideas, hire the best marketing firms to promote my ideas, and I can hire the best talent to turn those ideas into reality. I even get to fail a few times while I perfect my plans, since I have the capital to fall back on.

As it stands for me and nearly everyone else in this world, we have to work in our menial desk jobs or factories or service positions to pay the bills. This takes up a very large chunk of our free time, but in exchange we get to eat and have roofs over our heads (and even that is slipping away quickly.) In essence, any of our ideas would take decades to get funded, because we don't have the resources nor the free time to bring them to fruition.

I'm not saying that those who have less can't "make it" but those who did start from less had to work infinitely harder to break out of the paycheck-to-paycheck cycle that keeps us down, compared to those who were born with more money than most of us will earn in our lifetimes.

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 6 years ago

Really? Is it that easy? Give any Tom, Dick or Harry $50 million and he/she would make a successful multi billionaire business out of it? As a product manager and wannabe entrepreneur I wish that were true. Really, i wish.

Do you know that over 80% of startups fail, many of them rather well funded. And do you know that many people doing desk jobs also start their own business and do not necessarily spend their whole life at the dreary job. It takes passion, commitment and a huge appetite for risk to be able to quit your job and work on an idea you believe in.

And trust me things are not as easy as you make them out to be - hire marketers, hire engineers, make and sell. I am sorry, doesnt work. And I speak that from professional experience.

I do my desk job and I have a family to cater to, not to mention loans to pay off. And yet, I know I will take the entrepreneurial plunge in a few years, come what may.

Read up the book "Founders at Work", might dispel some of the crazy notions you have.

Bottom line: You don't need $50 million (or even $1 mil) to start a business. You need passion and a streak of craziness.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 6 years ago

Of course most businesses fail. Its not just money that is required. I think you and I both agree on that, and we're just arguing whether starting with a lot of capital helps. I think having $50 million in the bank helps immensely.

No, every Dick & Jane can't "make it," but I bet you that there are millions of them who could out-do Trump if they had the resources to get started.

I have the same goals. I'm getting out of cubicle world soon, but I'm not fooling myself into thinking that I'm going to beat a Rothschild in business anytime soon. I can't outspend any of them, but I can try and get something small started, and then grow from there.

A Rothschild, on the other hand, can spend millions on surveys to scope out the best locations to start their business, spend money on focus groups to collect data for a great targeted marketing campaign, and yes, hire the best people to make that idea tangible. We can agree that there is a huge advantage to be gained from having that much money...

I'll check out the book. Thanks for the info.

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 6 years ago

It wont be any fun if you had that much money to start a business. It would be boring. Why join the navy when you can be a pirate?

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 6 years ago


[-] 1 points by grapes (5157) 6 years ago

There is much truth that familial and racial cultures account for a large part of the intangible inheritance. Different upbringings gave people vastly different outlooks. Where one person sees stagnation and death, another person of a different upbringing sees new beginnings, possibilities, and opportunities due to a more flexible outlook from their background. Which person is likelier to succeed? Then there is wisdom distilled from life experiences passed on verbally in families such as what majors to choose in college. There are also values passed on in families and racial subcultures that affect the life outcomes greatly. Measuring just monetary inheritance is falling for the same fault of Capitalism of distilling everything to a monetary quantity.

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 6 years ago

Sure I agree. Your parents, family and surroundings matter a lot (as has been aptly described in the book Outliers"). But such advantages are not necessarily linked with financial wealth. Steve Jobs' dad wasnt wealthy by any standard but he grew up in surroundings that encouraged tech and hence he achieved greatness. It is usually seen that kids of university professors (who arent all that well paid) also do well academically (and financially). So its not about money. And such advantages cannot be legislated out.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5157) 6 years ago

We are not here to legislate for equality. We ARE here to legislate for fairness and justice. Providing people with access to opportunities is NOT enough because many people may still not realize what they have got. We need to provide proper role models, conducive environments, and peers to motivate people to avail themselves of the opportunities presented to them. Probably the most important of all is to give them the eye and attitude to discern opportunities and the motivations and drives to succeed -- all of which are intangible inheritances. Unfortunately, they are often very difficult to be passed across familial, ethnic, and racial barriers.

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 6 years ago

It;s impossible to make all those factors equal. However, with internet and web and access to info people can make more informed decisions about their career choices. That's the best that can be done.

[-] 1 points by grapes (5157) 6 years ago

You may very well be right. I hope that things will change for the better on the Internet and Web due to access to information because those barriers that I had cited (familial, ethnic, and racial) could become totally irrelevant so the quality of minds, information, and interactions can breach those barriers and improve people's lives. I, for example, missed some opportunities presented to me for mentor-protege relationships but I did not have the eye at those times to realize what they were -- shall I say that I was unfortunately culturally deprived? I am glad though that I did not miss all of them and yes, interacting with someone can sometimes change one's life's direction.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

We have to reach out and help people understand how the neoliberal agenda has affected us all negatively, albeit in different ways. Many people still don't understand this, and think their plight, and the policies that caused it have no connection to a bigger corrupt scheme.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

I agree. Connecting the dots on this is important.

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 6 years ago

"Neoliberal", a label I haven't seen often. But I might present that the "bigger corrupt scheme" created the "neoliberal" as a partial convert to the covert corporate slave ultimately desired. However, the most empowering thing to the "bigger corrupt scheme" is that the "neoliberal" is socially defined, making yet one more faction divided, or having learned "different ways", also afraid to set foot in the garden of taboo controlling the secrecy mandates.

The realm of social fear, secondary instincts but prime through the eyes and perceptions of others, suddenly has even more control, independent of reason and may operate outside of law; becomes yet one more small de evolution of our society.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

No "neoliberal" is not a term that you hear as much here as you do in other countries. The words or phrases here are more Reaganomics, trickle-down, or perhaps free-trade. They all lead to corporate interests coming before ours.

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 6 years ago

Okay, thanks for adding the identities of social factions defined by terms lacking much history here. Does perhaps the term "globalist" work from within America looking out?

Which completely works with clinton signing GATT.

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

Yes "globalist" is in the same league as probably is the new world order that George H. Bush mentioned in a speech. There are bloggers here that know much more than me about all the negative implications this all has on the citizenry of the world. I suggest that you go to youtube, and/or google up those terms, as I did to learn more. It will explain a lot, and you will realize why this is a world-wide revolution. Simply it is a rejection of neoliberal economics which is based in the famous economist Adam Smith's theories. Many of today's critics (experts) though say that what has been going on is not something that Adam Smith had in mind at all. I guess mostly because of all the the corruption today. So you do that homework, and next time I will come to you for the answers as there is much I still have to learn too, OK? :-)

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 6 years ago

Actually I started at the other end of the research to identify the methods used to create the "new world order" and have moved onto identifying contemporay terms in use to describe the different factions that comprise it. There is a tendency to "label" things, groups included, and getting a complete sample of the meanings or uses of the labels is important within sociological aspects needed to bridge and create unity across the many different people.

A prime goal is to create recognition of Article V as a tool with global impacts to unravel the illicit control of resources that the "neoliberal economics" have caused, by rescinding GATT and NAFTA, prime tools of globalism for dominance.

The only actual strategy that is comprehensive for getting an Article V convention I've found, is here,


[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Education changes everything.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

"They' have tried to convince us over the years that we are on a wonderful inevitable journey. We clearly are not, rather it is just a way for the elite to hold on to the reins of economic, and political power at our expense. It does seem that I have to catch up with the "sociological aspects" of this, that deal with the creation and maintenance of the new world order, that you started your research with with. Neoliberal economics is another one of those economic theories that may look good on paper, but in practice, or as it is being practiced.... it sucks.The closer we get to understanding all of this ...the more pissed that you get. I will look into Article V. Thanks.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

Yes education does change everyting, and I worry about enough people taking the time and effort to understand what has been going on. Our recent history is not good.

[-] 0 points by Spade2 (478) 6 years ago

Wow, could you be more generic? I was hoping for something a little more than typical propaganda.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

You clearly didn't understand the point of the post.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 6 years ago

I guess I didn't. It just seemed you're trying to boost moral, not making an actual point. I just feel like we've had so many of these posts and that it's time to turn away from rhetoric and towards action. Sorry if I came off as a total dick but I'm a little frustrated with posts like these.

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

It's important to realize that, as the 99%, we already hold the power. We just need to be awake to the fact that we ARE the 99%. Once we do, this will all just be hard work and details. Sometimes understanding needs to accompany or even come before action. Once we pay closer attention to what we have in common (rather than the petty things the 1% love to celebrate as separating us) we'll be able to make decisions from a position of unified strength rather than making demands from a position of divided weakness. So, "these kinds of posts" can play a meaningful role. It's not all in the details.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 6 years ago

I see little evidence that the 1% are afraid of the 99%. They are the 1 % because they are smart (or have smart people working for them) and hedge against any actions by the 99% that could do them harm.

The FBI surveillance of Dr. King appears to be less about fear of the movement and more about Hoover's disdain for King and Robert Kennedy's interest in communist ties and comments about his brother.




[-] -1 points by BullsAndBears (-36) 6 years ago

I can assure you that the 1% is not scared. Maybe amused at how silly this movement is but definitely not scared.


[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 6 years ago

"I can assure you that the" 0.01% are very nervous and scared about ... 'Dying' !!! eg : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30907.htm !! momento mori !


[-] -2 points by BullsAndBears (-36) 6 years ago

He's indestructable

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (33491) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Now is there really anyone who does not understand this?

Thanks therising.

This should be perfectly understandable to one and all.

It certainly is to the corrupt greedy and their supporters ( hired or volunteer )

This is the key. COMMON CAUSE.

Talk and support issues, issues that confront the corruption.


Money out of politics

No ear-marking

No conflict of interest as well as no insider trading in government.

Regulate the Fossil Fuel speculating.

Push green energy implementation - new jobs - updated infrastructure.

Reform WallStreet and Banking. Break-up to big to fail institutions, prosecute criminals.

All of these things and more are possible through unity.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

King was a Republican By the way & So is his Daughter.

[-] 6 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

And what's your point? Are you trying to wear that as some badge? Because, dude, the republican party of 2012 would be completely unrecognizable to the republican party of the late 60's. So much more selfish and self centered today. Hard to believe that's possible but true. Unbridled capitalism has now eclipsed love of country. We have truly entered "every man for himself" territory.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8628) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Ronald Reagan, raised taxes twice, he could never get the GOP nomanation today.

[-] 1 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 6 years ago

MLK was not a Republican he is completely full of shit.


[-] 0 points by Quark3 (54) 6 years ago

I heard the fall of the Republican Party is due to Newt's old man bad attitude. he ruined the party & infected it like a cancer which in turned is destroying our country. He is an evil old heartless man.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

and the dems would be unrecognizable to JFK

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8628) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

They have moved to the right quite a bit, bumper stickers work good.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

In what way?

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

Way far to the left now. JFK would be considered a moderate republican today. Today's dems are radical Alinsky communists. In what way would today's GOP be unrecognizable to the 60's GOP as you stated earlier?

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8628) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

JFK cut the top rate to 70% I think he had the right ideal, we should set the top rate at 70% today.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

good luck with that proposal lol! Why on earth would you want to give the govt more money? Do you think they are good stewards of your hard earned money?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8628) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Better than Romney after why do I need more car elevators?

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

falling for the distraction. Regardless, who said anything about Romney being the steward of your money. How about YOU should be the steward of your money.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8628) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Well we wouldn't want to tax him too much, couldn't buy those trickets from tieffey's or car elevators would we now?

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

I didn't state that earlier.

Your's is not an acceptable answer. Alinsky communists? Come on. How about 3 specific examples of how todays democrats would be unrecognizable to Pres. Kennedy. You made the statement. You back it up.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

1) JFK cut taxes - today's dems want to raise taxes. JFK was a staunch anti communist. 2) Todays dems ARE communists. 3) JFK pushed nukes out of Cuba - Obama is handing them to Iran on a silver platter.

[-] 5 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

Oh Dell, don't you ever get bored with your simplified crap? You make the most outlandish claims.

First of all, social programs is not communism. Government regulation of capitalism is not communism. You see communism everywhere. You're like a paranoid schizophrenic. What is wrong with you?

Second of all, President Kennedy's ideals are ENTIRELY consistent with today's Democrats. It's like 1962 all over again.

Do you ever read the nonsense that you write? Screw your head on and check yourself.

Pres. Kennedy established the Peace Corp to help needy people around the world. Today Democrats want Healthcare Reform to help the needy at home.

Pres. Kennedy's New Frontier Program included expanding unemployment benefits, infrastructure projects, anti-poverty legislation, increases in social security benefits and in the minimum wage, several housing bills, and aid to economically distressed areas.

Pres. Kennedy proposed the Civil Rights Act and today we have the first black President. Despite 50 millions shades of crazy Republicans, which includes birther conspiracy theorists and racists.

Pres. Kennedy's tax policy was aimed at the demand side, Keynsian in nature. His tax cuts were aimed at stimulating the economy by putting more money in the hands of the middle class. His tax cuts provided the bottom 85% of the population with 60% of the benefits. Contrast this with the Bush tax cut which gave 53% of the benefits to the top 5%.

That Pres. Kennedy cut the top marginal rates from 90-70% was only because these high rates, that were instituted during WWII, were no longer necessary.

How about Pres. Nixon. He established the Natl Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, the Water Pollution Control Act, and is largely responsible for the Environmental Protection Agency. Republicans today believe that private ownership and market forces will maintain a clean and safe environment. I don't think Pres. Nixon would agree. What have the Republicans done for the environment lately?

Pres. Nixon also established the Consumer Product Safety Commission and OSHA. Republicans today would deregulate everything. I don't think Pres. Nixon would agree with this either.

Republicans cater to the unrestrained greed of the 1%. Who eat others alive like wild carnivorous animals, after destroying the air, food, water and whatever assemblance of middle class is left. And when thats all gone, the 1% will only have themselves left to feed upon, and will turn on eachother like cannibals.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

dont you ever get bored with making life more complicated than it is? look at this rant! Maybe if you spent more time focused on your own issues you wouldn't have as many. By the way - without republicans in the congress LBJ would never have been able to pass civil rights. His racist southern democrats loathed the civil rights act. Dont forget - all those racial issues in the south were run by democrats

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

So right. You have nothing to back up your outlandish claims.

And no, why would I be bored? I enjoy disputing your outlandish silly claims with facts. While you skim the surface with ridiculous, simplistic crap.

[-] 1 points by Anti385 (58) 6 years ago

When faced with hard facts, all you can do is whine like a baby about how complicated things are? Pathetic.

Also nice deflection attempt too.

[-] 4 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

And today's republicans are idiotic children who think that calling others names will quite them. WTF, you think this is a play ground. Calling people names will not save your task masters from seeing their taxes raised. either make an economic argument on why your masters should not be taxed at a greater rate, or shut the fuck up with that silly name calling.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 6 years ago

the child speaks.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

Is that the best you got? I always know I'm winning when the best argument my opponent has is name calling. You must be one of the right's key speakers. Did you learn that witty comment from Row. I believe they have a job for you at American Cross Roads. Your insults are top notch in conservative circles. here try this one. "I know you are. but what am I?" You'll be the life of the party in Conservative circles with that one.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 6 years ago

YOU are the one that cursed, ( read your own post) not me. so, you must be the loser.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

there is a difference between cursing and name calling. at least that's the case with my generation.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

why should people be taxed higher? - that is the argument not why they should not lol! You approve of how the govt spends our tax dollars? and you want to give them even more?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

I want the budget balanced, the minimum wage raised, affordable health care, and a robust middle class. Now, i realize that is more than is humanly possible, but, as I have learned from my Conservative peers, It is wise to start the negotiations high and hold out for the best.

As to whether I disapprove of what our nation's officials spend our taxes on, There are some things that i disapprove of, but there are other things I am glad the money is being spent

As is life, nothing ever comes up always smelling like roses.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

yea - and invoking the so called "Buffet Rule" Obama is parading around would bring in less than 4 billion a year. how does that solve our problems? Answer it doesn't - it is meant to get you all riled up to hate the rich & come out & vote for Obama. It doesn't solve a thing except heighten the class warfare atmosphere.

[-] 4 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

The Ryan plan: tell me one sane logical reason that those making $1 million or more should get an average tax cut of $265,000? And those in the lower and middle incomes would see no tax cut at all under this plan?

One sane logical reason that the Pentagon budget decreases, $500 billion over 10 years, which were approved by the Pentagon, Ryan eliminates this decrease and puts the $500 billion back in?

Meanwhile, this plan cuts programs for the elderly, lower-middle and the poor. Food stamps, Pell grants and many other social programs that benefit the disadvantaged.

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

Well, to blame Obama for class antagonism that the rich have been instigating for the last decade shows your lack of understanding. JR gave them the farm, tax cuts, non negotiation contracts, shitty energy policies and privatization of the war effort, and all this happened before Obama even entered the scene. As far as I'm concerned, the buffet rule, especially after all the goodies the rich got during Bush's reign, does not even begin to make this nation whole for all the thievery the rich have been doing. Class warfare did not begin until my class began fighting back. Before then it was just the rich bulling everyone else.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

I thought Obama was going to bring us all together no? Wasn't that one of his campaign promises? rich bullying everyone? Am I part of everyone? I don't feel bullied at all so don't speak for me or "everyone" You speak for a fringe element of anarchist communist rabble.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

AH, so you embrace the notion that gov't should pay for what the private sector brought to our table. Wall street gets bailed out and the gov't gets the bill. I don't think so. Paul Ryan is a pencil dick little man who wants to balance the budget on the backs of those who make so little compared to those who put him in office.

Why is it you go after those who were just as hurt by the housing bubble as everyone else, while you don't even get up set at those who wrote the laws, profited from the heist, and still take no responsibility for their ignorant mortgage backed securities? No, Wall Street got us here, and they are the ones who should take the hit.


[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

so where is the democrats budget? oh yea - they havn't had one in three years - and the one Obama just proposed got shot down in the house 414 - 0. No one in his own party even voted for it lol! What is the democrats plan to get us out of debt?

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

No, I speak with the ones who have been paying attention. I can't help it you have not grasped the long term trends. Do you believe that debt is going to pay itself? Or don't you care? let your children worry about it. right?

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

Ah - then you embrace the Paul Ryan budget plan - excellent! Now we are getting somewhere.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

Edit: 47 billion.

I don't need the "Buffet Rule" to get riled up about wealth inequality. Facts are facts. The 1% have spent the past 30 years accumulating 43% of the nations wealth. This is the result of their government corruption. They did not get there all on their own. They had lots of help.

It might not help the debt much, but it is the principle. There is no sane reason that millionaires should not pay at least 30% in taxes. It's sends a message. The class warfare on the middle class is over. Wealthy individuals and powerful corporations have spent 30 years waging economic warfare on the middle class. Using legalized corruption for government policy to concentrate more and more wealth in their hands. They don't get to cry about class warfare now.

I don't mind that people are wealthy. So long as there is enough for everyone else. 30 years of middle class wage stagnation and 50% of the population living at or near the poverty line is not enough for everyone else.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

47 billion over 11 years. ok - 4.7 billion per year - that will certainly make a difference lol! So what you are saying is it is more about punishing the 1% rather than increasing revenue to the federal govt. How does that help you again?

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

Punishing the wealthy? Awwww. That's so cute how you have empathy for the wealthy. : )

And here I thought you were an insensitive jerk. Who would'a guessed you have such compassion?

Don't worry Sunshine. Their incomes have increased 281% over the past 30 years. It's called correction of irresponsible and indefensible tax and social policy. And yes, $4.7Bil/year is not enough. The Bush tax cuts alone, enjoyed by the top 2% of the population, is worth $100Bil/year. Being that this group has recieved such fabulous wealth increases these past 30 years, coughing up a few hundred billion, the $100 billion that they somehow managed to survive without before, really shouldn't be a problem. Don't worry so much. They'll be o-k.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

so you didn't mention how 4 billion per year in added revenue fixes the problem?

[-] 0 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

the palastinians have a nuke/ whats the difference

[-] 1 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 6 years ago

What a bunch of bullshit.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

hahaha ! why do you say that?

[-] 1 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 6 years ago

Where did you learn King was a Republican? I'm pretty sure thats bullshit.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

King, as in Martin Luther King, a Republican? Is that what this asshole is now actually trying to sell?

Listen, everything Dell says is bullshit!

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 6 years ago



[-] -3 points by Secretariat (33) 6 years ago

""NATO is staging "Massacre of Christians in Syria by Muslims", by bringing Al Qaida and other radical Islamists to Syria, in order to initiate a war, where they can nuke Iran, give a lesson to rising China, control Middle East oil resources, and allow some people to print as much money as they wish by using petrodollars, so they can control the society and the world through their wealth and power. This will also allow capitalism to continue by breaking the Eastern and the Socialist spirituality which is growing around the world and which is the biggest threat to capitalist ruling elite. ""