The Corporatocracy

April 12, 2013 6:00 pm

Something is happening here, But you don’t know what it is,
Do you Mister Jones?
– Bob Dylan

One of the key traits we as humans pose is the ability to observe our environment and describe what we see around us, whether it is in that exact moment of time in which it is being viewed: “My dog just wagged his tail”, or something we can watch happen over time: “This glacier has moved just a few centimeters since last month.” We seem to have a fairly good eye on what’s going on and with the help of this and many other different abilities we posses, we have managed to climb to the top of the predatorial food chain, on this planet anyway.

You may think that this is quite an achievement and that we now have less to be wary of because of this, and you may also think that our right to choose our own Governments and create our own laws is an achievement of thought, you may think that the Capitalist system works and that these are the very ideals that keep us safe in our beds at night and free from foreign terrors.

If you are such a person I would recommend you to take a seat and strap in because what you are about to read may not quite sink in first time… Only when applied in large plain print in black and white in a 3 word dose does it eventually make its way inside the conscious mind, let’s try…


Anything? Feelings of confusion or doubt? One more time?


That stung didn’t it, I can tell but don’t worry, I come in peace, I don’t want to hurt you. These are just realities. They can take time to sink in, I understand.

I do not mean to sound condescending, by they way, but I do feel that a certain level of naivety is required to believe in such scenarios. I am also always cynical and dubious of any kind of authority that claims power over me on an individual level. I.E. the ability of “the law” to sentence upon my persons periods of imprisonment/punishment. This is my own personal bias and the reason for this article, without this nagging curiosity in my head I would not understand (or even want to) the subtle ways in which we are all being taken advantage of by the very people we ourselves put into a position of authority.

Axel Springer Acquires Majority Stake In ProSiebenSat.1

I will also stress here that this is not a small isolated issue burdened upon one state or country, this is a GLOBAL issue. Politicians and Corporations and “Fat Cats” across the planet are consciously and savagely destroying the people and the planet they claim to aid and the lengths these people will go to in order to sustain and increase their own personal gain knows no bounds. This is Capitalism at its finest folks so drop out, tune in and don’t you dare hang up, we’re in for a hell of a century.

If we look at the history of the “Fat Cat” we find that the most dominant feature found throughout time in the species is its insatiable lust for power or wealth, the twelve senators that were among the group of assassins that took out Caesar surely did so to line their own pockets and replace his ideologies with their own. They and many others throughout history have tried to forcibly and violently shift cultures and people alike to see in the same way that they do.

Some attribute the deaths of John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln, who if we remember correctly were the only two presidents in the history of the United States to try to dissolve the IMF, to a so-called “Illuminati”, a group of evil CEOs and high status individuals whose sole purpose is to take over the world and ensure the transition to a totalitarian one world government. Could these outlandish conspiracy theories have any hint of truth to them? Or are these conspiracy theorists just seeing what they want to see? If that were the case then how come I can see them too? Maybe the actions are there but the wrong culprits are being blamed?
The term “Fat Cat” was first used in the 1920s to describe rich American political donors and has since grown to encompass all those of perhaps “undeserved” or “dishonest” wealth and power.
Consider the following:

In the 2008 Democratic race, a group of wealthy backers of Senator Hillary Clinton wrote to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, warning her they might withdraw financial support for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee if Pelosi did not change her position on whether the party’s super delegates “should support the party’s pledged delegate leader”. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the signers included donors such as Haim Saban and Robert L. Johnson, and had given the party nearly $24 million since 2000. In response, the grassroots liberal political action committee MoveOn called the move “the worst kind of insider politics – billionaires bullying our elected leaders into ignoring the will of the voters,”

A quick background check tells you that Haim Saban, mastermind behind The Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers and all their variants, is worth around about 3.1 billion dollars. Robert L. Johnson, who is in short a media baron, is worth 550 million.
But we all ready knew rich people liked to play around in politics didn’t we? Of course we did, I never doubted us for a second.

So now let’s have a look at what these people do once they’ve reached the power and the wealth side of things.

Sometimes they run for president.


The forty-first president of the United States was a man named George Walker Bush Jnr, a man who simultaneously made Forrest Gump look like Stephen Hawking and what Richard Nixon did during the Watergate scandal look like a simple fart caught on camera. The man who seventy-one percent of Europeans saw as the leading threat to global peace and whose presidency was the most secretive and unaccounted for in the history of the country. The same man whose biggest lifetime campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).The same man who presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world. All of this from a guy who started out in the Texas Air National Guard. He also invaded and indefinitely occupied two foreign nations on false claims on the possession of weapons of mass destruction. Our pal George left the white house in 2009 and now owns a place in Dallas.

“The United States spends over $87 billion conducting a war in Iraq while the United Nations estimates that for less than half that amount we could provide clean water, adequate diets, sanitation services and basic education to every person on the planet. And we wonder why terrorists attack us.”
John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

It is no secret the gap between rich and poor is growing. All over the world class systems are merging into two groups, those that have and those that don’t. When you consider the above statement I find it sickening that in the times we live in all it would take is a little consideration and selflessness for EVERYBODY to be better off. Is that so hard? It’s not like we’re trying to invent new technological wonders here?

A lot of people would again turn the blame onto the so-called Illuminati when faced with this argument but I personally believe it stems with a far deeper concern than that of so-called megalomaniac corporate white collars. I think the problem is that we as a species NEED someone else to blame to justify our own stance on whatever the issue at hand is. There are also people out there whose job it is to confuse and distract you and in a way control your habits. One advert alone can wield no power over you but when they occupy thirty-one percent of all screen time of prime time television they can shift entire societies towards becoming more consumerist and materialistic. The problem is Us and until we really can learn to think for ourselves and make rational decisions towards learning how to co-exist as a species in peace and harmony not just with ourselves but with the planet we live on and the universe around us then I don’t think we stand much of a chance at all.

The aliens in The Day the Earth Stood Still were right; We know what will happen if we don’t change, we just can’t seem to get the ball rolling.

  • ChrisRobinson

    Pretty good assessment of the international capitalist ruling class, RJ. The question is, what to do about it. Myself, there’s more of ‘us’ than there is of ‘them’ so maybe ordinary people should continue to kick against the pricks but in an even more organised way. The current mass movements that are building in most countries are very encouraging – funny, you don’t see an awful lot of it on the capitalist media – I wonder why?

    • Haha yeah quite true, but whats more important? Government wrong doing or Justin Biebers new haircut.. Distractions man. I agree completely though there needs to be a unity in our efforts as “they” are most certainly outnumbered the real problem when it comes down to a communal level I think is how desperately out-gunned “we” are and also how there seems to be an almost conscious effort on behalf of some to ignore such things and focus on their own lives. Each to their own, its just a shame to be able to conceptualise what could be.

  • Moderate Man

    Poor writing that does not belie a skill or aspiration for journalism but purely an arena no vent naive political and ideological moanings of one who just really desires to be ‘anti-establishment’. Speaking here from a left wing point of view by the way, just trying to give impartial truthful criticism.

    • Impartial and truthful criticism is always welcome, thank you. For the sake of discussion might I enquire into your views on the topic?

      • ZionistKilluminati Bankster666

        It’s the Military Industrial Complex and the Fascist Corporatist Dictatorshit that rules this world!! Face it! See, this corporate fascists tell us all kinds of lies by using idiots like David Icke, Jim Marrs, etc. to make us believe that it’s the aliens out to get us or others like Fritz Springmeier to make us think it’s the Devil worshiping Illuminati. But that is just an illusion. They are trying to establish a One World Corporate Fascist Dictatorship where the Fortune 500 companies and their CEOs control this planet… and maybe in the future other planets with living beings… Understand??

        • Do YOU understand what you just said?

    • ChrisRobinson

      I think RJ’s article was a valid contribution – and we ALL could do with editing our stuff from time to time, but, for all that, I thought his piece was from the heart and thought-provoking, therefore he’s got good writing skills IMO. How can anyone claiming to be ‘leftwing’ (or ‘rightwing’ come to that) insist they are ‘impartial’? The fact you find his piece to be ‘naive political and ideological moanings’ says it all, you have an opinion, fair enough, but don’t claim ‘impartiality’ please! Impartiality is a pretense people put up to mask their real leanings.

    • Immoderate Man

      I completely disagree with almost all the arguments of this article (and no I don’t work for a capitalist organisation – in fact I’m currently unemployed) but despite my difference in opinion, I think this is a good article, Moderate Man, not a vent in the slightest, just a perspective on capitalism and modern day government.

      My opinion: No one will argue that George Bush didn’t make many errors, and some of them bad, however, despite the WMDs not being there – I wonder what the world would say if the western governments had decided not to go to war and risk the WMD situation and then if there was a crater where Washington once stood and three years of dust blackness? There would probably be different sentiments. It isn’t hard to hide a WMD, all you need is a barn, for all we know they did have some.

      Further more, the whole WMD issue aside, Saddam killed thousands of innocent people almost every day, he needed to be removed one way or another and whether there were other motives or not. It is a good thing he is gone.

      As far as capitalism goes – it isn’t perfect, but it sure as hell is the best thing we’ve got. Look how well communism did in Russia – it led to Stalin, the greatest mass murderer of all time (yes he killed more of his own people than Hitler killed in the entire of WW2). In an absolutely perfect world, there would be communism, but that will NEVER happen. We don’t live in perfection, humans are not perfect (thank god, it would be boring if we all were) and people won’t be driven to work hard if all they get is… nothing.

      Yes there are examples of people who have become rich and do bad things or try and influence the economy to help them, but poor people also do bad things with the means allowed them. A lot of rich people to good things. Further to the point – most of these rich people have worked 20 hours a day for a good portion of their life, you might say given up their younger life, to get into the position of being rich.

      Should people be blamed for becoming rich because they have been clever or worked hard to get there and been successful? I hate the whole anti-rich sentiment that exists these days. And no I don’t feel sympathy for the poor and unemployed. Anyone can get a job – that is a FACT. People say they can’t because they don’t try hard enough, they look in a paper for an hour a two a day and then moan the government isn’t helping them when actually they prefer to be jobless and live of the benefits (provided by the tax the people who do get off their ass pay – and the rich in UK pay the highest percentage of tax don’t forget) as they are given so much free money it doesn’t make sense to work all week for only a little bit more. It is laziness and living of other people that is wrong with this company. I go on job sites and I see thousands of low level to medium level jobs being advertised – I know for a fact that somewhere like Tescos will hire people. I also know that with a medium bit of effort it is incredibly easy to find work in a pub or restaurant. So no I don’t buy the rubbish of the rich being the bad guys and the poor having such a hard time. The rich are rich because they got off their ass and they earn’t their money. The poor are poor because they sit on their ass and complain all day.

      You may think that a harsh view, but I call it reality. In the UK, the Tory government is getting a very hard time because they have had the balls to introduce all the necessary cuts. What do you think they thought when they decided to do that? “Lets cut everything because that will make us v popular” – no. They knew it would make them unpopular and that people would complain but the reality is WE ARE IN MASSIVE DEBT, and we need the cuts and the Tories have taken the hit, at the cost of their own popularity and gone and implemented them. Good on them I say for having the balls to do what is actually right rather than appease the people like labour did – give them loads of benefits and public sector jobs which ended up rotting the core of our nation.

      Mm what else can I rant about (and yes, Moderate Man, this is what you call a vent – not the article above), that will have to do for now.

      Thanks for the article and talking point – as you can see I find it a very interesting subject.

      • ChrisRobinson

        Immoderate Man, it’s good that you stick up for somebody though you disagree wholeheartedly with them. But the main thrust of your contribution is wrong on so many levels, I think.
        It’s correct to say that Stalin murdered more of his own people than Hitler did. But ‘communism’ does not necessarily lead to Stalinism (Maoism for that matter). Stalinism was a gross distortion of the Russian Revolution as is today’s version of capitalism an equally gross distortion of the capitalism of, say, the pioneers of manufacturing of the 18th and 19th centuries (if you ignore the fact that, even then, capitalism was drenched from head to foot in slavery). Those were the years when capitalism was historically progressive despite, even then, the pitiful conditions its workers were fored to live in, it still provided the means of progress.
        The social gains of the latter part of the 19th century and the last century were achieved by the campaigns and struggles of ordinary men and women organised in trade unions. Concessions, like freedom of speech, the vote, education, health and housing etc were only ever given due to mass struggle or the threat of revolution – reforms from the top to prevent revolution from below. The post Second World War period is genrally acknowledged to have been an age of social gains for millions of ordinary people where the wealth THEY created, don’t forget these entrpreneurs you speak of could NEVER have created the wealth WITHOUT a workforce. But this period with its social gains signified more redistribution of the wealth created to create ‘a better society’, which, surely, is the goal of humankind?
        Capitalism contiues to reel from one disaster to another – boom and bust – yet the ‘bust’ never effects the wealthy minority and they expect the majority to foot the bill for their gambling and greed.
        It’s simply not true that ‘we are broke’. Taxpayers, the vast majority of working people, bailed out the banks. Yet the banks point blank refuse to invest in the economy. Big business is sitting on bank accounts to the tune of £800bn and won’t invest because they seem to think they will realise no profit. And the wealthy continue to accumulate more wealth and find ever more ways to dodge taxes. Think of what all that money could do? Invest in building a more modern, efficient infra-structure (transport, for example), invest in industry, science and research. Our utilities, sold off to the lowest bidder by the Tories, now have cornered the markets between them like a cartel. These should be owned by the public. We need new ways of providing energy, so investment would not go amiss there. Finally, there’s 5 million people either homeless, living in cramped or substandard conditions or living in the exorbitant private rent sector. A massive house-building programme would not only provide decent, affordable homes but would, together with the investments already outlined put us well on the way to full employment, cutting the benefits bill and creating MORE tax payers. But the Tories (and the LibDems and Labour) won’t do this – as they are three wings of the same capitalist party.
        What IS in the making is the movement towards a new party of the genuine left. Activists in the labour movement are campaigning for the trade unions to disafiliate from Labour and form such a party. On another front of this campaign, they are also working towards making the unions more democratic, more socialist.
        It appears you have fallen for the old trick of ‘divide and rule’. This present Tory-led government tries to divide people – public sector against private sector, employed against unemployed, residents against immigrants because the 24 millionaires in the cabinet – and those in the Opposition – have no solutions apart from cuts and more cuts. They cannot imagine a more democratic, fair society because they are tied to this rotten capitalist system. It’s no use trying to smear socialism by bringing up the likes of Stalin. A cursory look at the history books demonstrates Stalin was by no means a genuine socialist. He could appropriate and misrepresent Lenin all he liked, he could likewise have Trotsky murdered, but he could never murder their ideas which are still with us.
        It’s true that not ALL business people are BAD. Some individuals have worked hard, rolled their sleeves up and done it, so to speak. But this doesn’t alter the fact that no business person could do it alone. As a socialist, I don’t think there is a need for anyone to really have more than four times the average wage (we can talk about how much that average wage should be) but 250 times more than an average wage is pure ridiculous. At the start of every programme of BBC’s ‘Apprentice’ it tells us Alan Sugar has a personal fortune of £800-0dd million – quite apart from the actually money inside his businesses, his PERSONAL fortune. I don’t know whether he is good or bad but does a single person REALLY need all that money for himself? The answer is clear – no.
        And one day, we will relieve him and his kind of it and invest it in a decent future for everybody.

        • Immoderate Man

          Chris – You have a sincere argument, and I see your logic. But there are so many major and dangerous flaws with what you are suggesting – which is why it will not and must not ever happen.

          To limit a man’s potential is to limit his freedom. You are talking of a totalitarian society where we are entirely controlled by a government, for to ensure all the things you want to happen happened, there would have to be huge control. Futhermore, what business would want to work in a country with such limitations? They would leave the country within a fortnight.

          What about the beautiful houses and places in the country that are privately owned – many of them cost well over four times a man’s salary to upkeep.

          It just isn’t possibility what you ask for. Man strives for great achievement, you would have humans turn on their natural instinct and settle for equality but at what cost? Without the promise of great reward, people would not go to great lengths to achieve things.

          This is not a perfect world, man needs more than just love and meagre dwellings – not morally so, for if we didn’t it would be a great thing (and we also would still live in caves). But we do.

          People need to be led and encouraged but not restricted. Too much government control always ends in disaster. No Stalin of course did not represent the true values of communism – but that is because it is an impossible ideology. Remember he was a close adviser to Lenin. Also do not forget that Lenin, the man of vision, conducted the Red Terror and many other terrible things.

          There will always be a leader, whether you implement socialism, capitalism, communism or any type of government. People will always have to be ruled and regulated. You can then regulate those regulators if you want, but who regulates the regulators of the regulators and so on..?

          Look at the advancement of society under capitalism – remember that the government we have are people like the rest of us, elected by the other people – that is socialism in effect – the majority of people want the people who are in power in power. They haven’t got there by money, they’ve got there by votes. If there was another party popular enough then it would exist already. We have freedom to vote and change things – this came about as we became a more learned and educated civilization not because of socialism. You forget that there were people in government to represent the people who got the vote, the end of slavery etc. They were in power because the majority of people agreed with their views and so they did those things.

          Capitalism works, it isn’t perfect, but it works. There does need to be regulation – everything needs to be made public to ensure things aren’t being done wrongly, as sometimes things do go wrong, such as the current economic state. But this has happened before, and it will be fixed, probably because industries will have the freedom to rise and create money and jobs without restriction.

          I wish I was more eloquent and had more facts to hand but all I can say is, whilst I respect your argument, I sincerely disagree with it and honestly believe we would ultimately be led to ruin, dictatorship or a society run entirely by government with no freedom.

          I’m a historian of sorts (my degree) and please forgive this statement, it is not meant nastily in any way but your ideologies sound very similar to those of the Nazi party as they came in to power in Germany before WW2. This ideology doesn’t work, not because it is wrong, but because it goes against human nature and will always do so.

          • ChrisRobinson

            immod Man, first of all, let me assure you, Stalin was NEVER ‘an adviser’ to Lenin. He was a minor party bureaucrat who rose through the ranks in the background. He was considered by Lenin to be vulgar and inept and Lenin’s final testimony pointed out Stalin’s further progress would be a danger to the revolution. It was the sheer exhaustion of the Russian working class after a world war and a murderous civil war that allowed the bureaucracy to gradually chip away democracy. A civil war, BTW, that was aggravated by 21 invading armies from the western powers supporting the forces of reaction to stamp out the revolution. Lenin’s ‘Red Terror’ was a myth touted by the opposition, and so-called ‘historians’ such as Robert Service and Orlando Figes. It was a fight to the death and, as such, yes, there were deaths on both sides. Centuries of ‘Tsarism’ dwarfed such killings however.
            Against all odds, the Russian Revolution survived, unfortunately in a distorted form under Stalin. Yet even Stalin dared not reverse many of the gains made, he did, however, build a bureacracy that raised itself above the rest of society using a police apparatus. What Trotsky called for was a further political revolution because he recognised that without the ‘oxygen of democracy’ socialism isn’t, well, socialism.
            Who’s limiting ‘a man’s potential’? (Or a woman’s for that matter?). As for the rich, if they don’t want to stay here, let them go. But their assets – factories, industrial plant, machinery can stay here and their bank accounts should be frozen. They’ve stolen off us for long enough. The rich have leeched off us for too long – dodging taxes to the tune of £120bn per year.
            A socialist society would be run democratically, people who represent others would be subject to instant recall and MPs and such would only receive the wages of an average skilled worker to stop feather-bedding. You only seem to envisage ‘government’ as a ‘top – down’ structure. The checks and balances will come from mass involvement in politics from local to national level, instead of by a pampered elite.
            There was a time when the Labour Party didn’t exist – that became very popular at one time so there’s everything to play for in creating a new socialist party to the left of Labour such as the one I’ve already described, which is in the process of being (painstakingly) built as we speak (as, indeed, the original Labour Party was).
            I think you are quite naive in your view that ‘our politicians haven’t got there by money’ – their campaigns have to be funded and sponsored, they have to pay a deposit for elections much of which is beyond the pockets of ordinary working class people. They are there because our choices are, in that sense, restricted.
            You mention the reforms gained and say they ‘came about because we became a more learned and educated civilisation’, yet those reforms that enabled that education were only granted because of campaigning from working and middle class people, pressure from below, often organised in trade unions or because industry required a more educated workforce.
            If capitalism ‘works’ as you insist, I’d hate to see it when it doesn’t work. It accumulates wealth in a boom period, then when overproduction hits a certain level, withdraws investment which causes the ‘bust’. Millions feel the effects of this, the working class for sure, while the wealthy are cocooned in the safety of the wealth created by their workers.
            The Tory-led government ‘think’ they are popular but the head of steam building below exposes this myth. Labour thinks it will pick up the reins and carry on, but with ‘nicer’ cuts, this will be the period when people’s illusions in them will fall away and a new political vehicle will be sought. They will either turn to the left or the right.
            And I have to say, to equate socialism with Nazism only demonstrates where YOU stand on the political spectrum if you have swallowed that old chestnut.
            But you stick with the capitalists if you like, with their expensive homes and horses (retired police horses perhaps?) and good luck with that.

          • The Teacher

            Don’t want to get involved with this one but to say – Stalin was very much an adviser of Lenin. Lenin had him promoted to the post of secretary of the Communist party, a very influential position, and relied heavily on him to build support against Trotsky.

            Whilst it is true that Lenin was recorded saying that he despised Stalin and was probably not friends with him, they were very closely politically allied and Stalin certainly sat on the inner circle of Lenin’s politics.

          • ChrisRobinson

            Teacher, talk about the ‘Stalinist School of Falsification’? So you ‘don’t want to get involved with this one’? Yet you’re content to lob a little hand grenade in and walk away? A hand grenade that fizzles like a dud, by the way.
            Even the most rudimentary history book will tell you that Lenin and Trotsky very much worked together. Only in the early years did they ‘fall out’ when the Russian Social Democratic Party split into its two irreconcilable factions ‘Bolshevism’ and ‘Menschevism’. Lenin argued in favour of the Bolsheviks forging a new, independent socialist party, while Trotsky wanted to hold both factions together. Stalin believed in ‘Socialism in one country’ whereas both Lenin and Trotsky were in favour of ‘international socialism’. Stalin actually OPPOSED the second revolution of October, 1917
            Stalin was a useful link to the socialist movement in the interior when Lenin lived in exile for many years, but not the only one. He was an apparatchik. He made many bungles in the military campaigns of the Civil War, in Georgia and during the advance into Poland, later pretending that he was some military genius when the opposite was the truth.
            Lenin hoped that Trotsky, the prime mover of October AND founder of the democratically run Red Army (at that time – ie. officers were elected by the rank and file soldiers) would continue their work after his (Lenin’s) death.
            Don’t know which books you read…Ladybirds, perhaps?

  • SA

    Although I can see a lot in here that’s on the extreme, there isn’t a shred of lies. Yes, not all rich people are bad, but the fact we operate in a society that allows anyone to gain a disproportionate amount of power is really the problem (and by that I’m talking about how money can buy you ANYTHING).
    Most people would agree that we could get along together and share, but nearly everyone will tell you about all the people out there that make that impossible. When it comes down to it we can make the world better, the only issue is most people don’t see the point.
    Now I don’t want to advocate religion, but at least it can be a force for good in people’s lives (as well as an excuse for evil). What we need to develop, as a species, is a logical reason for why all our lives matter; something we can teach to everyone so that we can all learn to relate to one another.
    Something along the lines of: “hey, you’re human, i’m human, they’re human, those guys are animals; same difference. wanna drink?”
    But then again, I’m hardly Jesus; where do I get off in suggesting a better way to live out our lives?

    • If you replaced “wanna drink?” with “explore the universe around us” I would agree with EVERYTHING you said, thanks for the opinion.

  • Harold H. Holmes

    The Illuminati controlled corporatocracy are behind it all…

  • Harold H. Holmes

    The corporatocracy is backed up and controlled by international bankers like the Rothschilds, the Morgans, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers, etc. and they want to take control of everything… even our minds… Unbelievably true!!

%d bloggers like this: