Are Some Multinational Corporations Benevolent?

[Dennis Leahy]

It has been suggested that perhaps some of the multinational corporations are not the monsters that people like me make them out to be. Maybe they are privy to information that we are not, and they are actually acting wisely for the Earth and her inhabitants - including mankind.

Another possibility is that the corporate boards are doing great harm, but it is not from sociopathic greed, but rather from their own misunderstandings about ecology and humanity. For example, maybe they believe transhumanism is a good thing ("enhanced humans"), or maybe they believe that transhumanism is inevitable, so make the most of it and prepare humanity for the transition.

I am stuck in the notion that multinational (or supranational) corporations are strictly malevolent, greed-driven, and sociopathically will use any means to an end - and that end is the acquisition of money. power, and control. Convince me otherwise.

Dennis

[Heartsong]

(giggle) I don't believe I could convince you of anything! I'll just put my 2 cents in for perspective.

Corporations are like human beings. A collection of elements sometimes in conflict with itself. Seldom are corporations all bad or all good. Some sort of tip the scales in one direction or another.
They are manned by a collective and lead by a committee and success or failure falls to usually a singular individual paid enough to take a fall if necessary.

I think it's wrong to paint all corporations with the same brush. There are small ones, big ones, ones destined to fail, some well intentioned but poorly run.

You may be thinking of the ones off the New York stock exchange, the ones that have enough capital to sway politics. Multinational corporations are the biggest corporations and have usually a successful (monetary) track record. Would they seem so bad if they backed your candidate, your way of thinking?

Dear Dennis, as your comment reads,you've drawn a line in the sand, taken a boxer's stance. May this thread be a peaceful discourse of peoples' take on multinational corporations rather than a knock down, drag out that gets personal.

[Arrowwind]

I dont know all that much about how corporations are run, especially the multinationals.. but from what Ive seen over the years the bottom line is generally money. They have stock holders to please, they are expansive in their ideology, and most make products that are environmentally unsound, some use slave labor or near equilivant.

Rather than asking if all multinationals are bad or corrupt why not pose the question... does anyone know of a multinational corporation that is environmentally sound, human rights oriented, and promotes just and equitable pay and benefits for employees?

[ulli]

B Corporations

The so-called "benefit corporation" is designed to change this. As of January 1, businesses in California can now organize themselves under the law as benefit corporations, or B corporations, a new legal form that empowers for-profit companies to prioritize social and environmental goals alongside their financial bottom line. Proponents hope the new law will address what many see as the cancer in the modern corporation's DNA: the legal responsibility of its directors to maximize shareholder profits.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/can-corporations-b-beneficial/Content?oid=3161490

[Dennis Leahy]

Yes, Heartsong, there is a range of sizes of corporations, all the way down to the tiny little companies with just a few employees - desperately trying to level the playing field and get some of the tax benefits that the giant corporations paid their congressional shills to put into law. That's why I tried to differentiate and not talk about small businesses that have reorganized under a corporate banner to stay alive.

Corporations have a corporate "charter", a specific set of rules that they must adhere to to remain legal as a corporation. This is not something I have studied extensively, but my understanding is that some psychiatrist or psychologist examined the rules of corporate charters and found them to be literally in-line with a diagnosis of sociopathy. "Take no prisoners" kind of mentality. I also understand (loosely) that the corporate charter specifies that the pathway toward the highest returns for investors/shareholders MUST be maintained. Corporations thus may not, by law, make decisions that are beneficial to the Earth or to their workforce or to humanity - if it affects shareholder returns negatively. When I heard about this, it was in reference to a new type of corporate charter, "B corporations", "B" for beneficial, and it is written into their charter (so shareholders know in advance) that profit is not the only motive, that they will pursue both profits and be beneficial. Maybe it is altruistic BS, maybe a ruse for tax advantages or to hide more from shareholders - or maybe it really is a much more sane way to legally declare a corporation.

However, I'm willing to bet that in the "Fortune 500" (top 500 corporations), none of them are "B" corporations. So, they are all set up on that sociopathic charter. Yes, corporations are the assemblage of perhaps thousands of people, from the janitorial staff to the CEO. Not everyone who works in a corporation - even an evil one - is evil. But if the overall actions of the corporation ARE evil, then the board is composed of at least 51% people who are evil or who acquiesce to evil.

The electoral system in the US is controlled by Big Media and the two Big Parties, which are in turn both controlled by Big Money (the biggest corporations.) The US electoral system, unmasked, is Big Money selecting two pro-corporate candidates, then Big Money assuring the victory of one or the other through (Big Money-owned) Big Media.

Lobbying, or "legalized bribery", is routinely used by these corporations to get legislation passed that is corporate-centric.

They have become so good at the control of the electoral system and in getting corporate-centric legislation passed that now, pretty much anything the giant corporations want to do, they can do legally.

Arrowwind, I think the best example of a corporation like that was Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream (before they sold the company.) So, it's not impossible to run a corporation beneficially, but those examples will never be found in the mega-corporations, the multinational or supranational corporations.

Dennis

{edit} I see that Ulli beat me to the punch on B corporations. I type too slowly! hahahaaha

[Tangri]

It has been suggested that perhaps some of the multinational corporations are not the monsters that people like me make them out to be. Maybe they are privy to information that we are not, and they are actually acting wisely for the Earth and her inhabitants - including mankind.

Another possibility is that the corporate boards are doing great harm, but it is not from sociopathic greed, but rather from their own misunderstandings about ecology and humanity. For example, maybe they believe transhumanism is a good thing ("enhanced humans"), or maybe they believe that transhumanism is inevitable, so make the most of it and prepare humanity for the transition.

I am stuck in the notion that multinational (or supranational) corporations are strictly malevolent, greed-driven, and sociopathically will use any means to an end - and that end is the acquisition of money. power, and control. Convince me otherwise.

Dennis

Huh!:confused:
First ;you need to re define the word of "corporate"
Secondly; if you find assumed benevolent one you need to check their policy and procedures booklet.
Third; benevolent for whom, for workers, for rest of the population, or for upper level managements.

[DevilPigeon]

I dont know all that much about how corporations are run, especially the multinationals.. but from what Ive seen over the years the bottom line is generally money. They have stock holders to please, they are expansive in their ideology, and most make products that are environmentally unsound, some use slave labor or near equilivant.

Rather than asking if all multinationals are bad or corrupt why not pose the question... does anyone know of a multinational corporation that is environmentally sound, human rights oriented, and promotes just and equitable pay and benefits for employees?

I don't think this is as easy as it sounds... I'd suspect that no matter what organisation you approached, they'd all say they're concerned about the environment, treat their workers right etc, and in fact these very same organisations have a very public persona that backs these claims up. I think that to get a more realistic answer, you'd need to approach the workers themselves (when I say workers, I mean the people that actually do the work, not the public-facing high-ups that get stupid money and toe the company line).

Bottom line is that examining any organisation from the outside, you'll no doubt get a rosy picture that - taking a holistic view of organisations in general - doesn't balance out the state of the world we currently live in.

[Arrowwind]

[ I think that to get a more realistic answer, you'd need to approach the workers themselves (when I say workers, I mean the people that actually do the work, not the public-facing high-ups that get stupid money and toe the company line).

.

what ever it takes to get to the truth. Many corporations have been looked at in type of manner... its how we findout that some are dirty dealers.
I do think that there are a few with honest good standing that I have come across but i cant say that I can name them at this time.
I just dont track on this stuff that much.

[ThePythonicCow]

Corporations are "eternal" in that they don't die after a few decades of activity. Corporations are immoral, in that they don't feel shame or guilt. They are immune to imprisonment. They have gained some substantial legal advantages over the years, as the wealthiest "robber barons" used their power and wealth to increase the legal power of corporations (as one example, in the US, corporations can donate unlimited funds to Presidential campaigns, but individuals cannot, if I understand the law correctly.)

But they are controlled by mortal humans. Given their extra powers, the most power hungry mortals tend to gravitate to the tops of larger corporations.

Corporations have become worse than weapons of mass destruction. They have become weapons of civilization destruction.

[The Arthen]

It has been suggested that perhaps some of the multinational corporations are not the monsters that people like me make them out to be. Maybe they are privy to information that we are not, and they are actually acting wisely for the Earth and her inhabitants - including mankind.

Another possibility is that the corporate boards are doing great harm, but it is not from sociopathic greed, but rather from their own misunderstandings about ecology and humanity. For example, maybe they believe transhumanism is a good thing ("enhanced humans"), or maybe they believe that transhumanism is inevitable, so make the most of it and prepare humanity for the transition.

I am stuck in the notion that multinational (or supranational) corporations are strictly malevolent, greed-driven, and sociopathically will use any means to an end - and that end is the acquisition of money. power, and control. Convince me otherwise.

Dennis


Agreed.

There are actually many folks with the financial capacity to spend money in their own unique way. Some prefer to take a private plane to a beautiful place. Some plan to skydive with a guide around 24/7. Some buy even more 'computers' to ease their daily workload....so many reasons.

But then again, every big corporation always says it's for good, and it's difficult to measure their true value at a handful of impressions.

[Wind]

I stumbled upon this documentary. Seems interesting.

Y888wVY5hzw

Here is the trailer for it (it's a long documentary):
xa3wyaEe9vE

[Rich]

Large corporations are more likely to reflect the average human consciousness so it is very unlikely to find a very large ''B'' company. Not to mention that a beneficial company wouldn't even be allowed to become big.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

I think there is little more that is as scary as competitive evil.
Not only do the corps compete with each other for profit, they have to resort to more and more evil tactics to stay competitive, like for example sweat shops.

Microsoft's gov't gateway campaign, for example, reminds me of the evil corporation from Sandra Bullock's THE NET.
You remember how insidious those guys were? Changing medical records etc.

Another thing: people get lost for real following their own thoughts and dreams to their ends.
You notice that most evil is born in thought not in dreams. the gods don't make us do evil, we think of it ourselves.



Read please about lateral networking. it's how all the corps are skirting the laws in all these countries and planning their evil deeds LOL

Microsoft CEO summit for example.

BAE BP collusion in killing Gaddafi.

etc :alien: :wacko: :flypig:

[T Smith]

It has been suggested that perhaps some of the multinational corporations are not the monsters that people like me make them out to be. Maybe they are privy to information that we are not, and they are actually acting wisely for the Earth and her inhabitants - including mankind.

Another possibility is that the corporate boards are doing great harm, but it is not from sociopathic greed, but rather from their own misunderstandings about ecology and humanity. For example, maybe they believe transhumanism is a good thing ("enhanced humans"), or maybe they believe that transhumanism is inevitable, so make the most of it and prepare humanity for the transition.

I am stuck in the notion that multinational (or supranational) corporations are strictly malevolent, greed-driven, and sociopathically will use any means to an end - and that end is the acquisition of money. power, and control. Convince me otherwise.

Dennis

My own personal understanding is that what we see at play is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. It's not just about sociopathic greed, and even your second possibility, i.e. ignorance of ecology and humanity likely applies at some level. Some multinational corporations -- at least the mid-level and even some higher-up level executives who drive the company -- truly believe they are acting for the betterment of humanity, as misguided and "conveniently" ignorant they be. For example, 60% of the municipalities across the nation who are poisoning the water supplies with fluoride do so because they believe fluoride is beneficial to the public health. They aren't poisoning the water because they are monsters. There is certainly an element of unbridled, sociopathic greed that is necessary to the equation, so you are quite right. But I would posit that this element isn't the driving force; it is but an asset of the driving force. Greed is an asset of Power. If you want to accomplish "X", whatever "X" might be, then employ sociopaths who will do anything and everything to make money by producing "X", and, as a director of operations, you will achieve "X" as your end product. Hitler, the sociopathic monster he was, deliberately poisoned the water supply with fluoride to render his subjects docile and passive. As a dictator, in a totalitarian regime, he accomplished this objective by decree. TPTB, who maintain the same objectives, accomplish not by decree (which is why is it is so hard to decry "conspiracy!"), but much more cleverly by employing the cloaked mechanisms of greed to carry out their tasks and deeds. Hence, money and greed drive the process of turing a profit from toxic waste removal at phosphate mines, which ultimately produces the fluoride that poisons our water supply, complete with all the investment/return on PR, lobbying, indoctrination campaigns, and selling the populous on the product and idea that poison is actually good for them. The same dynamic is afoot with GMOs, aspartame, Big Pharma, etc., etc. Those who make money in this process, the shareholders, the executives, perhaps even some of the board of directors, could care less if they are poisoning their own grandchildren who drink the water and take their meds. They care about $. And most of them probably think they are doing a service to humanity. The progenitors who setup the system, however, the foundations, the social engineers, the think tanks, the so-called "philanthropists" who already have more money than God, and for whom money means nothing because they can even create it out of thin air if necessary, know full well that they are poisoning the masses. They have an entirely different objective from greed and don't do it for money. Their agenda is power and control. Therein is the "evil" component. The corporations are merely tools to them.

[modwiz]

It has been suggested that perhaps some of the multinational corporations are not the monsters that people like me make them out to be. Maybe they are privy to information that we are not, and they are actually acting wisely for the Earth and her inhabitants - including mankind.

Another possibility is that the corporate boards are doing great harm, but it is not from sociopathic greed, but rather from their own misunderstandings about ecology and humanity. For example, maybe they believe transhumanism is a good thing ("enhanced humans"), or maybe they believe that transhumanism is inevitable, so make the most of it and prepare humanity for the transition.

I am stuck in the notion that multinational (or supranational) corporations are strictly malevolent, greed-driven, and sociopathically will use any means to an end - and that end is the acquisition of money. power, and control. Convince me otherwise.

Dennis

My own personal understanding is that what we see at play is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. It's not just about sociopathic greed, and even your second possibility, i.e. ignorance of ecology and humanity likely applies at some level. Some multinational corporations -- at least the mid-level and even some higher-up level executives who drive the company -- truly believe they are acting for the betterment of humanity, as misguided and "conveniently" ignorant they be. For example, 60% of the municipalities across the nation who are poisoning the water supplies with fluoride do so because they believe fluoride is beneficial to the public health. They aren't poisoning the water because they are monsters. There is certainly an element of unbridled, sociopathic greed that is necessary to the equation, so you are quite right. But I would posit that this element isn't the driving force; it is but an asset of the driving force. Greed is an asset of Power. If you want to accomplish "X", whatever "X" might be, then employ sociopaths who will do anything and everything to make money by producing "X", and, as a director of operations, you will achieve "X" as your end product. Hitler, the sociopathic monster he was, deliberately poisoned the water supply with fluoride to render his subjects docile and passive. As a dictator, in a totalitarian regime, he accomplished this objective by decree. TPTB, who maintain the same objectives, accomplish not by decree (which is why is it is so hard to decry "conspiracy!"), but much more cleverly by employing the cloaked mechanisms of greed to carry out their tasks and deeds. Hence, money and greed drive the process of turing a profit from toxic waste removal at phosphate mines, which ultimately produces the fluoride that poisons our water supply, complete with all the investment/return on PR, lobbying, indoctrination campaigns, and selling the populous on the product and idea that poison is actually good for them. The same dynamic is afoot with GMOs, aspartame, Big Pharma, etc., etc. Those who make money in this process, the shareholders, the executives, perhaps even some of the board of directors, could care less if they are poisoning their own grandchildren who drink the water and take their meds. They care about $. And most of them probably think they are doing a service to humanity. The progenitors who setup the system, however, the foundations, the social engineers, the think tanks, the so-called "philanthropists" who already have more money than God, and for whom money means nothing because they can even create it out of thin air if necessary, know full well that they are poisoning the masses. They have an entirely different objective from greed and don't do it for money. Their agenda is power and control. Therein is the "evil" component. The corporations are merely tools to them.

Thanks Eaglespirit, you saved me from having to write this. This addresses the many layers of this questions. I was simply going to put the word, "shareholders" as a meditation. They can act like viral influences. I mean viral as in a virus and not the internet meaning. Like viruses, shareholders influence the DNA of any company. Like any parasite they want as much from the host as possible. Even down to killing it and selling off the parts to "science", LOL.

[SKAWF]

when a brand or a business rises above a certain level of... stature,
it is bought up or taken over by the big boys.

i even extend that to other area's too.
such as unions, charities or large groups which are there to represent the people.

there were a couple of dutch guys (i think) who calculated that
there is a hub of about 400 super duper corporations,

which own the next 1400 biggest corps.......

and you know that if there is benevolent soul amongst them, that would have been seen as a weakness by now....

so where in all that it there room for a good multinational to exist?

so.... no. i reckon they are all bad.

[gripreaper]

The answer is NO.

Corporations are entities created in fiction, are psychopathic, sociopathic, parasitical, imperialistic, and cancerous, they cater to greed and profit; they have no soul or heart, and cannot be rendered benevolent by anything. They will eat their own young to survive and thrive.

So, NO. None, zilch, nada, zero....

[modwiz]

when a brand or a business rises above a certain level of... stature,
it is bought up or taken over by the big boys.

i even extend that to other area's too.
such as unions, charities or large groups which are there to represent the people.

there were a couple of dutch guys (i think) who calculated that
there is a hub of about 400 super duper corporations,

which own the next 1400 biggest corps.......

and you know that if there is benevolent soul amongst them, that would have been seen as a weakness by now....

so where in all that it there room for a good multinational to exist?

so.... no. i reckon they are all bad.

You are right. Building something successful takes creativity, hard work and good customer relations, something the parasites lack entirely. So, they let human beings do all of the things that are necessary to bring something to market and create a positive buzz about it, they then swoop in and buy it to suck it dry. Something designed to bring something of value to customers and allow the employees to make a living is turned into a machine that wants to make a killing.

I have used these two phrases before in juxtaposition, making a living and making a killing. I like to use it when apologists for corporate sociopaths want to explain that making a profit is not evil. The usual lack of nuance prevails. Making a living from a corporation is not aberrant, making a killing is.

[donk]

Where there are "shareholders", there is OWNERSHIP, which is the most parasitic/predatory/selfish/anti-life idea for any type of communal being

By definition, corporations are created entities with responsibility only to shareholders (which interestingly can also be corporations). How's that for "intent"? Not a lot of room for benevolence IMO

[DevilPigeon]

when a brand or a business rises above a certain level of... stature,
it is bought up or taken over by the big boys.

i even extend that to other area's too.
such as unions, charities or large groups which are there to represent the people.

there were a couple of dutch guys (i think) who calculated that
there is a hub of about 400 super duper corporations,

which own the next 1400 biggest corps.......

and you know that if there is benevolent soul amongst them, that would have been seen as a weakness by now....

so where in all that it there room for a good multinational to exist?

so.... no. i reckon they are all bad.

Your first paragraph reminded me of a couple of "ethical" companies bought out by some large players - 'Green and Blacks', manufacturers of organic chocolate (bought out by Cadburys) & 'Innocent', makers of 100% fruit smoothies (bought out by Coca Cola)...

I think both purchasing companies claimed not to interfere in the ongoing running of the respective purchased company, whether this is the case or not I don't know... But it makes you wonder.

The insidious thing to me is that unless you investigate or look for any fine print, you'd never know these formerly small [ethical] companies were now part of a global parent brand.

[T Smith]

when a brand or a business rises above a certain level of... stature,
it is bought up or taken over by the big boys.

i even extend that to other area's too.
such as unions, charities or large groups which are there to represent the people.



This is absolutely correct, in my estimation. There may be an element of benevolence in corporations, but at some point, per the natural laws of corporate evolution, this element will be gobbled up. There are even some benevolent (I use the word loosely, grant it) small commercial banks who operate honorably within their mission statements to service the financial needs of their communities. The founders of the bank may be in it for profit (and put aside the more philosophical consideration of whether the practice of banking and charging interest is ethical) they aren't evil, per se. However, these small banks cannot compete with the the big banks (and multinational corporations) who truly are above the law, and who profit by outright fraudulent activity and by receiving welfare subsidies from the taxpayers. The smaller banks who by comparison appear upstanding and benevolent, eventually fail, get bought out, or merge with the bigger criminal corporations that control the system itself.

One could argue Whole Foods was once a benevolent corporation before the inevitable degradation that accompanies corporate growth. Now? Not so much. And Whole Foods isn't even among the 1400 biggest corporations SKAWF is taking about.

[SKAWF]

Your first paragraph reminded me of a couple of "ethical" companies bought out by some large players - 'Green and Blacks', manufacturers of organic chocolate (bought out by Cadburys) & 'Innocent', makers of 100% fruit smoothies (bought out by Coca Cola)...

I think both purchasing companies claimed not to interfere in the ongoing running of the respective purchased company, whether this is the case or not I don't know... But it makes you wonder.

The insidious thing to me is that unless you investigate or look for any fine print, you'd never know these formerly small [ethical] companies were now part of a global parent brand.

whenever i go shopping now, i always read the ingredients list, and check to see who the parent company is.

for example.... i'm fairly sure that Walls used to make cart d'or ice cream,
i was in waitrose the other day, looking at some...
its now owned by unilever!

[Carmody]

Corporations have a corporate "charter", a specific set of rules that they must adhere to to remain legal as a corporation. This is not something I have studied extensively, but my understanding is that some psychiatrist or psychologist examined the rules of corporate charters and found them to be literally in-line with a diagnosis of sociopathy. "Take no prisoners" kind of mentality. I also understand (loosely) that the corporate charter specifies that the pathway toward the highest returns for investors/shareholders MUST be maintained. Corporations thus may not, by law, make decisions that are beneficial to the Earth or to their workforce or to humanity - if it affects shareholder returns negatively. When I heard about this, it was in reference to a new type of corporate charter, "B corporations", "B" for beneficial, and it is written into their charter (so shareholders know in advance) that profit is not the only motive, that they will pursue both profits and be beneficial. Maybe it is altruistic BS, maybe a ruse for tax advantages or to hide more from shareholders - or maybe it really is a much more sane way to legally declare a corporation.



Y888wVY5hzw

[Carmody]

Your first paragraph reminded me of a couple of "ethical" companies bought out by some large players - 'Green and Blacks', manufacturers of organic chocolate (bought out by Cadburys) & 'Innocent', makers of 100% fruit smoothies (bought out by Coca Cola)...

I think both purchasing companies claimed not to interfere in the ongoing running of the respective purchased company, whether this is the case or not I don't know... But it makes you wonder.

The insidious thing to me is that unless you investigate or look for any fine print, you'd never know these formerly small [ethical] companies were now part of a global parent brand.

whenever i go shopping now, i always read the ingredients list, and check to see who the parent company is.

for example.... i'm fairly sure that Walls used to make cart d'or ice cream,
i was in waitrose the other day, looking at some...
its now owned by unilever!

Tom's of maine, toothpaste, no flouride. Bought by Colgate-Palmolive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%27s_of_Maine

[ThePythonicCow]

My own personal understanding is that what we see at play is a multi-dimensional phenomenon.
That's for sure :).

I view it as self-organizing layers. There are the physical layers from atoms to galaxies. There are the biological levels from cells to the bodies of plants and animals to their ecosystems. There are the organizational levels from tribes to large corporations to the grand earthly civilizations, and likely galactic civilizations. There are the technology levels from stone hammers to silicon chips and inter-stellar UFO's. There are conceptual levels, from simple yes or no, to full language, math, science and the grand mystical schools of thought, and likely beyond.

It's not just "us" individuals, it's not just within us (and all else a hologram), it's not just this or just that.

All the layers build on those below, and influence those below. In turn the entities formed at one layer become the "atoms" for higher layers. The entire set of layers is itself constantly evolving and adapting, with some layers more persistent or distinctly defined than others. Given my math background, I prefer thinking of this set of layers as a dynamically changing Partially ordered set, where each element is one of these self-organizing layers. The blood circulation system of warm blooded mammals is just one such element, one self organizing layer, amongst a vast number of such.

Corporations are not just tools, nor just assemblages of individual people. They take on a life of their own. The corporation is to the tribe, as the internal combustion engine is to the horse.

The question of whether a city worker adding fluoride to the drinking water is "good" or "bad" is a bit more subtle. The worker is both (1) doing their job, which is admirable if the job is being done well, and (2) responsible for some reasonable effort to notice when their "job" has turned harmful. Most of us, most of the time, are to a considerable extent "doing our job", and our ability to cut through all the disinformation and act in the "ideal way", on all levels (if even such way exists) is limited. A city worker who overlooked numerous readily apparent signs that their job was much more harmful than good would be quite negligent. But this is not a black and white matter.

We get in to conceptual trouble when we try to explain effects apparent in one layer (for example, physical body reactions to something we read here) without a clearly developed model of what the other related layers are. I don't find "5D entities" to be such a clear model :). It's not just spirits, aliens, psychopaths and humans. The entities of many of the higher layers are not manifest in a direct one to one relation with some "physical" entity in a lower layer. I doubt that that which "reincarnates", if such there be (I simply don't know) is limited to embodiment in a linear sequence of human bodies.

[ThePythonicCow]

Tom's of maine, toothpaste, no flouride. Bought by Colgate-Palmolive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%27s_of_Maine

No flouride, true.

But it does have other ingredients (http://www.tomsofmaine.com/research/ingredients), such as glycerin and sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), that I'd rather not have in my toothpaste. Take a look at earthpaste (http://www.redmondtrading.com/product/earthpaste-natural-toothpaste/earthpaste-amazingly-natural-toothpaste/) :).

[Dennis Leahy]

(re: post # 25)
Hot damn, Paul has gone mystical on us!

:~)

(I'm not making fun; I'm celebrating!)

Dennis

[ThePythonicCow]

Hot damn, Paul has gone mystical on us!
Well ... yeah ... partially ordered sets are pretty mysterious :)

[Tangri]

.



Tom's of maine, toothpaste, no flouride. Bought by Colgate-Palmolive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%27s_of_Maine

Halagel Tampa florida
No Flouride

http://www.sbi.gos.pk/pdf/ihc2011/6-IHC-Halal%20Champion.pdf

[Carmody]

As for corporations..well.. you can't create the perfect field of play for sociopathic low empathy behavior and expect that those types won't show up. In short order, only the most nightmarish will be found at the top of those structures. Like the biggest bully and killer in town, eventually running any gangs. no real difference.

That the west was foolish enough to formalize it and accept it, is the issue. which was just a license to take it even further.

People, especially the low empathy types, are bored easily and due to the self centered behavior, they desire to always turn the screws tighter and to turn the temperature up. That their latest screwing of the world has to be better and higher than their last.

Not long after, you end up with a fascist state, then the totalitarian state and the ensuing bloodbath. You end up with the equivalent of Pol-Pot or Caligula.

Like water pouring down a drain (crap flows down hill), corporations view and see democracy and republicanism as a thing that is to be infiltrated and taken over from the inside, or at the very least, to work with in a way that allows the corporation into a window of control or controlled consumerism. Which is slavery -enforced behavior and conditions. Infiltrating democracy is EASY and profitable beyond belief. the nature of politics and politicians makes it so. Brothers of a type, they are -corporate types and politicians. They get to hide, these corporations, when they collude with governments...to be unseen....and own it all. Best of all worlds. But..they each want..MORE, so it gets worse. And worse. And worse.

Ultimately it is a system of seeking and finding power, always hungering for more.

Which is why capitalism, unhindered, turns to fascism, which turns to totalitarianism, which leads to bloodbaths and Caligula types and situations. Caligula was a person who had people, live.. skewered on pikes, as dinner entertainment. Regularly. That corporations turning into fascism (fascism: governments colluding with corporations, secretly, against the will and against the benefit of the public), tends to look identical to communism (observing from the outside), which is why you see the canard or communism being flown in the face of the citizens of the us, when it is really --creeping fascism. It is not communism at all. It is fascism that you face. Obama is not a communist, he's a fascist. The knife is the same going in, though. Power people (sociopaths) collude with the government, to take over. The end.

democracy and republicanism is for those who pay attention and work to make sure that corporations and the people who are in them, do NOT take over the country.

You hit them until they are down... and you continue to hit them.

Rust never sleeps, their minds operate this way, 24/7. they will never stop seeking methods of infiltration, control, and power...until their genotype no longer exists among us. It really is that simple.

To say the opposite that Orwell said in 1984: "Freedom is a boot stomping on the face of a sociopath. Forever."

Leave no holes in your defense, your thoughts, your motions, actions and your stance. Always.

Rampant capitalism, infiltrating democratic systems, and slipping into fascism... is the LAST warning you have before it goes down into a bloodbath. This is where you stand today, in the USA and parts of the western world. And that flag is waving pretty damn hard, the warning signs are about as huge as they ever could get, right now.

[ThePythonicCow]

... the LAST warning ...
That was an important post.

[DevilPigeon]

Your first paragraph reminded me of a couple of "ethical" companies bought out by some large players - 'Green and Blacks', manufacturers of organic chocolate (bought out by Cadburys) & 'Innocent', makers of 100% fruit smoothies (bought out by Coca Cola)...

I think both purchasing companies claimed not to interfere in the ongoing running of the respective purchased company, whether this is the case or not I don't know... But it makes you wonder.

The insidious thing to me is that unless you investigate or look for any fine print, you'd never know these formerly small [ethical] companies were now part of a global parent brand.

whenever i go shopping now, i always read the ingredients list, and check to see who the parent company is.

for example.... i'm fairly sure that Walls used to make cart d'or ice cream,
i was in waitrose the other day, looking at some...
its now owned by unilever!

Unilever are BIG players now it seems, got their grubby chemical hands on pretty much everything. It always brings a wry smile to my face when (for example) seeing an advert on tv for what any rational person would assume to be a high-quality/respected brand food item, only at the end to see the "unilever" brand logo flip down (as it does) in the top-right corner of the screen.

They're not unique, there are other "chemical" companies that are parents of brands/products that you wouldn't logically associate with... Johnson & Johnson have their grubby fingers in a lot of pies, Proctor & Gamble likewise, these are the obvious ones.

I find it odd that a company that produces cook-in sauces also makes the stuff that I clean my toilets with!

There can be no other conclusion than greed and power. Pure, unadulterated. I've no real problem with any company that specialises in a product/sector, but when diversification to totally unrelated product groups happens, then that's my only conclusion.

[Hervé]

Well, since Paul's gone over the bend here... :)

There is something very misunderstood about corporations or companies, manufacturing plants, communities, leagues, associations, lodges, clubs, groups, cliques, etc... and that is that they are founded by a number of individuals agreeing on a common dream, vision, purpose, goal, etc...

And that's where the crux of the matter resides: it's being given life, first in the dream/astral/mental world, then being made to land in the 3D/physical reality as a birth/inauguration ceremony.

In other word: it's become ALIVE!

Now, switching to the Aboriginal point of view of a Steve Richards:


EVERYTHING IS ALIVE!


... through an example he gave in his interview with Randy Maugans:



Steve: Okay, okay. One of the interesting things I look at here is you’ve got to understand how homeopathy works and osteopathic frequencies work. And, you know equal force against equal forces become null and void. Interesting. So, I look at this, Aboriginal culture says, ‘everything is alive.’ So, I had a woman that comes into me from Chile. Doesn’t speak good English. Her daughter said, “my mum can’t sleep, she’s on two lots of sleeping tablets and can’t sleep.” I said, ‘well that makes sense, she’s got two separate entities in there, they both need to keep her awake before she feeds them.’ Everything’s alive.

So what happens is for these drugs to be created they’ve got to have an intent behind their creation. The first is the law of intent and [, the second,] the law of agreement. So what is the intent in the creation of that drug and what’s its intent? It now becomes a life-form that needs to survive like anything else. Therefore, an anti-depressant means it has to keep you depressed so you’ll feed it. And when you feed it, it will make you no longer depressed. It got it’s food source, thank you very much. Another life-form taking over the vehicle. Stunned.

Everything’s alive. And that’s where we go back to the drugs. When these drugs are created there’s an intent in the creation of those drugs, and they’re alive. They need to survive like everything else. Because, they are... they are atoms with memory stored in them. But what I’ve found is when you hit something where there’s equal force, [it] crumbles: null and void.

Quite often on the table, I’ll say to people, whoa, whoa, stop. Get out of that, that’s your head-space. Whoa, hang on, that’s your soul, I acknowledge that, get out of the soul, be in the Spirit. And, other times, lots of life-forms come out and they try to justify why they should exist. The drugs are really good. They often state that they’re spiritually aware, it’s a life form trying to justify its existence in the being.

That's the mystery... these corporations are LIVE entities!

Being live entities they cannot help but conjure whatever it takes to stay alive and survive as growing LIVE ENTITIES. Outsourcing to wit

And that's the difference between "us" and TPTB: they know what they are doing... we don't.

They know what they are doing because they know what a thought form is and start their lodges with an eggregore/thought form. They know that, that thought form/eggregore/tulpa/golem has a life/mind of its own and they know what it's gona do to survive and stay alive as well as what to do to direct/steer it.

So... Rockefeller's big pharma... imagine the fractalian repetition of staying alive from the scale of the corporation and its board of directors down to the pill one takes...

Reeling yet?

Then it gets compounded when the size of corporations allows for the inevitable rise of psychopaths into their upper hierarchy as described in that "Twilight of the Psychopath (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/barrretttwilightofpsychopaths21aug08.shtml)" paper...

Accordingly, if "we" want to win, "we" better know what we are fighting against!

The guys who founded the "US of A" knew what they were doing in that respect: they dreamt of a very big entity/eggregore and fed it as much as they could for generations to come.

That entity they dreamt of and gave life to is the real WHITE HAT!

Me think it's time to acknowledge it?

[Carmody]

that would be a great t-shirt, would it not:

the number 1984, printed backward, across the top of the shirt (the reverse 1984)

And then, as a quote: "Freedom is a boot stomping on the face of a Sociopath. Forever."

Then, on the back:

"This Is Not George Orwell"

I'd wear that one.

[ThePythonicCow]

Corporations are not just tools, nor just assemblages of individual people. They take on a life of their own.

There is something very misunderstood about corporations or ...

And that's where the crux of the matter resides: it's being given life, first in the dream/astral/mental world, then being made to land in the 3D/physical reality as a birth/inauguration ceremony.

In other word: it's become ALIVE!
Yup. Fancy meeting you around this bend :).

[T Smith]

Like water pouring down a drain (crap flows down hill), corporations view and see democracy and republicanism as a thing that is to be infiltrated and taken over from the inside, or at the very least, to work with in a way that allows the corporation into a window of control or controlled consumerism. Which is slavery -enforced behavior and conditions. Infiltrating democracy is EASY and profitable beyond belief. the nature of politics and politicians makes it so.



Hi Carmody,

These sentiments are something I've meditated on frequently in recent months. To expand further, if you were to serve as counsel on fashioning a Constitution of a hypothetical Republic, what checks and balances or safeguards (if any) do you think a fledgling democratic Republic might erect in the fabric of its founding constitution that might keep the governing body impervious from being infiltrated from the inside and ultimately conquered by consumerism and corporatism? Is this concept an oxymoron? I often wonder what the Founders of the United States, who truly were a brilliant group of minds and the direct cultural product of the Western Enlightenment, would do as a redux, were they to see how their little experiment of self-government by and for the people unfolded over time, and had they had the luxury of witnessing the specific failures the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America. You are quite right the United States, circa 2013, is in its last stage before a full-fledged bloodbath ensues the likes of which we haven't been seen since the reign of Caligula, Pol-Pot, etc. Are there any checks and balances you can think of to avoid the current pit falls of the encroaching fascism we see today?

As a side comment, I concur with every point in your post from which the above quotation was taken. Spot on with your analysis of fascism and corporatism.

[ThePythonicCow]

That was an important post.
On the other hand (http://gizadeathstar.com/2013/01/gold-and-geopolitics/), "the Anglo-American financial oligarchy is in serious trouble" (Joseph P. Farrell).

[T Smith]

That was an important post.
On the other hand (http://gizadeathstar.com/2013/01/gold-and-geopolitics/), "the Anglo-American financial oligarchy is in serious trouble" (Joseph P. Farrell).

It would seem that they are. But I wonder if that really just translates to mean, in the final equation, that we serfs are in serious trouble...

[modwiz]

Like water pouring down a drain (crap flows down hill), corporations view and see democracy and republicanism as a thing that is to be infiltrated and taken over from the inside, or at the very least, to work with in a way that allows the corporation into a window of control or controlled consumerism. Which is slavery -enforced behavior and conditions. Infiltrating democracy is EASY and profitable beyond belief. the nature of politics and politicians makes it so.



Hi Carmody,

These sentiments are something I've meditated on frequently in recent months. To expand further, if you were to serve as counsel on fashioning a Constitution of a hypothetical Republic, what checks and balances or safeguards (if any) do you think a fledgling democratic Republic might erect in the fabric of its founding constitution that might keep the governing body impervious from being infiltrated from the inside and ultimately conquered by consumerism and corporatism? Is this concept an oxymoron? I often wonder what the Founders of the United States, who truly were a brilliant group of minds and the direct cultural product of the Western Enlightenment, would do as a redux, were they to see how their little experiment of self-government by and for the people unfolded over time, and had they had the luxury of witnessing the specific failures the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America. You are quite right the United States, circa 2013, is in its last stage before a full-fledged bloodbath ensues the likes of which we haven't been seen since the reign of Caligula, Pol-Pot, etc. Are there any checks and balances you can think of to avoid the current pit falls of the encroaching fascism we see today?

As a side comment, I concur with every point in your post from which the above quotation was taken. Spot on with your analysis of fascism and corporatism.

The founders spoke of the banking system as being more of a threat than any standing army. They knew who and where the enemy was. The enemy knew who and where their allies were too. Congress.

[jackovesk]

It has been suggested that perhaps some of the multinational corporations are not the monsters that people like me make them out to be. Maybe they are privy to information that we are not, and they are actually acting wisely for the Earth and her inhabitants - including mankind.

Another possibility is that the corporate boards are doing great harm, but it is not from sociopathic greed, but rather from their own misunderstandings about ecology and humanity. For example, maybe they believe transhumanism is a good thing ("enhanced humans"), or maybe they believe that transhumanism is inevitable, so make the most of it and prepare humanity for the transition.

I am stuck in the notion that multinational (or supranational) corporations are strictly malevolent, greed-driven, and sociopathically will use any means to an end - and that end is the acquisition of money. power, and control. Convince me otherwise.

Dennis

Firstly, you must remember 'Corporations' are an 'Entity'...

Secondly, you must single out just 'Who' are the 'Controllers - Major Shareholders' of the Corporation...

Thirdly, are these 'Controllers - Major Sharehlders' 'Affiliated with & Fund' any Global Govts, Think Tanks, No-Bid Contracts, etc...?

Finally, if these 'Corporations' have recently moved 'Offshore' or 'Outsouced Jobs' and have 'No Regard' for their employees, only the bottom line...?

I would have re-phrased your OP 'Heading' into...


"Name me just (1) 'Mulitinational Corporation' that does'nt fit within the criteria 'Above'..?"

PS - Oh I forgot...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[Dennis Leahy]

[devils advocate]

large corporations...


they provide lots of jobs to people in "third world" countries,
they out-competed the smaller businesses and now provide most of the goods sold,
the arms industry "defense contractor" corporations make all of the bombs and tanks and fighter jets (and they even found a use for depleted uranium) - to provide the US with exports,
corporations pay for almost the entire US electoral system,
corporate top management buy a lot of luxury goods,
they create most of the GNP of each nation

[/devils advocate]

So, take that, corporate bashers.

Dennis

[SKAWF]

[devils advocate]

large corporations...


they provide lots of jobs to people in "third world" countries,

by removing employment from other countries so they can exploit more people for less money

they out-competed the smaller businesses and now provide most of the goods sold,

they destroyed diversity with hostile practices because they want the whole market for themselves at the cost of small unique business's

the arms industry "defense contractor" corporations make all of the bombs and tanks and fighter jets (and they even found a use for depleted uranium) - to provide the US with exports,

so they can supply the military industrial complex with the tools required to kill millions of people with the aim of eliminating resistance to them

corporations pay for almost the entire US electoral system,

you GET what you pay for

corporate top management buy a lot of luxury goods,

while the rest of us dont have a pot to piss in

they create most of the GNP of each nation

and if they paid taxes, we might all benefit from it, instead of just them.


[/devils advocate]

So, take that, corporate bashers.

Dennis

[The Arthen]

Well I'm certainly 'glad' I brought up the "Even the rich spend money in unique ways" possibility!

Because this is something most would never actually entertain.

[araucaria]

In other word: it's become ALIVE!



I understand and am not disagreeing. However I feel we are talking about a counterfeit life form. Corporations can calm physical entity status under whatever amendment it is and behave as if they were such, but ultimately they should never be mistaken for a real natural person.

However the individual psychopath is much more readily confused, which is why the idea of stomping in their face becomes so difficult to handle for so many. Psychopathy is currently described as a human condition that makes you inhuman. Maybe it should be seen on the contrary as a lifeless parasite that simulates life through its host.

[jackovesk]

[devils advocate]

large corporations...


they provide lots of jobs to people in "third world" countries,
they out-competed the smaller businesses and now provide most of the goods sold,
the arms industry "defense contractor" corporations make all of the bombs and tanks and fighter jets (and they even found a use for depleted uranium) - to provide the US with exports,
corporations pay for almost the entire US electoral system,
corporate top management buy a lot of luxury goods,
they create most of the GNP of each nation

[/devils advocate]

So, take that, corporate bashers.

Dennis


they provide lots of jobs to people in "third world" countries

Oh, you mean 'Slave Labour/Sweat Shops' complete with 'Suicide Nets' in some cases...:no:


they out-competed the smaller businesses and now provide most of the goods sold

Oh, you mean 'Stomping' on the Little-Guy (Small Business) so they can't compete...:no:


the arms industry "defense contractor" corporations make all of the bombs and tanks and fighter jets (and they even found a use for depleted uranium) - to provide the US with exports

Your kidding me right...:confused:


corporations pay for almost the entire US electoral system

Geez, I wonder WHY..?


corporate top management buy a lot of luxury goods

So what..???


they create most of the GNP of each nation

:bs: - :nono: 'Small Business' does...:yes4:

...and here am I thinking 'Dennis Leahy' used to know his stuff...:faint:

Back atya [devils advocate]...:)

[T Smith]

they provide lots of jobs to people in "third world" countries,
Dennis

This is kinda like advocating for slavery by saying the plantation provides food and shelter for all the plantation slaves...


they out-competed the smaller businesses and now provide most of the goods sold,
Dennis

Economies of scale is one thing, but there is much more going on. Employing slave labor (which we will all eventually become at the maturation of this development) receiving corporate welfare and taxpayer subsidies, and legislating/regulating the smaller competition out of business (it helps to be able to afford a lobbyist and a senator or two). The first reason is a good thing for the consumer, to the extent this is primary reason bigger business out-competes smaller business, but I would submit the ladder reasons are the primary reasons bigger business out-competes smaller business and economies of scale are a secondary reason.


the arms industry "defense contractor" corporations make all of the bombs and tanks and fighter jets (and they even found a use for depleted uranium) - to provide the US with exports,
Dennis

This entire industry is a parasite on a "productive, commercial economy" (defined as the production of legitimate goods and services per legitimate demand given free and voluntary association among all participants) and causes a gross misallocation of resources. What you have here is an entire industry that 1) takes from the productive economy via direct taxation and forced debt (which renders future generations to slavery--and strictly from an economic sense, is a very bad development for the productive economy), and 2) then produces unneeded goods and services the natural economy would otherwise not demand. In other words, all the jobs and exports the the military industrial complex creates are sucked out of the jobs and exports that a much more productive economy would otherwise produce, but don't produce, were the resources not forcefully extracted.


corporations pay for almost the entire US electoral system
Dennis

This is a good thing???


corporate top management buy a lot of luxury goods,
Dennis

If there is a demand for luxury goods, in a productive economy, it will arise as a result of the direct benefits of the consumer rather than at her or his expense, e.g. those who enrich themselves legitimately because they have provided for and delivered the demands of the greater economy (rather than by usurping from and defrauding the greater economy) will themselves create a demand for luxury goods.



they create most of the GNP of each nation
Dennis

Yes. Because the multinational corporations, i.e., the globalists, have commandeered the global economy itself, for better or worse.

[donk]

Possibly the only thing as bad (or worse) than the concept of "ownership" for a communal type of being would be that of COMPETITION.

These two things being "valued" in our society are such incredibly suicidal lies.

If people were motivated by the idea of living, recognizing that working together for the betterment of you're self and others, rather than competiting to be better than everyone else so you can own more & better and different ****, I think we would be have made better "progress" than the lie of "competition-based innovation" with the dangling carrot of ownership being the reward.

Corporations are simply the institutionalization of these toxic ideas, frankensteins most horrible monster come to life, manifested as entities with more "rights" & power & respect than the mere mortals that created them.

Any benevolence is the nuggets of "truth" necessary to get us to buy in to the lies (or marketing)

[Dennis Leahy]

...and here am I thinking 'Dennis Leahy' used to know his stuff...:faint:

And here I was thinking that my snarky humor translated into Australian.

OK, so I was being snarky, but I'm trying to get someone who thinks multinational corporations have redeeming qualities to list them. Someone sincere probably can, but then (just as SKAWF and jackovesk and TSmith did to my list full of attempted humorous reasons), I believe that any benefits someone can list are exponentially overshadowed by negative aspects. At least that is true (to me) at this point in time, not theoretically, but in reality as presented by existing multinational corporations.

I think of megacorporations as nation-states, more than as "persons", and I do think that megacorportaions should have a different status than a mere "person": they should declare their sovereignty as a nation-state, get UN recognition, and should have embassies around the world. Why? Well, then when the people of the world finally rise up and take over their governance (the very idea of what The Reset Button is attempting in the US), and the government is no longer controlled by corporations but by citizens, then the citizens can sanction rogue corporations, and even declare war on them if they refuse to stop malevolent behavior.

But I actually don't think it would ever come to war, because corporations are really like mean toddlers that are given free reign. They are selfish and self-centered. If the parent is wise, they understand that the toddler is going to be self-centered, but the good parent intervenes in tantrums when the toddler hurts others. The major two issue that are the enablers of the malevolence of megacorporations are:
1.) collusion
2.) lack of restrictions

Collusion
The first problem I'd consider an "adult" problem; the second, a "toddler" problem. Slowly but surely, corporations have gone from big businesses that had to deal with governments as outsiders, to entities that infected governments like viruses. Through total control of the electoral process, the loose confederation of megacorporations has succeeded (at least in the US - I assume this is true in most countries) in making sure that the federal government's lawmakers are "corporate-friendly" (to say it nicely.) Then, using "lobbying", (legalized bribery), the megacorporations persuade and even dictate corporate-friendly legislation. The coup (or infection) continues as the bought-and-paid-for politicians appoint representatives of corporations into directorship of federal departments and agencies. Astoundingly, it doesn't stop there, but infects the judicial segment of government. By controlling the executive and legislative branches of government, the bonus is being able to appoint - for life - judges and justices that are "corporate-friendly", and the entire government succumbs to the disease.

What would corporations be like, if they were not also controlling the governments? We have no idea. Maybe some of them could stand on their own as big businesses and produce and distribute a product. Some of them could not exist without the host organism.

What would the nation or the world be like if corporations did not run the governments? We have no idea. Well, some of us have a vision, and I have dedicated quite a bit of my efforts to finding the specific entry point for the disease and figuring out how to close it. I want - with every cell of my body - to find out what my nation and our world will be like when the US government is healed of the disease of collusion, the disease that presents as fascism.

Lack of Restrictions
Onto the second item in my list, the "toddler" issue of lack of restrictions. (This one has confused and confounded some of my Libertarian friends.) So, the people in my nation, and each nation, succeed in removing the disease of collusion. There is (finally) a separation between corporations and state. The people in every branch of government are vetted to make sure they do not have corporate ties (collusion prevention), and are not even allowed to become absorbed into corporate management or buy any corporate stock for 5 years after leaving office (preventing "feathering the nest" acts in office that would benefit the elected official after leaving office.) Is this enough? Can we now "live and let live" and allow corporations to thrive?

I say "no." Corporations, just like toddlers, need a clear set of rules about what is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable behavior. Will putting restrictions on corporations reduce their profits? Absolutely. Will it even crush some corporations? Yes, the most parasitic, the most egregious, the worst human rights violators, the most environmentally unsound, the thugs and manipulators and blackmailers. But if one-person companies, small businesses, medium businesses, and even large businesses can make products and provide services without violating human rights and creating massive pollution, then the best of the megacorporations should be able to adapt to regulations as well.

If you see holes in my logic, point them out. If there are some megacorporations in existence right now that you think the accusations of collusion or parasitic behavior with governments is not correct, point them out. If you believe that corporations should be able to operate with no restrictions, please explain your logic. And, if you have examples of megacorporations that are acting in what they believe are altruistic motives, for the benefit of humankind, please list them.

Dennis

[donk]

Corporations don't "act", that idea is an illusion to hide individual decisions.

[T Smith]

If people were motivated by the idea of living, recognizing that working together for the betterment of you're self and others, rather than competiting to be better than everyone else so you can own more & better and different ****, I think we would be have made better "progress" than the lie of "competition-based innovation" with the dangling carrot of ownership being the reward.


This is basically the "Star-Trek" economic model. The betterment of self and others as the driving force behind the economy. And while I love the Star Trek series and its vision for humanity, what's unclear to me is how this kind of economy would actually work. Who organizes all that energy into a system of productive opportunity? After contemplating these questions, among other mundane logistics of such an economy, I am left with the uneasy conclusion that only way for this type of economy to function is via the auspices of a benevolent authoritarian dictate, or initiative, directing and controlling, presumably by force. In addition, such as system would require many, many levels of authority directing and exerting power and force (which one could argue would also be driven by an internal drive for the betterment of self and others). But my nagging concern is the actuality of even one benevolent dictator (not to mention the scores of benevolent dictators at various levels needed to organize this type of economy--essentially, a "benevolent power structure") is more rare a materialization in our universe than a flying unicorn.

[Dennis Leahy]

Corporations don't "act", that idea is an illusion to hide individual decisions.
True, it's a euphemism, but the effect on the world is the same regardless of the phrase or word used.

I do get your point, though. There are individuals in these corporations that are making the decisions. Thinking of the megacorporation conceptually as a nation-state, we see possibly a dictator and subordinate cronies, possibly a board that is democratic... but the vast majority of the workers in the corporation ("citizens of the corporate nation state", in my analogy) do not make the decisions, beneficent or malevolent. You're right, it really comes down to one or a handful of (probably sociopathic) directors when decisions are made.

I won't completely exonerate corporate shareholders, however. The concept of "voting with your wallet" is valid and though shareholders may not have any decision making power over the board (in fact, are not even privy to decision-making, but rather hear about decisions as corporate decrees/policy), shareholders may vote by holding or divesting shares of any particular stock.

Dennis

[donk]

The concept of "voting with your wallet" implies those with bigger wallets are more important

You wanna go down the real corporate rabbit hole, look up Patrick byrne's (overstock.com's founder) deepcapture blog, then tell me about shareholders...you used the word counterfeit, you can see how many fake votes there are out there on yahoo! Finance's profile of a corp...byrne's crew wi show you how

[ThePythonicCow]

Corporations don't "act", that idea is an illusion to hide individual decisions.
True, it's a euphemism, but ...
Gosh dang, I get all mystical (Post #25 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?54816-Are-Some-Multinational-Corporations-Benevolent&p=623722&viewfull=1#post623722)) explaining this, and Dennis even acknowledges reading my post ...

I think that Corporations do take on a life of their own. Or as Amzer Zo says it in Post #33 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?54816-Are-Some-Multinational-Corporations-Benevolent&p=623777&viewfull=1#post623777), they become ALIVE.

It's not just a euphemism to say they act :). Corporations are more than the sum of the individuals in them.

[donk]

I think that Corporations do take on a life of their own.

Yes, in the same way any faith-based created entity does.

I feel that you are falling into the trap that gives them their power.

Because we LET people say that Monsanto did this or Pfizer did that or the US (govt is another form of these entities that take a "life of their own") sued abc Co. Monsanto or Pfizer or abc co are "summoned demons" of sorts of energy vampires.

We buy into the religion called "capitalism" that is essentially self-imposed enslavement by "corporations". What does and inc./corp./LLC/etc need with your energy?

It's a front, illusion, the big lie, and giving it mystical powers only makes it worse. The "few bad apples" perpetuate and benefit from it...I was just reminded of something I need to dig up...

[T Smith]

Collusion
The first problem I'd consider an "adult" problem; the second, a "toddler" problem. Slowly but surely, corporations have gone from big businesses that had to deal with governments as outsiders, to entities that infected governments like viruses. Through total control of the electoral process, the loose confederation of megacorporations has succeeded (at least in the US - I assume this is true in most countries) in making sure that the federal government's lawmakers are "corporate-friendly" (to say it nicely.) Then, using "lobbying", (legalized bribery), the megacorporations persuade and even dictate corporate-friendly legislation. The coup (or infection) continues as the bought-and-paid-for politicians appoint representatives of corporations into directorship of federal departments and agencies. Astoundingly, it doesn't stop there, but infects the judicial segment of government. By controlling the executive and legislative branches of government, the bonus is being able to appoint - for life - judges and justices that are "corporate-friendly", and the entire government succumbs to the disease.

What would corporations be like, if they were not also controlling the governments? We have no idea. Maybe some of them could stand on their own as big businesses and produce and distribute a product. Some of them could not exist without the host organism.

What would the nation or the world be like if corporations did not run the governments? We have no idea. Well, some of us have a vision, and I have dedicated quite a bit of my efforts to finding the specific entry point for the disease and figuring out how to close it. I want - with every cell of my body - to find out what my nation and our world will be like when the US government is healed of the disease of collusion, the disease that presents as fascism.

Lack of Restrictions
Onto the second item in my list, the "toddler" issue of lack of restrictions. (This one has confused and confounded some of my Libertarian friends.) So, the people in my nation, and each nation, succeed in removing the disease of collusion. There is (finally) a separation between corporations and state. The people in every branch of government are vetted to make sure they do not have corporate ties (collusion prevention), and are not even allowed to become absorbed into corporate management or buy any corporate stock for 5 years after leaving office (preventing "feathering the nest" acts in office that would benefit the elected official after leaving office.) Is this enough? Can we now "live and let live" and allow corporations to thrive?

I say "no." Corporations, just like toddlers, need a clear set of rules about what is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable behavior. Will putting restrictions on corporations reduce their profits? Absolutely. Will it even crush some corporations? Yes, the most parasitic, the most egregious, the worst human rights violators, the most environmentally unsound, the thugs and manipulators and blackmailers. But if one-person companies, small businesses, medium businesses, and even large businesses can make products and provide services without violating human rights and creating massive pollution, then the best of the megacorporations should be able to adapt to regulations as well.

If you see holes in my logic, point them out. If there are some megacorporations in existence right now that you think the accusations of collusion or parasitic behavior with governments is not correct, point them out. If you believe that corporations should be able to operate with no restrictions, please explain your logic. And, if you have examples of megacorporations that are acting in what they believe are altruistic motives, for the benefit of humankind, please list them.

Dennis

Hi Dennis,

I'm with you all the way up to your idea of the implementation of restrictions on the "acceptable" behavior (presumably separate from "legal" behavior)... I'm interested to learn more about what kinds of acceptable restrictions you have in mind, who or what implements, creates, and enforces them, how and what restrictions and corporate behavior are determined desirable or undesirable for society, and by whom and by what mechanisms, etc., etc. As far as separating State and Corp. power, there are probably many solutions to accomplish this without infringing on the natural rights and civil liberties of the social order, e.g., implementing some mechanism that 1) effectively removes the concerted association of interests from the electoral process without violating individual and even the collective rights of democratic representation, 2) rebooting a system of honest elections, and 3) implementing term limits in all three branches of government, not just executive. Even the vetting restrictions you propose on who and who does not qualify for public office does not offend my libertarian sensibilities, but once you propose to go further into regulating specific behaviors it gets a little murky for me. Obviously I concur corporations should operate within some agreed-upon set of legal boundaries, but the only part I potentially take issue with is the one on which you've expounded the least. If you provide specific examples of what you are proposing I would be happy to comment further.

[donk]

Haven't we seen throughout history that these "mystical" corporations that find the best way around regulations (or better yet, capture gov't and legalize their energy theft) are the ones that "succeed"?

As the warlock Sheen would say "DUH...WINNING"

Few bad apples, one Sith Lord, turns into a vampire squid, by convincing us we need corporations, that it is the best way of life.

And we believe, and get defensive when anyone tried to reveal out shackles to us...

[donk]

Last time I read this (years ago) it was not nearly as wrong. I can't open the movie to view it on my phone, but I recommend it.

http://www.deepcapture.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/deepcapture-the-story-v1.pdf

This guy started dropping truth bombs in a conference call that made him the lunatic asshole of the corporate world. He was pissed that his stock was counterfeited (see: naked short selling) and instead of just accepting the created power structure, the corporate paradigm, he looked into and broke and it down a bit.

He still seems trapped in the paradigm, as we all are whether we like it or not. The "star trek" mentality as it was dubbed had no place for these mystical created faith-based eternal entities that only have "hive consciousness" given to them by their marketing departments or PR firms.

[CdnSirian]

Hard to keep up with all these excellent posts, am losing my thoughts. So just quickly, not organized...

NAFTA GATT WTO, Codus Alimentaris - who benefits?

Corporate prison labor - who benefits? (All prisoners are assigned a value which can be traded on the stock market).

My wallet is very small - yet I can still "vote" with it by choosing where to purchase. Walmart low cost produce picked by prisoners? Or local farmers' market.

If I buy stocks am I "voting" for Wall Street/corporate control of the government?

Corporate management (not mismanagement, this was planned), has wiped out many retirement pensions, hijacked Medicare etc etc. But that money or value is not "gone". It has simply left the building.

Many of the wealthy form foundations which support the arts. I'm not sure how these structures differ from corporations. I personally am happy to see arts organizations getting money rather than it going to taxes. Corporations can also donate, avoiding taxes. I think that's good. Though it's sad if the corporate products are killing machines.

Dennis you've started a great conversation that is both productive and "dead end". Corporations being what they are, even if there are some good ones that I haven't been able to find. The fruits of their labor should be easier to determine than reading their "mission statements". The word "mission" implies a lofty or noble ideal, whereas "business proposal" would suffice.

Board members are invited or elected depending on how the selectors/voters expect them to vote, no? For the shareholders, ignorant investors who have employed a broker to invest their money, and have no idea where said money is. Mostly, not always.

O.K., probably there have been a series of highly detailed posts posted here while I've been typing, but wanted to squeeze in these general and uncomplicated ideas in.

[Dennis Leahy]

...

Lack of Restrictions
Onto the second item in my list, the "toddler" issue of lack of restrictions.

... Can we now "live and let live" and allow corporations to thrive?

I say "no." Corporations, just like toddlers, need a clear set of rules about what is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable behavior. Will putting restrictions on corporations reduce their profits? Absolutely. Will it even crush some corporations? Yes, the most parasitic, the most egregious, the worst human rights violators, the most environmentally unsound, the thugs and manipulators and blackmailers. But if one-person companies, small businesses, medium businesses, and even large businesses can make products and provide services without violating human rights and creating massive pollution, then the best of the megacorporations should be able to adapt to regulations as well.

Hi Dennis,

I'm with you all the way up to your idea of the implementation of restrictions on the "acceptable" behavior (presumably separate from "legal" behavior)... I'm interested to learn more about what kinds of acceptable restrictions you have in mind, who or what implements, creates, and enforces them, how and what restrictions and corporate behavior are determined desirable or undesirable for society, and by whom and by what mechanisms, etc., etc. As far as separating State and Corp. power, there are probably many solutions to accomplish this without infringing on the natural rights and civil liberties of the social order, e.g., implementing some mechanism that 1) effectively removes the concerted association of interests from the electoral process without violating individual and even the collective rights of democratic representation, 2) rebooting a system of honest elections, and 3) implementing term limits in all three branches of government, not just executive. Even the vetting restrictions you propose on who and who does not qualify for public office does not offend my libertarian sensibilities, but once you propose to go further into regulating specific behaviors it gets a little murky for me. Obviously I concur corporations should operate within some agreed-upon set of legal boundaries, but the only part I potentially take issue with is the one on which you've expounded the least. If you provide specific examples of what you are proposing I would be happy to comment further.

Hi T,

Well, in so doing, I would first say that any the vision I have is clearly divided into
1.) the surgical procedure to remove the parasitic (or even if they were beneficial) entanglements, the collusion
and
2.) the interrelation between corporations and Earth/nations/governments/individuals

My vision on the first is clear: no collusion is acceptable.

My vision on the second sort of devolved from something pretty clear (read the second half of The Reset Button document), to the recognition that this needs to be organic, developed by thousands of people with expertise and insight, working together to develop guidelines, rules, regulations, and yes, enforcement (which is a sticking point for a number of Libertarians I have conversed with.)

To me, if you recognize that corporate influence or corporate collusion with governments, resulting in corporatism or fascism is not the model of governance that you want (or think is healthy), then a concerted and united effort among the "non-corporate", that I like to call "ordinary citizens" to do away with the mechanisms of corporatism is essential. Where it goes after that is fuzzy, organic, maybe best described the same way that a multi-stranded rope is used to represent timelines. My particular vision is unimportant, or rather, no more important than anyone else's. I think a lot of people get lost right at this junction, believing that whatever their vision is, whether pure democratic socialism, pure Libertarian capitalism, some sort of tribal anti-statism, or a resource-based economy like the Zeitgeist/Venus Project envisions, or whatever... their ultimate vision must be THEE vision, and all effort must be toward that vision. I say, get rid of collusion and corporatism (the diseases) and then whichever way citizens want to steer the course will be better (healthier for citizens/society and the environment) than corporatism/fascism (which will end in totalitarian fascism.)

I haven't answered your real question (which is tangential to the thread and really would make a good thread on its own), but want to make sure I have underscored that what you are asking is secondary to removing the disease. If we can agree that removal of the disease is the critical first step, then we can work together to make people aware that unless this first step is completed, only the corporatocracy's vision will be realized.

Now to briefly try to answer your question: I don't know. I don't know how many parts per million of any specific toxin is an acceptable amount of that toxin to allow corporations to release into the environment. I do know that corporations want the number to be "unlimited", and that if corporations are allowed to do whatever they want, that is, if left unrestricted, they will destroy (and are destroying) the biosphere for short-term gains, to enhance the little empires of a handful of individuals. They have proven this time and time again, and how anyone can believe that corporations will police themselves is beyond my understanding. I know that I have heard the argument that citizens, buying or rejecting goods and services, is a powerful enough force to make the corporations self-regulate. I say that is astoundingly naive, and wrong. Take an industry like agriculture. The already are pretty much self-regulating, and see how well they have done: sterile soil full of toxins, loss of most of our topsoil, toxic food devoid of micronutrients, genetically modified organisms as the norm, myriad toxins sprayed onto plants that are then ingested, leach into groundwater, and/or become airborne toxins.

(A small percentage of food grown organically will not solve these issues, nor will consumers ever be able to 'buy" an organic paradigm into existence: there are too many institutionalized, incarcerated, and school kids that will be forced to eat whatever Big Ag produces, and as long as the collusion exists between Big Ag and the FDA and USDA, and Big Media, lies are foisted as truths and the general public is lulled into buying toxins they trust are minimal and safe.)

My personal vision for this industry (that only organic farming be allowed) would certainly be considered as harsh and heretical to those that now control that industry (which in itself is the blend of the petrochemical industry and agricultural industries, not just agriculture.)

We see corporations moving manufacturing facilities to areas on the planet with the least amount of restrictions - resulting in paying the absolute least amount of money possible to workers, forcing outrageously long hours, subjecting workers to dangerous, toxic conditions, and making no effort whatsoever to filter any toxins out of their effluent. This is not theoretical. This is the very real outcome of no restrictions, and non-enforcement of existing restrictions.

[my opinion] I'd love for the simplistic examples by folks like Stephen Molineux to be real working models for commerce, and the idea that no one would need enforcement. Unfortunately, it is complete fantasy in real-world commerce - unless we are talking about one person with a bag of carrots and one person with a basket of eggs. [/my opinion]

Still trying to "briefly" answer your question. hahahahhaha
Example: the US used to have a steel industry, now we don't, but China does. I believe this industry would have been saved (in the US) by intelligent regulations, not destroyed (in the US), and that these regulations would also be making the entire world cleaner rather than more polluted. Again, I can't tell you exactly how many parts per million of different toxins should be the regulated standards, but imagine if they were tough but achievable. The price of steel would go up. Other countries with lax or no regulations could produce the steel cheaper, and would have an incentive to do so. But if a (citizen-run) US government applied trade restrictions (for example, a tariff on "dirty" steel, collected at import, and paid to the affected industry), then the advantage of making dirty steel in foreign countries and exporting to the US would disappear. If the US is a big enough market to have influence (and we are), and if the Chinese steel companies wanted to sell steel into the US market, they would have an incentive to clean-up their manufacturing process.

I know that's a somewhat simplistic example, but I hope it illustrates a concept. Restrictions and regulations that protect workers and the environment do make the cost of goods go up, and that in itself is OK. It would not mean the end of an industry as long as regulations were also in place to protect against the "dumping" or undercutting of domestic "clean" goods by foreign "dirty" goods. (Clean and dirty in both humanitarian and ecological ways.)

Donk (and others), I don't believe that we can move from a corporatocracy to a system of trade that does not include corporations - at least not in a lifetime or the next century. It is valid and a good exercise to envision a much more benevolent and harmonious future, and I encourage the process of envisioning that future both taking shape and coming to fruition. But for me, right here and right now, I know that the corporate paradigm is not going to simply go away, and I am working to achieve a paradigm where we can each decide to opt-in or opt-out of being influenced by the corporate paradigm where corporations do not control us and the environment. Plus, restrictions placed on corporations to prevent them from polluting the environment (the only way for citizens to actually be able to opt-out of being affected by corporations. I believe it is achievable within my lifetime. And I'm willing to trust that this goal (removing the diseases of collusion and corporatocracy) creates a much more beneficent paradigm that will further evolve.

Dennis

[donk]

Donk (and others), I don't believe that we can move from a corporatocracy to a system of trade that does not include corporations - at least not in a lifetime or the next century.

To quote yoda: THAT is why you fail.

And I agree wholeheartedly, 100%!!

It seems insurmountable, BUT:

Unless (I'd love to say UNTIL) more people buy into the fact the current ownership/competition/individualism paradigm (which "successful" (gigantic/global) corporations are the extreme manifestation of) is the problem, which can be replaced by individual decisions with intent for a different, sustainable pro-life/species mentality rather than accepting "it is what it is", we are stuck in this bull****...our only hope is to bring light to the darkness, finding ways to open more eyes to it

[Dennis Leahy]

Donk (and others), I don't believe that we can move from a corporatocracy to a system of trade that does not include corporations - at least not in a lifetime or the next century.To quote yoda: THAT is why you fail. Or perhaps Yoda was being too mystical to note the practical: the doorway, the steppingstone that I am speaking of - surgically removing the disease - leads to a new paradigm, which is the fertile ground for evolving paradigms. Whatever your paradigm vision is, (in my opinion) it will not come to fruition unless we walk through that initial doorway, step on that critical steppingstone.

You increase the chance of realizing your vision a thousandfold, if the corporatocracy is excised, first.

Dennis

[Hervé]

In other word: it's become ALIVE!



I understand and am not disagreeing. However I feel we are talking about a counterfeit life form.

[...]

It perplexes me to no end that you claim to understand, yet miss the whole point of my post which, so far, only Paul seems to have fully grasped.

I am not talking about the legal foundation of corporations.

I am talking about a real, live, life-form with an independent consciousness, a mind of its own, an intelligence and a will to continue living no matter what.

It is a life-form akin to a ghost or an archon or a spirit guide.

Check out the meaning of tulpa, golem, eggregore.

Check out Franz Erdl's "Big Heads (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?51640-Camelot-disclosure-from-Kerry&p=579065&viewfull=1#post579065)" (<--- click)

Check out Steve Richards' website for the innumerable examples of such, drawn from his experience of dealing with such:

http://www.holographickinetics.net/ (http://www.holographickinetics.net/)

[Carmody]

Yes, a single mind can make a tulpa.

what does that say for the mass consciousness, the mass ego of humanity, where the record indicates that this 'god' and 'lucifer' both indicated that 'they need our belief, in order to exist and connect to us'?

this is why, this dream, that is alive, the why of the line of 'no good deed goes unpunished' -due to this mass Tulpa effect.

Why do those who try and control the world..why do they try their damnedest to remain totally outside of human knowing?

If they were known, out in the public eye...your anger and issues, your reality forming aspects would have a target.

[jackovesk]

Bottom Line

Multinational Corporations who don't play by the 'Globalists Rules' either...

1. Don't last long...
2. Or, are 'Taken Over' by those that do...

Finally, any which way you look at it 'They Are'...

Slave Machines Who...


Always want More, More, More productivity from their employees, grinding away at their souls...
Forcing them to work 'Longer Hours' to meet their 'Targets' & spend less time away from their families...

The 'Model' is 'Broken' and their Employees 'Know It', but are 'Forced to Play By Their Rules' in order to Pay their 'Multinational Corporation BILLS' in order to survive...!!!

Talk about a 'NEVER - ENDING' (Merry-Go-Round) of 'SERFDOM' by Design...:faint:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKI2gOawEPA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKI2gOawEPA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXngQtk0BCU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXngQtk0BCU

[T Smith]

...

Lack of Restrictions
Onto the second item in my list, the "toddler" issue of lack of restrictions.

... Can we now "live and let live" and allow corporations to thrive?

I say "no." Corporations, just like toddlers, need a clear set of rules about what is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable behavior. Will putting restrictions on corporations reduce their profits? Absolutely. Will it even crush some corporations? Yes, the most parasitic, the most egregious, the worst human rights violators, the most environmentally unsound, the thugs and manipulators and blackmailers. But if one-person companies, small businesses, medium businesses, and even large businesses can make products and provide services without violating human rights and creating massive pollution, then the best of the megacorporations should be able to adapt to regulations as well.

Hi Dennis,

I'm with you all the way up to your idea of the implementation of restrictions on the "acceptable" behavior (presumably separate from "legal" behavior)... I'm interested to learn more about what kinds of acceptable restrictions you have in mind, who or what implements, creates, and enforces them, how and what restrictions and corporate behavior are determined desirable or undesirable for society, and by whom and by what mechanisms, etc., etc. As far as separating State and Corp. power, there are probably many solutions to accomplish this without infringing on the natural rights and civil liberties of the social order, e.g., implementing some mechanism that 1) effectively removes the concerted association of interests from the electoral process without violating individual and even the collective rights of democratic representation, 2) rebooting a system of honest elections, and 3) implementing term limits in all three branches of government, not just executive. Even the vetting restrictions you propose on who and who does not qualify for public office does not offend my libertarian sensibilities, but once you propose to go further into regulating specific behaviors it gets a little murky for me. Obviously I concur corporations should operate within some agreed-upon set of legal boundaries, but the only part I potentially take issue with is the one on which you've expounded the least. If you provide specific examples of what you are proposing I would be happy to comment further.

Hi T,

Well, in so doing, I would first say that any the vision I have is clearly divided into
1.) the surgical procedure to remove the parasitic (or even if they were beneficial) entanglements, the collusion
and
2.) the interrelation between corporations and Earth/nations/governments/individuals

My vision on the first is clear: no collusion is acceptable.

My vision on the second sort of devolved from something pretty clear (read the second half of The Reset Button document), to the recognition that this needs to be organic, developed by thousands of people with expertise and insight, working together to develop guidelines, rules, regulations, and yes, enforcement (which is a sticking point for a number of Libertarians I have conversed with.)

To me, if you recognize that corporate influence or corporate collusion with governments, resulting in corporatism or fascism is not the model of governance that you want (or think is healthy), then a concerted and united effort among the "non-corporate", that I like to call "ordinary citizens" to do away with the mechanisms of corporatism is essential. Where it goes after that is fuzzy, organic, maybe best described the same way that a multi-stranded rope is used to represent timelines. My particular vision is unimportant, or rather, no more important than anyone else's. I think a lot of people get lost right at this junction, believing that whatever their vision is, whether pure democratic socialism, pure Libertarian capitalism, some sort of tribal anti-statism, or a resource-based economy like the Zeitgeist/Venus Project envisions, or whatever... their ultimate vision must be THEE vision, and all effort must be toward that vision. I say, get rid of collusion and corporatism (the diseases) and then whichever way citizens want to steer the course will be better (healthier for citizens/society and the environment) than corporatism/fascism (which will end in totalitarian fascism.)

I haven't answered your real question (which is tangential to the thread and really would make a good thread on its own), but want to make sure I have underscored that what you are asking is secondary to removing the disease. If we can agree that removal of the disease is the critical first step, then we can work together to make people aware that unless this first step is completed, only the corporatocracy's vision will be realized.

Now to briefly try to answer your question: I don't know. I don't know how many parts per million of any specific toxin is an acceptable amount of that toxin to allow corporations to release into the environment. I do know that corporations want the number to be "unlimited", and that if corporations are allowed to do whatever they want, that is, if left unrestricted, they will destroy (and are destroying) the biosphere for short-term gains, to enhance the little empires of a handful of individuals. They have proven this time and time again, and how anyone can believe that corporations will police themselves is beyond my understanding. I know that I have heard the argument that citizens, buying or rejecting goods and services, is a powerful enough force to make the corporations self-regulate. I say that is astoundingly naive, and wrong. Take an industry like agriculture. The already are pretty much self-regulating, and see how well they have done: sterile soil full of toxins, loss of most of our topsoil, toxic food devoid of micronutrients, genetically modified organisms as the norm, myriad toxins sprayed onto plants that are then ingested, leach into groundwater, and/or become airborne toxins.

(A small percentage of food grown organically will not solve these issues, nor will consumers ever be able to 'buy" an organic paradigm into existence: there are too many institutionalized, incarcerated, and school kids that will be forced to eat whatever Big Ag produces, and as long as the collusion exists between Big Ag and the FDA and USDA, and Big Media, lies are foisted as truths and the general public is lulled into buying toxins they trust are minimal and safe.)

My personal vision for this industry (that only organic farming be allowed) would certainly be considered as harsh and heretical to those that now control that industry (which in itself is the blend of the petrochemical industry and agricultural industries, not just agriculture.)

We see corporations moving manufacturing facilities to areas on the planet with the least amount of restrictions - resulting in paying the absolute least amount of money possible to workers, forcing outrageously long hours, subjecting workers to dangerous, toxic conditions, and making no effort whatsoever to filter any toxins out of their effluent. This is not theoretical. This is the very real outcome of no restrictions, and non-enforcement of existing restrictions.

[my opinion] I'd love for the simplistic examples by folks like Stephen Molineux to be real working models for commerce, and the idea that no one would need enforcement. Unfortunately, it is complete fantasy in real-world commerce - unless we are talking about one person with a bag of carrots and one person with a basket of eggs. [/my opinion]

Still trying to "briefly" answer your question. hahahahhaha
Example: the US used to have a steel industry, now we don't, but China does. I believe this industry would have been saved (in the US) by intelligent regulations, not destroyed (in the US), and that these regulations would also be making the entire world cleaner rather than more polluted. Again, I can't tell you exactly how many parts per million of different toxins should be the regulated standards, but imagine if they were tough but achievable. The price of steel would go up. Other countries with lax or no regulations could produce the steel cheaper, and would have an incentive to do so. But if a (citizen-run) US government applied trade restrictions (for example, a tariff on "dirty" steel, collected at import, and paid to the affected industry), then the advantage of making dirty steel in foreign countries and exporting to the US would disappear. If the US is a big enough market to have influence (and we are), and if the Chinese steel companies wanted to sell steel into the US market, they would have an incentive to clean-up their manufacturing process.

I know that's a somewhat simplistic example, but I hope it illustrates a concept. Restrictions and regulations that protect workers and the environment do make the cost of goods go up, and that in itself is OK. It would not mean the end of an industry as long as regulations were also in place to protect against the "dumping" or undercutting of domestic "clean" goods by foreign "dirty" goods. (Clean and dirty in both humanitarian and ecological ways.)

Donk (and others), I don't believe that we can move from a corporatocracy to a system of trade that does not include corporations - at least not in a lifetime or the next century. It is valid and a good exercise to envision a much more benevolent and harmonious future, and I encourage the process of envisioning that future both taking shape and coming to fruition. But for me, right here and right now, I know that the corporate paradigm is not going to simply go away, and I am working to achieve a paradigm where we can each decide to opt-in or opt-out of being influenced by the corporate paradigm where corporations do not control us and the environment. Plus, restrictions placed on corporations to prevent them from polluting the environment (the only way for citizens to actually be able to opt-out of being affected by corporations. I believe it is achievable within my lifetime. And I'm willing to trust that this goal (removing the diseases of collusion and corporatocracy) creates a much more beneficent paradigm that will further evolve.

Dennis

Hi Dennis,

I will review/study the Reset Button and give a more thorough response after I am more versed. I will say, at the outset, that I agree 100% that the removal of the disease is the critical first step. On this point I concur without condition. Additionally, well-contrived legislation and restrictions, even if not perfect, will likely achieve their objectives if we can truly cure the "collusion disease", i.e., the FDA and USDA, etc., may actually prove beneficial agencies to the public if/when you can excise the collusion malignancy. I think the malignant diagnosis of our little collusion disease is also an appropriate analogy; surgical removal (or separation) may temporarily solve the problem (and there are may ways to do this) but the best way to cure a cancer is to create an environment wherein cancer cannot survive, not just cut it out of an environment where it previously thrived. Cancer is generally misunderstood by Western Medicine, and I would submit (in my humble opinion) that the collusion malignancy is also generally misunderstood by the those whose solution is to continually apply new laws and regulations to "reign in the evil corporations". In my estimation this solution actually creates an environment where corporatism can thrive (even though it might be temporarily stunted or thwarted, or perhaps even misdirected due to this or that regulation/restriction). Laws and ever more regulations are analogous to treating the symptom (like a medicine that treats but does not cure) instead of treating the cause, and after the systemic mechanism develops an immunity to the piles and piles of created bureaucracy, corporatism endures stronger and always emerges a more formidable menace on society and the planet. That said, I am quite sympathetic to your frustrations with the very abstract solutions presented by Stephen Molineux and others like him, even though those simplistic concepts do tend to resonate with me in the abstract. I am open to a little social engineering at a constitutional level, tweaking the dialectic, if you will, so it produces the desired restrictions by its own accord. Is this even possible? I don't know. My hunch is, this is exactly how TPTB regulate our behavior and shape our own consciousness to a desired end. If there is a prescription that will treat the cause, however, and not just the symptom, I'm all for hearing about it. In the meantime, I would like to explore options that provide for naturally imposed restrictions, as part of the natural dialectic of the system itself, even if we have to somehow devise a way to build these constructs into the system instead of just hoping the free market will allow for them.

[gooty64]

Cute thread:o. Blufire, we are all waiting.....

[Dennis Leahy]

Cute thread:o. Blufire, we are all waiting.....I'll tell you one thing I already got from Blufire: a reminder that activists can be more effective if they use their heads for something other than a battering ram.

I spoke with a number of people in the Occupy Movement, and I spoke with a number of people who are activists in my local community that tried to work with the local Occupy folks. The passion and energy of the Occupy activists was undeniable, and these other community activists (that had already been working with the homeless and foreclosure issues, to name two areas of focus) really wanted to add the passion of Occupy to the more well thought-out strategic plans they had developed experientially, but eventually, the marriage did not occur.

Blufire reminded me of this when she spoke about an issue where there was something of an environmental dump heap in her area, and she not only envisioned getting it cleaned up and restoring the land to (if I remember correctly) a nature preserve, she formulated a plan and a strategy to make it happen. She could have enlisted the help of a number of local activists (I assume), and they could have made signs and gone to the site and screamed passionately, attempting to either get the company to clean up the mess or at least raise public awareness. (I would call that a head-used-for-battering-ram approach.) She didn't do that; she was wiser. She wanted a good outcome, not just letting off steam. Her strategy was to approach and work with the company and the county (forgive me if I'm getting the details wrong, but I think the gist is right.) No loss of personal integrity, no selling out, and achieving real results.

Maybe that's what she's trying to tell us: that oversimplifying the big picture and declaring these megacorporations as 100% evil is not going to work (if we want results) and rather than screaming at them from the top, maybe it is wiser to get them to open a door in the middle.

Most of these megacorporations donate money - perhaps they all do. They need tax write-offs, and they need to do some activities as public relations "stunts" to help their images. I can see the wisdom in figuring out ways to get that money into the community, as long as it does not mean losing integrity.

I don't want to put any words into Blufire's mouth - she is capable of explaining her perspective. I hope she'll clarify whatever I got wrong in the above paragraphs. And, she mentioned that she does not think multinational corporations are benevolent, (so this thread title does not describe her position), but I hope she'll use this space or another thread to expound on her perspective regarding corporations. Some of us may still disagree with her (respectfully); some of us may agree with some of what she says; some may find themselves in complete agreement. We grow in wisdom, as a group, when we share different perspectives. I hope she'll share hers.

Dennis

[panopticon]

It has been suggested that perhaps some of the multinational corporations are not the monsters that people like me make them out to be. Maybe they are privy to information that we are not, and they are actually acting wisely for the Earth and her inhabitants - including mankind.

Another possibility is that the corporate boards are doing great harm, but it is not from sociopathic greed, but rather from their own misunderstandings about ecology and humanity. For example, maybe they believe transhumanism is a good thing ("enhanced humans"), or maybe they believe that transhumanism is inevitable, so make the most of it and prepare humanity for the transition.

I am stuck in the notion that multinational (or supranational) corporations are strictly malevolent, greed-driven, and sociopathically will use any means to an end - and that end is the acquisition of money. power, and control. Convince me otherwise.

Alright Dennis, here we go. Within the confines of reality as we perceive it...

The concept of malevolence and benevolence in relation to corporations is not really of relevance. It's like saying a tiger is malevolent if it eats a person or a gun is malevolent if it is used to shoot a small child. Neither the tiger, the gun nor the corporation is malevolent (which is interpreted as "acting evil") rather they are carrying out their actions in relation to their function. Just as malevolence has no meaning in relation to a corporation nor does benevolence. A corporation can be said to have characteristics of action that appear malevolent or benevolent but that is only our perception of it.

To anthropomorphise (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthropomorphise) a corporation is to make a fundamental error.

Corporations serve a simple function:
To make money for their share-holders within the bounds of the law.

Sometimes this means they move to different localities to be able to increase profits by reducing overheads (eg wages, laxer regulation, lower infrastructure costs, increased tax benefits). At other times it involves engaging with local community groups and/or traditional peoples so as to increase their ability to operate within the confines of the law and not only increase financial profit but also their social currency (makes middle class share holders feel good about themselves while increasing share prices). Many mining companies in Australia are actively involved in, through consultation with traditional land owners, improving the condition of the locals and the environmental degradation caused by years of Government neglect. Rio Tinto is a classic examples of this in Australia with its Aboriginal Fund (now defunct) and innovative Community Investment Program (see here (http://www.ciwa.riotinto.com/) for more on this).

To say that a corporation is malevolent ignores the fact that it is a collection of people cooperating for a common purpose while being supported by, and supporting, the local people as well as many well meaning share holders. If there is a need then the corporation provides it. It's not the corporations fault that the growing middle class want to have everything now and don't think about the future. No, that's where all successful corporations are different (look at Gunns Ltd. (http://www.smh.com.au/business/gunns-failure-a-story-of-corporate-greed-and-hubris-say-mills-critics-20120925-26jhv.html) for a corporation that didn't). Not only do the people working together in a corporation plan along a cost/benefit analysis of action/profits but they also plan for the corporations longevity. Sometimes much better than a Government (which is caught in bureaucratic department conflicts and party based election cycle policy making) ever would. Corporations are the only true hope for the planet and humanity. There are some who move beyond the confines of their legal remit but they are in the minority and even then it is the individual people who are stretching the law, not the corporation itself. To think or say otherwise is ludicrous.

As a means of example I would suggest the Mondragon Corporation (http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/language/en-US/ENG.aspx) from the Basque region of Spain. Since its inception in the 1950's it has been of vast benefit to the people of the region. The corporation is owned by the workers and provides, for example, employment (with a tiered wage scale that lowers management salaries), education, housing, banking, health and redistribution of capital within the population. This is of major benefit to the Basque people and while there have been a few problems in outsourced work to other areas (notably employee inequality in a Eastern European plant) when the members of the corporation found out about these practices they were stopped almost straight away.

In what way is this a "malevolent" corporation?

Z-b_KvyMzOs
zaJ1hfVPUe8
-obHJfTaQvw
Most corporations now have a 'statement of business ethics' that their employees try to operate within. Yes, sometimes individuals within the corporation make mistakes and sometimes those who directly manage a corporation are short sighted but this is not the corporations fault. If anything it is the fault of the system under which a corporation operates. The system requires profit. The system requires middle class share holder ignorance (particularly when it comes to Superannuation Funds). The system necessitates that corporations sometimes take work elsewhere to increase profits. It isn't the corporations fault, nor even the individual employee in many cases, rather I would argue that it is the system that is to blame. A system designed and organised by Governments to reinforce the hypocrisy of the Nation State.

Chew on that for a bit. :whistle:
Thanks for the thought experiment.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

BTW Good to see the use of Money, Control & Power in the OP :thumb:

[araucaria]

I am talking about a real, live, life-form with an independent consciousness, a mind of its own, an intelligence and a will to continue living no matter what.



My point and your perplexity are to do with the fact that this definition leaves you no room to distinguish between a tulpa to be dealt with and say myself, who I do not consider to be a tulpa. I take issue with the word 'real': at some level I am real in a way your corporations etc are only fictitious. It is crucial to distinguish between the two, which is how you avoid becoming the problem and become the solution.

[donk]

) She didn't do that; she was wiser. She wanted a good outcome, not just letting off steam. Her strategy was to approach and work with the company and the county

I would love her input on this statement, as it would help me see where Paul & Amer zo are coming from a little better.

I believe corps are created entities, golem is a great analogy, Frankenstein's monster, the machines from the matrix (ugh...edit, bad example!! I was tired...), and on a multidimensional level I know you can't seperate their "being-ness" as "alive" entities, but like Carmody said eloquently: only because we believe in them.

I don't believed she worked with a company or a county, I believe she worked with individuals within them.

If it were the consciousness of the "corp" she was working with, or the actual "county" itself, would it mean the same thing? Would the results be the same? Can they have compassion for humans?

Corpations are not supposed to, governments supposedly are. I don't WANT to be right, but I don't see how it is untrue that any show of consciousness other than those directly from the actual decision makers at the highest level are those that the same individuals ALLOW to go through or slips pasts them by mistake.

A few individuals make all decisions-some of which are to allow others decisions to be apparent from the outside to give an illusion of organism where the whole is more than the sum of its parts. I believe the way corps act in relation to the world is a reflection of a few bad apple psychopath's ideas that they managed to turn into a "value" in this culture, and like you kinda said--this value needs to be erased before anything gets better

[panopticon]

I have had to deal with psychopathic people and I would also say that the tendency for actions of corporations to appear psychopathic may be more related to the cultures that have developed in corporations than the corporations themselves.

This is a short (12 minute) piece on corporate psychopaths that might help explain my point here:

HFQFlqanwoY
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[grannyfranny100]

Benevolent Corporation Hero: Ray Anderson founder of Interface. An early video shows his heart felt wake up call but I don't know where it is, so here he is as a presenter at TED http://www.ted.com/talks/ray_anderson_on_the_business_logic_of_sustainability.html. Hope his talk woke up some of the TED audience.

[Dennis Leahy]

Hi Panopticon,

I am not concerned with the corporation within its own bounds and structures. I am concerned with the interaction between corporations and the rest of the world. I see two major problematic areas of focus from the interactions between corporations and the rest of the world:
1.) collusion (illegally overstepping the bounds of their corporation to control government or control a government's oversight of a corporation), and
2.) health (issues under the broad umbrella of health/safety/human rights/ecological consequences)


The concept of malevolence and benevolence in relation to corporations is not really of relevance. It's like saying a tiger is malevolent if it eats a person or a gun is malevolent if it is used to shoot a small child. Neither the tiger, the gun nor the corporation is malevolent (which is interpreted as "acting evil") rather they are carrying out their actions in relation to their function. Just as malevolence has no meaning in relation to a corporation nor does benevolence. A corporation can be said to have characteristics of action that appear malevolent or benevolent but that is only our perception of it.
This appears to just be semantics, shuffling the onus. Several people in this thread argue that the corporation does become a real entity; others suggest is is merely a collection of people. To the creatures fighting for their lives in the polluted stream outside the corporate facility, it doesn't matter if an archon or tulpa is responsible for the toxins released, or a corporate board, or a CEO, or the night manager of Section 13 - it just needs to stop.

Collusion is, by definition, malevolent behavior. Some corporations are not content to make the most money for shareholders that they can, legally. Some will deliberately break the existing laws, knowing that the financial penalties are smaller than the financial rewards. This is often due to corporations successful efforts at lobbying, getting (corporate-sponsored) elected officials to soften or de-claw existing laws, or even "legalize" behavior that is clearly in violation of something I listed under "health" at the beginning of this post.



To anthropomorphise a corporation is to make a fundamental error.
The collection of decision makers, collectively, speak with one corporate voice. Anthropomorphising that voice as an entity is the only way that governments and citizens interact with the corporate policy of the corporate entity. We don't have the luxury of dealing with individuals. It would be a mistake to obfuscate the single voice of the corporate decision makers as a non-entity - this "entity" is all we have to interact with. I agree that in a way there is a major Catch-22 to allowing the corporate decision makers to speak as a united entity, and that is the lack of personal responsibility for the illegal actions of the entity. At least, with the crooked legal system in the US, corporate decision makers never have to face prison sentences for the illegal actions of the "entity" through whom they speak.



Corporations serve a simple function:
To make money for their share-holders within the bounds of the law.

Sometimes this means they move to different localities to be able to increase profits by reducing overheads (eg wages, laxer regulation,...
Right. This is beneficial to shareholders, and often detrimental to everyone else, and the environment. Again, going back to the reality of collusion: most corporations are (probably) not megalomaniacal and want to rule the world, nor are they a cog in the wheel of the New World Order. Most want to just get legislation passed that will allow them to pollute more, pay workers less (that is, to inch closer to human rights violator status because of increased profits, not because they enjoy seeing people suffer - they don't care), to drastically reduce the taxes they pay, or to gain subsidies. Some are even successful at embedding a corporate shill in a regulatory agency as the director! To not recognize this malevolent behavior is to acquiesce to it.





To say that a corporation is malevolent ignores the fact that it is a collection of people cooperating for a common purpose while being supported by, and supporting, the local people ...

Corporations are the only true hope for the planet and humanity.Again, you are not describing the Fortune 500 here, you may be describing a collective. If corporations "are the only true hope for the planet and humanity", we are doomed. Maybe if you substitute the word "collective" and rephrase that as:
"In a future where governments are entirely run by citizens, where all corporations have been replaced by collectives, and where collusion has been eliminated, citizen-government regulated collectives are the only true hope for large businesses interacting with the planet and humanity."

Then I could agree. :~)


There are some who move beyond the confines of their legal remit but they are in the minority and even then it is the individual people who are stretching the law, not the corporation itself. To think or say otherwise is ludicrous. Again, the reality is that citizens and governments deal with corporations as an entity, not with individual board members, so the voice heard, the policy put forth, IS the corporate voice. Thus, the entire corporation commits a crime when the official policy of the corporation violates the law. I'll agree that in criminal lawsuits, it would be (it is) ludicrous to stop there, and the criminal probe should find the particular board members (or the entire board, when appropriate) that spearheaded and approved the illegal activity, and deal with them as individuals, not just as a corporation.



Mondragon Corporation...

In what way is this a "malevolent" corporation?
Well, they are a collective, not a corporation. Yes, they probably filed corporate charter for tax purposes, but they operate quite different than typical C corporations. I applaud collectives, and believe it is the evolved way for groups of people to have a business enterprise. Since this is not a mutinational corporation, and since a collective acts entirely different than a typical corporation, this was a bad example of a multinational corporation that is benevolent. Go down the list of the 500 most profitable multinational corporations, and it will be obvious that any actions that can be construed as benevolence are few and far between. Multinational corporations are high-tech gladiators in the world arena. The arena is full of severed heads, and there is a river of blood. Read a bit of John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hitman to see who I am talking about when I specify multinational/supranational corporations.



Most corporations now have a 'statement of business ethics' that their employees try to operate within. Yes, sometimes individuals within the corporation make mistakes and sometimes those who directly manage a corporation are short sighted but this is not the corporations fault. If anything it is the fault of the system under which a corporation operates. The system requires profit. The system requires middle class share holder ignorance (particularly when it comes to Superannuation Funds). The system necessitates that corporations sometimes take work elsewhere to increase profits. It isn't the corporations fault, nor even the individual employee in many cases, rather I would argue that it is the system that is to blame. A system designed and organised by Governments to reinforce the hypocrisy of the Nation State.But, due to collusion and embedding of corporate shills in government positions, it IS the corporations that are steering the ship. It IS their fault. They created the systemic problems by lobbying/bribery, candidate sponsorship, political party sponsorship to get the "system" (the laws) set up the way they want.

Just as politicians say one thing and do another, so too do corporations attempt to hide behind lofty and altruistic "mission statements" while their actions demonstrate sociopathic and malevolent behavior.

Your entire response may have been kind of a "devils advocate" position for the discussion, but entirely ignores the very real problem the world is facing right now: the collusion between governments and Big Money (what I often refer to collectively as the "Financial Elite", which includes multinational/supranational corporations, international banks, and a few "old money" oligarchical family empires) resulting in not just national but global corporatocracy/fascism.

Major shareholders are financial winners, the rest of the 999 septillion life forms on the planet are the losers. Surely this must be obvious to everyone.

Dennis

[donk]

the very real problem the world is facing right now: the collusion between governments and Big Money

I dunno, I think that kind of thinking is the problem. The idea of gov't and $$ in bed together seems like a cartoon. Sure they are both as alive as you believe them to be--I picture it like Voltron: Black lion is govt, the others big media, big pharma, (for mind control), military and TBTFs (for the rest of control)

http://www.voltron.com/images/uploads/Lion-Force.jpg

Psst: Volrton isn't real...somebody made him up!

[Hervé]

I am talking about a real, live, life-form with an independent consciousness, a mind of its own, an intelligence and a will to continue living no matter what.



My point and your perplexity are to do with the fact that this definition leaves you no room to distinguish between a tulpa to be dealt with and say myself, who I do not consider to be a tulpa. I take issue with the word 'real': at some level I am real in a way your corporations etc are only fictitious. It is crucial to distinguish between the two, which is how you avoid becoming the problem and become the solution.

How many tulpas have been elected to government offices? Corporations' boards of directors?

[araucaria]

I am talking about a real, live, life-form with an independent consciousness, a mind of its own, an intelligence and a will to continue living no matter what.



My point and your perplexity are to do with the fact that this definition leaves you no room to distinguish between a tulpa to be dealt with and say myself, who I do not consider to be a tulpa. I take issue with the word 'real': at some level I am real in a way your corporations etc are only fictitious. It is crucial to distinguish between the two, which is how you avoid becoming the problem and become the solution.

How many tulpas have been elected to government offices? Corporations' boards of directors?

Please elaborate.

[Hervé]

I am talking about a real, live, life-form with an independent consciousness, a mind of its own, an intelligence and a will to continue living no matter what.



My point and your perplexity are to do with the fact that this definition leaves you no room to distinguish between a tulpa to be dealt with and say myself, who I do not consider to be a tulpa. I take issue with the word 'real': at some level I am real in a way your corporations etc are only fictitious. It is crucial to distinguish between the two, which is how you avoid becoming the problem and become the solution.

How many tulpas have been elected to government offices? Corporations' boards of directors?

Please elaborate.

Some call them clones... see Alexandra David-Néel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_David-N%C3%A9el) and the trouble she had putting the genie back in its bottle. Or check Simon Parkes' posts where he mentions that in order to perform a soul transference, no un-ensouled bodies should be around or else that soul might end up in that body... hence, keeping all "Greys" at bay and forbidden to enter the room... "clones."

[araucaria]

Yes, I have posted several times myself about clones... your point?

[PurpleLama]

Corporations are not just tools, nor just assemblages of individual people. They take on a life of their own.

There is something very misunderstood about corporations or ...

And that's where the crux of the matter resides: it's being given life, first in the dream/astral/mental world, then being made to land in the 3D/physical reality as a birth/inauguration ceremony.

In other word: it's become ALIVE!
Yup. Fancy meeting you around this bend :).



Any time minds come together, something comes out of it, the country, the corporation, threads and forums, folks mostly don't see the mental environment and the forms it spawns. It speeds up, the more that people agree to something, and it isn't always what you seem to agree to, often isn't if someone involved knows what they're doing. Thoughts are independent of the thinker, and with the right energy or enough energy they can take a form for good or ill.


over yonder (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?54217-Their-Mind-and-the-Emotional-Matrix-that-we-create-with-it.&p=624848&viewfull=1#post624848)

[panopticon]

the very real problem the world is facing right now: the collusion between governments and Big Money

I dunno, I think that kind of thinking is the problem. The idea of gov't and $$ in bed together seems like a cartoon. Sure they are both as alive as you believe them to be--I picture it like Voltron: Black lion is govt, the others big media, big pharma, (for mind control), military and TBTFs (for the rest of control)

http://www.voltron.com/images/uploads/Lion-Force.jpg

Psst: Volrton isn't real...somebody made him up!

G'day Donk,

I actually see that there is a self reinforcement between Government and Corporations.
Then there is the revolving door syndrome between Government bureaucrats and corporate employees.


In politics, the "revolving door" is the movement of personnel between roles as legislators and regulators and the industries affected by the legislation and regulation.[note 1]

In some cases the roles are performed in sequence but in certain circumstances may be performed at the same time. Political analysts claim that an unhealthy relationship can develop between the private sector and government, based on the granting of reciprocated privileges to the detriment of the nation and can lead to regulatory capture.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)).

Have a look at the history of the American Fruit Company as an example of how corporations and government interact in an unhealthy way.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[donk]

OK, I'll buy it...I'm 100% on board with the idea corporations (and goverments, religions, etc) are thought forms, alive, and even capable of manipulating other consciousness' mentality.

Soooo, then it could take on benevolence given that "some of it's parts" do, maybe?

But their original intent, the purpose of their existence (once they are mega-corps, with shares/ownership traded) is maximizing shareholder's propers (according to my secondary school programming), is not benevolent--toward life as we know it, anyway. So it would be an accident, a case of an artificial intelligence (or is it more than that?), the tin man getting a heart (he always had)?

Wait a minute...I'm not sure I buy it completely. Paul/Amer/PL....being "alive" and having a decision-making consciousness...is that the same thing? How much power are you attributing to these entities (pardon me while I re-read Paul's post)

[Hervé]

Yes, I have posted several times myself about clones... your point?

That's the one that keeps looping:


[...]
It perplexes me to no end that you claim to understand, yet miss the whole point of my post which, so far, only Paul seems to have fully grasped.

[...]

[donk]

...Ok, found the piece I disagree with:


where each element is one of these self-organizing layers. The blood circulation system of warm blooded mammals is just one such element, one self organizing layer, amongst a vast number of such.

Corporations are not just tools, nor just assemblages of individual people. They take on a life of their own. The corporation is to the tribe, as the internal combustion engine is to the horse.

I feel like this a false analogy. The corporation starts as an idea of the tribe....the combustion engine is the horse's replacement, not an idea the horse came up with.

A circulation system of an organism does it's PURPOSE, with perhaps ancillary effects from that initial purpose idea...it does not choose to create completely new, unrelated things. Possibly components WITHIN the system do, but there's where 'individuals within the system' come in.

I personally cannot think of a corporation (or circulatory system, or a combustion engine) as a an entity possessing a consciousness absent the layers that created it. I agree it is a entity with life, but it is completely dependent (under the control of) the layers beneath it. Given their complexity, that's a lot of friggin' layers...and some of those benevelent ones may be expressed.

However--the idea itself is flawed, at least to the slaves they were created to control: nothing should have the idea of ownership, competition, individualism at the heart of its creation, at least for a type of life form that seems (correct me if I am wrong here) to thrive in a cooperative environment.

So in judging the entities "benevolence" does not seem as productive to me, as exposing them in all their layers...I guess I'm saying looking at the "greater than the sum of it's parts" side of them doesn't seem like a good direction to be going, it is assuming that they can be--but hell, we already know "in a vaccum" with no bad apples, they theoritically COULD be...and that they are capable of benevolence...but to me this is the deception, the big lie...look at the definition, look at the idea, the heart, the stated purpose of their presence...

[panopticon]

Hi Panopticon,

I am not concerned with the corporation within its own bounds and structures. I am concerned with the interaction between corporations and the rest of the world. I see two major problematic areas of focus from the interactions between corporations and the rest of the world:
1.) collusion (illegally overstepping the bounds of their corporation to control government or control a government's oversight of a corporation), and
2.) health (issues under the broad umbrella of health/safety/human rights/ecological consequences)


The concept of malevolence and benevolence in relation to corporations is not really of relevance. It's like saying a tiger is malevolent if it eats a person or a gun is malevolent if it is used to shoot a small child. Neither the tiger, the gun nor the corporation is malevolent (which is interpreted as "acting evil") rather they are carrying out their actions in relation to their function. Just as malevolence has no meaning in relation to a corporation nor does benevolence. A corporation can be said to have characteristics of action that appear malevolent or benevolent but that is only our perception of it.
This appears to just be semantics, shuffling the onus. Several people in this thread argue that the corporation does become a real entity; others suggest is is merely a collection of people. To the creatures fighting for their lives in the polluted stream outside the corporate facility, it doesn't matter if an archon or tulpa is responsible for the toxins released, or a corporate board, or a CEO, or the night manager of Section 13 - it just needs to stop.

Collusion is, by definition, malevolent behavior. Some corporations are not content to make the most money for shareholders that they can, legally. Some will deliberately break the existing laws, knowing that the financial penalties are smaller than the financial rewards. This is often due to corporations successful efforts at lobbying, getting (corporate-sponsored) elected officials to soften or de-claw existing laws, or even "legalize" behavior that is clearly in violation of something I listed under "health" at the beginning of this post.



To anthropomorphise a corporation is to make a fundamental error.
The collection of decision makers, collectively, speak with one corporate voice. Anthropomorphising that voice as an entity is the only way that governments and citizens interact with the corporate policy of the corporate entity. We don't have the luxury of dealing with individuals. It would be a mistake to obfuscate the single voice of the corporate decision makers as a non-entity - this "entity" is all we have to interact with. I agree that in a way there is a major Catch-22 to allowing the corporate decision makers to speak as a united entity, and that is the lack of personal responsibility for the illegal actions of the entity. At least, with the crooked legal system in the US, corporate decision makers never have to face prison sentences for the illegal actions of the "entity" through whom they speak.



Corporations serve a simple function:
To make money for their share-holders within the bounds of the law.

Sometimes this means they move to different localities to be able to increase profits by reducing overheads (eg wages, laxer regulation,...
Right. This is beneficial to shareholders, and often detrimental to everyone else, and the environment. Again, going back to the reality of collusion: most corporations are (probably) not megalomaniacal and want to rule the world, nor are they a cog in the wheel of the New World Order. Most want to just get legislation passed that will allow them to pollute more, pay workers less (that is, to inch closer to human rights violator status because of increased profits, not because they enjoy seeing people suffer - they don't care), to drastically reduce the taxes they pay, or to gain subsidies. Some are even successful at embedding a corporate shill in a regulatory agency as the director! To not recognize this malevolent behavior is to acquiesce to it.





To say that a corporation is malevolent ignores the fact that it is a collection of people cooperating for a common purpose while being supported by, and supporting, the local people ...

Corporations are the only true hope for the planet and humanity.Again, you are not describing the Fortune 500 here, you may be describing a collective. If corporations "are the only true hope for the planet and humanity", we are doomed. Maybe if you substitute the word "collective" and rephrase that as:
"In a future where governments are entirely run by citizens, where all corporations have been replaced by collectives, and where collusion has been eliminated, citizen-government regulated collectives are the only true hope for large businesses interacting with the planet and humanity."

Then I could agree. :~)


There are some who move beyond the confines of their legal remit but they are in the minority and even then it is the individual people who are stretching the law, not the corporation itself. To think or say otherwise is ludicrous. Again, the reality is that citizens and governments deal with corporations as an entity, not with individual board members, so the voice heard, the policy put forth, IS the corporate voice. Thus, the entire corporation commits a crime when the official policy of the corporation violates the law. I'll agree that in criminal lawsuits, it would be (it is) ludicrous to stop there, and the criminal probe should find the particular board members (or the entire board, when appropriate) that spearheaded and approved the illegal activity, and deal with them as individuals, not just as a corporation.



Mondragon Corporation...

In what way is this a "malevolent" corporation?
Well, they are a collective, not a corporation. Yes, they probably filed corporate charter for tax purposes, but they operate quite different than typical C corporations. I applaud collectives, and believe it is the evolved way for groups of people to have a business enterprise. Since this is not a mutinational corporation, and since a collective acts entirely different than a typical corporation, this was a bad example of a multinational corporation that is benevolent. Go down the list of the 500 most profitable multinational corporations, and it will be obvious that any actions that can be construed as benevolence are few and far between. Multinational corporations are high-tech gladiators in the world arena. The arena is full of severed heads, and there is a river of blood. Read a bit of John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hitman to see who I am talking about when I specify multinational/supranational corporations.



Most corporations now have a 'statement of business ethics' that their employees try to operate within. Yes, sometimes individuals within the corporation make mistakes and sometimes those who directly manage a corporation are short sighted but this is not the corporations fault. If anything it is the fault of the system under which a corporation operates. The system requires profit. The system requires middle class share holder ignorance (particularly when it comes to Superannuation Funds). The system necessitates that corporations sometimes take work elsewhere to increase profits. It isn't the corporations fault, nor even the individual employee in many cases, rather I would argue that it is the system that is to blame. A system designed and organised by Governments to reinforce the hypocrisy of the Nation State.But, due to collusion and embedding of corporate shills in government positions, it IS the corporations that are steering the ship. It IS their fault. They created the systemic problems by lobbying/bribery, candidate sponsorship, political party sponsorship to get the "system" (the laws) set up the way they want.

Just as politicians say one thing and do another, so too do corporations attempt to hide behind lofty and altruistic "mission statements" while their actions demonstrate sociopathic and malevolent behavior.

Your entire response may have been kind of a "devils advocate" position for the discussion, but entirely ignores the very real problem the world is facing right now: the collusion between governments and Big Money (what I often refer to collectively as the "Financial Elite", which includes multinational/supranational corporations, international banks, and a few "old money" oligarchical family empires) resulting in not just national but global corporatocracy/fascism.

Major shareholders are financial winners, the rest of the 999 septillion life forms on the planet are the losers. Surely this must be obvious to everyone.

Dennis

Thanks Dennis,

I went to bed last night thinking I was going to have to critique the position I'd presented myself.

In forming it I used classic practices and arguments I've had presented to me over the years.

I defined parameters for my argument to start with then ridiculed the premise of the opposing argument (ie malevolence/benevolence & anthropomorphisation). Then I reduced it down to a defendable position (ie corporations only serve one purpose, people run corporations). Finally I blamed the share-holders, middle class greed and Government ineptitude as the reason corporations are the only solution.

I had to laugh when I wrote:

Corporations are the only true hope for the planet and humanity.
I actually had someone say that to me once!

Then I used the example that proves the rule: the Mondragon Corporation (which I really do think is the way Corporations should act/behave). The rest of the post is about mixing in truthful statements and repeating what I'd already said to shore up what was stated earlier.

The Rio Tinto argument is also a mislead. They adopted these practices as a consequence of major miscalculation in Papua New Guinea (they backed the Government and the rebels won (http://www.theage.com.au/national/rio-tinto-caused-war-somare-20110625-1gkow.html)) and being forced to work with Indigeneous people in Australia following the Mabo decision and the resulting legislation leaving traditional land owners in control of their own country and the Miners having to negotiate with them.

I enjoyed your critique and again can only say how glad I was that I didn't have to do it myself!
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

BTW psychopath's within corporations is a major problem and personally I agree with the video I presented on that. The corporations promote these people because they represent what they want. In the Union movement there's a saying that reflects this: "Sh!t floats to the top".

[Dennis Leahy]

the very real problem the world is facing right now: the collusion between governments and Big MoneyI dunno, I think that kind of thinking is the problem. The idea of gov't and $$ in bed together seems like a cartoon. Sure they are both as alive as you believe them to be--I picture it like Voltron: Black lion is govt, the others big media, big pharma, (for mind control), military and TBTFs (for the rest of control)

Psst: Volrton isn't real...somebody made him up!Well, I think you're being pedantic and dismissive.

The specific (public) mechanism for bribery/muscle/"favors" for collusion is called lobbying, and it is done with human beings who are the representatives of their organizations. It is not a metaphysical construct or a cartoon. Again, that's the bribery/muscle/"favors" that the public are aware occurs, and it would be pretty naive to believe that most collusion occurs in public.

You can pretend that massive collusion does not take place, or try to distract the issue by literally interpreting the words "Big Money" to be a pile of dollar bills incapable of collusion - that's your prerogative, but isn't adding anything to the conversation. Back here in the real world, I challenge anyone to find the last piece of legislation passed by the US Congress that is truly (not Orwellian doublespeak), truly citizen-centric or eco-centric. If you make that diligent search, you will be overwhelmed by an avalanche of pro-corporate/corporate-centric legislation - quite a wake-up call as to who the elected representatives actually represent (if you didn't already know.)

Good luck pretending the US (and probably the world) is not under the rule of corporatocracy. At least 12 million families in the US had their homes foreclosed in the past 18 months or so - performed by banking corporations enabled by collusion with government. Tell the people who lost their homes it wasn't real, that "government" and "corporation" don't really exist unless you believe in them.

Dennis

[panopticon]

I also understand (loosely) that the corporate charter specifies that the pathway toward the highest returns for investors/shareholders MUST be maintained. Corporations thus may not, by law, make decisions that are beneficial to the Earth or to their workforce or to humanity - if it affects shareholder returns negatively.

I was reading back through this thread and was wondering if you could provide an example of this for me as I'd like to have that in my lil bag of tricks.
-- Pan

[araucaria]

Yes, I have posted several times myself about clones... your point?

That's the one that keeps looping:


[...]
It perplexes me to no end that you claim to understand, yet miss the whole point of my post which, so far, only Paul seems to have fully grasped.

[...]

If no one except Paul is getting it, as a latecomer to the thread I cannot be responsible for such broad incomprehension. There must be something you are not making clear. Your asking me a question is not improving clarification, but I am not going to press the matter further beyond the following, which may or may not be relevant to the discussion.

A company executive who is a clone is a physical, probably technological humanoid: you can shake their hand and likely mistake them for a real human being. This is a very different thing from a corporate tulpa.

The other day I was watching a tennis match when a player knocked off the K from the KIA sponsor’s name on the net. The commentator said, ‘That leaves us with IA’: which of course it doesn’t. You need to think like Jordan Maxwell to realize that the unbarred A is a capital lambda and what you had was IL instead of KIL – in other words the ILlness of the KILling.

The corporate illness however predates cloning. You are sometimes dealing with entities that are an inextricable blend of good and bad. The rabid dog was the analogy used on a psychopath thread about a year ago. ‘Sidney Warburg’, the pseudonym of the banker who blew the whistle on the funding of Hitler which he had personally supervised, described his struggle of conscience when dealing with people who were sometimes family.


There are moments when I want to run away from a world of such intrigue, trickery, swindling, and tampering with the stock exchange. Every so often I mention these things to my father as well as to other bankers and brokers. Do you know what I can never understand? How it is possible that people of good and honest character—for which I have ample proof—participate in swindling and fraud, knowing full well that it will affect thousands. The powers in Sinclair Trust have brought in millions of dollars to Wall Street, but ruined thousands of savers. When one questions the reasons for the dishonest and morally indefensible practices of financial leaders one never gets an answer. Although their private lives are orderly and good, it can’t be that they discard their true characters as soon as they enter the financial world, forgetting all concepts of honesty and morality in favour of money, sometimes millions of dollars.

[Fred Steeves]

Here's a little personal anecdote. My wife works for a major corporation, and hates it by the way. 10 years ago it was more of just a regular business, and family run. In the last few years, and especially the last couple of years that has gone bye bye. I don't even think they are concerned any longer with performing their stated business, it's more just busy busy busy work, all the time. Control control control.

Every so often I need to meet her there for some reason or another, and yesterday was one of those days. It was creepier then ever, and even watching the employees coming in to work looked zombie like. The only other time I've had that exact sort of feeling was standing at the front of the Federal Reserve in D.C. 2 years ago. Creepy, artificial. Tough to desrcibe...

[ulli]

In my view the top end of all multi-nationals is connected with the alien invasion agenda, as is the top-end of governments.
The Bilderberg meetings are probably not the only places where there is corroboration between the various leaders of the elite.
All we can do down here at the bottom of those pyramids is wait for more trickle-down effect, more whistle blowers.
Can we influence the course of events decided upon by those people?
Only if we know what exactly their plans are. For that we need special people, since we don't have access to high-tech. Because as it stands now, they can see us, but we can't see them.
Yet Im sure that even if there are no benevolent companies up there, there must be some that are at least not malevolent.

[panopticon]

G'day Araucaria,

The concept of a Tulpa, as I understand it, is a physical manifestation of thought (ie a thought form).

I think Amzer Zo is referring to something else (though I could be wrong and I hope Amzer Zo will correct any errors I make so I can better understand what is meant).

A Corporation is created on a number of levels. It is not just the physical representation of its manifest actions and possessions within our perceived existence (ie offices, employees, products, share price etc). On other layers and levels the energy that is manifest, from this creation, interacts within its circle of influence so as to be able to further its aims (ie survival).

Again I come back to the concept that I use to describe this form of multi-layer and multi-level interaction. That of: Money, Control and Power.

Within the physical realm (aka mundane) a corporation is a created entity that has no real individual status outside of the legal framework that supposedly governs its actions. Within other levels (aka transmundane) it may well be the case that a corporation has an energy that operates within that level bound by different rules that many are only aware of in an undefined or instinctive way (if at all).

In the first instance it is relatively easy to trace how a corporation gains Power through increased Money (though this is better described as currencies [for example: social capital is not money per se]). From this increase in Power and Money comes an increased ability to influence (eg lobby groups, peak bodies, foundations, media control) which allows for the corporation to exert control (for example legislative changes, buying out competition, revolving door practices). This is easy to trace and I would encourage anyone interest to examine the history of the United Fruit Company (Peter Chapman's 'Jungle Capitalists' is a good book to start with).

Within the transmundane levels it is more difficult to trace, however it is possible to look at results of actions and see how influences have occurred. In this way it is also possible to explain how people who are carefree and happy civic minded people in their everyday life can act in ways at odds with this in their corporate position. I am not saying that the transmundane corporate energy is able to possess (or something equivalent) the individual, only that there is an influence exerted that wishes to promote the success of the corporation (at all levels) as a means of survival. At any stage those on the board of a corporation (to a lesser extent this also applies to employees, managers etc) are able to change the way in which they act on this (mundane) level and modify the corporations behaviour (on all levels). The problem is that the tendency for psychopathic personalities to be promoted within corporations has a self reinforcing effect at the tranmundane level. The "whisper in the ear" encourages a corporate culture that promotes psychopathic personalities and this reinforces the transmundane corporations energy notion of how best to survive.

Might seem a bit convoluted but if corporate behaviour and culture is looked at through this lense many actions that make no sense at all can become quite clear. It is a lot more complex than this of course but I hope I've explained my understanding of it a bit.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[Maia Gabrial]

I wouldn't try to convince you, Dennis because I believe as you do. Here's what I think about any of these multicorporations, for every ONE good thing they do, they do hundreds of awful things.

I think transhumanism is another way to destroy our perfect humanism. There's nothing wrong with our bodies period.... But if they want to tamper with our bodies, why not just reconnect our other 10 strands of dna then we would be the people we used to be before our attack.... We'd be much more than people with pieces of machinery replacing a natural part of our bodies. They want to put chips into the brain to enhance intelligence, but again, I say reconnecting our dna would increase our intelligence and more.... What's the deal with transhumanism? Once a person becomes a machine then they've not only lost their humanism, but also their freedom because they'd be under someone else's control.... For someone like me, it's just plain dumb....

I can tell you multicorporations are our biggest problem. That's what we should focus our attentions on disabling and getting rid of....

But that's just me....

[Hervé]

I guess that the post regarding "Big Heads" got somehow ignored or too "unreal" for some reasons... so, there it is as an example of what I am talking about, whether one considers a multinational or a family business:


**********************************




The trail of the Octopus, also known as the Shadow Government can be detected by following the money.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=19081&d=1352025621&thumb=1 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=19081&d=1352025621)

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=19084&d=1352026034&thumb=1 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=19084&d=1352026034)

[London Olympics, 2012]







Most people are led to mistakenly believe that "the arms of the octopus" are just a metaphorical way of describing the ever increasing control of... "something."

Well, there IS a REALITY to it:





Franz Erdl on Bigheads


http://educate-yourself.org/cn/erdlbigheads14jun12.shtml

June 14, 2012 . E-Y posted Sep. 25, 2012



http://www.psitalent.de/Englisch/Bighead2.htm

Perhaps they might also be known under a different name. I have no idea. I had a lot experiences with Bigheads in the last two weeks and I would like to tell you about them.

First, I don't know to this day whether all Bigheads are soulless. I tend to believe that they are. Perhaps they have deceived us at previous meetings and feigned a soul. Or there may be some with a soul and others without, a biological robot version, as it were, like some small grays. The answers are still open.

Second, I do not know whether they all have the same body shape. The shape of the head seems to be at least very similar. It may be that there are some with bodies which have arms and legs (sometimes even more than two arms). Others have energy sucking, hose-like tentacles.

Third, I've discovered a portal in the body of a Bighead. Logic tells me that they all probably have one and that they can send stolen energies into another dimension, for example.

I have put up a picture here that a friend had drawn for me. It should not stop you from seeing them in a different way. This is how I saw one, but I am not a certified psychic.


https://qy9cnq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pF222kTTVCf0N7lyvc03W_P7Kf24sNAD2spE22rjVa0R3BL15b3aIzf5H4eXn0coW-Of5l5wBl7al-zIoL8y5BgYcTXJU9Uz4/Big%20Head%2003.jpg?psid=1





Important aspects of the picture:



-the big head with a small face,

-the portal in the body,

-and the energy tubes for manipulation and energy-sucking.

They manipulate and suck energy from men and women (in this image, only women are shown), as well as animals and perhaps even other spirits.


What the image fairly represents is that Bigheads can handle people much like marionettes. They manipulate, change feelings, create misunderstandings, create narratives, provoke events, etc. And they do it completely unnoticed. Bigheads are also very difficult to detect, like the snakes we have written about. Perhaps it's because they have no soul. If you, as a psychic or a healer, want to find them, it's good to know how they act.

Here are some examples:


Undermining a spiritual project

A group of people has a spiritual project that they would like to undertake, but the Dark Side beings wish to interfere and stop it. So a Bighead pushes himself quietly and unnoticed over the project, including all those involved and those which might have an influence on the project like the members of the project, their spouses, all their enemies, competitors, suppliers, etc. . These people can be geographically dispersed, but in the Ethereal, they are close because they are subject related and connected. The Bighead sits astrally above about them and connects a power hose to everybody involved.

And then the show begins, or better said, nothing happens. The project does not move forward. They only encounter expenses, but no results: The competition is causing trouble, the enemies perform black magic, the spouse is constantly looking for a dispute, etc.. This is a very typical Bighead manipulation.

(I am just remembering how many free energy projects have gone nowhere...)





Monitoring gifted people (psychics)

Bigheads can be used to control specially gifted people. Their skills and abilities can be blocked. That will make them feel depressed or aggressive; the family does not understand them; they try therapies that do not really work. In such a case, the family, as well as all the doctors and therapists involved, have been tapped and manipulated by the Bighead. Wherever the gifted person goes, nobody can really help him. I suppose that the skills of these people are either sucked or remotely accessed, or used for dark purposes via mind control. In the latter case, those who are involved as handlers or programmers are also controlled by the Bighead.

Supplying upper echelon NWO people with life energy
So where do you think they get their energy from? Of course, from powerful women (perhaps not exclusively). Poor women! They may be sick, without power, in any case they won't feel good. This group of Illuminati or Freemasons I could perceive, performed black magic rituals every now and then against their female victims, which delivered new energy to them.

The Bighead takes care of the transfer of energy to the men, but this Illuminati were probably also very heavily manipulated by the Bighead. I noticed this when I removed the Bighead of the whole group, victims and perpetrators. There was something like a deep breath, a relief, or even a joyful feeling between those top managers. I had never expected something like that. The further development of this story is yet to be seen.

How to discover Bigheads and what can I do against them?
I use my soul channel for healing and the power of decision of my solar plexus, to destroy soulless beings or astral machines, because you cannot heal them. Certainly other methods can be used. I rarely see them.

I discover the Bigheads mostly through conjecture. When I suspect there could be one, then I ask my soul, whether that's true and I get the answer as an energy reaction or accordingly, no reaction. If I get a positive response, I take away all power sucking hoses by pronouncing this intention. It is useful to find out who else is tapped.

Good luck!
Franz Erdl

Comments
Subject: Franz Erdl on Bigheads
From: Claude
Date: Thu, September 27, 2012
To: Ken Adachi

Hi Ken,

[...]

Anyway, I wanted to tell you about an incident that occurred back in August of this year.

I don't want to reveal specific names and locations of those concerned out of respect for their privacy, so I will explain what I can without real names.

My friend, I'll call him Fred Stubborn, is the son of a now deceased native hereditary chief here in Canada. His family is well known, so I cannot give details away that could easily identify his family.

From anecdotes related to me by the Stubborns and other family acquaintances, the Stubborns have had a number of difficulties in terms of crazy patterns of unexpected turmoil that deeply upset their three currently living generations.

I am deeply touched that Fred kindly allowed me to spend time away from the city and place a trailer on his large property, where I can spend time close to nature, and appreciate the connection.

He has also imparted me with much of the old native wisdom and knowledge of the interconnectedness of the entire living body that is Earth.

I was wondering one day why his family had suffered so many tragedies and upsets, and the spirit of Fred's mother approached my wife and touched her on the shoulder. My wife mostly senses entities from an emotional/empathic standpoint. She can often sense and see them, but it is I who can hear them and communicate directly with them. We complement each other well.

At that moment, she told me that someone was there and needed to be heard. When this happens I usually ask who they are, and what their purpose is.

So, I asked her who she was, and she told me that she was Fred's mother, and that she was here to ask me for help. I asked her what she wanted help with, and at that moment we both (my wife and I) felt was must have been at least a few generations of this family present.

She told me that what they needed was a shaman. I was quite surprised, because I do not consider myself a medicine man, shaman, or other terms used for that. I asked her what made her think that I could be of help, and she said to me that I was the first one to ever hear them.

So, I entered my meditative state and very quickly found an entity that looked very much like what Franz showed a picture of, though I perceived it as a large, black, octopus-like creature with an over-sized head. It appeared to me to be sitting on top of a portal, and its tentacles were reaching out to all the members of the Stubborn family, both alive and deceased.

When it became aware that I was tracking it, it actually tried to seize me or attach to me with a tentacle.

It was not a conscious decision on my part, more an instant reaction, but I used spider medicine: started winding a long thread of light tightly around the body of the critter, slowly choking it off from its tentacles, which made it release its grip on all the souls.

When I started winding, I called unto he who is known as Michael for assistance, someone you could say I have a bit of a working relationship with.

I kept winding tighter and tighter and tighter, until I commanded it to leave this plane. At that moment, it seemed to slide into the portal and disappear, leaving no portal behind.

Almost immediately, my wife and I both felt a massive lightening feeling around us, the entire property and the Stubborns themselves, that persisted for the rest of our vacation, and since.

All seems quiet now to this day with this family, six weeks on.

It was a strange occurrence, but I had almost entirely forgotten about it when I read the Bigheads article yesterday.

Thank you for this article Franz, now we have a better idea of what it is I was dealing with.

Does anyone know what these entities have been called, historically? I'd be curious to know, myself. I also wonder if their 'controllers' still have as much power here, since I dispatched it so easily.

My wife and I both felt it important to share this info, as others may find it useful.

Thanks Ken, keep up the great work, your site continues to live up to its name.

Claude
***

Subject: Canadian Reader Confirms Bigheads Manipulative Influence
From: John (Netherlands)
Date: Fri, September 28, 2012
To: Ken Adachi

Hello Ken,

Exceptional information. I do believe there are so many of these situations where a family is under this kind of influence and for sure it's happening to me. And a lot more.

greetings
John
The Netherlands









Whatever name one gives that "thing," whether it is thought-form, golem, tulpa, postulate or eggregore; it is an entity with a life of its own created to regulate the life and activity of a family/ bloodline/ group/ business/ corporation/ society/ religion/ etc... and best described by Steve Richards in the line of the shamanic tradition as "evierything IS alive" and "all life forms are seeking survival within its own dimension of time":




Today, I believe our world is being controlled by another dimension that has entrapped the spirit of man into its game; and when you enter the game of another, you are governed by the laws of that game, by the creator of that game.

Randy: Yea. Steve, you mentioned how in the terms of this festival you had gone to, to the elders of the community. It sounds like there are key linkages or key people that line up in terms of authority or being able to give permission in this area. How would you identify those people? Obviously here you have, what, a tribal council? So you’ve gone to the tribal council, they, in effect, have authority over this event and over the people who will or won’t enter into it.


Steve: Okay. If I decide to form a company, and I got together with two or three other people, their intent and their ego will create the entity at the structure of that company. That entity, once created, a body of intent of all three of that company, of their intent and their ego, will always be part of the entity that creates that company. It’ll never change.

When you go into community, they organized this festival. Therefore, they were the creator of this festival. Therefore, I’m entering the game of someone else’s creation. Therefore, I need the creator of that creation’s permission to activate that dimension. You can’t invade the space of another without authority, because the moment you enter the game of another, you violate lore. The moment you violate lore by entering into the game of another, it can be taken over by whatever’s in that game. This is why this is so important for people not to be playing around with other dimensions. There’s so many people that think they know what they’re doing and they have no idea what they’re doing.






... it all comes down to the INTENT behind the creation:


Steve: Okay, okay. One of the interesting things I look at here is you’ve got to understand how homeopathy works and osteopathic frequencies work. And, you know equal force against equal forces become null and void. Interesting. So, I look at this, Aboriginal culture says, ‘everything is alive.’ So, I had a woman that comes into me from Chile. Doesn’t speak good English. Her daughter said, “my mum can’t sleep, she’s on two lots of sleeping tablets and can’t sleep.” I said, ‘well that makes sense, she’s got two separate entities in there, they both need to keep her awake before she feeds them.’ Everything’s alive.

So what happens is for these drugs to be created they’ve got to have an intent behind their creation. The first is the law of intent and the law of agreement. So what is the intent in the creation of that drug and what’s its intent? It now becomes a life‐form that needs to survive like anything else. Therefore, an anti‐depressant means it has to keep you depressed so you’ll feed it. And when you feed it, it will make you no longer depressed. It's got it’s food source, thank you very much. Another life‐form taking over the vehicle. Stunned.

Miranda: Wow. I had a question for you Steve. I actually just got an email from somebody who’s familiar with your work. And it reminded me to ask this, do you have, the people that you work with, do they sometimes feel a lot of interference or resistance or get a lot of attacks prior to coming to you because the entities know, sort of, that their end is near and try to keep the people away from achieving this healing solution?

Steve: Okay, well there’s two‐fold question you’ve got there. And I’ll go into two parts of it. First off, the moment you, whether becoming aware of it or not, the moment you want to make changes, and you want to be clear of whatever’s affecting you, just that intent is put out for these beings that are aware. And the moment that takes place, you’re going to come under attack. And the attack’s going to come from the closest people to you sometimes: you mother, your father, your brother, your sister, your husband, you wife, your friends, your neighbor – whoever they can get access to.
Steve: By telling your Spirit, ‘this is my vehicle, Spirit don’t let anything in this vehicle, I do not invite anything in, do not let anything in the space of this vehicle.’ By laying out that, speaking to it, this is your field. Between you and your Spirit made that agreement, ‘thank you, nothing’s allowed in, if it gets in, it’s going to get dealt with.’ You may already have a lot of stuff in there, in other dimensions, in separate dimensions. There’re probably many layers of dimensions within you that’s let things in from the past. But when you stop feeding these things, it’s interesting, when you become aware and you want to make changes, and you decide to stop feeding these beings, then they’re not going to obtain energy. If they’re not going to obtain energy, they’re not going to get fed, they’ll have to starve, or find somewhere else to go to get fed. So eventually, they’re not going to hang around, are they?
... and it doesn't matter how many trillion of years ago a group or secret society was created... it's still alive and seeking survival through recruiting individuals "resonating" sympathetically to the intent behind the creation of that group or society...


Makes one wonder about how many people confuse such multi-tentacles "Vishnus" with their spirit guides or "higher selves?"


Interview with Steve Richards:



Download MP3 Audio Dreamtime Healing: Ancient Aboriginal Modalities with Steve Richards-Part 1 (http://www.divshare.com/direct/18152999-ed7.mp3)(right click, "Save as")
http://www.divshare.com/direct/18152999-ed7.mp3
Full Transcript -Dreamtime Healing-Hour 1-PDF (http://www.divshare.com/direct/18378351-441.pdf) (right click, "Save as")




Download MP3 Audio Dreamtime Healing: Ancient Aboriginal Modalities with Steve Richards-Part 2 (http://www.divshare.com/direct/18153032-794.mp3)(right click, "Save as")
http://www.divshare.com/direct/18153032-794.mp3
Full Transcript -Dreamtime Healing-Hour 2-PDF (http://www.divshare.com/direct/18378353-77a.pdf) (right click, "Save as")

[Hervé]

As for the concept of "reality" vs. "unreality" or "illusion"/"imagination," let me give you the example of the "Third Man In The Room" from http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/timeline.htm:



There is a little known fact about hypnosis that is illustrated by the following story:
A subject was told under hypnosis that when he was awakened he would be unable to see a third man in the room who, it was suggested to him, would have become invisible. All the "proper" suggestions to make this "true" were given, such as "you will NOT see so- and-so" etc... When the subject was awakened, lo and behold! the suggestions did NOT work.

Why? Because they went against his belief system. He did NOT believe that a person could become invisible.

So, another trial was made. The subject was hypnotized again and was told that the third man was leaving the room... that he had been called away on urgent business, and the scene of him getting on his coat and hat was described... the door was opened and shut to provide "sound effects," and then the subject was brought out of the trance.

Guess what happened?

He was UNABLE TO SEE the Third Man.

Why? Because his perceptions were modified according to his beliefs. Certain "censors" in his brain were activated in a manner that was acceptable to his ego survival instincts.

The ways and means that we ensure survival of the ego are established pretty early in life by our parental and societal programming. This conditioning determines what IS or is NOT possible; what we are "allowed" to believe in order to be accepted. We learn this first by learning what pleases our parents and then later we modify our belief based on what pleases our society - our peers - to believe.

Anyway, to return to our story, the Third Man went about the room picking things up and setting them down and doing all sorts of things to test the subject's awareness of his presence, and the subject became utterly hysterical at this "anomalous" activity! He could see objects moving through the air, doors opening and closing, but he could NOT see the SOURCE because he did not believe that there was another man in the room.

So, what are the implications of this factor of human consciousness? (By the way, this is also the reason why most therapy to stop bad habits does not work - they attempt to operate against a "belief system" that is imprinted in the subconscious that this or that habit is essential to survival.)

One of the first things we might observe is that everyone has a different set of beliefs based upon their social and familial conditioning, and that these beliefs determine how much of the OBJECTIVE reality anyone is able to access.

In the above story, the objective reality IS WHAT IT IS, whether it is truly objective, or only a consensus reality. In this story, there is clearly a big part of that reality that is inaccessable to the subject due to a perception censor which was activated by the suggestions of the hypnotist. That is to say, the subject has a strong belief, based upon his CHOICE as to who or what to believe - the hypnotist or his own, unfettered observations of reality. In this case, he has chosen to believe the hypnotist and not what he might be able to observe if he dispensed with the perception censor put in place by the hypnotist who activated his "belief center" - even if that activation was fraudulent.

And so it is with nearly all human beings: we believe the hypnotist - the "official culture" - and we are able, with preternatural cunning, to deny what is often right in front of our faces. And in the case of the hypnosis subject, he is entirely at the mercy of the "Invisible Man" because he chooses not to see him.


Thus... anyone can be hypnoptized, it's just a matter of taking advantage of the individual's belief system.

Thus "magic" and all these supernatural phenomena... rendered unable to see who's doing it.

Thus "terrorism"... inquisition... crusades... Hashshashins... genocides... all for the "good cause" and with little justifications needed like "the commies are invading Panama/Guatemala/Honduras/Chile/etc..."

Thus abductees and their recounts of how an entire planet can be programmed... here is a reference about it: Programming of a Planet (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?52786-MATRIX-REVEALED-Analysis-Solutions)... a simplified version of it being the one of the magician getting tired of chasing his flock of sheep around and ending up hypnotizing the whole lot... that it's good for them to keep together and be sheered and slaughtered and roasted and...

... and on, and on, and on...

[donk]

I think I got misunderstood AZ, my response is basically believing in the big-head, though with no soul...and my posts questioning whether it had "consciousness"...which PL, 9E9, Rahkt, anotherbob cleared up for me on the thread linked to earlier...so I appreciate you, at least :p

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Dennis: I apologize, I wasn't attempting to be either...

[panopticon]

Wow, thanks for the posts Amzer Zo. I've not read the Ra/Archon thread.

I am wondering if I am understanding what Steve is saying here correctly:


If I decide to form a company, and I got together with two or three other people, their intent and their ego will create the entity at the structure of that company. That entity, once created, a body of intent of all three of that company, of their intent and their ego, will always be part of the entity that creates that company. It’ll never change.
Does this mean that the company/corporate culture (I use that word with multiple meanings) is unable to change because of the intent of the original creators or that the company's basic "essence" will always be the same (ie its innate nature). Personally I view that every long-duration corporation/company changes over time as a result of the changed personnel and "environment" within it exists. In the mundane this is viewable through altered practices and on the transmundane through altered energy flows, "whisper" practices and survival strategies.


When you go into community, they organized this festival. Therefore, they were the creator of this festival. Therefore, I’m entering the game of someone else’s creation. Therefore, I need the creator of that creation’s permission to activate that dimension. You can’t invade the space of another without authority, because the moment you enter the game of another, you violate lore. The moment you violate lore by entering into the game of another, it can be taken over by whatever’s in that game.
Is this another reason for employee and corporate contracts within the mundane as it gives permission for access at all levels and layers?


This is why this is so important for people not to be playing around with other dimensions. There’s so many people that think they know what they’re doing and they have no idea what they’re doing.
This I agree with completely.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

[Hervé]

Wow, thanks for the posts Amzer Zo. I've not read the Ra/Archon thread.

I am wondering if I am understanding what Steve is saying here correctly:

[...]
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon
Pretty much so...





If I decide to form a company, and I got together with two or three other people, their intent and their ego will create the entity at the structure of that company. That entity, once created, a body of intent of all three of that company, of their intent and their ego, will always be part of the entity that creates that company. It’ll never change.
Does this mean that the company/corporate culture (I use that word with multiple meanings) is unable to change because of the intent of the original creators or that the company's basic "essence" will always be the same (ie its innate nature). Personally I view that every long-duration corporation/company changes over time as a result of the changed personnel and "environment" within it exists. In the mundane this is viewable through altered practices and on the transmundane through altered energy flows, "whisper" practices and survival strategies.


Imagine that a corporation is created with the intent of infinite growth, prosperity and profit... what would be the actions/influences taken/effected by the "ethereal" entity created with such a marching order in order to survive?

That's the stated intent at a conscous level; the problem is complicated by "their" mind's content at the unconscious level and which introduces counter-intentions, fears, aprehensions for the future, etc... which also get infiltrated into the birth/creation of that entity.






When you go into community, they organized this festival. Therefore, they were the creator of this festival. Therefore, I’m entering the game of someone else’s creation. Therefore, I need the creator of that creation’s permission to activate that dimension. You can’t invade the space of another without authority, because the moment you enter the game of another, you violate lore. The moment you violate lore by entering into the game of another, it can be taken over by whatever’s in that game.
Is this another reason for employee and corporate contracts within the mundane as it gives permission for access at all levels and layers?

My guess is, it's an "as above so below" proposition.





This is why this is so important for people not to be playing around with other dimensions. There’s so many people that think they know what they’re doing and they have no idea what they’re doing.
This I agree with completely.
So do I :)

[donk]

Dennis, I don't understand how your post is not completely contradictory to everything else you posted on this thread (and in agreement with what I was trying to say).

To clarify: I believe corporations are real, but only as constructs--and can only act based on "individuals colluding" as you say. Also, their only benevolence comes from some individuals' (included in the set of "those who make them up, make them real") actions DESPITE their created purpose: by definitions in my econ101 courses: maximizing shareholder (OWNERS) profits.

I believe the conversation got a little disjointed, and hope you forgive my futile attempt at humor (and nostalgia, I love Voltron, and he's real--to me!). I have little disagreement with anything you posted, and feel I was trying to integrate your ideas with AZ's...and failed miserably. Oh well...I still appreciate you, and like the thread.

[T Smith]

Here's a little personal anecdote. My wife works for a major corporation, and hates it by the way. 10 years ago it was more of just a regular business, and family run. In the last few years, and especially the last couple of years that has gone bye bye. I don't even think they are concerned any longer with performing their stated business, it's more just busy busy busy work, all the time. Control control control.

Every so often I need to meet her there for some reason or another, and yesterday was one of those days. It was creepier then ever, and even watching the employees coming in to work looked zombie like. The only other time I've had that exact sort of feeling was standing at the front of the Federal Reserve in D.C. 2 years ago. Creepy, artificial. Tough to desrcibe...

Perhaps people who are immersed in that type of environment project a protective cocoon around their energy and being; hence the zombie-like appearance. If they are amid (or within) a consciousness, and a dangerous and predatory one at that, this would seem to describe a self-surviving response.

[Dennis Leahy]

Dennis, I don't understand how your post is not completely contradictory to everything else you posted on this thread (and in agreement with what I was trying to say).

To clarify: I believe corporations are real, but only as constructs--and can only act based on "individuals colluding" as you say. Also, their only benevolence comes from some individuals' (included in the set of "those who make them up, make them real") actions DESPITE their created purpose: by definitions in my econ101 courses: maximizing shareholder (OWNERS) profits.

I believe the conversation got a little disjointed, and hope you forgive my futile attempt at humor (and nostalgia, I love Voltron, and he's real--to me!). I have little disagreement with anything you posted, and feel I was trying to integrate your ideas with AZ's...and failed miserably. Oh well...I still appreciate you, and like the thread.Hi Donk,

Oh, I was just getting pissy because it seemed like the concept of the actions of *corporations* being benevolent/neutral/malevolent was being sidestepped in favor of the semantics of defining a corporation as either a collection of individual humans acting solo with solo onus, or as a group "entity" composed of a cluster of individuals with a collective onus. (I don't take it further, to the metaphysical construct of a living entity.) My focus was not on which construct was right and who is to blame (or praise, if someone came up with a valid reason for praise), but rather just opening the floor for someone to explain how they have witnessed multinational corporations being benevolent.

The original idea for the thread was sort of doomed before it was posted, as I must have misinterpreted blufire's words. I was trying to find out what she meant, and thought if a thread was opened, that she'd let me (and others) know in what way she sees the positive side of (at least some) major corporations.

So, at this point, wherever the thread goes is fine, and I won't wag a finger.

Now to address what you're saying... I see corporations kind of like Mob families: when a crime is committed, every member of the family shares some of the guilt (some are direct actors in the crime, others fulfill support roles.) If a corporation is caught in criminal activity (not likely with the judicial system in the pocket of the Financial Elite, but let's pretend), then first, the indictment is on the corporation, and if convicted (hahhahahahahah now I'm really dreaming), the corporation may be ordered to pay a fine. At that point, I say, screw the corporate veil, and find out who planned, executed, and covered up the crime - those individuals are guilty *as individuals*, too. In fact, unless this is done, the criminals will always have that corporate veil to hide behind, and will not fear prosecution.

So, to me, corporations are both an entity and a collection of individuals. (But that distinction was not important for where I was hoping the thread would go.)

Dennis

[Carmody]

I also understand (loosely) that the corporate charter specifies that the pathway toward the highest returns for investors/shareholders MUST be maintained. Corporations thus may not, by law, make decisions that are beneficial to the Earth or to their workforce or to humanity - if it affects shareholder returns negatively.

I was reading back through this thread and was wondering if you could provide an example of this for me as I'd like to have that in my lil bag of tricks.
-- Pan

It comes in the form of case law, precedents in decisions handed down where the given corporation's executive office did not act in a manner that was toward the benefit of shareholders. The precedents shape the future decisions, by being prior legal arguments and decisions. this is the exact way (but via falsification) that corporations earned the 'personhood' entitlement. It was a situation that was shaped and used to create an atmosphere of legal rights and privileges for corporations, at the same time the man behind the curtain (operating board and shareholders) could escape blame and legally enforced losses in all future court decisions against said corporations. Prior to that moment/time, people running corporations where held responsible for ALL actions/results/motions of the given company.