● Happy 10th, uResist !

Happy 10th Anniversary, uResist ! 🌎
Ten years of resisting corporate
tyranny, while creating non-corporate logos, and providing progressive apparel for the ongoing resistance. THANK YOU! to all who have supported uResist this past decade! We've come a long way, and we have an even longer way to go!
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The corporate form has evolved into something quite different from it’s beginnings. Corporations originally were required to serve the public good. continue reading... 

An interview with Kurt Riebel of uResist on the
Dumb All Over podcast [ep.15].
Dumb All Over, the perfect name for a podcast at the dawn (and hopefully soon to be the dusk) of Trumpism. Best taken with their choice of craft beer. 🍺
Category: News & Politics
License: Standard YouTube License

Interview with Kurt Riebel [Episode 015]

Published May 05, 2017 HELPLESSLY HOPING
full episode http://youtube.com/watch?v=L_rPp3nS0UQ with Kurt Riebel of uResist

Beer during interview:
 🍺 Great Lakes Commodore Perry IPA [ May 01, 2017]
 —————————
Blog Talk Radio http://BlogTalkRadio.com/DumbAllOverPod
Patreon:DumbAllOver https://patreon.com/DumbAllOver
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
uResist (founded in 2007) has advocated and fought for worker's rights, consumer rights, human rights, the 99%, climate justice, economic justice, democracy, and peace. ...and, is aligned with Occupy Wall Street and democratic-socialism ☮ ☞ http://youtube.com/uResist ☯ http://facebook.com/u.resist ☞ http://uResist.org/about ☮  View our graphics and apparel at shop.uResist
👕 🎒 shop.spreadshirt.com/uResist 🌱

Our slogan "WEAR YOUR RESISTANCE . . . and be a conversation piece for peace" is more than just a catchphrase. The meaning behind it just might be vital to democracy and freedom. When you make a choice between free advertising for corporate rule or making your political stance a part of your everyday life, this is no insignificant matter. The choice between wearing a big business corporate logo or a conversation piece for restoring our liberties, can be vital to the direction of society. Billions of dollars are spent on advertising and subtle reminders to buy products. Big business knows the importance of advertising. So, we believe, that we can all use this same philosophy of using subtle or bold reminders on our clothing, on our bodies to promote peace and social justice, to resist corporate rule and restore a working democracy. ☮
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Post by: Kurt Riebel: artist, activist  

#PeacefulProtest #LoveTrumpsHate #ResistCorporateTyranny #Resist @uResist
  RESIST CORPORATE TYRANNY 

[BLOG HOME | SITE MENU]

● RESIST CORPORATE TYRANNY

 Private power . . . 
  has usurped our government. 
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The corporate form has evolved into something quite different from its beginnings. Corporations originally were required to serve the public good. And now, it is required by law that profits for investors precede everything, including the public good. Today, the largest corporations receive huge subsidies, while paying next to nothing in taxes. Our tax system, by the way, is very progressive only up to about one million per year. After that it drops, so that billionaires pay nothing. Our system is regressive at the top, therefore it’s regressive overall. The public pays for research and development, and as soon as the technology becomes profitable, it’s handed over to big business for free. We pay and they profit. From aviation, computers, the internet, GPS, and cell phones, these all have taken decades (30 years each) of publicly funded research and development. They get it for free (or in exchange for campaign donations/bribes), they profit, and receive far more subsidies than they ever pay in taxes. We pay to develop new technology, and then we pay again to use it. They receive the returns on our investment. What ever happened to their bootstraps?

With all of their unfair advantages, they easily destroy medium & small businesses and real jobs, as if they never existed in the first place. And, most of the jobs created by big business do not pay enough to support a single person, let alone families. The corporate hierarchy is as extreme as a totalitarian state, with all of the power at the top. After decades of over regulating the middle class and poor, while deregulating big business, we’ve ended up with corporations more powerful than most countries, virtually above the law. Fines are not frequent or large enough to be deterrents. Externalities require the public to pay most damages. They influence elections and have acquired the rights of immortal persons. They are undemocratic and unaccountable. We need to hold them accountable.

History has given us clear examples of what works and what doesn’t work. The economy we have now is as reckless as the economy leading up to the Great Depression. The New Deal regulations saved the economy after the Great Depression and gave us a stable economy up until the Reagan Revolution destroyed it. We are still fully in the grips of Friedmanism. The policies of John Maynard Keynes gave us a strong middle class and five decades of no crashes on Wall Street, while Milton Friedman’s policies have given us four decades of one disaster after another. Conservatives still push for more austerity, privatization and deregulation, but:

“Milton Friedman's misfortune is that his economic policies have been tried.” – John Kenneth Galbraith 

This would all be common knowledge, if the private media had an interest to inform the public. Even the left wing of the corporate media has corporate (in other words, right wing) interests at its core. The Orwellian framing of the establishment media as a liberal media, urges the public to act against their own interests. Progressives understand this, but Republicans and Centrist Corporate Democrats are still deluded by the corporate propaganda of the corporate media.

continue...

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Post by: Kurt Riebel: artist, activist  

#PeacefulProtest #LoveTrumpsHate #NotMyPresident #ResistTrump #Resist @uResist
  RESIST CORPORATE TYRANNY 

[BLOG HOME | SITE MENU]

● Progressives: Right in the Primaries, Wrong on the 8th

Yes democratic progressives, you were right during the primaries. You were right to vote for Bernie Sanders, both on the issues and strategically. We know now and we knew at the time, that the polls showed that Bernie would do better than Hillary in the general election against Trump. If independents could’ve voted, Bernie would’ve won. If Bernie had gotten half the media time as Hillary or Trump, Bernie would’ve won. If the democratic party didn’t funnel money and resources (designated for both campaigns) to Hillary, Bernie would’ve won. If the democratic party didn’t sabotage Bernie’s campaign, he would’ve won. I agree with Jill Stein on practically every issue. I voted for her (in a non-swing-state) in 2012. Yes, you were right to vote for Bernie in the primaries! It’s true that the corporate centrist democrats and the racist republicans put us in this horrible position.

If you wanted to have hope months ago that Jill Stein had a chance, that’s fine and even good, but not now. Polls are not 100% right, but they can be trusted to a degree, and Jill Stein will NOT win this election. There are the issues and there is strategy. Now is the time for strategy. If you’re serious about supporting the Green Party, make a vow for the next 4 years, and start on November 9th.

Hillary is a corporatist, but Trump is a new level of danger to our democracy. He talks like every dictator rising to power. So, don’t be surprised when he starts arresting journalists, because he said he would. He will resort to violence. He said he would. Dictators are idiots, who don’t know how to govern rationally. They are good at rallying crowds and rolling back rights, but not even Trump understands how bad he will be in office. But, those of us who know what dictators sound like, are fully aware of the danger. The famous last words of people who elect tyrants, “We never thought it could get that bad.”

So, if you are in anything remotely resembling a swing state, and you don’t vote against Trump by voting for Hillary, you are flirting with the worst case scenario. Progressives, we have to be humble. We lost this one. The question on the 8th is, how badly do we want to lose. Trump is a loss we may never come back from. You can disagree with Jill Stein on one thing. Make sure Trump doesn’t win. Join Jill Stein and the Green Party on the 9th and do the hard work of fighting for the next four years, or hopefully, for the rest of our lives, in an environment in which we are able to fight.


Post by: Kurt Riebel: artist, activist

[BLOG HOME | SITE MENU]

● Corpocracy

The U.S.A. moves further to the right.          

A landmark Supreme Court ruling allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to elect and defeat candidates. This turns democracy on its head. In a system that's closer to one dollar, one vote, (rather than one person, one vote) big business can out vote the public on every issue. Obama spoke out against this, hopefully he will do something to turn this around.

corporatocracy or corpocracy : a form of government where corporations, conglomerates (or government entities with private components), control the direction and governance of a country; otherwise known as fascism.
fascism |ˈfa sh ˌizəm| (also Fascism)
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

• (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
• The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, and the merging of business and government.

Thesaurus
fascism
noun
The right-wing brand of so-called patriotism is essentially the road to (or defense of) fascism. intolerance, AUTHORITARIANISM, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy; Nazism, rightism; nationalism, xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism; jingoism, isolationism; neofascism, neo-Nazism.

In a five-to-four decision, the Court overturned century-old restrictions on corporations, unions and other interest groups from using their extensive revenues to advocate for a specific candidate. The conservative members of the Court ruled corporations have First Amendment rights and that we cannot impose restrictions on their political speech.

Justice Anthony Kennedy (writing the majority opinion) described previously existing campaign finance laws as a form of censorship that has had a “chilling effect” on political speech. Although, one lawmaker described the ruling as the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case justifying slavery.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote:

• “[It] will cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process.”
• A corporation is now a citizen, with all the political rights we have, but with all kinds of economic perks and privileges like limited liability, perpetual life, bankruptcy protection, etc.
• We subsidize these entities, as we saw with the bailouts, but then they can turn around, spend money, & determine our political destiny.
• Obama should call for a constitutional amendment to declare corporations are not persons.
• Congress should declare, if you do business with the government, you can't fund it.

For more on this watch Democracy Now's interview with constitutional law professor, Jamin Raskin, author of Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court vs. The American People. http://democracynow.org/2010/1/22/...

[RESIST CORPORATE TYRANNY]	[RESIST CORPORATE TYRANNY]

Go to SAVEDEMOCRACY.NET and sign the petition.

● http://nytimes.com/2007/06/02/opinion/02copps.html
● http://prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary
● http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003020011
● http://huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/anthony-weiner-calls-fox...
● http://uresist.com/design/thinkOutsideFox
● http://fakenews.org
● http://outfoxed.org

                       • more designs...
[BLOG HOME | SITE MENU]

● conservatism

[SITE MENU] [BLOG HOME]

CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT
. . .

"That which is public is socialist, and therefore, evil."

The way to keep power and money in check, is to have a working free press continually keep the pressure on, by asking the tough questions and insisting on accountability.

INTRODUCTION:

conservative |kənˈsərvətiv; -vəˌtiv|
adjective
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

• Unadventurous, especially in terms of culture, tradition, politics, philosophy, thinking, and the creative arts : No Risk & No Reward.
• (of dress or taste) sober and conventional : a conservative suit.
• reactionary, traditionalist, orthodox, old-fashioned, set in one's way.
• tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : conventional and narrow-minded.
• marked by moderation or caution (a low estimate)

noun
a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.

• advocating support of established institutions
• a supporter or member of the Republican Party in the U.S.A. or a similar party in another country.
• (public opinion) liberals and conservatives have found common ground in support of a public healthcare plan.
• (government policy) liberals and conservatives have found common ground in support of private industry.

DERIVATIVES
conservatism |kənˈsərvəˌtizəm| noun : (from Latin: conservare = "save" or "preserve") refers to various political and social philosophies that support tradition and the status quo.

conservatively adverb
conservativeness noun

ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense [aiming to preserve] ): from late Latin conservativus, from conservat- ‘conserved,’ from the verb conservare (see conserve ). Current senses date from the mid 19th century onward.
-

Cultural conservatism

Cultural conservatism is a philosophy that supports preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture: jingoistic or jingoism.
In the subset social conservatism, the norms may also be what is viewed as a question of morality. In some cultures, practices such as homosexuality are seen as immoral. In others, it is considered immoral for a woman to reveal too much of her body. The economic, political, religious, cultural, and social oppression of others is not only seen as legitimate, but as admirable and moral.


Religious conservatism

Religious conservatives seek to apply the teachings of particular ideologies to politics, sometimes by proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times seeking to have those teachings influence laws. Religious conservatism may support, or be supported by, secular customs. In other places or at other times, religious conservatism may find itself at odds with the culture in which the believers reside. In some cultures, there is conflict between two or more different groups of religious conservatives, each claiming both that their view is correct, and that opposing views are wrong.

Because many religions preserve a founding text, or at least a set of well-established traditions, the possibility of radical religious conservatism arises. These are radical both in the sense of abolishing the status quo and of a perceived return to the root of a belief. They are ante conservative in their claim to be preserving the belief in its original or pristine form. Radical religious conservatism generally sees the status quo as corrupted by abuses, corruption, or heresy. The evolution of a society (such as openness, sexual awareness, tolerance and appreciation for others, and diversity of almost any kind) can trigger a violent cultural collision with conservatives.

. . .

CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT

The way to keep power and money in check (to keep them from taking your money, time, and rights) is to have a working free press continually keep the pressure on, by asking the tough questions and insisting on accountability.

Many conservatives have the opinion that reporters are annoying. This would make sense if they (conservatives) were big business owners engaging in questionable activities. Unfortunately, most conservatives (small-town school teachers, small business owners, middle class, and poor alike) have this opinion about journalists who question the business practices of the rich and those in power who benefit from or support their actions. Many have the impression that the press is socialist, intellectual snobbery that's trying to destroy America, and that the wealthy business owners are the victims of free speech gone mad. These average americas (middle class and working poor) who have fallen prey to corporate propaganda don't even realize that they need their civil liberties, let alone how their very freedom depends on these "annoying" reporters keeping power in check.

Conservatives will always see the press as liberal, because conservatism is all about conforming to the power structure (the Establishment). The US, and now the world, is ruled by corporations, and these corporations, by their very nature, are right-wing institutions. When people conform, they don't conform to the disenfranchised, they take the easy safe road and conform to the authorities, and the "authorities" in the US, answer to the real authorities, the business leaders and multinational private bankers. Even the Fed is a private bank, owned by individuals, not the public. The word "Federal" in the Federal Reserve is intentionally deceiving. There is a Federal Board appointed by the President, named by the bank owners, to oversee the bank's operations, but the owners (as in any business) have the most power. It's always a power struggle between business leaders, the 3 branches of government, and the citizenry. The citizens usually lose, having less money and power (and hence, influence), because many of them (conservatives) have been convinced that they don't really need their rights, and should do little to help the poor (to level the playing field), but instead, should give to the top, only to ensure that the divid between rich and poor ever widens.

Big business owners are right-wing because that's how they make their living, through private industry. Government officials are right-wing (even the democrats) for campaign contributions from private industry. The media is right-wing because the media are corporations, which inherently have right-wing (corporate or private) interests. Conservatives are right-wing, because their need to conform overrides their need to seek the truth. Honestly seeking the truth is too risky for them because it could mean going against the opinions of their family, church, and/or tradition. And, this goes against their priority of putting jingoistic loyalty over honest analysis and self-reflection. They choose their team and fall inline, and defend their team regardless of the facts, or even unwittingly, their own interests.

You will never (or very rarely) hear that "the media is conservative" within the corporate media, because this is an unacceptable opinion within right-wing institutions. Most of the complaining about the media, within the media, comes from the right, because (obviously) the media is on the right, hence the popular phrase "the liberal media." Once you're convinced that the media has a liberal bias you won't even consider opinions that are outside the mainstream and to the left of the corporate media. This is intentional, because it keeps the public from asking the real questions about our institutions. Also, people have a hard time believing that so many could be deceived (especially themselves) even though it has happened to practically every society throughout history. If you believe that the media is liberal, you then might turn to right-wing talk radio and fall into the abyss of lies that plague this nation.

All one has to do is look at the past 30 some years of deregulation and realize what that means: we are moving to the right. Even the democrats (the "left-wing/liberal" party) caves to corporate interests over public interests almost every time. This is the definition of being right-wing, and a realization that we have no viable left-wing political party in the US. In a time when a so-called "socialist" leader can't even pass a Public Health Care Plan, because private insurance companies have too much power and influence, even though the majority of the public wants health care for all, we can see how this trend of moving to the right could play out. If everything public is deemed as ineffective "evil" socialism, we could eventually lose our post office, parks, public libraries, and even our public schools. And with the rise of the unaccountable corporate militaries, a frightening future may await. Once you realize the corporate media is right-wing, you might move to the left to find the truth. You might actually read or listen to Naomi Klein, Howard Zinn, Jeremy Scahill, Amy Goodman, Ralph Nader, Jeremy Rifkin, and Noam Chomsky, people who actually support their arguments with facts.

...read more

[BLOG HOME] [SITE MENU]