From:   gail zawacki <>
Sent time:   Monday, September 26, 2011 6:48:45 AM
Subject:   SPAM-MED: Re: [september17discuss] Re: DEMANDS

Lauren, I think you misunderstand the degree to which I meant corporate control should be curtailed:

Here's a partial excerpt of a perspective (chosen randomly) from England:

In case you had not gotten the picture yet, we are seeing a global explosion of rebellion, demonstration and riot. I firmly believe that all the rioting and revolt in the Middle East is directly connected to the rioting and revolt going on in Europe. People are finally seeing a broad general picture of a world and its governments, whether they be democratic or authoritarian, being controlled and dominated by a handful of powerful global corporations. Under such control, governments lean their decisions in favor of these corporate entities and the very wealthy people behind them...

The UK riots have broken out very shortly after the expanding news story of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporations committing crimes in partnership with the police as part of what they represent as ‘journalism.’ That is basically a tip of the iceberg example of corporate control of a nation.

Widespread unemployment, idleness and the easy access to video information from all over the world builds anger and resentment toward governments that seem locked into corporate bonds. People begin to realize that it doesn’t matter who they elect. All the candidates are run by the corporations. The defining signal to the world, much to everyone’s surprise, was the election of Barack Obama. He won his office by seeming to promise something new – something independent and free. But as soon as he took office the world saw that he was just another corporate middle man. The ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are simply at the behest of the corporations that insist upon such a course which includes the very profitable activity of ‘nation building.’ That Obama signal – that horrific disappointment – has led directly to this global explosion of rage. Obama, by not being who he should have been, lit the fuse. The bomb is now going off.

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Lauren <> wrote:
One of my lines doesn't make sense

"The only reason
the new deal happened is the reason Bismarck, the head of the german
conservative party and a man who was impossibly happy about the
anarchist communist split, was the one who passed it"

It here refers to the german social system.