The Shock Doctrine by Alfonso Cuarón and Naomi Klein

I just found this on the front page of and was blown away. The above short film is produced by Alfonso Cuarón, the critically acclaimed director of "Children of Men", and is narrated by and based on the new book from author Naomi Klein - "The Shock Doctrine". I really want to buy this book it looks fascinating and incredibly powerful.

From the front page of;

The Shock Doctrine

Welcome to This website is more than a promotional tool for a book, although you can receive the latest news about The Shock Doctrine, read reviews and see where you can purchase a copy.

The process of researching The Shock Doctrine was so fascinating and revelatory that I was left with a strong desire to share as much of my own discovery experience as possible -- to steer readers to the books, essays, documentary films and primary documents that did so much to shape The Shock Doctrine. In that spirit, is designed to serve as a living companion to the book for readers -- particularly students and educators -- who want to delve deeper into the book's material and themes, and who want to see the evidence for themselves.

Debra Levy, a trained librarian, was the primary researcher for The Shock Doctrine, working for years on the project. After the book was complete, she dedicated herself to opening up our research files and putting them online, curating, along with designer Andrew Childs, this remarkable website.

The Resources section, offers a full interactive bibliography and filmography as well as declassified CIA reports, dozens of historical documents, and links to terrific online material, much of it organized by chapter so they can serve as supplementary readings. We all hope you find this to be a useful tool for your studies and research and welcome your feedback. Keep in mind that this is a work in progress, with new material going up everyday.

Best wishes,
Naomi Klein

See also Naomi Klein's interview on "Democracy Now!";

(Naomi also debated Alan Greenspan on Democracy Now;
"In a Democracy Now! exclusive debate, former federal reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and journalist Naomi Klein square off on the Iraq war, oil, President Bush tax cuts, social security, economic populism in Latin America, corruption and crony capitalism")

Naomi Klein on The Shock Doctrine

Naomi Klein on The Shock Doctrine- pt 2

Naomi Klein on The Shock Doctrine- pt 3

Naomi Klein on The Shock Doctrine- pt 4

Naomi Klein on The Shock Doctrine-pt 5

I started reading Shock Doctrine last night

the book is #20 at Amazon and climbing every day.

Alfonso Cuarón directed the recent film "Children of Men"

This Video in multiple segments is also excellent.

I wonder if some of us are less susceptible

The day of Sept. 11, 2001 I remember wondering where all of the energy came from to bring down those towers and a couple of days later couldn't believe what appeared to be the good fortune of George W. Bush, as I believed the 2000 election was stolen for him.

I have wondered to myself in the last 19 months, since finding out that 911 was an inside job, why some people are resistant to even looking at the evidence for it, as when I heard about Dr. Jones bringing up issues with molten metal in the rubble I felt I had to read his paper before judging it.

I personally have been shocked in other ways in my life and wonder sometimes if some of us, who have had these other major problems, have some level of immunity and are less susceptible to these types of manipulations.

In conjunction with reading Dr. Jones' paper I started looking at as much information on the Internet as I could and came across the first video I watched about it, which was "What's the Truth" by Doug Brown (Dem Bruce Lee Styles) and I had no problem seeing that a major conspiracy was probably responsible for 911. Thanks for that video Dem, it was inspiring. I often watch the beginning and the end for inspiration in this war for truth we have found ourselves in.

who creates the crisis?

This country is so dumb down with distractions, it doesn't take that much truth to shock someone . I think there is a lot of forces to make people apathetic so that even if they do get shocked they take the path of least resistance and quickly make up there mind without even thinking ,, so they can quickly get back to there old life.

Everyone has there own crisis in which they create,, but was is a crisis in your own mind? who creates the crisis?

From that video she makes it

From that video she makes it sound like free market capitalism is the cause of poverty and war? I hope she knows that we don't live in a Free market society and that All war since 1913 has been a direct cause of the FED and having a central bank. But, like most people, she probably doesn't :/

The War Machine

All war since 1913 has been a direct cause of the FED

Wow. That's a pretty sweeping statement. Care to elaborate? And what of before the FED?

Note the following partial list of pre-FED interventions by the United States. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide what constitutes "American interests" and why the term always seems to pop up in conjuction with "insurrection" or "revolution".

Let's start in the 19th C lest this take all day.

1824 -- Puerto Rico (Spanish territory). Commodore David Porter with a landing party attacked the town of Fajardo which had sheltered pirates and insulted American naval officers. He landed with 200 men in November and forced an apology. Commodore Porter was later court-martialed for overstepping his powers.

1832 -- Sumatra - February 6 to 9. A naval force landed and stormed a fort to punish natives of the town of Quallah Battoo for plundering the American ship Friendship.

1833 -- Argentina - October 31 to November 15. A force was sent ashore at Buenos Aires to protect the interests of the United States and other countries during an insurrection.

1835-36 -- Peru - December 10, 1835, to January 24, 1836, and August 31 to December 7, 1836. Marines protected American interests in Callao and Lima during an attempted revolution.

1836 -- Mexico. General Gaines occupied Nacogdoches (Tex.), disputed territory, from July to December during the Texan war for independence, under orders to cross the "imaginary boundary line" if an Indian outbreak threatened.

1838-39 -- Sumatra - December 24, 1838, to January 4, 1839. A naval force landed to punish natives of the towns of Quallah Battoo and Muckie (Mukki) for depredations on American shipping.

1840 -- Fiji Islands - July. Naval forces landed to punish natives for attacking American exploring and surveying parties.

1841 -- Drummond Island, Kingsmill Group. A naval party landed to avenge the murder of a seaman by the natives.

1841 -- Samoa - February 24. A naval party landed and burned towns after the murder of an American seaman on Upolu Island.

1843 -- Africa -- November 29 to December 16. Four United States vessels demonstrated and landed various parties (one of 200 marines and sailors) to discourage piracy and the slave trade along the Ivory coast, and to punish attacks by the natives on American seamen and shipping.

1846-48 -- Mexican War. On May 13,1846, the United States recognized the existence of a state of war with Mexico. After the annexation of Texas in 1845, the United States and Mexico failed to resolve a boundary dispute and President Polk said that it was necessary to deploy forces in Mexico to meet a threatened invasion.

1852-53 -- Argentina -- February 3 to 12, 1852; September 17, 1852 to April 1853. Marines were landed and maintained in Buenos Aires to protect American interests during a revolution.

1854 -- Nicaragua -- July 9 to 15. Naval forces bombarded and burned San Juan del Norte (Greytown) to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.

1855 -- Fiji Islands -- September 12 to November 4. An American naval force landed to seek reparations for depredations on American residents and seamen.

1855 -- Uruguay -- November 25 to 29. United States and European naval forces landed to protect American interests during an attempted revolution in Montevideo.

1856 -- Panama, Republic of New Grenada -- September 19 to 22. U.S. forces landed to protect American interests during an insurrection.

1857 -- Nicaragua -- April to May, November to December. In May Commander C.H. Davis of the United States Navy, with some marines, received the surrender of William Walker, who had been attempting to get control of the country, and protected his men from the retaliation of native allies who had been fighting Walker. In November and December of the same year United States vessels Saratoga, Wabash, and Fulton opposed another attempt of William Walker on Nicaragua. Commodore Hiram Paulding's act of landing marines and compelling the removal of Walker to the United States, was tacitly disavowed by Secretary of State Lewis Cass, and Paulding was forced into retirement.

1858 -- Uruguay -- January 2 to 27. Forces from two United States warships landed to protect American property during a revolution in Montevideo.

1858 -- Fiji Islands -- October 6 to 16. A marine expedition chastised natives for the murder of two American citizens at Waya.

1860 -- Angola, Portuguese West Africa -- March 1. American residents at Kissembo called upon American and British ships to protect lives and property during problems with natives.

1860 -- Colombia, Bay of Panama -- September 27 to October 8. Naval forces landed to protect American interests during a revolution.

1865 -- Panama -- March 9 and 10. U.S. forces protected the lives and property of American residents during a revolution.

1866 -- China. From June 20 to July 7, U.S. forces punished an assault on the American consul at Newchwang.

1867 -- Nicaragua. Marines occupied Managua and Leon.

1867 -- Formosa -- June 13. A naval force landed and burned a number of huts to punish the murder of the crew of a wrecked American vessel.

1871 -- Korea -- June 10 to 12. A U.S. naval force attacked and captured five forts to punish natives for depredations on Americans, particularly for murdering the crew of the General Sherman and burning the schooner, and for later firing on other American small boats taking soundings up the Salee River.

1873 -- Colombia (Bay of Panama) -- May 7 to 22, September 23 to October 9. U.S. forces protected American interests during hostilities over possession of the government of the State of Panama.

1874 -- Hawaiian Islands -- February 12 to 20. Detachments from American vessels were landed to preserve order and protect American lives and interests during the coronation of a new king.

1876 -- Mexico -- May 18. An American force was landed to police the town of Matamoras temporarily while it was without other government.

1885 -- Panama (Colon) -- January 18 and 19. U.S. forces were used to guard the valuables in transit over the Panama Railroad, and the safes and vaults of the company during revolutionary activity. In March, April, and May in the cities of Colon and Panama, the forces helped reestablish freedom of transit during revolutionary activity.

1888 -- Korea -- June. A naval force was sent ashore to protect American residents in Seoul during unsettled political conditions, when an outbreak of the populace was expected.

1889 -- Hawaiian Islands -- July 30 and 31. U.S. forces protected American interests at Honolulu during a revolution.

1894 -- Nicaragua -- July 6 to August 7. U.S. forces sought to protect American interests at Bluefields following a revolution.

1896 -- Nicaragua -- May 2 to 4. U.S. forces protected American interests in Corinto during political unrest.

1898 -- The Spanish--American War. On April 25, 1898, the United States declared war with Spain. The war followed a Cuban insurrection against Spanish rule and the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in the harbor at Havana.

1899 -- Nicaragua. American and British naval forces were landed to protect national interests at San Juan del Norte, February 22 to March 5, and at Bluefields a few weeks later in connection with the insurrection of Gen. Juan P. Reyes.

1899 -- Samoa -- February-May 15. American and British naval forces were landed to protect national interests and to take part in a bloody contention over the succession to the throne.

1899--1901 -- Philippine Islands. U.S. forces protected American interests following the war with Spain and conquered the islands by defeating the Filipinos in their war for independence.

1901 -- Colombia (State of Panama) -- November 20 to December 4. U.S. forces protected American property on the Isthmus and kept transit lines open during serious revolutionary disturbances.

1902 -- Colombia -- April 16 to 23. U.S. forces protected American lives and property at Bocas del Toro during a civil war.

1903 -- Dominican Republic -- March 30 to April 21. A detachment of marines was landed to protect American interests in the city of Santo Domingo during a revolutionary outbreak.

1903-14 -- Panama. U.S. forces sought to protect American interests and lives during and following the revolution for independence from Colombia over construction of the Isthmian Canal. With brief intermissions, United States Marines were stationed on the Isthmus from November 4, 1903, to January 21 1914 to guard American interests.

1906-09 -- Cuba -- September 1906 to January 23, 1909. U.S. forces sought to restore order, protect foreigners, and establish a stable government after serious revolutionary activity.


The point is not to say the FED is a benign institution or that it shouldn't be eliminated post haste. The point is that blaming everything that's wrong in the world on a bank or a secret society is completely irrational and ahistorical. It ignores the bedrock institutions and socio-political processes which gave rise to these cancerous outgrowths. State capitalism is inherently imperialistic. Increased profit requires new markets, new (and preferably cheaper) sources of labor, new raw materials and an intstrument of violence to enforce these arrangementes. To quote another Friedman and Free Market fundamentalist, Thomas Friedman:

"The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist - McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps." Source: "A Manifesto for the Fast World," The New York Times Magazine, March 28, 1999

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Hey, thanks Danse, that's the best post

i've read at this site TO DATE. I think "markets" are useful mechanisms, but capitalism leads always and everywhere to the concentration of wealth and power, thus choking off the markets themselves - along with democracy, freedom, etc. So what's the solution in your view? i think that since a return to a (largely mythical) small-entrepreneur capitalist system is impossible - and since statist (new deal, Keynesian) capitalism has reached an impasse - that we need to start thinking about a revolutionary socialist alternative. not to be confused with the statist reformist version mentioned in the parenthesis above.

Anyone at this stage of the

Anyone at this stage of the game with the amount of info available about 9/11, along with the serious intellects involved, and who still do not consider themselves Truthers (anyone interested in discovering the truth about 9/11, which is anything other than the official conspiracy theory) are either friggin idiots or collaborators. Let's just be out with it already. For G*d's sake, Dr Lynn Margelus, recipient of the National Academy of Sciences Award (the nation's most prestigious scientific award), is a Truther, along with hundreds of government & military officials, scientists & scholars, architects & engineers and a massive portion of the American public. Anyone who can look at WTC 7 and seriously deny the absurdity of that collapse is an outright lier or denier. Z magazine is a gate keeper until they prove their worth by reportring on 9/11. Read the book? You must be kidding me. I will not enrich a propaganda machine by purchasing the book with my hard earned money. Besides, the video was more than enough with it's forced association of Milton Freidman to torturing innocent humans.


So what's the solution in your view?

I think any “solution” thrust upon the people would ultimately serve as a detriment. This would be true whether the “solution” was concocted by a committee of communist intellectuals, a committee of wealthy slave-holders or an average Joe like me. I think our solutions have to be reached organically depending on circumstance. That’s why I’m generally opposed to archaic concepts like “law and (dis)order”. We’re not cogs in a machine but flesh and blood in a constantly changing environment. The concept of lenes interests me. I think we have a lot to learn from the people our forebears labeled “savages” and captured as slaves.

"Tribal laws are lenes by definition - they are received rules and guidelines for behavior in a society that have evolved, withstood the test of time and work in their environments. Tribal laws aren't introduced in committee, debated by tribal lobbyists and lawmakers, written in stone in the big book of tribal laws or enforced by the tribal policemen. Tribal laws are unique for each society because each society inhabits a unique environment - what works for an aggressive, xenophobic desert people wouldn't necessary work for laid-back, hospitable forest dwellers. Tribal laws generally don�t try to change human nature because people are just as likely to be selfish, boorish, disruptive or hostile as they are to be generous, gracious, attentive or peaceable. As lenes they instead work to bring the system back into balance and to correct the damage that occurs when people do behave in ways that aren�t beneficial. Tribal laws and lenes don�t require people to be angels in order to work - they accept the fact that people will behave like people have always behaved.

“A lene is therefore a guideline for behavior that has worked in the past that should be applied to the current situation, keeping in mind that if it no longer works it can be replaced with something else.”

(Keep in mind that Thomas Jefferson – by far the most “libertarian” and forward-thinking of the “Founding Fathers” – said basically the same thing).

Naturally, none of the above would be possible in anything but a series of decentralized, democratic communities federated horizontally. That’s really the key right there in my mind: (direct) democracy and decentralization. People talk about "sovereignty" but limit their horizon to the state. We should go beyond, right down to the individual.

I reject libertarianism because it treats the people as a “mob” to be subdued and manipulated by the privileged few. I reject its cousin anarcho-capitalism because it merely replaces one form of tyranny (the state) with another (capital).

You mentioned “revolutionary socialism”. If that means a vanguard seizing the state I’d have to decline. Some call it the “Winter Palace” fallacy (after the Russian Revolution): the idea that the existing order can be overthrown overnight and utopia will follow shortly thereafter. It’s gonna be a long slog. Like Milton said, “Long and Hard is the way that out of Hell leads up to the light”. Everyone here is cursed and blessed. We just happened to be born during the most “interesting” time in history.

I loathe using the word “socialism” in general. It has lost all meaning if it ever had any to begin with. The term is just as repellent to Americans as the term capitalism is to people in the Third World. I sympathize with conservatives who fear becoming part of a “hive mind” and losing their individuality just as I sympathize with wage-slaves who fear yet more “free market reforms”.

“Free market capitalism” is pure insanity. The idea that some person or other should “own” every square inch on the planet and every molecule of air is not only bizarre but anti-human. I’m reminded of the Howard Zinn essay, “Who owns the Sun”? Public resources should be owned by the public (this needn’t entail centralized power, as some assume). People should be entitled to the entire fruits of their labor (PROPERTY), which automatically rules out capitalism and usury. We’re a social species. We survive through sharing and cooperation (as fuzzy as those words sound, they’re hard as a rock historically), not intra-species competition and wealth hoarding.

I’ll say this: if the goal is extinction we’re doing a damn fine job.

We’re now entering Bizarro world. Just a few more infomercials, a few more Van Goghs locked away in billionaire’s vault, a few more “bum fights” captured for Fox News. Every instinct and trait which distinguishes us as a species and which have allowed us to survive over the past several hundreds-of-thousands-of-years is being artificially replaced by its antithesis. It’s no wonder people are going batshit and shooting up their workplaces and schools. For humans, the absence of community and solidarity and freedom is just next to the absence of oxygen.

This system cannot and will not last.

So in closing I’d say that there is no silver bullet ready made prefab solution. You already knew that anyway. There are only glimpses of utopia on the walls of the cave. I always liked that line in Pirates of the Caribbean where Geoffrey Rush, in explaining the “Pirate’s Code”, says “They’re not so much rules as guidelines”.

If I had to choose a handful of guidelines they would resemble those of any anarchist type: anti-(institutional) hierarchy, anti-state, anti-monarchy, anti-ruling class, anti-war, anti-oppression, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-bigotry, anti-capitalism, pro-democracy, pro-freedom. Ok, so those sound like a bunch of platitudes. I told you I had no solution J

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

appreciate the thoughtful reply

I think where we disagree is over the significance of the Bolshevik revolution. That was the first of the very few revolutions that actually broke out of the grip of the capitalist system, ended (Russian participation) in the Imperialist slaughter of that time. We can't review the whole history of the Soviet system, how it struggled to survive in an adverse environment of encirclement, etc, and the later betrayal (of Soviet, i.e., council democracy) by Stalinist bureaucracy, but i'll simply indicate that the revolutionary i admire most is Trotsky. i will say though that we need to be very aware of just how much of our ideology has been internalized from the massive amount of propaganda we have been subjected to in this country particularly - where anti-communism was imposed as a kind of state religion. especially concepts like the bee hive and loss of individuality. We've all asked the question, "What if everything we were told on 9-11 was a lie'" well I think we will have to ask, "What if everything we were told BEFORE 9-11 was a lie also."
One thing is clear to me - IF (!) a power is to be created that can actually CHALLENGE the trillionaire clique that controls the capitalist state apparatus, the media, and every important institution - THEN THAT FORCE WILL HAVE TO BE ORGANIZED, and that means to me that pure individualism will not get that job done. Certain historical experiences of the anarchists could be cited as examples here.
On the question of terminology - I mean by SOCIALISM the negation of private ownership of the means of production, communication, etc. I regard those assets as belonging to the laboring classes who will need to seize them and operate them through democratic control. Utopian? Yes a tall order - seemingly inconceivable only a few years ago - but now how can we even imagine the indefinite CONTINUATION of this system?!? As you said it's beginning to look like a question of human survival - i would just add that it's not a question of WE, destroying ourselves, but of THEY - that is, a quite clearly defined RULING CLASS in America. See "Who Rules America", two volumes by Domhoff, for example. To finish the point - we need to be SERIOUS about actually (!) OVERTHROWING (or choose your word) that elite.

Marxist fallacies

The Bolshevik revolution was COUNTER-revolutionary.

Every attempt at direct democracy, decentralization and self-rule was sabatoged by the Bolshies. The anarchists were regarded by Lenin and Trotsky as "more dangerous" than the aristocracy.

During the time of Marx, Bakunin predicted exactly what would happen in a "Marxist" society. He said it would lead to "an extremely complex government. This government will not content itself with administering and governing the masses politically . . . it will also administer the masses economically, concentrating in the hands of the State [all economic and social activity] . . . All that will demand an immense knowledge and many heads 'overflowing with brains' in this government. It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant, and elitist of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy . . . Such a regime will not fail to arouse very considerable discontent in the masses of the people, and in order to keep them in check . . .[a] considerable armed force [would be required]."

It was one of the most remarkable predictions in the social sciences. And it came true. Exactly.

Trotsky? Trotsky was a pig:

“The working class cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers.

Leon Trotsky

“Compulsion of labour will reach the highest degree of intensity during the transition from capitalism to socialism.

Leon Trotsky

“Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps”.

Leon Trotsky

“it is better that the Ukraine be surrendered to Denikin in its entirety than the possibility of the Makhnovshschina’s [anarchists] expanding be allowed to arise”

Leon Trotsky

I feel nothing but pitty for people who continue to support Marxism. It's a failed ideology if there ever was one.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

of course...

its important to make the distinction between marx and so-called "marxism". because great swaths of your (and my) critique of capitalism comes directly from marx, or indirectly through his interpreters...

Your blunt characterization of Marxism

as a "failed ideology' is way too catagorical to be even meaningful. That is of course the "general line" in the capitalist west. Soviet Union provided better education, better health care, full employment and I could go on ... despite numerous invasions, Hitler onslaught taking out 25 million people and most of their industry ... by the 1970's they were the second economy of the world with a growth rate that would have surpassed the U.S. by 2000 - that necesitated Cold War Two massive militarization, combined with China card etc, to bankrupt the USSR - well all that can be safely discounted with one word "failure'... not very nuanced at any rate. But you are a hard ideologue it seems, taking the anarchist critique as the whole truth.

Do we have a free-market?

I really like this quote:
"We do not have a free market when it comes to the money supply. And since the money permeates the entire market, it isn't much of a leap to conclude that we don't have a free market of any kind at all." - Michael Nystrom MBA (editor of


less susceptible to these types of manipulations

have some level of immunity and are less susceptible to these types of manipulations.

Some thoughts.

Moral Development?

All of these is some combination produces what is known in layman's terms as:


How do we develop these traits

Joe, I think you are right and would add that some of these traits may come from our upbringing, some with maturity, and some from being burned in other ways and generally just life experience.

I tink we are born with some...

We are not a blank slate at birth.

Past lives perhaps?

earlier in this lifetime I was fascinated with astrology. We may be experiencing the last hoorah
of the Patriarchical Piscean age.

Any Psychologists in the House?

I've thought about the idea of being less susceptible also. I've felt that a factor could have been the timing of our first exposure to the events of that day. For instance, I walked into a room to first see and hear about what was happening on TV, some time after the first tower already collapsed. Seeing right away that first tower come down as it did and then hearing that planes hit the towers prior, I right away thought something else caused the towers to come down like they did (explosives) and not catching on the fabricated connection that was part of the myth. I think that I did not get the full "shock" sequence that was meant to hit most of the public. I then became intrigued to hear more about how it came down. I knew information was still not know, being left out, or not properly explained on what exactly happened. Watching TV news broadcasts throughout the day, waiting for more answers I then saw WTC 7 go down live. That did it for me!

On 9/11/01, I was at an university studying engineering principles, which led me to see the events of that day with the laws of physics fresh on the mind. My first exposure to the physics of that day was some time after the first tower came down, since they keep showing the North Tower coming down over and over again. Ironically, the time prior I was searching for an internship at a huge engineering career fair with most of the top corporations and private companies that are now profiting heavily from that day and since. In fact, nobody in the fair acted like they knew anything was going on. I still wonder.

Naomi Klein - Speaks to Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

Naomi Klein talks about her new book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Speaking at a benefit event for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a social justice research institute.

Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America's "free market" policies have come to dominate the world -- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.

Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine - Part 1 of 6

No need to embed video. You will find the other five parts at the link above.

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

Shock Doctine is a short

Shock Doctine is a short film about neocon/fascism not true American ideology. Shock Doctrine is communist/neoliberal propaganda. Shock Doctrine mixes powerful images and frightening facts about Neocon rule in an attempt to pin such vile acts on American values of real liberty and free market principles. We presently don't enjoy a free market and have not since the inception of the Federal Reserve and their monopoly over the US economy. Neocons are not free marketeers, they are fascist in control of the monopoly. The other end of the spectrum is NeoLiberal looking for control of the monopoly. The Neoliberal rule is equally ruthless but but more savvy in keeping the ugliness out of sight. A great example of these two anti-American factions who have been battling for the end of American sovereignty is the difference between Bush and Clinton handlings of Iraq. Bush and the neocon/fascists have slaughtered nearly a million innocent Iraqis, Clinton and the Neoliberal/communists starved to death over a million innocent Iraqis with sanctions. Both factions need to be banished from our nation. Our Constitutional Republic needs to be restored, it is the best hope for humanity.


for god's sake, man! naomi klein is vehemently opposed to neoliberalism. that's the POINT of the book, silly. neo-liberalism IS the major economic strategy of BOTH parties. the neo-conservatives simply think that the devious, pauperizing economics of the last administration needs to be supplemented by a good dose of brutal force. klein, on the other hand, is influenced by the tradition of authentic, democratic, paticipatory (emphatically NOT centrally planned) economic thought associated primarily with michael albert and Z magazine (these guy's are not 9/11 truthers, AND they are valuable allies!) just read the damn book, huh?

Show "Please! Silly You" by greenback

Reductionism at its finest

Greenback, you seem to think “neoliberalism” refers to the “liberal” ideas of Bill Clinton and/or the democratic party, ie a softer form of imperialism couched in rhetoric about social progress. This is false. Neoliberalism refers to a set of economic policies, not to the faux-liberalism of the Democratic party.

Corpwatch provides a summary:


THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

Have you ever read anything by Naomi Klein or neoliberalism, for that matter? I’m just curious. Because you wrote:

Doctrine is communist/neoliberal propaganda.

In fact, the entire point of this film is to critique neoliberal propaganda. Naomi Klein is actually one of the people who established the word “neoliberal” in the popular vernacular. She did not do this by “supporting” it but by attacking it. Relentlessly. She is not at all a fan of Bill Clinton or the Democratic Party. Go read the book “No Logo” if you’re unclear about this. Or simply google “Naomi Klein” + “Neoliberal”.

American values of real liberty and free market principles. We presently don't enjoy a free market and have not since the inception of the Federal Reserve

Yes, this is a popular theme. I’m curious, did this glorious “free market” include towns like the following?

“As late as 1835 (notice the phrase, “as late as”, not “as early as”), women and children, the latter between the ages of seven and sixteen, in a Paterson, New Jersey, mill were required to work from four-thirty in the morning until dark. "Is it to be wondered at," asks a statement issued by a strikers' committee and published in the Radical Reformer and Working Man's Advocate for September 19 of that year, "that our country has become a great theatre of mobs, yea, we may say, of murderers too, when we remember that the poor and their children in manufacturing towns and districts are kept in ignorance and regarded as but little superior to the beasts that perish?" – Rebel America

How were employers able to get away with this? Well, for the same reason that Nike is currently able to get away with it in places like Indonesia: there were/are little-to-no restrictions placed on employers by government. The campaign by corporate America to convince people that there are but two ways to organize ourselves as a species – totalitarian state communism or the relentless pursuit of profit via dog-eat-dog “free market” principles has apparently been a smashing success. How many colors are there in the rainbow? And yet we only have two choices on how to live. Seems pretty silly to me.

There’s nothing I’d like more than to see the Federal Reserve abolished, not only because it is a parasitic body but because its absence would convince people that there are serious structural problems in the US and elsewhere quite independent of bankers and secret societies.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Double post

double post

Danse, these definitions of

Danse, these definitions of neo-liberalism (whatever that is) by (whoever) corpwatch is sounds a lot to me like libertarianism. Reading that, its as if a neo-con or a liberal got together, wrote that and said "see, free markets are bad!"

Funny how this comes out 1 year before an election in which Ron Paul bases his campaign on most, if not all of these ideals/principles. Also funny how Naomi (just from watching the videos, not reading the book), doesn't mention that we don't live in a free market economy, but a regulated one by the FED.

As for my FED comment and your response, it appears as if you have not done your homework. Go read Creature from Jekyll Island then come back and say I am wrong. FED opens in 1913, WW1 comes a few years later; Great depression a few years later; WWII a few years later, etc. Your saying, well so what? Well, the allure of all War is making money (which could answer most of your pre 1900 era wars). Even though the bankers/banks did not start those wars, part of the reason for going/entering them is so that we (the citizens) borrow money from them (the central bank) and pay an interest. If there was no FED to overproduce fiat currency, the drive for going to war would be much less.

As for whether or not the free market is why NIKE gets away with using child/forced labor, it isn't. It's the people! Do you not think most of America knows that NIKE uses child/forced labor? Because I do, and if they don't thats a failure of our media not the free market. If they do and are still buying NIKE, then what does that say about us as people? So we have to be regulated to be told that using child/forced labor is bad? Sounds ass backwards to me! The market doesn't MAKE people do bad things just as it doesn't make us tolerate and support them by buying the product.


Danse, these definitions of neo-liberalism (whatever that is) by (whoever) corpwatch is sounds a lot to me like libertarianism.

Depends what you mean by “libertarianism”. The term was originally used to describe anarchism and its variants. It was only in the 20th C. (and only in the US) that the term came to refer to minarchism or “limited government” and an unfettered “free market”.

But you’re right the descriptions are very similar, with one major exception:

“Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies…for business.”

Libertarians tend to hold the view that (eg) corporate welfare is a bastardization of the free market; neocons/liberals regard such subsidies as necessary to ensure that important industries remain competitive globally. Thus, the US government (while preaching the “free market” to the third world, mostly as a means of stealing their resources) provides massive subsidies to (eg) agro-business; Mexican farmers cannot compete and are driven off their land. Competition’s about winning, not providing a fair playing field. It’s completely natural that capital and the state form and maintain an incestuous relationship. Capitalism has never existed without the state nor could it.

"Import substitution [through state intervention] is about the only way anybody's ever figured out to industrialize," development economist Lance Taylor observes: "In the long run, there are no laissez-faire transitions to modern economic growth. The state has always intervened to create a capitalist class, and then it has to regulate the capitalist class, and then the state has to worry about being taken over by the capitalist class, but the state has always been there."

For all the noble condemnations of “corporate welfare” by libertarians, “government subsidy” can be interpreted in different ways. For example, the police are routinely used to suppressed organized labor on behalf of big business (In fact that there was their original purpose – to suppress labor and catch runaway slaves) This is surely a form of subsidy.

Reading that, its as if a neo-con or a liberal got together, wrote that and said "see, free markets are bad!"

Neoliberalism is the dominant ideology of both (modern day) “liberals” and “conservatives”. At least in theory. I sincerely doubt that anyone in the higher circles of power is naïve enough to believe in anything like a “free market”. It’s simply a useful tool to accrue more capital from impoverished nations via privatization schemes.

Funny how this comes out 1 year before an election in which Ron Paul bases his campaign on most, if not all of these ideals/principles.

The ideas talked about by Naomi Klein are not new, nor invented by her, nor presented to coincide with Ron Paul’s campaign. They derive from people like Friedrich Hayek and the Austrian School of economics and international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank. Klein is merely a critic of such policies.

funny how Naomi (just from watching the videos, not reading the book), doesn't mention that we don't live in a free market economy, but a regulated one by the FED.

Perhaps you can provide me with an example of an unregulated free market economy that wasn’t a complete disaster, ie even worse than the ostensibly free market we currently reside under. I’d be interested in learning of one. Sincerely. Here are the sorts of examples I’ve found:

Howard Zinn summarises the conditions of such "private towns" in the Colorado mine fields:
"Each mining camp was a feudal dominion, with the company acting as lord and master. Every camp had a marshal, a law enforcement officer paid by the company. The 'laws' were the company's rules. Curfews were imposed, 'suspicious' strangers were not allowed to visit the homes, the company store had a monopoly on goods sold in the camp. The doctor was a company doctor, the schoolteachers hired by the company . . . Political power in Colorado rested in the hands of those who held economic power. This meant that the authority of Colorado Fuel & Iron and other mine operators was virtually supreme . . . Company officials were appointed as election judges. Company-dominated coroners and judges prevented injured employees from collecting damages." [The Colorado Coal Strike, 1913-14, pp. 9-11]

If there was no FED to overproduce fiat currency, the drive for going to war would be much less.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. The state has been a warlike creature since its inception. Most of the primary states were born through conquest. I see no reason why this would suddenly change in the absence of a fiat currency.

“The small states are virtuous only because of their weakness, the powerful states sustain themselves by crime alone.”
- Bakunin

So we have to be regulated to be told that using child/forced labor is bad?

Who's "we"? Are you a corporation? And yes, history shows that in the absence of regulation (in a capitalist system) child labor is common.

The market doesn't MAKE people do bad things

I would argue the opposite. A system centered around accruing goods at the expense of others rewards the worst in us. Greed is success. It also compels us to treat one another (and ourselves) as commodities.

"I have called this phenomenon the "marketing character" because it is based on experiencing oneself as a commodity, and one's value not as "use value" but as "exchange value. " - Fromm

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

as usual...

a patient, measured, informed and thoughtful response. you set the example, danse. what the 9/11 movement sorely lacks is some rough unifying blueprint for the society that we'd like to see emerge from the dissonance and ideological confusion that we imagine the exposure of the truth will bring about. it seems like half of "us", influenced directly or indirectly by libertarian thinking, would like to see the emergence of a society where the state has minimal involvement in the marketplace. that is, this half of our movement is captivated by the very ideology behind which the last four administrations have hidden their agendas of total domination. the other half of "us", influenced by the history of the ever-deepening critique of capitalist social and economic relations, believe that the ideal of a society based on unregulated market interactions is a dangerous mirage, a distopia in disguise; that minimal state capitalism is the optimal environment for the emergence and entrenchment of oligarchy. this faction of our movement believe that any society that embodies real social justice will be one that has abolished capitalist economic relations. now, any movement that encompasses two such radically different factions is a strange sort of a movement, because it really can have no unified idea of what its moving TOWARDS. i (as an anti-capitalist truther) am united with members of the pro-capitalist faction in my belief that 9/11 was an inside job. but ideologically, i'm poles apart. ideologically, i have MUCH more in common with people like naomi klein, noam chomsky, michael albert, amy goodman, arundhati roy, and so on. if i'm part of any movement, i'm in a movement with these guys. on the other hand, i have an uneasy pragmatic relationship with the pro-capitalist faction of the so-called 9/11 "movement", with the aim of exposing the crime of the millenium. once that crime has been exposed, i'll be doing my level best to try to stop the members of this pro-capitalist faction from trying to put back into place the very machinery that led to that crime in the first place!

"as an anti-capitalist

"as an anti-capitalist truther"

Lol, of course you agree with him then. Like he said in another post, its not like these principles from Klein are new (aka Keynesian, classical, supply-side, etc.) but her thesis is what sets it apart. Its as simple as "free market capitalism is bad because..." Do you not think this debate has been raging since these ideas were first thought of? If her thesis proves to be true, what does that mean? Does it mean FMC is the root of all evil (I thought that was money. Oh i know, capitalism = profit = money = that like the Kevin Bacon of economics ;).

Look, we could debate this all day (as we have been) and still get nowhere. Naomi Klein is not going to turn everyone off of FMC, but rather, open the eyes of a few people to MAYBE a new way of looking at certain economic principles.

A State of Illusion vs. A Mob of Distruction

Some here appear to express their thought that the solution to Daddy Government (beats all with a stick), is Mommy Government (breast feeding thirty year olds).

The fix IS DEEP. Crying fowl because social welfare projects managed by the state (the most inefficient method of helping the downtrodden and impoverished) might be cut away further, or that social philanthropy wouldn't exist without Government Force... is as foolish and shortsighted as the con of Security By War. The mental fix is as binding for Socialists and Fascist alike. They both insist before their intellectual lessors that they can "protect more", with their fucked up plans of mastering the reins of force. The illusion of control is as tempting a mental narcotic as ever.

Try a read of Bastiat's "The Law". He at least avoids arrogantly offering any grand solution, but smacks ALL in the face who fancy Their Plan would best utilize Force of State.

Not offered as a plan, but merely the closest thing I've found to a hint... would be something of the awesome force of state constantly threatening any one or group who do, or would without such threat, infringe upon even the smallest minority of One's human dignity and one's NEED to pursue life and equitable joy.

The sprit of a law-bound state, balanced in constant check by the threat of a lawlessly destroying mob of pure emotional humanity when the state exceeds its necessary bounds.

All of you Authority types can get your rocks off hunting for Law Breakers.... while all of you Anarchy types can bust nuts maintaining vigil upon Law Abusers.

Security is most immediate when the MOST number of people take part in protecting themselves. Philanthropy is most flourishing when it arises from free will.

Law and Disorder

I’m not sure if your post is directed at me, Erin, but I actually agree with much of what you say here. It’s difficult to know for certain since your post is somewhat abstract.

In regards the welfare state, the problem is that you are clearly in a position of great privilege, else you wouldn’t have access to a computer and have the time to sit around typing on a message board. Unfortunately, in the absence of real community these are matters of life and death to many people. So when you lament that some “cry foul” when social services are abolished or resources handed over to multinationals it comes across rather in the same way as a lecture by someone from the IMF on the economic benefits of austerity measures.

Try a read of Bastiat's "The Law". He at least avoids arrogantly offering any grand solution

Actually, he offers the law as a solution, which is pretty damn grand if you ask me. It’s the entire basis of the state.

I think you contradict yourself with your solution as per Bastiat. You say that “Philanthropy is most flourishing when it arises from free will”, for instance, yet you demand that the law regulate what people should and shouldn’t do. This is another way of saying that people need reference to external documents in order to function properly. Law is the abdication of an individual’s capacity for moral self-direction.

See also Pfohl: "Under the domination of the state, humans are said to progressively lose the ability to act directly in mutual aid and support, resistance, and reconciliation. In a state society, direct action is replaced by the mediation of bureaucratic rules, personal responsibility by the actions of rulers."

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Seeking formulas in balance.

Hello Danse:

It's abstract and undirected because I myself get a bit confused by what's being said and who's saying it. You and I've spoken before, just as I've read with interest many of the items you raise, and much appreciate your input too.

I would STRONGLY argue your postulation that I hold nor enjoyed a boost of great privilege. A broken home in a modest Ohio town, my mother struggling with tears trying to decide whether to pay the winter heating bill vs. buying macaroni-n-cheese, attending a school system at the begging cusp of dumbing down a population, physically visible and deeply penetrating mental abuse, the disillusionment of Army Service, countless job and business scams costing me dearly, theft of a hard won airplane, the tolls of substance-escapism, the self-enterprise energy draining depressions of ineffectualness upon innumerable attempts to awaken friends and family about our collective government shenanigans.... I'd hardly call that "privilege".

I adapt, overcome, survive... gently connive for computer access and time for myself. I have no Money today (literally), I have no legally binding titles on property, nor any justifications worthy of voicing to my landlord why he shouldn't kick me out for overdue rents. "My dog", or rather, the dog who hangs around here, for dog-knows what reason for the pathetic leftovers I do not eat myself... is a true wonder to me.

In fact, "Privilege" is something I'd sooner abhor and cast off, if that's really what I thought grants me the time and equipment to communicate here and now. I feel I've earned it, thank you... quite different than what any IMF proposes.

As for Bastiate, I might venture you've read it quite upside down. The title itself is as inverted as the simpleton nature attributed to Candid by Voltaire, or Huck Finn by Twain. You could sooner call Huck a raciest. Frederic's "The Law" is found by me, as for some others before, an exercise in illumination through the use of absurdity. "If The Law is what you want, here are some fantastic examples of what you can get." So if my reference to Bastiat is so quickly misconstrued, I retract it post haste... and move on to your next clarification.

I did NOT explain or "demand" what I thought the law should or should not do. However, I might better illuminate my thoughts on what you think I was saying, by better describing my observations of balance influx (at times threatened by human extremes of passion), in the struggle between Benevolent Authoritarians hijacked by malevolence, inversely identical to the dynamics of Benevolent Anarchy hijacked by malevolence. A true Yin Yang of life if ever there was or might be.

Pfohl I do not know, but what seems import by the quote is quite similar to my feeling too. The State can no sooner be expected to exhibit character not already present in the society it professes to serve, same as any respect for human dignity absent in the one to cause harm to the many.

Please do not stop what you are doing. This is priceless work NO ONE NOR MANY can afford. I wish to contribute as best I can, even if my dog should walk away.

Hey Erin

I would STRONGLY argue your postulation that I hold nor enjoyed a boost of great privilege.

It is clear from your brief summation that you have overcome great hardships in your life. I apologize if you took offense. I’m very glad that you were able to overcome your trappings. If someone of your intelligence and tenacity can’t climb out of the ghetto, there’s no hope for any of us :)

My main complaint about your argument with respect the welfare state (again, assuming I judged it correctly, which I probably didn’t) is that millions of people (especially in the Third World) rely on state services (which they pay for ten times over) for survival. Health Care comes to mind. Thus, it seemed flippant and even callous for someone to compare these essential programs to a thirty-year-old man sucking milk out of a teet. I view social services as a mere pittance, a wholly inadequate (but, at present) wholly necessary form of amelioration by the ruling class to her subjects.

Benevolent Authoritarians hijacked by malevolence, inversely identical to the dynamics of Benevolent Anarchy hijacked by malevolence.

After re-reading your previous post I think I’m starting to understand what you’re saying.

Does it bear any resemblance to Christopher Boem’s Hypothesis on hierarchy?

"prehistoric hunter-gatherers, acting as moral communities, were largely able to neutralize [hierarchical] tendencies--just as extant hunter-gatherers do. The ethnographic basis for that hypothesis was that present-day foragers apply techniques of social control in suppressing both dominant leadership and undue competitiveness. . . In 1993 I published the principal results of my continuing survey of forager and tribal egalitarians. With respect to both the hunter-gathers and the tribesmen in my sample, the hypothesis was straightforward: such people are guided by a love of personal freedom. For that reason they manage to make egalitarianism happen, and do so in spite of human competitiveness--and in spite of innate human tendencies to dominance and submission that easily lead to the formation of social dominance hierarchies.”

In other words, a constant state of revolution and counter-revolution, resulting in a rough harmony or equilibrium?

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Danse, I hope you realize

Danse, I hope you realize that Kleins argument is more about personal liberty and freedom than simply economics (which actually go hand in hand). Her anti-neoliberal/libertarian (according to you they are ALMOST the same thing) views go directly against what our country was founded on: personal liberty.

To prove my point, you just argued with Erin (yes, he was quite abstract, I really didn't understand what he was talking about) on the basis that he is privileged. Well, so what? Why should he be punished (more taxes, more regulation, etc) because he is "privileged." This makes no sense from a liberty viewpoint. You have no RIGHT (moral or constitutional) to say what I do with MY money that I earned from the fruits of MY labor (a god given talent).

"Unfortunately, in the absence of real community these are matters of life and death to many people."
I don't remember anything in the constitution about "community freedoms" or "community responsibilities." The community always comes after the individual. If the individual has no freedom/liberty, the community surely won't. If my house of cards is not in order, then the communities surely won't be. What we need now is a "reordering of the house of cards." Individuals today are losing freedom and liberty at an alarming rate, which also means we are losing economic freedom.

Also, to believe that someone must be forced in order to contribute (monetarily or otherwise) to the "community" is not only an insult, but a harsh threat to all that I have stated my case on.

freedom to be a slave

go directly against what our country was founded on: personal liberty.

Your country was founded on genocide and slavery, just like mine. I’m Canadian (the word means “village”, it was “appropriated” from Native Canadians). We Canucks like to pretend we’re morally superior to Americans, but that’s a lot of nonsense. The Canadian government supported the recent coup in Haiti, we provide high-tech parts to weapons manufacturers, and we bow down to Israel and MacDonald’s just like every other God-forsaken country.

My ancestors (who were actually American, for a time, after fleeing from Britain) came to Canada and here I am. It is true that the Canadian government treated and continues to treat First Nation people far better than our American counterparts, but that’s hardly something to crow about, nor should Natives (or anyone else!) be forced to succumb to any power.

You have no RIGHT (moral or constitutional) to say what I do with MY money that I earned from the fruits of MY labor (a god given talent).

Funny, the fortune 500 feels otherwise. Do you have any idea what a "wage" is? Are you honestly under the impression that the average wage-slave is entitled to keep the entire fruits of his or her labor? if you believe that people have the right to earn exactly what they produce, you're not a capitalist.

I don't remember anything in the constitution about "community freedoms" or "community responsibilities."

I don't either. That would have defeated its purpose, which was to establish a strong central government to defend the property of rich slave-holders against upstarts like Daniel Shays and stamp out the rebellious spirit upon which your nation was founded. Besides, the Constitution was a pre-capitalist document.

Also, to believe that someone must be forced in order to contribute (monetarily or otherwise) to the "community" is not only an insult, but a harsh threat to all that I have stated my case on.

You’re putting words in my mouth. I never stated that.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Too right! read some great

Too right!

read some great interview and review here:

She has done her homework, she went to history classes..

there was a battle of ideas between Communism and capitalism, and in the 1930s and '40s and '50s and '60s it was capitalism in a seductive phase. And so elements of socialism were inserted into this model so that a more radical version of socialism would be less attractive. I'm quoting FDR and Keynes. And that model actually was the period where you had the most rapid economic growth, but it was more fairly distributed. This was the period where the middle class really grew, not just in the United States but in countries like Chile and Argentina. And then kind of a class war was waged -- a right-wing class war.
... ..MORE ..

The Take

BTW, Naomi Klein made an excellent film a few years ago called "The Take".

Here's the trailer:

The Spanish version is available on GoogleVideo, couldn't find the English.

The Take is about the pillaging of Argentina by "free market" reforms and attempts by regular people to rebuild their lives after the collapse of the economy. Factory workers embrace an anarchistic/democratic system completely independent of the state and resume production, but the state and its owners refuse to go quietly...

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Show "What a load of commie crap." by greves1

Lol, I guess the truth

Lol, I guess the truth deserves a negative score!!


I can't believe they dugg me down

for pointing out that this Naomi Klein thing TOTALLY outright lies about 1. What markets are 2. about Friedman 3. i stopped watching cause it such a big misinformation piece.

These liberals mean well, I guess, but if we follow their line of thinking, we'll be falling right into the globalist trap where 9/11 truth will be used as a leverage point for global government to save us from the big bad America.

Second Shock

I've recently posted on this film on here

there are two shocks with 9-11 - the second being the Truth Shock. Cultists and opportunists
understand the shock doctrine and are using the shock of the truth to forward their own agendas and recruit.

the logical conclusion of competition is monopoly.

We live lifestyles that depend on war and oppression to sustain them. How do we sustain that morally?

Boycott Oil.

I believe Klein is right in

I believe Klein is right in that there is a "shock doctrine", but to imply that only "free market" ideas will be exuded post event is severely lacking. We have had some form of socialism for I don't know how long and look at the current state of the economy.

"the logical conclusion of competition is monopoly."

Why is monopoly a bad thing? Because someone making less profit with a smaller company says so? We hear about monopoly all the time now with Microsoft. Here is the truth: Microsoft came out with a superior product and the MARKET ate it up. I can't comment on their moral practices (did they steal code from apple, etc.) because that is not the point. The point is they did well because of their product. Look at how they are doing now with an inferior product aka Vista. People are saying bad things about it left and right. Do you think because they are Microsoft, some big bad company, that they are untouchable? Nope, and do you know why? Because you and I, the consumer, will determine who stays and who goes.

"We live lifestyles that depend on war and oppression to sustain them. How do we sustain that morally?"
I agree, and I don't want either personally.

"Boycott Oil."
I work for an Oil company. I have thought about this long and hard with many arguments on both sides. We simply cannot "boycott" oil and hope that that is the answer. Thats like saying boycott electricity! Or boycott cars! What is there to replace it with?? Nothing!

The only way we can boycott oil is to have a viable alternative. Until H20 into energy is viable, we will be waiting a long time.

"competition is monopoly"

This is doublethink in plain sight. Good job for picking up on that 911truther. I just hope these people educate themselves.

The lie of greves1

Here's the quote in context

"The logical conclusion of competition is monopoly."

You're on a 9-11 Truth blogg and lying? WTF?

The Lie of microsoft

Microsoft wrote a contract that had some small print that IBM's lawyers failed to note.
i.e. that every IBM compatible computer would have DOS installed that's how Microsoft cornered the market with some small print trickery. You might say well done that's good business, but Microsoft is a long way from the best OS out there. The market ate it up because of the monopoly of big blue (IBM) The ATARI and AMIGA computers had much better OS's at the time but MICROSHITE won on the back of the IBM contract.
Believing in the market is an ideology and the free market is a myth, it may have existed once like American democracy which is now also gaining mythical status.

Look at the way the western economies have been constructed especially the American economy. It is no accident that your homes are built in places where you have to commute, your world was designed by the Oil companies to maximise consumption. This is good only for oil companies and related industries like cars and it is sold to you as if this is the only way to live a fulfilled and happy life, I would say that the opposite is true. I blame cars for a good many of societies ills and illnesses to me cars were a really bad idea. So your world is constructed for you by oil and car interests the problems to health and society are glossed over. Obviously this model is constructed on the premise of inexhaustible supplies of energy, but we live on a very small planet with finite resources. Either you realise this and begin to move away from this over consumption or you continue on this rather stupid path of believing that corporations can sell you a product that will help you in your personal pursuit of happiness, but you're not buying happiness you're following a desire for happiness which is a different centre of brain activity entirely. I am happiest when contemplating the natural world and it's breathtaking beauty and not some energy dependent activity like driving or flying in some aeroplane. The most obvious alternative to cars is walking, but you've let the oil corps design a world in which walking is impossible, how stupid is that.

Boycott oil (as much as you can) because the world of the oil/car/infrastructure depends on war
oil=cars=wars which is morally untenable if you are against war. I suggest you leave your oil company job and do something for a more sustainable economic model.


"Boycott Oil"

Thanks. More for the rest of us. You people need to learn how markets work. I'll say it again for those of you who didn't get to see it because I got dugg down the first time:

Freedom or slavery. Your choice.

just say NO to Ron Paul! god Im sick of hearing this guys name..

I like Klein and Cuarón's work,. she is pointing out some important facts that are the root of the whole 9/11 'event' , and Children of Men was my fav. film last year,.
interesting debt here,. greenback is the picture of so many raving Paul meme tools, 'free' market yipppy! I haven't found any that can explain the social dynamics of what they espouse,. In this idealic free market greed is the only rule and you get something worse than the last 6 years,. Its the room full of people kicking each others teeth in trying to climb over one another to get to the top. We need a system that balances collectivism and freedom of individuals,. people need to self organise, as nature intendes. the only thing ronny says that makes any scense to me if that the FED is a leech and must be left behind. No wonder the mil-gov fascists control the media and your food and water and air, . they can just create money and leave a debt behind,. sicko system that will end soon. I'd be rich too if I could lend money that I didn't have, and at interest! whoo,. crazy creatures people are.
I guess im a left leaning anarchist,. I'm envisioning a society with a minimum and MAXIMUM income,. . (20k / million USD / year for sake of idea) where there are no elected officials,. people vote directly on issues (net based /w full discussion system). the economic model is tied to a full input and output asessment, no expernalized costs/debts. a deep ecology, permaculture, full world, ground up, grassroots, real culture.
I know you don't get it,. don't think it could work,. whatever. I'll write a novel, or make a film one day,. and perhaps this model will flesh out then,. or this whole house of cards we live in now will blow over,. and we can just build it from the wastage,. .

"I guess im a left leaning

"I guess im a left leaning anarchist,. I'm envisioning a society with a minimum and MAXIMUM income,. . (20k / million USD / year for sake of idea) where there are no elected officials,. people vote directly on issues (net based /w full discussion system). the economic model is tied to a full input and output asessment, no expernalized costs/debts. a deep ecology, permaculture, full world, ground up, grassroots, real culture."

These are the ideas of the naive and ignorant. No offense, but if you think any of those things would ever work, think again. All of those ideas you just mentioned are not American ideas in any way, shape, or form. We live in a Republic, not a democracy, thus we elect officials to represent us as we cannot possibly take on the task of voting for every single issue. I will keep this short as any rational person will read this and understand.

Watch it and learn, socialists:


Not entirely sure what you're getting at. I'm not a socialist. Humans are an evolving social species.
We work co-operatively and individually. We share and are greedy.

A lot of the stuff on the video is factually incorrect here's one weird example

"look what happened in Russia, everybody died"

What no more Russians!?

The shock doctrine was supported by the free market ideologues because they knew their ideology would be unpopular and therefore undemocratic and so the need for the shock doctrine. i.e. they know that most humans want a more equitable society not one based on greed alone.

Here's another misconception
"Communism was unproductive"
It depends what you mean by productive.
Russian Communism was never intended to lead to a more equitable society - it was an ideology designed to rapidly industrialise a feudalist system run by anachronistic hereditary royalty. The profits were collected in a central bank and channeled through the Bank of International Setlements for use on both sides of the ideological divide. Capitalist vs Socialist is just more ideological divide and rule spun by the ruling elite as far as I'm concerned. Labour creates wealth through the means of production whether it's a capitalist or socialist system. Look at what's happened to the German economy since the time the wall came down. It's not as you'd expect i.e. the influence of the socialist east is having a greater effect than the "free" west on the lives of humans who call themselves germans because they believe in democratic values and a more equitable society, that's just what most humans want and that's why Milton Friedman advocated the shock doctrine.

I'm for the kind of free market this guy talks about, but you notice he says it has to be voluntary and not act to the detriment of any one else i.e. It can't be in a broad sense unethical. How do you make sure free trade is carried out ethically? i.e without as he says rape, theft or exploitation.
This kind of debate is a hangover from the ideological battles fought to bring about the world we see today. Don't you think it strange that capitalist America is in such huge debt to communist china?.