The Two Party System is Woefully Inadequate

First two paragraphs from a recent blog post

by "jurassicpork" re Dunkin Donuts caving in

to Michelle Malkin and pulling Rachel Ray's

commericals off the air, because of a

Palestinian style scarf she was wearing:

"But consider that this marginal, hysterical

activism of a handful of jerkoff right wing

bloggers like Michelle Malkin and Chuckie

Johnson actually moves multibillion dollar

corporations such as Dunkin Donuts while

the entire power of Congress cannot even

get Blackwater Worldwide, Halliburton, KBR

or the five largest petroleum cartels to even

admit the truth or to get them to curb their evil

intentions by even an iota.

We've come to expect that right wingers are

dumber than some yeast infections I've seen

but somehow it always shocks me that

corporations the size of Dunkin' Donuts still

jump on their PR stool when these mental

mice roar at them from the yawning chasm of

cyberspace."

Your last two paragraphs are amazing (in the

sense of "shocking"), until you remember the

old adage "Follow the money!"

98% of Congress is being well-paid in one

way or another not to disturb the crimes of

Blackwater, KBR, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, etc.

I think it's time to read (and more than just

read) David Sirota's new book "The

Uprising".


Sidebar - re the corrupt Democratic party -

Two parties aren't enough to reflect the

various political levels (moral and otherwise).

Therea are minority <i>progressive</i>

democrats and majority DLC corporatist

triangulating "centrist" democrats, and they

do not belong in the same party. I propose

that progressives join with the Green Party,

whose platform is nearly identical with

progressives' to begin to build a new

higher-level party in the U.S., as has already

been done in Europe, and anti-big-coporatist,

pro-co-operative, pro-interdependent holistic

ecological-peace, social justice party.

Tiger Woods' Partnership with Chevron Legitimizes the Worst of Corporate America

Tiger Woods' Partnership with Chevron Legitimizes the Worst of Corporate America

By
Dave Zirin, The Nation. Posted May 26, 2008.

Tiger Woods is perhaps the most famous, and most dominant, athlete in the world today. The 32-year-old golfer with the multicultural background he once proudly described as "Cablinasian" has somehow accomplished the impossible: made golf on a Sunday must-see TV.

Woods is a trailblazer and already a legend for his ability to perform when the spotlight is at its hottest. But he has also established a reputation for reticence when confronted with the real world off the greens. For all his cultural capital, Woods has refused to take stands on issues that should hit close to home, such as restricted golf courses, or even when the Golf Channel's Kelly Tilghman suggested young PGA players "lynch him in a back alley" in a "joke" about how they might overcome his dominance. Tiger has largely maintained the tight-lipped silence of a Benedictine monk.

After the lynching comment, ESPN's Scoop Jackson became so frustrated with this disciplined quietude he wrote, "Because of who he is, Tiger Woods has the power to make people listen. Not just hear his words--but embrace what he has to say.... It's a stand he needs to take because people who change the world eventually have to take stands. Whether strong or silent, good or evil, they take stands not to prove their beliefs, but to rectify a situation or condition."

His defenders have always said that behind the scenes Woods has been an agent for change, and that he shouldn't be criticized just because he does his good deeds without media fanfare. They say he wields that influence through his nonprofit Tiger Woods Foundation. Go to the website, and a virtual Woods walks right onto your screen and welcomes you to a place where "kids can achieve anything." The site boasts: "more than 10 million young people have benefited from the Tiger Woods Foundation since its inception in 1996. What started out with limited access throughout America, now reaches out to young people around the world."

Yet now the Foundation is "reaching around the world" in a way that has human rights activists concerned about a business partnership that smells like sulfur.

The Tiger Woods Foundation has entered into an extensive five-year partnership with Chevron Corporation, with the oil and energy giant becoming the title sponsor of the Tiger Woods Foundation World Challenge Golf Tournament.

"Chevron has a track record and a commitment to bettering the communities where they operate," Woods said in a press release on April 3. And Chevron's executive vice president chimed in, "Chevron, Tiger and the Tiger Woods Foundation share similar values...as well as a deep commitment to make a difference in local communities."

They have certainly "made a difference in local communities," but it's nothing they should be bragging about, and certainly nothing with which Woods should want his name attached. Chevron is in full partnership with the Burmese military regime on the Yadana gas pipeline project, the single greatest source of revenue for the military, estimated at nearly $1 billion in 2007, nearly half of all the country's revenue. These are the same people who are blocking international aid workers from assisting the victims of Cyclone Nargis. The death toll has been estimated at 78,000, but this number can explode as disease spreads and help isn't allowed through the military lines. Even the US State Department has called the actions of the government "appalling."

Ka Hsaw Wa, co-founder and executive director of EarthRights International, wrote in an open letter to Woods, "I myself have spoken to victims of forced labor, rape, and torture on Chevron's pipeline--if you heard what they said to me, you too would understand how their tragic stories stand in stark contrast to Chevron's rhetoric about helping communities." ERI's request to meet with Woods or someone from the foundation has been met with silence

But while the Burmese junta's crimes are localized in Southeast Asia, Chevron is global. Lawsuits have been issued against Chevron's toxic waste dumping in Alaska, Canada, Angola, California. Then there's the matter of 18 billion gallons of toxic waste the company has been accused of dumping in the Amazon.

In a US District Court in San Francisco, the case of Bowoto v. Chevron, Nigerian plaintiffs have accused Chevron of actually arming and outfitting Nigerian oil security forces to shoot and kill protesters. Judge Susan Illston has refused to dismiss the case because, as Democracy Now! recently reported, "evidence show[s] direct links to Chevron officials."

When pressed for comment, Tiger Woods Foundation President Greg McLaughlin issued this statement to The Nation: "The Foundation's vision is to help young people reach their full potential. All our partners share in this vision, allowing us to make a positive impact in millions of young lives." That response, to very serious and very direct charges, is the golf equivalent of a triple bogey.

President McLaughlin should think more seriously about what Chevron is and what they do: they pollute, they destroy, they conspire with dictators, and heaven help anyone who gets in their way. Now they want to burnish their "brand" by partnering with Tiger Woods. Tiger's late father Earl, once said of his son, "He will transcend this game...and bring to the world...a humanitarianism...which has never been known before. The world will be a better place to live in...by virtue of his existence...and his presence."

The partnership with Chevron makes a mockery of Earl Woods's hopes.

To use an analogy from a different sport, the ball is now in Tiger's court. Will he allow himself to be tamed by corporate interests, or will he roar?

Reply to Arianna Huffington's post re McCain and Women's Reproductive Rights

Believe me, being pro-birth control is an absolutely essential part of wanting to find solutions for the most urgent problem of our time, global warming. Becoming conscious stewards of our species' population on this planet is crucial to slowing down the need for and emissions of greenhouse gases, along with alleviating so many other ancillary problems. It's obvious to any thinking, moral person, not stuck (or hypocritically pretending to be stuck in medieval pre-rational thinking).

As for McCain's yelp of "No surrender!" today re the Iraqi War, I don't need to point out how absurd the whole premise of "winning" and "surrender" is re the war; I'd like to point out that this was the same language the war profiteers and others in the Johnson/Nixon admins. used re the Vietnam war. McSame is a dinosaur.

Reply to David Sirota's column

Although I know there is still some bitterness about their putting Nader up for president in 2000 (and I was one of the bitter), The Green Party of America's platform and agenda is almost identical to progressives'.

I know it's a dream, but why not combine the greens with the PROGRESSIVE democrats, NOT the neo-liberal conservative triangulating ones?

I don't know how to facilitate this, but I wanted to put it out there for consideration.

The next level in consciousness and social structure from (and this is a Ken Wilber/Spiral Dynamics Integral concept) is

from
orange/corporate/competitive/independent/man vs nature/nationalistic

to
green/ cooperative (not corporate) business and social institutions/interdependent/man as part of and steward of nature/planetarisitc (planetary) (not a return to a blue dogmatic centralized socialism aka Marxism).

So, in a very profound way - progressive = green.

David, I hope your book tour is very successful; I recommend you to all my friends. Keep up your great work!

Don Harris
racetoinfinity@gmail.com

Political Notes

McCain is trying to frame the war (in Iraq) as "I won't surrender [as Obama will]" (my words between the brackets). This is on the old nationalistic ethnocentric level, not the worldcentric (planetary) level, old-fashioned narrow-visioned, just as in the war in Vietnam.

--------

John (the "old" "straight-talk" "get the lobbyists of out politcs") McCain doesn't want any press (media) at his fund raisers. I'm glad Obama is picking up on this P I'm hearing him now. Apparently, Bush is there - no cameras allowed.

Greg Palast on The War for Oil

y Greg Palast for TomPaine.com/OurFuture.org

[New York, May 22, 2008.]

I can’t make this up:

In a hotel room in Brussels, the chief executives of the world’s top
oil companies unrolled a huge map of the Middle East, drew a fat, red
line around Iraq and signed their names to it.

The map, the red line, the secret signatures. It explains this war.
It explains this week’s rocketing of the price of oil to $134 a barrel.

It happened on July 31, 1928, but the bill came due now.

Barack Obama knows this. Or, just as important, those crafting his
policies seem to know this. Same for Hillary Clinton’s team. There
could be no more vital difference between the Republican and Democratic
candidacies. And you won’t learn a thing about it on the news from the
Fox-holes.

Let me explain.

In 1928, oil company chieftains (from Anglo-Persian Oil, now British
Petroleum, from Standard Oil, now Exxon, and their Continental
counterparts) were faced with a crisis: falling prices due to rising
supplies of oil; the same crisis faced by their successors during the
Clinton years, when oil traded at $22 a barrel.

The solution then, as now: stop the flow of oil, squeeze the market,
raise the price. The method: put a red line around Iraq and declare
that virtually all the oil under its sands
would remain there, untapped. Their plan: choke supply, raise prices
rise, boost profits. That was the program for 1928. For 2003. For 2008.

Again and again, year after year, the world price of oil has been
boosted artificially by keeping a tight limit on Iraq’s oil output.
Methods varied. The 1928 “Redline” agreement held, in various forms,
for over three decades. It was replaced in 1959 by quotas imposed by
President Eisenhower. Then Saudi Arabia and OPEC kept Iraq, capable of
producing over 6 million barrels a day, capped at half that, given an
export quota equal to Iran’s lower output.

In 1991, output was again limited, this time by a new red line: B-52
bombings by Bush Senior’s air force. Then came the Oil Embargo followed
by the “Food for Oil” program. Not much food for them, not much oil for
us.

In 2002, after Bush Junior took power, the top ten oil companies
took in a nice $31 billion in profits. But then, a miracle fell from
the sky. Or, more precisely, the 101st Airborne landed. Bush declared,
“Bring’m on!” and, as the dogs of war chewed up the world’s second
largest source of oil, crude doubled in two years to an astonishing $40
a barrel and those same oil companies saw their profits triple to $87
billion.

In response, Senators Obama and Clinton propose something wrongly
called a “windfall” profits tax on oil. But oil industry profits didn’t
blow in on a breeze. It is war, not wind, that fills their coffers. The
beastly leap in prices is nothing but war profiteering, hiking prices
to take cruel advantage of oil fields shut by bullets and blood.

I wish to hell the Democrats would call their plan what it is: A war
profiteering tax. War is profitable business – if you’re an oil man.
But somehow, the public pays the price, at the pump and at the
funerals, and the oil companies reap the benefits.

Indeed, the recent engorgement in oil prices and profits goes right
back to Bush-McCain “surge.” The Iraq government attack on a Basra
militia was really nothing more than Baghdad’s leaping into a gang war
over control of Iraq’s Southern oil fields and oil-loading docks.
Moqtada al-Sadr’s gangsters and the government-sponsored greedsters of
SCIRI (the Supreme Council For Islamic Revolution In Iraq) are battling
over an estimated $5 billion a year in oil shipment kickbacks, theft
and protection fees.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the surge-backed civil warring
has cut Iraq’s exports by up to a million barrels a day. And that
translates to slashing OPEC excess crude capacity by nearly half.

Result: ka-BOOM in oil prices and ka-ZOOM in oil profits. For 2007,
Exxon recorded the highest annual profit, $40.6 billion, of any
enterprise since the building of the pyramids. And that was BEFORE the
war surge and price surge to over $100 a barrel.

It’s been a good war for Exxon and friends. Since George Bush began
to beat the war-drum for an invasion of Iraq, the value of Exxon’s
reserves has risen – are you ready for this? – by $2 trillion.

Obama’s war profiteering tax, or “oil windfall profits” tax, would
equal just 20% of the industry’s charges in excess of $80 a barrel.
It’s embarrassingly small actually, smaller than every windfall tax
charged by every other nation. (Ecuador, for example, captures up to
99% of the higher earnings).

Nevertheless, oilman George W. Bush opposes it as does Bush’s man
McCain. Senator McCain admonishes us that the po’ widdle oil companies
need more than 80% of their windfall so they can explore for more oil.
When pigs fly, Senator. Last year, Exxon spent $36 billion of its $40
billion income on dividends and special payouts to stockholders in
tax-free buy-backs. Even the Journal called Exxon’s capital investment
spending “stingy.”

At today’s prices Obama’s windfall tax, teeny as it is, would bring
in nearly a billion dollars a day for the US Treasury. Clinton’s plan
is similar. Yet the press’ entire discussion of gas prices is shifted
to whether the government should knock some sales tax pennies off the
oil companies’ pillaging at the pump.

More important than even the Democrats’ declaring that oil company
profits are undeserved, is their implicit understanding that the
profits are the spoils of war.

And that’s another reason to tax the oil industry’s ill-gotten gain.
Vietnam showed us that foreign wars don’t end when the invader can no
longer fight, but when the invasion is no longer profitable.

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

Greg Palast is the author of, “Trillion Dollar Babies,” on Iraq and oil, published in his New York Times bestseller, Armed Madhouse.

Palast is currently working with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on
investigation the latest attacks on the right to vote in America.
Support this effort and receive a signed copy of Armed Madhouse from the author at Palast Investigative Fund.

View Palast’s commentary on oil and war windfalls on Air America Radio’s Palast Report – on YouTube here.

Things to do....

I suspect that Ken Wilber's AQAL theory and AQAL (Integral-AQAL) critical history provides a lot of the answers to these quandaries to be solved and to be worked on.

- How and why did the nascent green emergence of consciousness and behavior/structures get muddled and not succeed in blossoming from the mid-seventies until now (the late 00s)?

Some reasons: Pre-trans confusion was rampant in the late sixties and early seventies. As Wilber has stated, pre-cognitive feeling was confused with trans-cognitive feeling-attention vision, to cite one prominent example. The European unhealthy dissociation that occured during the 17-18th centuries Enlightenment threw the "baby" of the religious/Spiritual line out with the "bathwater" of dogmatic pre-rational myth. Another dissociation (another aspect of the same pathology) (and this may go back much farther than the European enlightenment period) was the dissociation of mind and body, rather than the healthy DIFFERENTIATION of (also science, art, religion, and government) of mind and body.

Rock is a good example - green and second tier rock were about re-integrating the body and feelings and transforming "upwards" to a new green and second-tier level of consciousness and manifestation - a lot of the psychedelic bands - The Airplane, The Beatles, The Dead, The Who, many others,

kleptocray, plutocracy, and corporatocracy defined

klep·toc·ra·cy (klp-tkr-s)
n. pl. klep·toc·ra·cies
A government characterized by rampant greed and corruption.

------------------

plu·toc·ra·cy (pl-tkr-s)
n. pl. plu·toc·ra·cies
1. Government by the wealthy.
2. A wealthy class that controls a government.
3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
[Greek ploutokrati : ploutos, wealth; see pleu- in Indo-European roots + -krati, -cracy.]

------------------------

Corporatocracy
-----------------

Corporatocracy (sometimes corporocracy) is a neologism coined by proponents of the Global Justice Movement to describe a government bowing to pressure from corporate entities.

Practice
---------
According to the Global Justice Movement, while anyone can become a shareholder in principle, in reality it is frequently only the wealthy who can afford to own enough stock to directly influence the voting (and hence the activities) of a large corporation. As a result, the corporatocracy might be considered somewhat synonymous with plutocracy, government by the rich.

Some argue that a real corporatocracy can only appear when and if a government makes it legal to bribe politicians. According to this argument, that quickly makes politicians very corporate-friendly, and makes it easy for corporations to pass laws as they see fit. Supporters of this view in the United States believe the allowance for campaign contributions has created a situation allowing for pervasive regulatory capture, offering the contributions that prompted Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as evidence. Also, many supporters of this view argue that when the major media outlets are controlled by large corporations, access to information tends to become limited to what serves corporate interests, and corporate interests in turn are able to define the national political agenda. Finally, according to this view, when the majority of wealth of the politicians is invested into corporations, that gives politicians incentive to support the corporations.

According to supporters of this view, the nature of corporations and stock market investment makes some of the desires of corporations unexpected. For example, a national corporation in a purely national industry (non international) would be less worried about a universal regulation which would decrease profits, than a regulation that would target that individual company, since investors would be more likely to divest in the second case.

Some critics of this term argue that the term has no real meaning in terms of political theory, arguing that a corporation is nothing more than a body of individuals, ruled by a governing body (elected by its shareholders) and executives appointed by that body. As such, it is argued to have as much a right as any other body of people to exercise powers. Pursuing the overriding shareholder interest in corporate profitability generally guides the actions of corporate governing bodies, and it is in the pursuit of this interest that corporations exercise their financial and marketplace power in order to influence public policy. However, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Marsh v. Alabama (1946) that a corporation that acts like a government should be treated as one.

The U.S. as a corporatocracy
----------------------------------
There are those who suggest and point to alleged evidence of corporatocracy within the U.S. government by looking at U.S. history with the actions of Sanford B. Dole in Hawaii, William Howard Taft and the Nicaragua Canal, Dwight D. Eisenhower and his Operation Ajax allegedly in support of oil interests and Operation PBSUCCESS in support of United Fruit Company. They may believe Richard M. Nixon played a role in the overthrow of Salvador Allende Gossens to attempt to prevent the Chilean nationalization of copper, on the grounds that nationalization crimped U.S. based Anaconda Copper and Kennecott Utah Copper.

Those disagreeing with the above would argue the United States government was "protecting" America from Marxist governments, "freeing" people of those countries, acting against undemocratic governments, protecting United States citizens or acting for a variety of reasons other than supporting corporate corruption.

The term however is more accurately used to describe actions of Corporations interested in maintaining laws they consider positive for their interests and thus makes it a question of resources to spend (it can be cheaper to give money to a few individuals than to bow to strict laws that cost a lot).

Corporatocracy is also used by John Perkins in his 2004 book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man to describe a system of governance controlled by "big corporations, international banks, and government" (Perkins / Plume paperback edition, 94). Harking back to the "military-industrial complex," Perkins claims the corporatocracy is manifested in the following cycle: the World Bank issues loans to developing nations to pay for large-scale development projects; contracts are then doled out to a handful of U.S. engineering firms; as a result, these countries become ensnared in a net of interest payments and debts they cannot repay. U.S. corporations benefit through increased profits, and the U.S. government benefits through securing its political clout and control over developing countries with vast natural resources. According to Perkins, the majority of people in those countries do not benefit since a large portion of their country's budget goes toward servicing the national debt instead of improving living conditions.

Perkins claims that the convergence between big corporations, international banks, and government - according to him, the three pillars of corporatocracy - allows "economic elite" to move easily between these sectors. He offers several examples, including that of Vice President and former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney (Perkins / Plume paperback edition, 91).

Fiction
--------
The concept has been used several times in literary fiction. Two recent examples include David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas (2004) and Max Barry's Jennifer Government (2003). Both are dystopian novels which portray the complete political and social dominance of corporations. Mitchell uses the term Corpocracy. Both novels can be interpreted as making a satirical comment on the current unchecked power of corporations in our societies.

Main article: Megacorp

Examples
Those who discuss coporatocracy often tender Singapore or Chile under Augusto Pinochet, where the state supports a strong free market, with weak and sometimes nonexistent political freedom as examples of Corporatocracy. Although the corporations do not rule Singapore, the state often supports them.
See also

This entry is related to, but not included in the Political ideologies series or one of its sub-series. Other related articles can be found at the .

* Anarcho-capitalism
* Corporate abuse
* Corporate police state
* Corporatism
* Crony capitalism
* Kleptocracy
* Juristic person
* Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
* Megacorp
* The Corporation
* Captive State

Sources

* Perkis, John. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Plume Books 2006 ISBN 0452287081
* Current Era
* Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
* Canadian Action Party


form of government is a term that refers to the set of political institutions by which a state is organized in order to exert its powers over a political community.[1] Synonyms include "regime type" and "system of government".
..... Click the link for more information.
Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. Although the term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, politics is observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious
..... Click the link for more information.
This article lists forms of government and political systems, according to a series of different ways of categorising them. The systems listed are of course not mutually exclusive, and often have overlapping definitions (for example autocracy, authoritarianism, despotism,
..... Click the link for more information.
Anarchism (from Greek αναρχία , "without archons," "without rulers")[1] is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which reject compulsory government[2] and support its elimination,[3]
..... Click the link for more information.
aristocracy refers to a form of government where power is held by a small number of individuals from a social elite or from noble families. The transmission of power is often hereditary.
..... Click the link for more information.
Authoritarianism describes a form of social control characterized by strict obedience to the authority of a state or organization, often maintaining and enforcing control through the use of oppressive measures. Authoritarian regimes are strongly hierarchical.
..... Click the link for more information.
autocracy is a form of government in which the political power is held by a single self appointed ruler, usually a dictator. The term autocrat is derived from the Greek word autokratôr (lit. "self-ruler", or to: "rule by one's self").
..... Click the link for more information.
communism as a form of society, as an ideology advocating that form of society, or as a popular movement, see the communism article.


Communism
Basic concepts
Marxist philosophy
Class struggle
..... Click the link for more information.
Democracy describes small number of related forms of government. The fundamental feature is competitive elections. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech (especially in political affairs), freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law.
..... Click the link for more information.
Direct Democracy is a movement within the British Conservative Party dedicated to localism and constitutional reform. The group published a book on democracy, titled , authored by prominent Conservative politicians, to promote their ideas.
..... Click the link for more information.
Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principles of popular sovereignty by the people's representatives. The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's
..... Click the link for more information.
Despotism is a form of government by a single authority, either an individual or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute political power. In its classical form, a despotism is a state where one single person, called a Despot
..... Click the link for more information.
dictatorship is an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by a dictator. It has three possible meanings:

* Roman dictator was a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency.


..... Click the link for more information.
Feudalism refers to a general set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility of Europe during the Middle Ages, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals, and fiefs.
..... Click the link for more information.
This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the for details.
This article has been tagged since September 2007.

..... Click the link for more information.
Kritarchy is a political system based on equal justice for all and the concept of natural rights. It differs from other political systems by its application of the rules of justice.
..... Click the link for more information.
Krytocracy is a government ruled by judges. The word itself may either be a false archaism (it should properly be spelled critocracy or kritocracy), or may be a deliberate reference to other word-initial roots like "crypto-", or "hypo-" (as in hypocrisy), whose "y"s come from Greek
..... Click the link for more information.
Libertarianism

Schools of thought
Agorism
Anarcho-capitalism
Geolibertarianism
Green libertarianism
Right-libertarianism
Left-libertarianism
Minarchism
Neolibertarianism
Paleolibertarianism
Progressive libertarianism


..... Click the link for more information.
original research or unverifiable claims.
* Its factual accuracy is disputed.
* It needs additional references or sources for verification.

Please help [ improve the article] or discuss these issues on the talk page.
..... Click the link for more information.
This article is written like a personal reflection or and may require .
Please [ improve this article] by rewriting this article in an . (, talk)


List of forms of government

* Anarchism
* Aristocracy
* Authoritarianism
* Autocracy
*


..... Click the link for more information.
Absolute monarchy is a monarchical form of government where the monarch has the power to rule his or her land or country and its citizens freely, with no laws or legally-organized direct opposition in force.
..... Click the link for more information.
constitutional monarchy is a form of government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges an elected or hereditary monarch as head of state, as opposed to an absolute monarchy, where the monarch is not bound by a constitution and is the sole source of political
..... Click the link for more information.
Ochlocracy (Greek: οχλοκρατία or ohlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of constitutional authorities.
..... Click the link for more information.
Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family or
..... Click the link for more information.
plutocracy, power and opportunity are centralized within the affluent social class. The degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur
..... Click the link for more information.
republic, for all other uses see: republic (disambiguation)

List of forms of government

* Anarchism
* Aristocracy
* Authoritarianism
* Autocracy
* Communist state
* Democracy

Direct democracy


..... Click the link for more information.

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrated facets of democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy. Mixed government means that there are some issues (often defined in a constitution) where the state is governed by the majority of the
..... Click the link for more information.
constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.
..... Click the link for more information.
The Parliamentary Republic can refer to:

* A republican form of government with a Parliamentary system (see Parliamentary republic)
* The History of Chile during the Parliamentary Era (1891-1925)
* The French Fourth Republic (1947-1958)

A
..... Click the link for more information.
Socialist Republic is a republic governed on the principles of socialism usually by a communist or a socialist party. They are usually focused on a centrally planned economy, but sometimes they mix their economy with elements of a free market
..... Click the link for more information.

This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia® - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the Wikipedia® encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License.


[Greek kleptein, to steal + -cracy.]

That's Entertainment - regressive city

"Iron Man" starring one of the smart actors of our time is off to an all-time smash hit success as of the end of this weekend. Marvel comics superhero tale has already taken in more than $200 million worldwide. They're planning "The Incredible Hulk" with another brainy actor, Edward Norton, soon.

Sad, that we are regressed to mythic-membership center in our entertainment - superhero mythic power gods - so regressed even from the fifties. God almighty! This is what Downey and Norton are up to? Well, I'm sure it pays well, and I guess they're like most of us nowadays - it's too late - the earth is gonna burn up and be miserable in 50 years, so take the money and run ????

So sad and pathetic! Let's all be 12 year olds again.

the idea is to feeling-attention love energy

living in the electric energy LoveLight, co-creating it because you are choosing it which is eternal and surrendering also...

so the practice becomes new systems of both interiroity and exterirority no matter the level - and yes we need more evolved and permanently transpersonal leaders, no matter who fascist that might appear to the sufrace dwellers - it's far from - it's leaders who have transcended ego and who are in a transpersonal network of care and concern for the planet - in raising the consciousness of masses of people through new instant cyber and other communications.

Start with "The Book" and "Up From Eden"....happy discovering....

The awakening to the knowledge of a path

or "the lovelight inner garden" as 19th century romantic might say....
and others now....