Can we define "they" better?

[OneGrassRoot]

(If you would kindly read this post, which was in response to H20 Man's recent OP, it will give the background and intent to this OP's question: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9656969#9679395)

As it pertains to this OP, the gist of the link is this:

Right now, all political efforts seem essentially hopeless because we really don't have a voice any longer, not one that changes legislation or the course of this country. THEY control DC, the media and so much more, to a large enough extent that We the People no longer have a noticeable voice.

Here are three steps I feel target THEM:

1. Overturning Citizen's United (there are several efforts proposing a constitutional amendment)

2. Campaign Finance Reform/Election Reform

3. Media Reform


Until those three issues are addressed, all efforts seem almost useless now.


The three action items I listed are all focused on releasing corporate control: overturning Citizen's United, Campaign Finance Reform/Election Reform, and Media Reform.

It's all about taking control back from THEM. The ones who TRULY control everything in this country and much of the world.

Yet in order to communicate that message to an apathetic public, which is a Herculean task in and of itself, it seems we need to get much more specific.

Just saying "corporations" isn't correct. Many entrepreneurs and small mom & pop businesses are "corporations."

I'm wondering if we can focus the message, and our efforts, more to show who THEY are. Is THEY the CEOs and Board of Directors for the multinational conglomerates? Are all of the multinationals part of THEY, or should we focus on the ones who are known to have paid off politicians, as well as the politicians themselves who are THEM? Is they the top 2% wealthiest in this country?

There are exceptions to those within those categories (there are small pockets of wealthy who are fighting against extended the tax cuts, for example); maybe there are some multinationals that are much more harmful to our democracy than others; maybe there are some uber wealthy politicians who have been fighting the good fight.

Fighting a faceless enemy is often ineffective. It's easy to say the top "2%ers" and "multinational corporations," but I feel we need to get much more specific than that.

Can we give THEY a name and get much more specific with regard to who/what we are fighting and from whom/what we are trying to wrest control?

That may be the very first thing we can gather to do, including perhaps finding others have already gathered and defined THEY.

Can we come up with a list to define THEY or find other groups who have already defined THEM?

Thanks.

:hi:

[OneGrassRoot]

1. In today's super networked world, we can have an effect -- the wikileak payback campaign

I know there are pros and cons to this wikileak payback hacking campaign, but what we are seeing is that via online networks, we CAN have an influence.

It's very empowering; it can be if we tap into it more.

Now, if there were a way to harness this for positive change, we can focus efforts and work TOWARD a unified goal. Of course, as we work toward something, our efforts will work to remove the hurdles we face.

:)

[hermetic]

2. I was just reading another post about

who "they" are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x574854

"But here are the major stockholders of the Federal Reserve. They own the Federal Reserve. The Rothschilds with offices in London and Berlin, the Lazard brothers in Paris, Israel Seif of Italy, Kuhn Loeb Company of Germany, the Warburgs with offices in Hamburg and Amsterdam in the Netherlands and the last three are all interlocked - Lehman Brothers of New York, Goldman Sachs of New York, and Rockefeller of New York."

Sadly, I think it will take more than 4Chan to keep those guys honest.



:hi:

[OneGrassRoot]

3. What is 4Chan?

Thanks. :hi:

[pipoman]

4. The amount of ambiguity in people's posts hereabouts is maddening sometimes..

[OneGrassRoot]

5. Can I clarify something about my question perhaps?

Can you tell me what you find ambiguous so that I can perhaps clarify and explain further?

:)

[pipoman]

6. I have a background in writing reports for legal actions

I have seen entire days in court discussing the possibilities of just one 'they' not to mention contexts, etc. One learns to write without obvious ambiguity in that capacity and to identify ambiguity in other people's writings..it is my OCD I guess..

[mmonk]

7. Even though I've been promoting the idea,

(for number 1) of a constitutional amendment, I remember the effort for ERA and the difficulty invoved. I'm wondering if a disclosure law of some sort is possible through legislation since one of the main purposes corporations wanted this was for anonymity?

[mstinamotorcity]

8. All of the things

you have numbered can be wiped out of existence if we as a People form a unified bond and even though we don't have much, collectively we are all power. They are rioting all over the world against the same type of forces that control our Government. We the people need to TAKE OUR MONEY BACK!!! As long as we patronize sponsors,television programming,wall street investments,big banks and big oil and big insurance,and big Pharma, Koch Industries ( they) we will never gain true reform. You must not allow them to take our money and use it against us. No take the economic power out of their hands and put it in the right places. Commerce among ourselves. Stop depending on them to CHANGE and let's CHANGE us.

[rucky]

9. For framing, we should always name who *they* are.

K&R

This is REALLY important!