2012 2nd half: should 1% criminal arrests be journalists’ #1 explicit theme?

What do you think? 

If you’d like to discuss, I’ll respond to comments on Washington’s Blog, Daily Censored, and Examiner.com versions of this article for at least the next three days.

This is what I see:

  1. Whether the year number “2012” is important or not, what is important is ending the escalating 1%’s crimes centering in war and money that in 2012 continue to kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions of our dollars.
  2. Ending these crimes seems to require that the 99% recognize the 1%’s actions as criminal, and then make it safe for law enforcement to risk arresting the powerful.
  3. Because corporate media has not taken this “emperor has no clothes” obvious step of reporting, they are likely to continue their propaganda role to distract from the crimes and protect their fellow 1% oligarchs. Independent writers and activists could take the theme of the 1%‘s crimes and run with it.

The accomplishment of the criminal 1%’s lawful arrests ends the crimes, opens the possibility for Truth and Reconciliation for minions to expose the whole stories of how and what the 1% have done, and allows freedom for obvious economic solutions that nurture success for 100% of the planet’s inhabitants.

Independent writers and activists currently have the theme of criminal acts when they accurately describe what the 1% does in war and money, but it’s not always explicit and rarely calls for arrests.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Grace

    This would all be lovely except for the one huge elephant in the room: the corrupt 99 % journalists; the ones that can be bought by the 1% criminals.
    This is how crime always happens of any magnitude; the rich folk manipulate whatever little folk are open to bribery. If there were still ethics and honesty in journalism this problem wouldn’t happen in the first place but it always does.
    The one percent criminals would already be in jail were it not for these ever-present hidden sources of support by the 99 percent.
    So yes, I’d love to see the one percent criminals be incarcerated by the mass efforts of journalists worldwide, but do I think it will happen except under extreme duress? Probably not.

    • Carl Herman

      I agree, Grace. The six corporations of the “media cartel” will control their journalists, yes. Those who don’t find the “buzzsaw” as many top journalists reported: http://www.wanttoknow.info/resources#massmedia

      I’m talking about independent journalists and those like us at Washington’s Blog who do this as kind of a “hobby.” The point is to use this to ignite the 99%’s understanding and voice for focused message and action that these are massive crimes and we must arrest those criminals to stop the crimes.

  • Javy

    The media is the deciding factor in this battle of hearts and minds. Thankfully, Washington’s Blog, and many other sites as well, dare to tell the truth and make a stand.

    The troops are rallying. Keep it up. Feed us.

    • Carl Herman

      Thanks, Javy. We’ll do our best, AND it’s only helpful with public response. Thank you for your ongoing self-expression in your fields of work.

  • Dan

    Should their arrest be the #1 theme? Without question it is their lawful privledge and moral duty concomitant in a just and free society. Yet, we continue to tout an revere these principles while large segments acquiese to a continous mockery of them by those who wilfully abuse the public trust. I agree with Grace’s observations as well as your own. However, I disagree, in part, with how the issues are framed as 1% vs the 99%.
    Along with “silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak” another favorite quotation is “the bending of the meaning of words is a symptom of a diseased institution.” The latter is inextricably intertwined with the former in which common life values are obliterated by the disease of social status, personal gain, and greed manifiesting itself, and masquerading, under the false gusie of “freedoms” spread by them as mere forms of words. Thus, those that acquiese are enablers, and in my personal opinion, at minimum complicit, knowingly or not. The “numbers” are far more than 1%.

    • Carl Herman

      Well said; thank you, Dan.

      I thought about the converse of being unable or unwilling to say Wars of Aggression are crimes demanding arrests: pretty pathetic for intellectual integrity and moral courage.

      And this: if someone with a level of expertise writing on war and economics can’t/won’t tell the difference between fundamental legal and illegal activity, what kind of “expertise” is that???