Discussing :psychopathic corporations dating back to 1808, past episodes of blood in the streets in the USA, reaching a point where the military confronts American protesters-- "the only way this country is going to change is through a revolutionary process not unlike that process that occurred from say 1770 -- 1789." Neoconservatives as Trotskyites. Tea Party as a wealth defense party, US military as corporate power tool

::::::::

Transcribed from the audio podcast posted here. Interview Transcript part 2 of 3.

Thanks to Eric Forat for transcript checking/editing.

R.K.: My guest tonight is Lawrence Wilkerson. He is retired United States Army soldier and and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wilkerson is an adjunct professor at the College of William & Mary where he teaches courses on US national security. He also instructs a senior seminar in the Honors Department at the George Washington University entitled "National Security Decision Making."

L.W.: Exxon Mobile's profits last year were bigger than what 60% of the world's countries' GDPs. They are. They are entities in and of themselves. You get a guy like Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobile who gives a speech in Kazakhstan where in essence he said he would rather live in Kazakhstan because they have a better environment for energy development. I mean, these guys have no national loyalty. They have no feeling of fealty to a particular country, their fealty is to their fiduciary responsibility and their own wealth. That's it. Period.

R.K.: Well let's talk a little bit about that. Recently I had on the author of the book and the producer of the movie, The Corporation, have you seen that movie?

L.W.: No, I've heard about it, I haven't seen it.

R.K.: It basically goes through describing just how many ways corporations are like psychopaths.

L.W.: Yeah.

R.K.: And I'm really, I have really gotten interested in understanding psychopaths because I think they play so big a role in our culture, not the ones who get caught and go to jail but the smart ones who don't. And I think of them as, if there's one word I use for a psychopath, it's predator. And that's how we started this conversation.

L.W.: Yes. That's a good metaphor.

R.K.: So, can you throw together some thoughts about what we have talked about so far and psychopaths and predators of that nature?

L.W.: Well my principal concern with that particular way of characterizing corporations is that when you get into that kind of psychology, when you get into that kind of single-minded focus, you don't just get into efficiency and even effectiveness, you get into a focus on the short-term and a focus on your own situation, if you will, so debilitating that you wind up not even seeing the mid-term, let alone the long term and you wind up with a focus on your own situation to the extent that the world can deteriorate around you and you can be contributing to that deterioration and you blindly proceed because you're okay.

You're okay until you go off the cliff. And in some cases, and this is truly the psychopath, as you go off the cliff, and commit suicide yourself, corporate-wise, that's easy to envision, you don't even know you're doing it. You're, so to speak, enjoying your luxurious yacht, your airplanes, and your tenth floor executive suite until the moment the lights go out, and that's psychopathic in my view. I mean, it's like the old definition of insanity, I think Einstein started it, beating your head against the wall, doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result, it's insanity.

But it's what a lot of these people, I call them people now, I was just reading the, I think 1808 decision, Bank of the United States versus Deveaux, in which John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time, wrote the, as far as I can tell, the first opinion where he tried and did, to a certain extent, define corporation, and of course he is talking about The Bank of The United States at the time, but the effort he makes is painstaking to describe how a corporation can be what you just said. It can be psychopathic.

It can be almost human-like. And yet at the end of the decision I think, I'm not a lawyer, so I have sometimes trouble interpreting these things when I do study them, but it seems as though he is saying. with a lot of caveats. that a corporation cannot be a human. It cannot be considered under the law as a human being, as a thing like a human being. And yet he goes out of his way to describe every aspect that corporations demonstrate that is like a human being.

It's a tortured decision in that respect and of course now we have a Supreme Court that has just finished it off and capped it and said that not only are they just like human beings, they can give money like human beings and have to be treated under the first amendment like human beings and so forth, so you could say that we just cut the throat of the goose that laid the golden egg and we just don't know it yet.

R.K.: You lost me on that one, we cut the throat of the goose that laid the golden egg?

L.W.: Well the corporation has been that entity which has allowed for whatever value, ethical or moral you give to it, nonetheless has allowed the creation of one of the richest countries in the history of humans. And in the process of doing that we have let the more dangerous aspects of raising that goose if you will, or keeping that goose alive, petting that goose, keeping it going, we've let the most dangerous aspects sneak up on us and we are watching even as that goose which has laid all those golden eggs for us is being asphyxiated by us.

R.K.: So we're responsible, but what can we do? We've got the Supreme Court against us, we've got Obama appointing foxes to guard the hen house, I think you already answered that question with your blood in the streets reference

L.W.: Yeah I think, people don't think we've had that sort of experience before, we have. We have killed hundreds in the streets. We've called the military out, we've called strike breakers out,. We've killed hundreds. I remember one particular vivid scene in a documentary that was actual filming of the strike breaking in Pennsylvania in the coal mines.

We have had some really tough times in our history that we just like to forget about. MacArthur put his machine guns up and was getting ready to attack the bonus veterans, the bonus marchers, the WWI veterans who wanted their bonuses who were camped on the Anacostia flats. Make no mistake about it, he was ready to march in there and kill them.

We're going to come to a point like that again I'm afraid and one of the things I am looking at, one of the things I am hearing from my military, I don't just go out to Walter Reed to get fixed myself, I listen to these young soldiers and marines and airmen and sailors talking, and one of the things I am hearing amongst them is a debate as to whether or not they're going to follow the orders when the inevitable orders come.

And I've got news for Presidents like President Obama and President Bush, men like John Brennan and Keith Alexander and so forth, when you turn to the American soldier, marine, airman, sailor, and you say "fire on those American people" you're going to get a very, very different answer than you expect. And we're going to get to the point, I fear deeply, we're going to get to the point where the only way this country is going to change is through a revolutionary process not unlike that process that occurred from say 1770 -- 1789.

R.K.: Is that really possible with-

L.W.: Go back and read the Declaration of Independence. The document that the neo-conservatives love to pull out and say this is our founding document. Not the constitution, this is our founding document. I can't tell you how many neoconservatives have proffered that argument to me. And I usually let them rant and rave and then I read that particular portion where it says, "When the people in essence believe that their government is no longer on their side, they have a right to overthrow it." That's us. That's who we were. We aren't those people anymore though. And that's part of our problem.

R.K.: Well let's talk about these neoconservatives.

L.W.: You mean the radicals?

R.K.: Well you just brought them up.

L.W.: They are radicals. They're Trotskyites. They're not conservatives. Mislabeled completely. Just like the tea-party is mislabeled. The tea-party is a wealth defense party. It was put together as a masquerade, a mask, in order to get people into the Congress under social issues that stupid people in this country think are important and will vote for in order to protect people's wealth. Better than 50% of the tea-party members of Congress are millionaires.

My own Tea-partier here from Virginia, Eric Cantor, is worth about five or six million dollars. It's a marvelous disguise as a populist movement and no doubt some of them are populists, they're too stupid to be anything else. But mostly what they are is disguise for that aspect of the Republican party which is courted and petted and kept in the dark and kept hidden but that part that wants there to be nothing in this country but the wealthy, period. Any, everybody else to be their sheep, their dogs, their slaves and so forth and so on.

There's a heavy aspect of that in the tea-party and a masquerade they throw out is issues like abortion and gays and evangelical Christianity and so forth and so on. And while that has its dangerous aspects, especially evangelical Christianity, and it is inimical to democracy, especially to a tolerant democracy, it is basically just a mask for what is, in essence, defense of the wealthy.

R.K.: A couple questions. You just described neo-conservatives as radical and Trotskyites. What do you mean by that?

L.W.: Well a conservative is a person like me. Who believes that the best that's been thought and said and done in the world ought to be conserved and changed only with great circumspection and generally not radically. Evolution rather than revolution. That's a conservative. Consult Edmund Burke for probably the most eloquent comments about what a conservative is.

These people like Richard Pearl and Douglas Feith and Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, they're not conservatives at all. They, like the tea-party, masquerade behind a sign that says "I am a conservative" because they understood from pollsters like Franklin and others who served them rather well during the Reagan administration and later, they understand that there was this tendency in America, I call it the tendency of Luddites, to turn towards what they could then espouse as conservative values.

And what did this mean? It meant you didn't like gays, it meant you like guns, it meant that you didn't like taxes, it meant that you could rant and rave about things like women's rights and abortion and so forth and so on. It meant all these issues that got you really fired up as a political base, for example, but had really nothing to do with genuine politics and the direction of the country.

Social issues for the most part. And what they did was they grabbed a hold of that and they got the radical base that went along with that and they used that to further their own radical national security and foreign policy interests, which are first and foremost that the United States is the exceptional nation and must be on top of the world all the time and any time and anyone who even starts to climb the hill the United States is perched upon needs to be smacked down immediately, and usually with military power, if not with military power because it's politically difficult to do, then with sanctions, and sanctions, and sanctions-- economic, financial, and otherwise. And who really hate democracy and lust after their own elite rule. I mean, this is not conservative. This is elitism and radicalism. It's Trotskyite. That's what they are, they're Trotskys. They're radical.

R.K.: What is a Trotskyite?

L.W.: It's a person who wants to change everything now. I'll lie, cheat, and steal to do it, too. I want it changed, now. I want my way or you take the highway, now. That's the neo-conservatives. Lie cheat and steal and not think a thing about it.

R.K.: Yeah it's been said that the neo-conservatives had a very big role to play in Ukraine and now they're talking about very strong economic sanctions, we have an article on opednews today about how they are talking about economic sanctions that can be as hard hitting as a nuclear bomb in some ways. You want to talk a little bit about Ukraine and sanctions? The Ukraine, neo-cons, and sanctions. Tie them together.

L.W.: I am not sure I agree with the proposition that the neo-conservatives are the worst element in Ukraine, but they're there, of course.

R.K.: No, not the neo-cons, I'm sorry, the neo-conservatives in the US who are attempting to influence what's happening in the Ukraine.

L.W.: Well, that's what I meant, too. Sorry. I don't think they are the worst element of the US apparatus that is trying to influence events in Ukraine. They're bad, and they're ugly, but I think there is a far greater "panoply" of powers in Ukraine. Blessed by both Europe and the United States that are inimical to both our interests in long-term, than just the neo-conservatives. I'm talking about the IRI, the NDI, all of the NGOs associated with them, the fact that we have been instituting regime change or trying to institute regime change in Ukraine for some time now.

The fact that Bill Clinton moved the boundaries of NATO so far East that Russia had no choice but to respond. The fact that that was a complete violation of George H W Bush and Jim Baker's promises to Gorbachev that NATO would go no, not one inch further East and all of the sudden you had Clinton and the boys contemplating Georgia and Tbilisi, all of this is coming home to roost in Ukraine and coming home to roost in a way that's quite dangerous.

But you are correct I think in stating that one of the neo-conservative purposes is just this kind of danger. Most of the neo-conservatives philosophically believe that radical change, there you go again, Trotskyites, radical change is the best way to change the world and to achieve their ultimate purposes.

You get a place like Syria in the civil war, you get a place like Iraq invaded by the United States, you get a 9/11 and you take full advantage of it and you milk it for everything that it's worth because what you're trying to bring about is your own vision of the world and their vision of the world is quite radical. I don't even put it beyond certain neo-conservatives, Charles Krauthammer comes to mind, Bill Kristol comes to mind, that a good little dust up in Ukraine would be okay whereby the United States and Russia went to blows with one another.

R.K.: Jeeze. Crazy.

L.W.: These people are scary. They're frightening. I rubbed up close and personal with them for four years, I can tell you how frightening they are. I sat in the Pentagon and listened to a briefing on where Iraq was just the start, then we're going to Syria, then we're going to Iran, these people are nuts.

R.K.: What is their big plan? What is the big neo-con plan, their long term plan? I mean I know about the Project for a New American Century, but what would you say is what they're shooting for now?

L.W.: Well, the ultimate plan I think is American hegemony now, tomorrow, forever. And when I say hegemony I don't just mean America rules, as in Pax Americana, I mean America has it's way wherever it goes, whenever it goes, and however it wants that way. And this is commercial and financial and economic as much as it is geo-political.

They want a Coca Cola stand on every street in every city in every country in the world. They want a McDonald's, they want a Kentucky Fried Chicken, they want an Exxon Mobile pumping station. You name it, if it's US, it's good. If it's something else it's neutral or bad. And therefore let's put the US everywhere and let's put a big huge cloak over this that says we are advancing freedom and democracy.

R.K.: It sounds more corporate interests than American interest.

L.W.: There's a huge aspect of it and that aspect has been with us since WWII in a big way. You know you examine Chile, you examine Guatemala in '54, Iran in '53, Chile in the 70's and you will find huge commercial interests there. Smedley Butler, a marine two star general once said that he never went anywhere and did anything and I think he had twenty nine foreign incursions in his career in the military, he was a marine two star general, he said he never did anything that wasn't for US corporate interests. He said Al Capone is talked about as a criminal. Al Capone operated in Illinois, maybe Indiana, I operated on nine continents. I mean, Smedley had the truth at his fingertips but much of-

R.K.: Are you suggesting that the American military performs criminal operations for corporations?

L.W.: Well we certainly did. What was Guatemala in 1954 but an overthrow of the government of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz for the interest of the United Fruit Company. For whom John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower's Secretary of State and Allen Dulles' brother, head of the CIA were lawyers, counselors, and stockholders.

I mean, it's insanity to assert that we really were worried about communism in Guatemala when the real interest in Guatemala in '54 and the real reason for the coup, and I am an admirer of Eisenhower and I'm still saying this, the real reason for the coup was United Fruit Company's interest in Guatemala And by the way Guatemala has not been the same country since. It's a disaster.

R.K.: Can you give some more examples?

L.W.: Well, take Chile when Kissinger and Nixon decided that they were going to overthrow Allende in Chile. That idea that Chile was going to become another Cuba in our hemisphere was preposterous, even Henry Kissinger realized that and yet we went ahead.

We went ahead principally because of International Telephone and Telegraph, Pepsi Cola, Kennecott Mines and a whole bunch of others who really did not want Allende because he had presented the prospect of doing what Castro had done in Cuba, nationalizing some of their interests and certainly gave them the prospect of being against their interest in exploiting the Chilean economy to the maximum extent possible.

Let's face it, I had a conversation not too long ago with a Brazilian. I had to admit the Brazilian was right. They're really elated that the only two countries in Latin America that the United States seems to be interested in anymore are Colombia because of the drug problem and Venezuela because of the Hugo Chavez legacy, and I said you're elated? And the Brazilian said yes we're elated, because you're not bothering us anymore like you have done for the past one hundred and fifty years. Lot of truth in that.

R.K.: What about military performance of criminal actions for corporations that have been done in this century?

L.W.: I think it's probably a learning experience for the military and a learning experience for the country that those sorts of things post WWII were more covert operations than they were overt operations. And we can thank Eisenhower for that to a certain extent because he was the one who gave the CIA the real protocol and precedent for conducting covert operations and doing things underneath the covers, as it were, that were aimed mostly at US commercial interests in the name of the Cold War, not to say that there weren't sometimes some Cold War interests too, but doing them in a way that didn't become public for in most cases twenty or thirty years and so by that time you're okay if you've done it.

I mean that's the new modus operandi. We don't do it overtly with the military anymore. You can say Panama, you can cite Panama and you can say "well you know, in Panama overthrowing Noriega, why did we do that?" Was that mostly commercial interests? Was it mostly the interests of the CIA and not having Noriega go on any longer in the way that he was performing because eventually he would have revealed the extensive contacts that he had with the CIA?

Yeah, you can find all of those things in there but basically, I think it's fair to say that we have learned enough, if that's the right phrase to use, that overt military operations, for what are clearly commercial reasons, are less apt to happen these days and we usually keep those covert. Let's look at Iraq, we tried time and time again to exercise covert operations against Saddam Hussein, the ultimate interest there being oil.

When we finally did get that way with overt military operations, that is to say, kick him out, take over his country basically, with overt military operations, it took some nut case like George W Bush and Dick Cheney to get in there and do it.

R.K.: Now you are the-

L.W.: It took 9/11. It took 9/11. You never would have been able I think to pull off the invasion of Iraq in 2003 if you had not had 9/11.

R.K.: Now you're speaking as the Chief of Staff for the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So you've got insider information when you talk about this, right?

L.W.: Well all of this stuff is in the public domain now. Everything I have talked about is in the public domain, I teach it. The National Security Archives at George Washington University contain crime after crime after crime after crime, documented-- right there for anybody to read. Top secret documents declassified and telling us exactly what we did in the name of the American People.

R.K.: You brought up 9/11, let's talk about 9/11. My readers are very interested in 9/11. What is your take on what we know and what we don't know and what we have been told about 9/11?

L.W.: I am not the expert on that. I lived through it and that's part of the reason I am probably not the expert. I have not done a great deal of research on it and don't plan on doing a great deal of research on it because I don't think the material available for research is going to be worth it for some time yet. I would like to get my hands on the classified annex to the 9/11 Commission's Report because I believe that annex is probably full of things that the American people ought to know. Not least of which is what was Saudi Arabia's complicity in 9/11.

R.K.: Okay. You have any suspicions there?

L.W.: Yeah, I suspect Saudi Arabia's complicity was quite clear. And I just don't know what it consisted of and who was involved. I have my suspicions but suspicions are one thing, knowing the actual truth is another.

R.K.: Okay. A lot of 9/11 people think it was an inside job that happened there. What do you think?

L.W.: My experience in government for some forty years has led me to believe that more often than not, government now, not the corporations behind the government, government is more often than not incompetent, not competent, so it's, in cases like this when people have conspiracy theories about this or that happened I kind of roll my eyes in wonder about their knowledge of their government because the government simply does not have the skill to do that sort of thing.

R.K.: Okay. So, you also mentioned the CIA. Now, I can't do an interview with you without talking about Edward Snowden and his release of information and disclosures that have come since then. What is your take on Ed Snowden and what he has done and what we now know about the American spying on its citizens?

L.W.: I just finished reading Glenn Greenwald's book-- the new one. In fact I just put down my Kindle. Maybe six hours ago. Three things leapt out at me as I read that book. One was the very firm confirmation of my appreciation of Edward Snowden-- young, clearheaded, dedicated, concerned, talented, extremely talented in what I call information technology geekiness and a capable individual to the extent that he was able to take from what are really below average bureaucracies.

Generally everything he needed to take to prove, to substantiate to the American people, that those below average bureaucracies were abusing power. That's the first thing I saw. In other words, that Snowden is a genuine Whistleblower. Second thing I saw and I think I saw this with as much clarity as the first, and as much firmness is that the American mainstream media is completely in tow of its corporate interests and that is to say that when you have a mainstream media whose salaries are not subsistence level, they are quite luxurious and who depend on the corporate interest behind them for those salaries to continue you will not get anybody speaking truth to power.

That is to say, that American mainstream media is useless. It's even worse than useless. It's dangerous. For the most part, it marches to war in lock-step with its government. It marches to abuse of power in lock-step with its government. And the third thing that comes out of the book I think that is riveting, is just how much the National Security Agency overstepped its legal bounds in terms of its surveillance activities.

You get one particular slide for example and one exchange that comes from Snowden's revelations. And of course it is a power point slide, it has to be. Americans are so good at Power Point, it's incredible. Anyway. You get this not ninety percent, not eighty percent, not ninety five percent, not ninety two percent, I don't want any percentage of information below a hundred. That's the NSA objective. I want to collect one hundred percent of every communication in the friggin world.

That's their goal. And then you sit back and you say, okay, now I know why they're building four to six billion dollars facilities out there in the West. I know why they're breaking ground for another one. I know why they need these huge storage areas and everything.

And you ask yourself two fundamental questions when you realize all of this;

One, when and where, and it's already occurred as it's well pointed out in the book, is this colossal power that the NSA is exercising is going to be abused, because the one thing you know about the American government, you know absolutely is that if power can be abused, it will be abused, and if it is exercised in secret it will be abused majorly.

And the second thing you want to know is how is this impacting our ability to go after real threats? Whether they be conventional threats like Russia and Ukraine for example or whether they be terrorists threats like Al Qaeda? How is this impacting it? And the answer there is clear, too. It is very, very dangerous, inimical to those real threat interests. That is to say if you're collecting all of this data and you're trying to analyze it through artificial intelligence, random sampling, whatever, you are spending so much time on that you are not focused on the things that might present a real threat to your country. So the book was very revealing in those three aspects and I think it's fairly accurate in those three aspects.

R.K.: You have a little blurb for the book?

L.W.: I would say read it and weep, America.

R.K.: What about what we can do about the surveillance state that we are living in?

L.W.: That's a good question. I sit on something called the Liberty and Security Committee on the Constitution Project in Washington, give you some idea of the eclectic membership of that committee, we have former FBI directors, we have general counsel for the FBI, we have former FISA court judge, we have a Vice President of the National Rifle Association, a whole group of people who are nonetheless brought together by their interest in protecting the constitution, particularly the bill of rights and one of the things we have been looking at of late as you may imagine is FISA Amendments Act, the Patriot Act, the Surveillance State in general and how we might suggest to Congress in its oversight mechanisms better ways to watch what is happening, to check what's happening. To investigate and so forth.

Frankly I have been just stunned at how little we really are able to do when you boil it down to bare facts. I think we're slowly rolling up, particularly the first and the fourth amendments to the constitution, particularly the fourth where you're supposed to have a right to your privacy, you're supposed to only be searched upon probably cause with a warrant having been issued by a legitimate court, so on and so forth, I think we just passed that by.

I think we're already in a new state of civil liberty usurpation by the government that will be extremely difficult to walk back from. And the NSA, giving the signals intelligence that's necessary to do a lot of this is a principal institutional ingredient in this marching backwards in terms of civil liberties and when you put it all on the wall and you look at it and you say, why? Why? Where is this massive threat that is causing us to do this? We didn't go this far in the Cold War when thirty thousand nuclear missiles were poised to fire at us. Why are we doing it now?

R.K.: Why?

L.W.: Well you get the answer. The answer is we're doing it because a threat exists that has less statistical probability of killing you and me than a lightning strike and it's called terrorism. That's why we're doing it.

R.K.: We just had this long conversation that started with you describing how the military was doing criminal actions for corporations and then how that was transitioned to the CIA doing secret actions, covert actions, and I wonder how much of this is corporate-driven.

L.W.: That's a very good point. I suspect that someday someone will do some research and write a book maybe or two and present us with a case where people like Alberto Gonzalez, former counselor of President Bush and then Attorney General and the guy who followed him, can't remember his name now but he is running a company out there now that capitalizes on this counter-terrorism business. Michael Hayden, he's doing the same thing. Others.

These kind of fresh grown corporate interest in the security state whether it be private intelligence contractors or whether they be private security contractors or whatever, they're associated with the so-called military industrial complex and they are perpetuating a lot of this threat, if you will. Because it generates lots and lots of profits for them. I don't think that's the overriding interest yet, but it could well become the overriding interest and it is certainly an enhancing interest right now.

It's certainly part of the reason why what I just postulated is the case, that we're spending all of this money, all of this effort, all of this time destroying our civil liberties, destroying our constitution, amendment by amendment. Simply in the name of a threat that is no more likely to kill us than lightning strike.

R.K.: Well, keep in mind that our current Attorney General, Holder worked in a law firm that represented multi-national corporations as well.

L.W.: That particular gentleman is as dangerous as anybody George W Bush ever put into the directorship of the Justice Department and the Attorney General's position. I have no trust for Eric Holder. Anyone who can stand up and say that due process does not necessarily include legal process, in my mind is a dangerous man.

R.K.: Tell me more about Holder.

L.W.: Well he is the guy who is given, as did Jay Bybee, and a number of other people, John Yoo and others in the office of legal council in the justice department which is sort of the president's legal think tank. He is the man who presides now over giving the same kind of things, in a more sophisticated fashion perhaps, that they gave to George W Bush; he is now giving to President Obama. The most egregious of which I just cited whereby he says killing American citizens with drones does go through due process. It's just not a legal process. Due process of course being a star chamber.

R.K.: What do you think will be the legacy of Barack Obama? If we look back in history?

Authors Bio:

Rob Kall is an award winning journalist, inventor, software architect,
connector and visionary. His work and his writing have been featured in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, ABC, the HuffingtonPost, Success, Discover and other media.

Check out his platform at RobKall.com

He is the author of The Bottom-up Revolution; Mastering the Emerging World of Connectivity

He's given talks and workshops to Fortune
500 execs and national medical and psychological organizations, and pioneered
first-of-their-kind conferences in Positive Psychology, Brain Science and
Story. He hosts some of the world's smartest, most interesting and powerful
people on his Bottom Up Radio Show,
and founded and publishes one of the top Google- ranked progressive news and
opinion sites, OpEdNews.com

more detailed bio:

Rob Kall has spent his adult life as an awakener and empowerer-- first in the field of biofeedback, inventing products, developing software and a music recording label, MuPsych, within the company he founded in 1978-- Futurehealth, and founding, organizing and running 3 conferences: Winter Brain, on Neurofeedback and consciousness, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology (a pioneer in the field of Positive Psychology, first presenting workshops on it in 1985) and Storycon Summit Meeting on the Art Science and Application of Story-- each the first of their kind. Then, when he found the process of raising people's consciousness and empowering them to take more control of their lives one person at a time was too slow, he founded Opednews.com-- which has been the top search result on Google for the terms liberal news and progressive opinion for several years. Rob began his Bottom-up Radio show, broadcast on WNJC 1360 AM to Metro Philly, also available on iTunes, covering the transition of our culture, business and world from predominantly Top-down (hierarchical, centralized, authoritarian, patriarchal, big) to bottom-up (egalitarian, local, interdependent, grassroots, archetypal feminine and small.) Recent long-term projects include a book, Bottom-up-- The Connection Revolution, debillionairizing the planet and the Psychopathy Defense and Optimization Project.

Rob Kall Wikipedia Page

Rob Kall's Bottom Up Radio Show: Over 400 podcasts are archived for downloading here, or can be accessed from iTunes. Or check out my Youtube Channel

Rob Kall/OpEdNews Bottom Up YouTube video channel

Rob was published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com for several years.

Rob is, with Opednews.com the first media winner of the Pillar Award for supporting Whistleblowers and the first amendment.

To learn more about Rob and OpEdNews.com, check out A Voice For Truth - ROB KALL | OM Times Magazine and this article.

For Rob's work in non-political realms mostly before 2000, see his C.V.. and here's an article on the Storycon Summit Meeting he founded and organized for eight years.

Press coverage in the Wall Street Journal: Party's Left Pushes for a Seat at the Table

Talk Nation Radio interview by David Swanson: Rob Kall on Bottom-Up Governance June, 2017

Here is a one hour radio interview where Rob was a guest- on Envision This, and here is the transcript..

To watch Rob having a lively conversation with John Conyers, then Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here. Watch Rob speaking on Bottom up economics at the Occupy G8 Economic Summit, here.

Follow Rob on Twitter & Facebook.

His quotes are here

Rob's articles express his personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.

Join the conversation:

On facebook at Rob Kall's Bottom-up The Connection Revolution

and at Google Groups listserve Bottom-up Top-down conversation