Finally, this effort is feeling conclusive, which I hoped for from the outset 2+ yrs ago. With the discovery of the socialist emergence from the "Jewish settlements in the Pale," the pure negativity of academic oligarchy the possibility of scientific rehabilitation in an aboriginal context. Cultural "fleshing" will continue with reprints of currently-relevant recently-historical experiences, often gangster, while "the Pale" experience is solidified upto present revolutionary efforts. The hope is to create a hinge with which to restore revolution as evolution after the excessively long period of oligarchic occupation -since 500BC.

Then, probably, the entire blog will be consolidated and "put to rest" with the first wikified writing about the occupy dialectic two years ago.

Change.org demonstrates how progress gets subverted every time!


Change.org, far more than any other entity, defines "the problem within the solution" that (I believe) keeps us in the "squirrel cage" of zero-progress.  

Thus it fits the original "inquiry question" about Occupy's purposes and effects on the world, but now from the perspective of capitalist materialism, rather than Marx's material dialectic, and Hegel's and Trotsky's anti-abstract, anti-science approach which dominated my research.  I was initially disappointed that I could not could not show the dialectic as a phenomena by finding it on both the left and right-- now I can!

Thus, Change.org presents an unusual opportunity; corporations, as capital families, are highly private, but, because Change.org apparently leveraged a deception (identifying it as being Socratic) is continually forced to expose itself and its use of the dialectic method as I believe that all corporations use it.  Change.org feels compelled to expose not just its operations, but the individual minds of its important staff--such as its president's and those of high-ranking staff members --they make their thoughts, and lies, public nearly everyday.  

In short (I think) I will keep editing this page as I learn more about them.  Supporting material is presently stored on Facebook as "Boycott Change.org  (CLICK)" -- perhaps I should call it "Occupy Change.org" -- perhaps I should!  I am also certain this will attract attention to the importance of the "current dialectic" which is my one effort that seems to be largely ignored.

My recent writing about "defective domination" as evolutionary decline (on Op-Ed-News CLICK) has gotten good reviews, and nothing but nothing defines defective dominance better than Change.org's CEO/founder Ben Rattay -- he, and his crew, are permanently on my radar for psych-social real-time material as they never stop contradicting themselves.

My short history w/ Change.org is based purely on "petition signer safety:"

I accidentally signed a petition and immediately asked them to remove my name (Sat). Monday, they replied that "that they apologize" that "that option is not available." To me this is entirely a safety issue, but for most, the problem of Change.org is that it leveraged progressive activists as a non-profit to position itself for multi-million dollar investments from "venture capital angel investors."

Others have attempted to remove their names for much the same reasons, and some have been threatened by the target recipients when the lists were delivered (mine has not yet been delivered).

CEO and founder Rattay admits that progress was never the goal, profits were. He defines defective dominance by a) defining a fraction of a cent of profit as more important than a person's safety, and misleading the public about it . 

The organizations who use Change.org, such as Amnesty International, will not stop using it despite its being purely mercenary. This, in my view puts them in the same psychological and social categories that I am grouping as "defective dominance." Going further with this, Change.org needs to be stopped as it, more than any other entity, defines "the problem within the solution" that defines the critical inquiry into the dialectic that is occupy critical inquiry.

Reference material:
Click on images for sources



Admitted deception by CEO Rattay: 
  • "Change.org did not plan to reach out to its base of progressive users about the change" to a non-progressive business model
  • "Rattray has also recently been meeting with a number of well-known venture capital firms"
  • "Nothing big was ever achieved by taking the safe option" while talking about firings based on the shift from progressive to profit




Clay Johnson, an author and expert on using social media for fundraising, said he had “huge problems” with the Change.org model. “It’s dangerous to monetize ‘change’ because there’s an economic incentive to sensationalize."




Daily Kos author: "The only way this works for them financially is if they start hiring campaigners to run conservative campaigns working counter to everything we believe." (Acutally, Daily Kos seems suspicously pro-gun, hmmm...)



Ben Rattray (Change.org CEO) said his firm is profitable and hopes to bring in tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue within a few years" making "money by running campaigns for advocacy groups such as Amnesty International"

Change.org creator Ben Rattray self-describes: I had "no real ambitions beyond a career in investment banking"




Ben Rattray (Change.org CEO) said his firm is profitable and hopes to bring in tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue within a few years" making "money by running campaigns for advocacy groups such as Amnesty International"