The Crooks and the Tyrants

Standard

Richard Branson

In my opinion, Branson is a huge phoney.  He does all the fake-liberal humanitarian PR-activities of those who pretend to care about humanity, but who then give tacit support to atrocities such as genocide in Gaza.

Lately, many activists have been elucidating the fact that the highest-efficiency economy would be one where machines and technology replace all human labour.  However, this results in the obvious problem that everybody is poor/unemployed despite exponential increases in output as well as the fact only those owning the means of production truly benefit, shattering the notion that extreme wealth inequality will result in more for everybody.

In response to such growing awareness, Branson posted an article stating that entrepreneurs work hundreds of hours more than the regular person, implying they deserve to have what they have. However, because he is such a nice guy, he’s willing to advocate for shorter work weeks and hours for his employees—as long as he is still in control of them, of course.

Furthermore, despite caring so much about the public, on continuing British membership in the EU, despite supporting the notion, Branson opposed having a referendum on the issue, lest the public actually get a taste of true democracy.

Advertisements

Britain and the US …

Quote

Britain and the US like to prove to the World that “democratic” states can be more wicked than autocratic ones and they’ve succeeded with flying colours!

Again, the discussion needs to shift to direct democracy, not totalitarianism.  This makes supporters of imperialistic democracy angry.  Why is that?

The Daily Servant of Power

Standard

Today’s servant of power is:

The BBC

1) Is there a BBC documentary on the 1953 Iranian coup d’état?

2) Take a look at these two articles and decide for yourself which one sounds more honest:

One of the other big issues on the front pages now is Chinese “aggressiveness.” There is a lot of concern about the fact that the Chinese are building up their missile forces. Is China planning to conquer the world? Big debates about it. Well, what is really going on? For years China has been in the lead in trying to prevent the militarization of space. If you look at the debates and the Disarmament Commission of the UN General Assembly, the votes are 160 to 1 or 2. The U.S. insists on the militarization of space. It will not permit the outer space treaty to explicitly bar military relations in space.

Clinton’s position was that the U.S. should control space for military purposes. The Bush administration is more extreme. Their position is the U.S. should own space, their words, We have to own space for military purposes. So that is the spectrum of discussion here. The Chinese have been trying to block it and that is well understood. You read the most respectable journal in the world, I suppose, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and you find leading strategic analysts, John Steinbrunner and Nancy Gallagher, a couple of years ago, warning that the Bush administration’s aggressive militarization is leading to what they call “ultimate doom.” Of course, there is going to be a reaction to it. You threaten people with destruction, they are going to react. These analysts call on peace-loving nations to counter Bush’s aggressive militarism. They hope that China will lead peace-loving nations to counter U.S. aggressiveness. It’s a pretty remarkable comment on the impossibility of achieving democracy in the United States. Again, the logic is pretty elementary. Steinbrunner and Gallagher are assuming that the United States cannot be a democratic society; it’s not one of the options, so therefore we hope that maybe China will do something.

Well, China finally did something. It signaled to the United States that they noticed that we were trying to use space for military purposes, so China shot down one of their satellites. Everyone understands why — the mili- tarization and weaponization of space depends on satellites. While missiles are very difficult or maybe impossible to stop, satellites are very easy to shoot down. You know where they are. So China is saying, “Okay, we understand you are militarizing space. We’re going to counter it not by militarizing space, we can’t compete with you that way, but by shooting down your satellites.” That is what was behind the satellite shooting. Every military analyst certainly understood it and every lay person can understand it. But take a look at the debate. The discussion was about, “Is China trying it conquer the world by shooting down one of its own satellites?”

via We Own the World, by Noam Chomsky.

or

Capturebbc

via BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China confirms satellite downed.

The Daily Servant of Power

Standard

Today’s servant of power is:

The Economist

The Economist

Taking a cue from Time magazine and their annual “Person of the Year” feature, today’s servant of power is not a single person but a group of people · a group of very shady people · who lurk in the shadows and refuse to show their faces and take accountability for their own writing.

I think the internet is a fitting place for anonymity.  There are a lot of truths I still can’t discuss at this point because they would be considered far too radical and unsettling.  I started blogging anonymously and feel justified in doing so because I was worried about financial security as a result of holding certain beliefs that are considered out of the norm.  As I see it, anonymity as a reaction to fear of persecution is a fitting karmic counterweight to the injustice of being forced to work against one’s will.

However, when you are a well-distributed magazine like The Economist, it’s an entirely different scenario.  There is no fear of persecution or fear of losing one’s job by owning up to your own words because that’s what you are getting paid for.  The Economist writers are required to live up to the standards of professional responsibility and accountability in writing as a result.

There is such an extreme level of cowardice to the men and women working for The Economist.  Not only are they not willing to step on any toes in order to maintain their well-funded “professional” aura, they’re not even willing to own up to their middle-of-the-road dribble passed off as advanced insight.

I can’t say I have much respect for a team of writers who want to pass off their words as “high truth” the rest of us are supposed to look upon as professional and mature, but who are too dastardly to step out from behind the shadows long enough for the public to see who is responsible for which piece.  Are you people grown men and women or are you a single amoebic blob who somehow got the idea that your collective omnipotence permits your pedantic didacticism?

A name and a face, please.