Another problem is that the liberal media also chooses who the conservatives are and what is considered conservative, in my opinion.
Today’s servant of power is:
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?