'they' (political monoculture) threaten this dissolving of support against the peasants and poor all the time, (limiting and removing health services, social security) wait until those 'virtually wealthy' ---reliant on things never changing, ungrounded in their beliefs--- lose the support to maintain their existence and yet have many bills to pay... it gets nasty real quick when bureaucracy is against you. losing support of that same bureaucracy just gotta hurt, especially under crazed monocle of global security state (don't worry, winks the mass media newscaster, you will be protected, you're one of us...) On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 12:02 PM, brian carroll <electromagnetize@gmail.com> wrote:
...whereas actual political change in an institutional context (ngos, nonprofits, national orgs, etc) could dismantle/destroy these royal lifestyles via rapid loss of non-recoverable government funds/ideological subsidy
(emptied wine cellars, filtered water basis for everyday luxury)
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 11:58 AM, brian carroll <electromagnetize@gmail.com> wrote:
perhaps the institutionalization of 'royal perks' explains in part the necessity of a one-party governing system, where any actual opposition (politics) are then managed and absorbed into this model, to protect/secure/maintain aristocratic lifestyles otherwise threatened by actual change, where the focus of issues of subsidy then becomes the poor:
"hark! peasants are drinking wine, wine!! with Our Money!"
(in a top-down surveillance context, who benefits/profits most?)
jya@pipeline.com wrote:
This is what governments and NGOs were invented for and remain the premier source of livelihood one way or the other, especially for those who pretend opposition while royally partying with opponents. Royally, not peasantly.