Governments Covertly Fund Internet Freedom Activists

[brian carroll]

...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 at 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 at 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.