Governments Covertly Fund Internet Freedom Activists

[brian carroll]

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.