overly dramatic sub heading required

Saturday, August 2, 2008

Without Hate, there is Trust

First I read this: Social Welfare Is A Red Herring: The Return Of Feudalism

The rich aren't always evil, though I would naturally suspect, if they manage to make that much money, chances are they are performing some evil. Tricking people to buy products they don't need, to get rich, is effectively evil, and the companies at fault owe the public for damages.

The issue being, our lifetimes aren't necessarily long enough to assess the exact source of the damages, with so many sources out there getting rich by killing us (via any undiscovered cancerous preservative agent, FDA approved after ~10 years hormonal treatment, or addictive dependency creating product (even taurine)). They are successful because they can always blame something else. The "you can't prove it was us alone" factor doesn't prove innocence yet its accepted as such... and so they all get away with it.

There is no rich entity worth trusting in the world (generally). There should be active forces that dismantle and destroy big powerful unstoppable companies, and they don't really exist. There is probably more money destroying them, but chances are, anyone influenced by money, will do the wrong thing, and get bought out.

Powerful companies can buy out the best of the poor's intentions, and not even feel it in their pockets. The big companies can always crush the little guy, when yearly income is upwards of 100x larger. There is no active cooperation, agreement on who has to go or what is worth saving, and big corporations thrive on public confusion, disharmony, disorganization.

Saying everything big has to go is crazy (they would say), but pretty much anything big that isn't digital can't be trusted, and even digital companies will sell you nothing for something.

The advertising alone is sickening, how stupid they must think we are to fall for this nonsense, yet we may find ourselves buying it anyway. Getting a good deal doesn't mean you have to say good things about it, unless the company is worth saving, yet casually we slip, mention a name, and the branding ensues.

They aren't paying you to advertise, and you say the name, or so much as think it, you are working for them. Is there anyone who isn't owned? To say this country operates in a state of psychological stability is an understatement. We are in a state of psychological manipulation and control. To watch commercials, is equivalent with being attacked, invaded, marginalized, and packaged with a product, of dubious value.

The rich are simply too good at it, and it's Convenience alone, (psychological or physical, whether healthy or not), that serves as the Achilles heel of the poor who are working all the time (and consequently, may not have time left to think for themselves). I don't think its unjustifiable to hate the excessively huge that lack social consciousnesses of their own, or regard for who they hurt, if all it takes a is another buck to get past their concern.

Whether its healthy to Hate or not, is questionable, but i don't think its healthy to love the ones that are out to get you, and if you can't love them, and you can't ignore them (because they will get you), then hate is all that's left. There is no peace until they are gone, but then only to get replaced by someone else, and so the cycle of corporate destruction must continue. If you think about it hard enough, the differences between a big company and a government are relatively non substantial. Are not all companies subsidiaries of the govt?

No comments: