Green Revolution? Not with the Rockefellers involved it won't be.
It's the day after the climate march and my news feed tells me ..
Oh, sure, that's great right! I mean, these are the guys have been responsible for suppressing the technology to get our collective necks out of of the climate change noose for decades, so on the one hand fuck them but on the other who cares if it gets the job done right!?
Well, think again.
Let's put aside the fact, for one moment, that we are in this predicament because they have suppressed the alternatives to maximize their bottom line, and now they're going to sell us the solution to the problem they created at an inflated rate. It's like selling you cancer and then selling you the cure ... oh wait, they do that too!
How about a mining company who sullies the local drinking water and then steps in to sell water purification systems to the thirsty.
Think about it! David Rockefeller is the antonym of "philanthropist".
He is literally the caricature of greedy corporate scumbag criminal. He created the guidelines for it! Monte Burns was modeled (in part) after the Rockefellers.
This is not a man who "seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes." This is a man who has managed to dominate the world's economy (and profit obscenely from the "economic crises") to his own benefit. This is a man who has made his family unimaginably rich off the backs of workers and through continued human misery. To have him aligned with a word like "philanthropist" is despicable.
One thing is for certain then: if the Rockefellers are involved, it's not to "save the world."
So, having this particular group of sons-of-bitches involved in the racket will mean that the solution isn't the end game, maximized profits is, which means that reckless profiteering will be the order of the day for a long time to come.
And why now? Did he see "the people" asking for it and thought "yes, now is the time for change!" Not likely. From a business perspective, he's done a brilliant job in making the current model so outrageously expensive that now they can offer "alternatives" at a rate correlating with how inflated the status-quo is.
An analogy: if a product costs you $2 to make and you plan to sell it for $5 but you already have a product that only costs you $1 to make and have been raising the prices to the point that it's at $25, when the profits begin to decline because people are simply consuming LESS, THAT is when you shift to the other product and sell it for "only" $20. In this way they've sufficiently milked the sacred cow and have managed to raise the profits of the "alternative" by many factors. It's straight business, and the icing on the cake is that we get to use buzz words like "philanthropist" and "green technology" in reference to douche-canoes like The Rockefellers.
Mark my words: no TRULY REVOLUTIONARY technologies that would decentralize the power center will come about, but merely a shift from one consumable to another.
For example, instead of zero-point technology, it will be solar panels. And instead of those solar panels being high-efficiency and long-lasting, they will start by introducing them in waves (much the way they did with computer processors - the Pentium 4 was invented by the time Pentium 1 was introduced), to make people buy and then re-buy or pay for upgrades, again to maximize profits.
The model is called "planned obsolescence" and it means they literally have something better but they're selling you shit to begin with so you will buy slightly better shit as they go along. They will have a life expectancy of 10 years but the packaging they are shipped in and disposed of will last 10,000.
It breaks my heart because this is NOT a paradigm shift at all, it's just a sign of another 30-50 years of rampant consumerism and reckless profiteering, further enslaving human beings to their corporate masters and ensuring all the economic tools of war will remain at their disposal for generations ... er, PRODUCT CYCLES to come.
Oh, sure, that's great right! I mean, these are the guys have been responsible for suppressing the technology to get our collective necks out of of the climate change noose for decades, so on the one hand fuck them but on the other who cares if it gets the job done right!?
Well, think again.
Let's put aside the fact, for one moment, that we are in this predicament because they have suppressed the alternatives to maximize their bottom line, and now they're going to sell us the solution to the problem they created at an inflated rate. It's like selling you cancer and then selling you the cure ... oh wait, they do that too!
How about a mining company who sullies the local drinking water and then steps in to sell water purification systems to the thirsty.
Think about it! David Rockefeller is the antonym of "philanthropist".
phi·lan·thro·pist
fəˈlanTHrəpist/
noun: philanthropist; plural noun: philanthropists
a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes.
This is not a man who "seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes." This is a man who has managed to dominate the world's economy (and profit obscenely from the "economic crises") to his own benefit. This is a man who has made his family unimaginably rich off the backs of workers and through continued human misery. To have him aligned with a word like "philanthropist" is despicable.
One thing is for certain then: if the Rockefellers are involved, it's not to "save the world."
So, having this particular group of sons-of-bitches involved in the racket will mean that the solution isn't the end game, maximized profits is, which means that reckless profiteering will be the order of the day for a long time to come.
And why now? Did he see "the people" asking for it and thought "yes, now is the time for change!" Not likely. From a business perspective, he's done a brilliant job in making the current model so outrageously expensive that now they can offer "alternatives" at a rate correlating with how inflated the status-quo is.
An analogy: if a product costs you $2 to make and you plan to sell it for $5 but you already have a product that only costs you $1 to make and have been raising the prices to the point that it's at $25, when the profits begin to decline because people are simply consuming LESS, THAT is when you shift to the other product and sell it for "only" $20. In this way they've sufficiently milked the sacred cow and have managed to raise the profits of the "alternative" by many factors. It's straight business, and the icing on the cake is that we get to use buzz words like "philanthropist" and "green technology" in reference to douche-canoes like The Rockefellers.
Mark my words: no TRULY REVOLUTIONARY technologies that would decentralize the power center will come about, but merely a shift from one consumable to another.
For example, instead of zero-point technology, it will be solar panels. And instead of those solar panels being high-efficiency and long-lasting, they will start by introducing them in waves (much the way they did with computer processors - the Pentium 4 was invented by the time Pentium 1 was introduced), to make people buy and then re-buy or pay for upgrades, again to maximize profits.
The model is called "planned obsolescence" and it means they literally have something better but they're selling you shit to begin with so you will buy slightly better shit as they go along. They will have a life expectancy of 10 years but the packaging they are shipped in and disposed of will last 10,000.
It breaks my heart because this is NOT a paradigm shift at all, it's just a sign of another 30-50 years of rampant consumerism and reckless profiteering, further enslaving human beings to their corporate masters and ensuring all the economic tools of war will remain at their disposal for generations ... er, PRODUCT CYCLES to come.
Comments
Post a Comment