...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 <[email protected]> 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?) > > > [email protected] 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.
