Earlier this week, Elon Musk became Twitter’s largest shareholder after several weeks of roistering on about its obvious lack of free speech and highlighting the general propensity among the information illuminati to label anything antithetical to the state-sponsored narrative as a right-wing nazi conspiracy theory. It’s compelling when a member of the “elite” has not only the capability but also the balls to see a problem and take immediate action to fix it. The question is, will he?
Twitter’s era of censorship began when Jack was still CEO. Now we’re supposed to believe his excitement as Elon comes on board with plans to remediate censorship? Perhaps this savior maneuver is part of a costly-but-worth-it PR campaign to distract from Musk’s real agenda, which consists of experimentation with neural implants, the Starlink 5G-radiation surveillance satellite grid, and moving billions of dollars through SpaceX under the guise of attempting to populate Mars by means of — *checks notes* — rocketry and a totally unsustainable supply chain. What an absolute crime it would be to pay $2.64 billion for a seat on the board at Twitter only to take half-measures resulting in moderate restitution of some free speech and the implementation of an edit button.
Only time will tell what Musk’s influence ultimately will be, and while we may collectively cheer a man of vision and tip our caps to Elon’s realm of possibilities, it must not be without a keen eye set upon his realities.
It’s interesting to note that, with the rare exception, the world’s ultra wealthy are not interested in using their resources to stir the pot and greenhorn the rebellion. Quite to the contrary, the propensity is to maneuver in line with the establishment, no matter how iniquitous. There is hardly anything more quotidian in the world than a billionaire who tows the line for “the regime”.
To reach the echelon of the global elite, one must become adept at playing the capitalist game at the highest levels. Once inside the structure of that game, there is no incentive (beyond ones’ conscience) to become a dissident. The implications on a financial level would be as massive as the inevitable social and personal ostracism. Even still, it has always struck me as odd that even ego has not yet been enough to compel at least a few outsiders to radicalize their legacy toward chaotic good. I don’t mean foundations and philanthropy. I mean hostile takeovers with a plan: infiltrate, weed out the rot, rewrite the agenda, and get on with it.
Granted, a single billionaire can’t be expected to compete with the purchasing power of a Blackrock or Vanguard in terms of moving money through a corporation with the intent of changing its policies and practices, but where are the conglomerates and funds of pioneering visionaries who desire to use their collective wealth to instigate real change in the world?
Quite obviously there is a system in place with a general ideological viewpoint and the system reinforces that viewpoint through international finance and banking as well as governments and their subsidiary branches, media and education.1 All points converge at the crossroads of incentives and interests, and precipitate the agenda playing out before our eyes. Profitable corporations strive to diversify their consumer base while specializing the product line. All of us, the global we, are collectively being sold one thing. It comes in various packages, has a variety of utility, takes on many appearances, but the fundamental end is the same. In the words of George Carlin, you don’t need a formal conspiracy where interests converge.
Pharmaceutical companies sponsor the news. Eugenists own the farm land. Thieves control the money supply. Corporations pillage the earth without reprisal. Regurgitative content poses as entertainment. And the succubus of cultural marketing exists to keep us ensnared to the narratives set forth by a swirling vortex of parasites. Culture in its truest form has become an omnipresent marketing campaign peddling serf privileges as freedom. The dumbing down of our culture over the last hundred years seems hardly accidental now, as a skin-deep understanding of existence is required for the conformation to an assigned narrative to be successfully rebranded as radical — as an opinion you chose in order to take a stand.
These are the dying days of a culture. Every aspect of modern existence is screaming for radical reformation toward a return to the natural order and yet our institutions remain antiquated behemoths efficient only insofar as their ability to milk the infected teet of the status quo, and the billionaires seem content to cow tow to that agenda.
When an entire subsection of humanity is ostracized and radicalized by the deleterious pilfering of their human rights, the next step for them is to colonize, organize into an army, and fight a war they did not start but will decisively end, and although the billionaires of the world may exist in circles of influence above the proletariat, unless they are at the very highest echelon of power and control, they too have to choke down the same pink slime as the rest of us. Does a crystal goblet really make the experience of swallowing bullshit any better?
Perhaps it is naive of me to question why the world is the way it is. Perhaps my idealism is showing. But if one man can bring about a (possible) watershed moment in the fight for freedom of speech, why the hell didn’t he do it sooner? Why didn’t anyone do it sooner? If it’s that easy, why hasn’t anyone initiated hostile takeovers at YouTube? Facebook? Instagram? Google? Duck Duck Go? Why isn’t there a fund of mega-billionaires conspiring to overthrow the insidious cancer that is the American Medical Association which has, since its inception, made illegal a host of proven cancer treatments like Gerson Therapy and Rick Simpson oil, etc. and which continues to assert that thousands of treatable conditions are incurable? What in the bloody hell are they waiting for?
Money doesn’t immunize against utility when it comes time to feed the Idol. Multimillionaire/billionaire status can’t spare the influential from the fate of cultural sacrifice. You must know that it’s advantageous to the globofomo marketing campaign when one of the world’s most beautiful and notorious women cuts off her breasts to avoid the fate of her mother, and so it becomes sensationalized. Our value within the establishment is purely dependent upon our usefulness to its end. Do the elite acknowledge this at all? Do the personal brand titans openly discuss what happens when they are worth more dead than they are alive? In private meditations on legacy and consequence, do the tow-the-liner’s harbor any trepidation about the ultimate societal cost of things like cross linking Roundup with the seed, releasing GMO mosquitos into the wild, bypassing consent with airborne vaccines, normalizing maggot consumption, and relegating the humanity of the individual to the dimensionality of a QR code? Or is it all just performative woke pandering, ESG scores, and a spiral-eyed cynosure toward the bottom-line?
I know too much about the human condition to ignore that perhaps, when it is all said and done, every truth left unspoken and every action not taken is only done so out of fear. And despite my grand ideas and ideals of how things should be and who should be, perhaps from the safety of my reality I get the luxury of noticing that, by and large, the elite are too afraid of losing to ever really win.
The question is, will I?
All content at The Counterculturist is free and it is our aim to remain without a paywall. If you enjoy this blog and would like to support our endeavors, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Thank you to my friend Chris Fleming for this contribution.
It's all about what's "advantageous to the Globofomo marketing campaign" LOL Great read.