CAPITALISTS WITH PUBLIC MONEY, INCLUDING SOROS
...and ELON MUSK BETWEEN ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT RHETORIC AND GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES
Today I am providing my English translation of two articles, originally in Italian.
(All footnotes are provided by me - formatting original).
The first one is an article first published on Comidad.org on 5th September 2024 and then on ComeDonChisciotte.org the day after (6th September 2024):
CAPITALISTS WITH PUBLIC MONEY, INCLUDING SOROS
Much of the public debate is based on suggestions, abstractions and lucubrations, so as to marginalise the few concrete news items; even a conditioning phenomenon can be brought about whereby a section of public opinion becomes impervious to any factual elements. A further example of a smokescreen is the handling of the Bayesian yacht disaster affair [see this Wikipedia article, for instance], where every day a new witness or a new video pops up that seems to open up who knows what prospect of an investigation.
In this way, the only fact established by the “investigators” is lost, namely that all the suspects on the crew have flown the coop, they are in the wind, with the authorisation of the judiciary that allowed them to leave Italy; therefore, if there had been a premeditated crime and possible instigators, all possibility of them being revealed would be lost. In fiction, the policeman tells the suspect to stand by and not to leave town, but here we are in reality and, when the real powerful might be involved, the judiciary does not even pretend to want to investigate; because even mere fiction could be misunderstood and become risky.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, in the Bayesian case the “investigators” did not even hypothesise malicious disaster, despite the possible billionaire motive, because malicious intent and criminal conspiracy are conspiracy concepts from which the criminal code must be purged.
If, however, conspiracy hypotheses are formulated in an evocative and unrealistic manner, with cartoonish characters, then they are all very good, because they are useful to confuse and overshadow the details that matter. In this way, one can, for instance, talk about George Soros using his “philanthropic” foundations to destabilise and conduct his globalist plots; but the essential thing is to believe that he does this with his own money; this is not the case. In response to a question by MEP Jorge Buxadé Villalba, last year the European Commission admitted to funding George Soros' foundations. The Open Society Foundation itself has acknowledged this, as it has “threatened” to withdraw from the European Union if the latter does not release public funds to support Non-Governmental Organisations, which it is then up to Soros's collaborators to manage and funnel, obviously in order to promote “democracy”. Without public money, all of Soros' passion for the “open society” (one of the many “flatus vocis”1 put forth by Karl Popper) suddenly deflates.
The world's largest funder of NGOs is USAID [United States Agency for International Development], the US State Department agency whose purpose is to water the Good [Democracy] plant around the world with money. In 2017, it came to light that among the beneficiaries of USAID funds was Soros; some Republican senators blew the usual pseudo-ideological smoke and, instead of focusing on how and how much had been paid to Soros by the government, asked whether the Obama administration had done so to fund “radical agendas”. Moreover, that Soros is not a “private citizen” is proven by the fact that he has official relations with NATO. In 2000, he was received by NATO official Lord Robertson to discuss the implementation of intervention programmes in Eastern Europe.
These days there has been (very little) talk of yet another failure of the Starliner system, commissioned by NASA from Boeing to break America's dependence on Russian Soyuz spacecraft. In 2003, the Shuttle disaster had deprived NASA of its own system to reach the international space station. Although Boeing was one of the builders of the deadly Shuttle, it was nevertheless commissioned to devise a new transport system between Earth and low orbit, the Starliner.
As insurance against the unreliable Boeing, NASA commissioned Elon Musk's SpaceX with an alternative transport system in case the other failed, as indeed it did. The interesting detail lies in the fact that Boeing and SpaceX received the funding from NASA in advance; and it was not just an advance, but to take on the burden of realising the project starting from research. Initially, Boeing got 4.2 [$] billion, while SpaceX got 2.6 [$] billion. Obviously then the costs rose and got out of control. Be a private capitalist but with public money.
In reality, state and capitalism are only legal abstractions. “Capitalism” simply means the rule whereby in a company (joint-stock or limited liability), whoever holds the majority of the capital is in charge; but this says nothing about how it functions economically. Everything is shrouded in mythology. In turn, the state is a fictitious “person”, while the real subjects are those who make revolving doors between corporate and political-institutional careers. To believe that such a mystified power can have its own intrinsic rationality, even a minimal or unconscious one, is pure nonsense. The military kleptocracy always demands more spending and therefore cannot afford to be efficient.
What is overshadowed by the myth is the dependence of self-styled “capitalism” on public money. Every now and then we learn more about it thanks to the quarrels between the multinationals, when the pot calls the kettle black. In 2011, the European Commission had accused Boeing at the WTO [World Trade Organization] of competing unfairly with the multinational Airbus because it was receiving state aid, both from the federal government and from individual US states. The investigation revealed that both multinationals received state aid, although Boeing actually received much more, so much so that the WTO declared many contracts with NASA illegal; obviously without effect. In a similar dispute with the Canadian multinational Bombardier, it was found that Boeing had received 64 [$] billion in direct subsidies, loans or loan guarantees from the federal government. Over a period of fifteen years, Boeing had also collected 13 billion from the various states of the Union. Such generous welfarism for the rich could arouse the envy even of our own [i.e. Italian] public money vampires, such as the Elkanns and Benettons.
The second article that follows was first published on Comidad.org on 29th August 2024 and then on ComeDonChisciotte.org on 1st September 2024. You will see the realize the connection with the first article already from the title.
ELON MUSK BETWEEN ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT RHETORIC AND GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES
This time “Open”2 could not shift the blame onto Massimo Mazzucco3. NASA, the American space agency that had sent the man to the moon, today fails to bring back to Earth the astronauts it had sent to the international space station. Who could have made the mess? Obviously Boeing, who had fobbed off the American taxpayer with yet another dud, namely the Starliner capsule, which is supposed to be a sort of shuttle between Earth and low orbit but is not even capable of carrying groceries from the supermarket back home. Thank goodness that the “free and wild knight”, the great outsider Elon Musk, the one who arrived in the USA from South Africa via Canada, came to the rescue. NASA has entrusted him and his company SpaceX with the rescue of the two astronauts, whose mission should have lasted eight days, but instead they will be stuck in orbit for another six months, on top of the two months that have already passed; that is, if there are no other hiccups.
In his infinite wisdom, “Open” knows that you always have to let people believe in a billionaire; because salvation can only come to us from a billionaire, not from an ordinary sucker. Once upon a time, the great ideological oppositions were headed by parties and their leaders, whereas today you have to choose a billionaire to root for: Soros or Trump, according to the fictitious diatribe between globalism and sovereignism; so you can consider one the super-hero and the other the “villain”, or vice versa. The “philanthropist” George Soros is an all too decipherable character: a former Nazi collaborator, later enlisted by the CIA and used as an outsider to make money on the stock exchange through insider trading and organise colourful revolutions.
In 2013, Soros was awarded the prize named after Tiziano Terzani4, thus as prestigious as receiving a slap in the face. However, the motivations of the prize jury members are interesting, as they seem to be inspired by a comic narrative and describe Soros as if he was Bruce Wayne/Batman (who, not by chance, is a billionaire-philanthropist, and is in fact the archetype on which the whole epic representation of the “billionaire-omachy” was built).
Donald Trump, on the other hand, is a more imprecise character: a real estate businessman and TV star who has been instrumentally idealised and demonised by the military kleptocracy, precisely because he is fanciful and therefore apt to channel fictitious opposition. What is authentic in the Trump affair is only the fierce hostility of the gangsters of the Clinton clan, who refuse even a temporary removal from power, as it would entail the risk of jail for them. As Trump's inconsistency became apparent, he had to be paired with another billionaire to back him up: Elon Musk; two billionaires for the price of one. Unfortunately, there is a lot of cynicism around.
There are dry individuals according to whom Elon Musk serves the function of a backup myth for the deluded masses, but in reality, in spite of his anti-establishment halo, he too is dependent on the same trough as the other multinationals. For now, in fact, the real news is not that SpaceX will bring astronauts home (wait and hope!), but that Musk's company is also dependent on government contracts that fatten the military kleptocracy.
Perhaps some believed that Musk set up a stall to sell his space balls directly to consumers, instead SpaceX is among the contractors of government defence and “intelligence” agencies. This dependence did not start in the name of emergency and to repair yet another Boeing disaster but has been there all along. Last year, the Pentagon contracted SpaceX for the Starshield system, which will monitor threats from across the planet from America's countless enemies. This is only the latest super-contract; in fact, the Pentagon has been buying other products from Musk's company for years, such as the Falcon 9 rockets, used to put satellites into orbit.
But for Musk, there are not only government contracts, there are also government subsidies, i.e. fresh money that is not used to pay for services, but performs the sacred function of assisting the rich and encouraging them to do better. According to official data reported by the Los Angeles Times, in 2015 Musk's companies had already received almost five billion dollars (to be precise, 4.9 billion) in subsidies from the government. The good thing is that for years Musk himself has been thundering from his platform against the government subsidies collected by his other colleagues, even though they take less substantial subsidies than he does. Evidently Musk wants those subsidies all for himself. After all, this is how the play of self-styled “liberalism” works, so capitalism and the state are just stage names, or one and the same actor doubling as two characters in order to perform the same action, namely privatising public money. Some say that with an allowance of five billion from the government, any bum would be able to do the trick; but they are the usual envious ones.
It seems that nobody can do worse than Boeing these days. Many still think that Boeing's technological jewel, the legendary “Apache” helicopter, is the symbol of American power; yet in recent times, the “Apache” has claimed victims, especially among its own pilots, with an endless series of accidents that has intensified over the past year. Last month, an instructor was killed when an “Apache” crashed. But last March there were already three consecutive accidents involving the same type of helicopter.
SpaceX has, however, made it known that it intends to set itself on the path to undermining Boeing's glory in creating disasters. On 11 July this year, it was a Falcon 9 rocket that failed to launch satellites, putting NASA in a difficult position, which, like any voter, at this point between Boeing and SpaceX is forced to choose the “lesser evil”; as if one could really know in advance.
Medieval Latin expression, literally meaning “breath of the voice”, that is a mere name, word, or sound without a corresponding objective reality.
An Italian investigative journalist and film director - see his blog here: LuogoComune
it's called ''corporate welfare''.... both articles are really all about corporate welfare, a topic that gets a lot less coverage in the media, because the media is another corporation, lol... one can't expect the media to go into any kind of detail over something that addresses it's own character! and thus corporations mostly slip under the radar of detection... now, if you had a lot of money you could shape the narratives accordingly, buy ads in the media and even consider running for the president of the usa, but you'd have to do it with support from the same corporations who rely on sucking off the public teat.... that is corporate welfare, but it is never on display in the public as people would lose faith in the system..
speaking of which - the cult of personality is one of the main byproducts of hollywood... usually it is movie stars, but hollywood ( aka madison ave and the marketing genius's in the usa) do the same with politicians - reagan being a good example - movie star turned usa president.... this trend has continued for the past 40 years... it is no surprise that people mistakenly believe because someone has a lot of money, he has a lot of brains, but that is not in fact true... aside from the corporate welfare, there is a lot of manipulation and hanky panky going on with all these people - musk, gates, soros and etc. etc.. but like the wizard of oz, you aren't supposed to look behind the screen!!