"plutocrat"'s perhaps too nice. "plutarch", nearer. [too strong for some] "kleptarch" arguably more fitting yet.
though in the shared interests among them, indeed, "oligarchy", and so prolongued and festering, allowing the worst most ruthless psychopaths rise to the "top", thus "kakistarchy", and for many layers and tendrils, the octopus of global control has settled in, grown malignant... "attercoparchy", of which the "billionaires" (a, frankly, benign[1] glamorising public-relations spin term for them), are but agents, complicit in the great enshitification.
I oft refer to the phenomenon of their "big club" as "big baron". Individual billionaires in the big club, therefor can be called barons.
If it helps, picture the floating fat man from dune.
ps, [1] I dont mind there being billionaires, as much as the impoverishments a
... show more
" billionaires "
"plutocrat"'s perhaps too nice. "plutarch", nearer. [too strong for some] "kleptarch" arguably more fitting yet.
though in the shared interests among them, indeed, "oligarchy", and so prolongued and festering, allowing the worst most ruthless psychopaths rise to the "top", thus "kakistarchy", and for many layers and tendrils, the octopus of global control has settled in, grown malignant... "attercoparchy", of which the "billionaires" (a, frankly, benign[1] glamorising public-relations spin term for them), are but agents, complicit in the great enshitification.
I oft refer to the phenomenon of their "big club" as "big baron". Individual billionaires in the big club, therefor can be called barons.
If it helps, picture the floating fat man from dune.
ps, [1] I dont mind there being billionaires, as much as the impoverishments and perversions. If have safeguards against harms, and structures served safeguards rather than usurped to serve resource hoarding, then such riches more genuinely deserved like they tell themselves the spoils of their rigged game are. If it was fair, fine. It's not though. We're denied so much, given a pittance back, to placate our ignorance-induced minds with the idea we're free and prosperous when we're neither, reduced to mere capita, mere slaves, mere cash cows, mere reductive units of wealth generation for the already exorbitant. When parasites grow dominant; when dominators grow parasitic, doom follows. An example of "separation is the path to destruction". And they know it, at least on some level, otherwise they'd not have the spin of altruism in their fauxlanthropy. ... Just more of, being given a dime back on camera, having already quietly stolen a million. ... a billion. a trillion. and more. We have so much headroom, without the "crooks".
If you haven't done it yet, I trully recommend the reading of the book A Traveller from Altruria to all of you. Name calling will never solve the problem.
i always advice marx -the capital, because it brings knowledge instead of stories, dont confuse capitalists-critique with capitalism-critique, the charactermasks might be assholes, but thats not the point!
Here's another hypothesis: billionaire assholes won't be spending any of their time thinking about this. They'll be thinking about how to amass more money than other billionaire assholes.
Brian Fitzgerald
•Digit
•" billionaires "
"plutocrat"'s perhaps too nice.
"plutarch", nearer. [too strong for some]
"kleptarch" arguably more fitting yet.
though in the shared interests among them, indeed, "oligarchy", and so prolongued and festering, allowing the worst most ruthless psychopaths rise to the "top", thus "kakistarchy", and for many layers and tendrils, the octopus of global control has settled in, grown malignant... "attercoparchy", of which the "billionaires" (a, frankly, benign[1] glamorising public-relations spin term for them), are but agents, complicit in the great enshitification.
I oft refer to the phenomenon of their "big club" as "big baron". Individual billionaires in the big club, therefor can be called barons.
If it helps, picture the floating fat man from dune.
ps, [1] I dont mind there being billionaires, as much as the impoverishments a
... show more" billionaires "
"plutocrat"'s perhaps too nice.
"plutarch", nearer. [too strong for some]
"kleptarch" arguably more fitting yet.
though in the shared interests among them, indeed, "oligarchy", and so prolongued and festering, allowing the worst most ruthless psychopaths rise to the "top", thus "kakistarchy", and for many layers and tendrils, the octopus of global control has settled in, grown malignant... "attercoparchy", of which the "billionaires" (a, frankly, benign[1] glamorising public-relations spin term for them), are but agents, complicit in the great enshitification.
I oft refer to the phenomenon of their "big club" as "big baron". Individual billionaires in the big club, therefor can be called barons.
If it helps, picture the floating fat man from dune.
ps, [1] I dont mind there being billionaires, as much as the impoverishments and perversions. If have safeguards against harms, and structures served safeguards rather than usurped to serve resource hoarding, then such riches more genuinely deserved like they tell themselves the spoils of their rigged game are. If it was fair, fine. It's not though. We're denied so much, given a pittance back, to placate our ignorance-induced minds with the idea we're free and prosperous when we're neither, reduced to mere capita, mere slaves, mere cash cows, mere reductive units of wealth generation for the already exorbitant. When parasites grow dominant; when dominators grow parasitic, doom follows. An example of "separation is the path to destruction". And they know it, at least on some level, otherwise they'd not have the spin of altruism in their fauxlanthropy. ... Just more of, being given a dime back on camera, having already quietly stolen a million. ... a billion. a trillion. and more. We have so much headroom, without the "crooks".
mc
•mrd_ill_be_back
•Jim Bowering
•Starry Gordon
•Jim Bowering
•Starry Gordon
•Jim Bowering
•Starry Gordon
•Jim Bowering
•Digit
•we can still mend this. it's just people.
... until...
skynet.
billionaires already bought one?