Business must emphasize profit not politics
If we are ever going to get anywhere in this world, we have to work for profit not politics. Although the lay person might be under the impression that politicians work for a political objective, they are really only using the politics to assure their own paychecks. And it’s more than the check that is issued by the government office, or any of the free dinners and write offs; it is often more insidious, the stuff that we call dirty politics and corruption, the deals and investments which have made our political leaders and the mainstream newscasters who support them, members of the millionaires club.
Of course not every politician has reached this level, and not everyone is corrupt (we hope) but power is consolidated into the hands of so few, and manipulated so easily by the legacy media and social media, that anyone standing against them will feel not like David facing down Goliath, but rather a group of Godzillas. He just can’t do it alone. The multifaceted nature of the establishment is not easily understood. But if we can follow the money, the political movers playing for profit and not politics should reveal themselves. It appears presently that the pharmaceutical giants, Bill Gates and his multi-level contributions to (read influence over) the WHO are at the top of the pyramid.
Politics can destroy everything it touches
The recent bid by Elon Musk to buy Twitter has brought to light the pathetic reality that this 15 year old company remains unprofitable. Clearly Elon’s designs on privatizing the company are for profit not politics, even if his proclaimed desire to reestablish free speech has been vilified as a right wing agenda. To that effect, the leftist control of the social media giant is plainly evident, even without subsequent revelations of proof by an executive. The backlash to Twitter’s acquisition has been so strong, that some have followed the money behind it, finding once again Bill Gates. So the question remains, what is the motivation to keeping Elon Musk from taking over at Twitter? Is it a personal vendetta, a battle of the billionaires, played out with social media dependent users as pawns? Or does the direction of such a socially influential platform threaten Billy boy’s ability to profit elsewhere, what secrets have been kept hidden by the muzzling of misaligned users up until now?
Getting to the Billionaires club, means playing for profit, not politics. But having reached this financial pinnacle does not preclude it’s members from having political influence. Actually, it most assuredly provides them with the means to directly manipulate society, especially with our dependence on social media to communicate. The free open market has done more for humanity than any other human construct. We’ve gone from a medieval feudal system that divided society into nobles and peasant servants to having almost everyone, including the poor, able to own a flat screen TV. It was only 1970, when many American households were complaining about the cost to buy a color television set. Today’s household, in contrast often has multiple TVs and computers. In fact, because of the smart phone, many people surf the Internet and watch Netflix while sitting on their toilets. . But there is more to freedom than the ability to play video games and watch tube sites, and eventually the endorphin rush from the latest “feel-good” marketing will be unable to compete with the real hunger that continued inflation is creating.
It can be difficult to like Elon Musk
Elon Musk is a member of the “elite” and probably we should be wary of his Twitter takeover. But definitely no more than we should be worried about the influence all social media has on us today. There isn’t a popular platform that hasn’t got a multimillionaire behind it. So the propensity of these platforms to remain unprofitable, seems well, inconceivable. But Twitter is more concerned with being a leader in diversity and inclusion hiring practices than a lean and mean business that operates for profit not politics. Wanting to tap into global markets, some diversity makes sense, but how many times do you need to sub-divide into special interest representatives before the bloat of employees becomes redundant? Does Twitter have a grasp on the relative productivity of it’s salaried hires, everyone says how great they are to work for, but how much work at actually improving the value of Twitter’s service is actually getting done? When you consider that a large section of the general population (of the US) feels alienated by Twitter’s leftist ideologies, isn’t the promise by Elon Musk to fix this actually less exclusionary? Or do the traditional masses not count if they are outnumbered by the sum of special interest groups?
It remains to be seen in which direction Elon Musk will captain Twitter. Freedom of speech is without a doubt vital to the health of a free and open democratic nation. Equally important to a nation is its citizenry’s ability to enjoy a high quality of life and therefore all commercial pursuits need to be able to make a buck. What’s most exciting about Musk’s purchase is not his comments about protecting free speech, but the promise that he’s going to bring back centuries old Adam Smith wisdom. Ultimately true freedom can only be obtained in one of two ways…. At the end of a gun or by the amount of money in your wallet. Rest assured that we’ll all be more free if Elon Musk can make Twitter function for profit, not politics.
by 
