So, the Koch brothers fund various people because as rich men they spend their money trying to make the world a better place as they see it.
It might not be a better world as you see it, that\’s for sure, but they are spending their money as they think it will. The money comes from various foundations they have set up.
These people want to destroy democratic politics as we know it……..They deny our right to think for ourselves……..They want to destroy our rights to choose……But they pave the way for much worse. And big money funds this. Daily. And I am sure it funds those who promote this vicious creed. And that’s what we have to oppose. Because such groups set out to destroy all we value. They do so with a low profile. From tax havens. Behind fronts. And they do so with a mixture of respectable activity. But the aim is to destroy our democracies none the less. This is the challenge we face. Wake up and smell the coffee. This is what’s out there. And it’s spreading, like a cancer.
Amazingly, absolutely none of this applies to Richard, the Tax Justice Network or any other of his friends and front organisations who are funded by the Ford Foundation, the Joseph Rowntree Trust, the TUC, PCS……
No doubt it\’s because their hearts are pure that living off rich men\’s grants does not, in any way, affect their published musings.
That, for example, a report funded by PCS, the union representing most tax officers, recommends that the government stop firing tax officers. No, no, how could you think that there might be a link?
One could argue that some of these points in your blog could be said to have merit, depending on your point of view. (“They deny our right to think for ourselves” – OK, one could debate that.) But a lot of what he says absolutely and plainly does not apply to Murphy. Such as:
“They do so with a low profile (No – and you have certainly done your bit here in promoting his profile.) From tax havens. (No.) Behind fronts. (No.) The aim is to destroy our democracies (No.) big money funds this. (No. Read the New Yorker article on the Koch brothers. $100m? Get real.)
Still, it’s much easier just to collect up a rag-bag of ideas and fling them out there, and hope that some of the shit sticks, eh?
He’s flipped.
The men in white coats can’t be far away now. The case for him to be sectioned is quite clear.
“These people want to destroy democratic politics as we know it…….
”
A man who does not allow certain views to comment on his blog is not an expert on democratic politics or our right to think for ourselves.
PS
“They want to destroy our rights to choose…”
Really? Like my right to choose how the government spends my money educating my children?
They deny our right to think for ourselves.
Well, assuming they could do this and are actually at it, then they’re not very efficient at it. In as much as it requires thought rather than bile, Ritchie’s blog is still being updated.
Quite. As Ritchie demonstrates, it is morally inferior to promulgate your political views with your own money, rather than to do it with the money of other people extorted at gunpoint.
I just started reading a New Yorker article on them last night (maybe the article that started it all?). Anti-Koch brothers, of course. Apparently the substance of their complaint was the Koch’s are a little secretive about their donations. A number of snide insinuations made against groups like the Cato Institute which get funding from the Koch’s… but they never actually bothered actually arguing with anything the Cato Institute actually said.
Very boring piece of hackwork basically. I gave up halfway through.
It’s true that the wackier american anarchist-libertarians can be scary, not least because some of them are so rich, but it’s a long-standing part of american life, back to the John Birch Society and before. The Scaifes were vicious opponents of Clinton.
(Forget the New Yorker – read Len Deighton’s Billion Dollar Brain instead, or even watch the very silly Ken Russell movie of it, Harry Palmer’s last outing.)
it’s also true that American politics are getting more poisonous by the month.
But the answer is not to “kill” anything (such typical Ritchie hysteria), just keep shining a light on it, and on the people who get their funding from these guys. So a good job at the New Yorker. Same answer as for the unions and lefties – expose the funding, expose the conflicts of interest and the hypocrisy – though I do agree that one by one, the threat posed by the anarchist-autarchist-libertarian-authoritarians (didn’t say it made sense) is much greater, because they’re much richer.
No individuals are richer than the scum of the state.Who is the danger–people trying to get their views out or vermin with vast armies of thugs with guns and God knows what else. The state (not our own ,agreed..) has a proven track record of mass murder and general wickedness that would probably put alien invaders to shame.
“The Scaifes were vicious opponents of Clinton.”
Good guys then.
Well Ritchie must believe that money spent on producing reports, research etc can destroy democracy, otherwise he wouldn’t be part of the effort to do so. So for his part, his hysteria is well-founded (it’s just the wrong set of people doing it).