Lady
Lynn Forester de Rothschild,
founder and managing partner, Inclusive Capital Partners
Mark
Carney,
COP26 financial advisor to the Prime Minister, and United Nations
special envoy for Climate Action and Finance;
Brian
Moynihan,
chairman of the board and chief executive officer, Bank of America;
Ronald
P. O’Hanley,
president and chief executive officer, State Street Corporation;
Rajiv
Shah,
president, The Rockefeller Foundation;
Ajay
Banga,
president and chief executive officer, Mastercard;
Oliver
Bรคte,
chairman of the board of management, Allianz SE;
Edward
Breen,
executive chairman, Dupont;
Alex
Gorsky,
chairman of the board and chief executive officer, Johnson &
Johnson;
Bernard
Looney,
chief executive officer, BP;
Angel
Gurria,
secretary general, Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD);
Marc
Benioff,
chair, chief executive officer, and founder, Salesforce;
Sharan
Burrow,
general secretary, International Trade Union Confederation;
Alfred
Kelly,
chairman and chief executive officer, Visa Inc.
Fiona
Ma,
treasurer, State of California;
Hiro
Mizuno,
board member, Principles for Responsible Investment;
Deanna
Mulligan,
president and chief executive officer, Guardian Life Insurance
Company of America;
Tidjane
Thiam,
board member, Kering Group;
Kenneth
Frazier,
chairman of the board and chief executive officer, Merck & Co.,
Inc.;
Mark
Weinberger,
former chair and chief executive officer of EY, and board member of
J&J, MetLife and Saudi Aramco
Darren
Walker,
president, Ford Foundation;
Brunello
Cucinelli,
executive chairman and creative director, Brunello Cucinelli S.p.A.
and
other members of the Council
for Inclusive Capitalism
with
the Vatican.
The
first question is how Brunello
Cucinelli,
the
king of Italian cashmere, appeared in this company?
Brunello
Cucinelli,
representative of real production (unlike most elites who makes
"money on money" in the highly speculative financial
sector):
"Founded
in 1979 with a specialty for cashmere garments for women, Brunello
Cucinelli now sells all hand-made menswear, women's wear, and
accessories in 130 boutiques globally, including 21 in the U.S.. It’s
committed to being a “humanistic
enterprise", with 20% of its profits going to the family’s
charitable foundation". That
is, his company gives about 20% of the profits to charity!
What
is more, in 2018 Cucinelli decided to sell 6% of his shares to donate
100 million to charity.
And
most recently,
"Brunello Cucinelli Will Donate All Surplus Clothing in His
Stores. The Italian designer's "Project in Support of Mankind"
will gift all the clothing still in stores due to the pandemic,
amounting to 30 Million Euros.
And
that give-way action is more than just generous gesture:
"Besides
making beautiful clothes, Cucinelli’s mission in life has been to
build a company with socially conscious values, where factory workers
are treated as the equals of executives. He subscribes to a concept
known as “Humanistic
Capitalism,”
in which a large portion of the company’s profits is returned to
the community".
So,
the first question should be how Brunello's humanistic concepts
differ from the Rothschilds/Schwab's "Inclusive
Capitalism" that boasts with evidently socialistic/communistic
features, -- as well as from my own "Global Anti-Theft"
(read Anti-Crisis and Anti-Death) initiative?
The
short answer is, it does not!
The
problem is, in the current age of lie and misinformation, verbal
shells are torn off from its underlying meaning, and are used
independently of it. Different words used for representation of
various concepts often describe essentially the same thing behind it.
And actually hide the same thing.
I
like "Inclusive Capitalism" in the terms described at its
main website:
It
promises "Dignity & Equality", good health and
well-being, as well as "NO
POVERTY".
Isn't it wonderful?
The
only problem is, - it's not a full definition of the Inclusive
Capitalism! One
can suspect significant parts of it are hidden, as its main aims are
simply unachievable
without
them. Thus
I have serious doubts about sincerity of the people behind it.
"Historically,
all empires were initially built on the backs of slavery.
... Any future empire,
however, will have to utilise a different form of slavery to gain
power. The contemporary modern enslavers are usingDECEPTIONto
enslave the masses" (Source)
There
are some hidden disadvantages that outweigh its advantages. The
former are not easy to distinguish because of complexity of the main
definitions:
I
have a much simpler definition:
Inclusive
Capitalism donates profit of businesses to EVERYBODY,
where
its "Fairness
across generations"
means a need for such "businesses" to accept almost ZERO
profit
tomorrow, starting from today. The absence of the profit will
eventually destroy small and middle businesses. Only big corporations
will be able to survive, leaving alive very small part of population:
But more important is what the top elites actually DO, rather than what they SPEAK!
The
fact is that since my apartment disappeared (due to the first in my
life financial debt created exclusively by Barclays bank), it appeared I
have no opportunity for obtaining any decent job, both in my own
country and anywhere in the world (the latter option is forbidden for
most people of my country by definition).
The work of any Capitalism replicates the game of Musical Chairs:
The despair of
realizing that your chair (the space for your life) can disappear (be STOLEN) at
any moment, - no matter how hard you resist, - forcing you to
end the game (DIE)!
One cannot realize the feeling until
Capitalism always has less amount of available "chairs" than the amount of people. Otherwise it will simply not work! Somebody has to pay off the resulting debt disbalance with either his work or LIFE!!! Why? And that should be the main question of the players in real life, where total absence of money means DEATH of hunger:
Why are the chairs removed?
And WHO removes them?
The first question is easy to answer:
In the ZERO-SUM system, the only way
for having wealth at the top is through
taking it away, - STEALING!,-
from the bottom
(where it is actually produced).
At the time of crises, however,
most job opportunities disappear.
The more chairs (public wealth) is
STOLEN (moved to the top)
the more people at the bottom
are proposed to pay off the
resulting DEBT, OR ...
simply quit the game
(DIE)
!
The
Barclays bank took away my "chair" (money) at the time I needed it
most. And its CEOs were fully aware that the longer the chain of
related (derivative) problems that are impossible for me to resolve on
my own,
the sooner I can DIE
paying their debts
with my LIFE!
Is it "the kind of capitalism Brunello Cucinelli tend to favour, whereby the
But it seems we have somewhat different notions about Dignity:
For
Barclays bank and most owners of businesses, the dignity means my
consent to pay their debts quitely, without resisting. "Deal with your robbery/crisis/killing decently,
on your own!", numerous textbooks suggest. And ultimately that becomes the prevailing way of thinking: Just forget about your money and start everything
anew (if you can,- orDIE DECENTLY if that's impossible). All financial crises end this way.
For
me, however, the dignity means just the opposite, - demanding the Barclays bank to pay its debt! And
the longer related CEOs refuse to do that, the longer list of their
derivative debts to me will be. Because it was impossible for me not to
create those debts. And because the level of debt the Barclays bank
created for me has crossed the "red line" of survival between LIFE and
DEATH!
To pay Barclays' debts, I was "invited" to DIE, - physically!, - of hunger and cold at the street!
Today I have
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
No property, permanent place of living, job opportunity,
actual action from the Barclays side is delayed for years).
Tha't what I was saying all my life!
So what?
Now I don't have family.
Because I simply cannot afford it!
"It is the value of family itself, defending its members from
the worst poverty known to man: LONELINESS!"
Last FOUR YEARS I WAS
ABSOLUTELY ALONE!
Because I hardly could support even myself,
let alone the ones I love ...
.
***
Now in my 56+ I have to start everything anew
FROM ZERO GROUND!
That's OK for the Barclays CEOs, who received $MILLIONS for the same period, supporting their children very well. The only thing they seems are puzzled about is the question on why I haven't died of hunger yet?
To what extent one needs to
DISRESPECT oneself
for not demanding debts?!!
“IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS [Cucinelly's] PROJECT IN SOME WAY
How it's possible to be decent, without any income
for food and shelter, and without begging on the streets
OR ... without KILLING the Future of the top elites,
- including YOURS!,
- as a payment instead of their non-payment?!!
Mr Cucinelli, it's weird for me to read such your statements as "If you earn $1,200 a month, you are sort of ashamed to say that that’s your trade",
- absolutely fantastic sum in my situation, which can only be compared
to even more fantastic chance to obtain a $5,000 worth sweater or any
other garment garment from your last year collection, as a part of your
30 million donation to those who earns embarrassingly less then the
$1,200 you mentioned (zero in my case), unsold to people who earns
significantly more than that!
Anyway, that is roughly the minimal sum of
my fee to the Mini-Storehouse (where remains of my dressing are
located) just to unlock my access to it. Although I decently have a lot
of my own dressing, for last years it's not allowed to access it, - if it
still exists at all!, - till I decently pay the debts created by Barclays bank
for me.
And although the cost of all my wardrobe can appear lower than the price of just one Brunello Cucinelli cashmere sweater, all my things were bought as new in the brand stores, not in the second-hand ones.
This is the photo I did specially for this post:
I
wanted to be VISUALLY good there, no matter what kind of problems
Barclays bank forces me to go through. Nobody should know how difficult
it's for me to create such visually good pictures of myself having no
money, property, and chances so far to earn enough through some decent
job (with a highly "disproportionate exchange" of efforts to money all
elites enjoy for granted) for escaping this fatal circle.
My
observation is the meaning of the job itself differs considerably for
different classes of people. Now I start understanding the ancient
Jewish prohibition for certain types of obviously hard
physical work. :-)
I can confess that for me personally, a qualified specialist for Information Management, it's embarrassingly difficult at the end of the day to leave my HARD PHYSICAL job
, if any, in dirty clothing (there is no shower for this kind of
job). Every day I wash my clothes by hand (one dollar for laundry
services is a luxury for me).
Dear Brunello Cucinelli,
the key difference between our concepts is:
Your
donations are designed for helping those people who already appeared
"without chairs" (money, house, property). In contrast, my GAT initiative PREVENTS disappearance
of chairs caused by the coming financial crisis! Because the only way
of resolving the related crisis will be through paying
debts by top elites,
- including YOU!
Just think about it!
By
joining my "Council of GAT" (instead of your charitable Council), you
will be able to save lives of MILLIONS/BILLIONS people! And your current
20% charity activity is able to approach Infinity, - and in any
currency at today's(!) rate:
No comments:
Post a Comment