ALSO i have never bought the story of JK Rowling being an out of luck woman who was abandoned by her husband and had to raise their kid(s) alone, while on welfare and writing the novel.
UK's dole was absolutely the opposite of USA's intentionally dysfunctional system. everybody in the UK has been on the dole at one point or another because that's your right. it's not the exploitative & humiliating experience Reagan & Clinton made it to be.
i remember when Stephen Moyer from True Blood talked about going to the unemployment office in the UK because that's what you do in between jobs and Americans lost their minds. that's what we used to do before Clinton expedited the cannibalization of unemployment benefits in this country.
so it's interesting to me that this was a selling point in the US. that Simon & Schuster felt they had to sell JK Rowling as this helpless nobody of a single mom who had to write this novel to make ends meet 🧵
how do you go from a nobody broke mom to a billionaire author just like that?
because one of the things i learned early on about Rowling's books was that in the US the publishers didn't get to own her copyright. she leased the books thru a company that manages her titles.
how did a nobody broke mom get to set that up for managing her worldwide publishing rights?
you need lawyers for those articles of incorporation. now you need an accountant to deal with your personal and your business expenses and liabilities.
i haven't even reached the point of discussing a writing rep, an editor and all that publishing jazz.
yet hers was a fairy tale story sold about an out of luck broke mom that wrote a fairy tale in 8 books and became a billionaire.
just like the fairy tale of Google, but with PhD candidates & kids of USSR scientists the USMIL poached 🧵
or the story of the guys from YouTube one of whom oh so happened to have been banging one of the daughters of the richest man in California; a guy who made his money from media and the MIC.
or the story of Facebook that oh so happens to have been seeded by InQTel, the CIA's investment company.
all these successes are MEDIA successes and all of their origin stories where always presented as fairy tales.
so all am saying is that there has to be more to the JK Rowling story that we do not know because nobody has bothered to really look into. not her past, but her hidden network of family, friends and acquaintences who ultimately are the ones responsible for her fairy tale.
my old friend Chris Rabb wrote a book called INVISIBLE CAPITAL. he might be the state rep in PA for some of y'all.
anyways, it's a quick read. go buy it and read it. it completely shifted how i look at EVERYTHING. 🧵
Chris' premise is very simple: there are no fairy tales. there are no self-made men or women.
everybody has a network of family, people, acquaintances that connect them to other people and, in the end, to resources.
resources aren't just money. resources are knowledge, experience, tools, housing, work spaces, transportation, health care, education... the list goes on.
and there is the real hard cash & capital of 'angel investment' that you could get from those in the network... 🧵
thinking about the obsession of tech bros & media people to sell themselves as nobodies who had to claw their way up to fame & fortune is one of those things that have kept me up at night.
why do that? why sell that lie?
it's more than just to tap into the rugged individualism that's part of the American gaslighting (dream) project.
there is an intentional HIDING of the means of success of these peoples.
the rich really want us to BELIEVE capitalism will make this happen to us.
neither do the origin stories of Sergei Brin, Larry Page, Chad Hurley, Stephen Chen, Jawed Karim, Mark Zuckerberg.
to those who followed me at Xitter: remember when i did a few searches for my "Apartheidboi" thread? it's what got me banned the first time. but now everybody knows he's an Afrikaaner.
Rowling's edifice of lies hasn't been tumbled. that's why she's defiant. she's gotten away with the lies this long, she thinks she's untouchable. /🧵