News Corp. Whisleblower Dies Of "Natural Causes"

This story was funny. The whisteblower in the News Corp. scandal mysteriously died of "natural causes".

The police were quick to point out that it was "natural causes". Whenever there's a suspicious death, the police seem to eager to call it "natural causes". That reminds me of the times when a group of researchers in the same military lab all died of "natural causes" or "accidents".

People don't spontaneously die of natural causes. They usually have a history of serious health problems leading to death.

Another aspect of this scandal is that it isn't just Rupert Murdoch, although the News corporation is taking most of the blame. The blame also lies with the State police monopoly. Allegedly, policemen took bribes to look the other way. Why isn't anyone saying "Due to this scandal, maybe a State police monopoly is a bad idea. What happens when the police take bribes to ignore crime?"

It was amusing to see Rupert Murdoch interviewed by Parliament. He's also going to be subpoenaed by the US Congress. That's good theater, when politicians take a scandal-ridden CEO and grill him. It lets them seem like the tough guys promoting "justice".

Whenever there's a scandal like this, the CEO uses the "stupid CEO" defense. The "stupid CEO defense" is "Duhh!! I didn't know my subordinates were committing crimes! They had me totally fooled! I'm not responsible! I'm a stupid CEO who doesn't know what his subordinates are doing! Duh!"

That is nonsense. Even if Rupert Murdoch had no personal knowledge of their crime, he still is partially responsible. A boss is responsible for what his subordinates do. Even if they fooled Rupert Murdoch, he's still responsible because he hired them.

Similarly the President says "Duh! I didn't know soldiers were committing war crimes! I totally had no clue!" At the same time, the President says "I take 100% personal credit, because my subordinates killed Osama bin Laden."

This is an important State brainwashing technique. When there is success, the leader gets the credit. When there is failure, the leader claims incompetence. The disgraced leader was tricked by his subordinates. The leaders have no accountability.

Similarly, during the housing bubble, bank CEOs got huge salaries and bonuses. During the bust, they got a bailout. Now, they're getting huge salaries and bonuses again.

The US economy cannot recover until there's real accountability for the leaders.

In a really free market, there's accountability for the leaders. If you mismanage your business, competitors will steal your market share. In the present, there's no accountability. The State has a monopoly. State insiders use violence to prevent competition. State insiders use violence to steal via taxes, and give themselves a bailout.

The rest of the mainstream media is ganging up on Rupert Murdoch, because his propaganda is slightly different than theirs and contradicts theirs. This really is a fight among two groups of criminals, rather than heroes vs. villains. Of course, "Other people are also criminal!" is not a valid excuse when you're accused of a serious real crime.

(This is a real crime. Hacking into people's personal accounts and E-Mails is a type of trespassing.)

Here is another important point. Most State leaders are criminals. Most State leaders are psychopaths, parasites, or people that psychopaths can easily control. When most of the leaders are criminals, other criminals pass undetected. Rupert Murdoch didn't notice that his subordinates were scumbags, because they have the same personality type as him!

When that whistleblower died of "natural causes", my reaction was "Who do they think they're fooling?" As leader, Rupert Murdoch is responsible for what his subordinates do. Even if he has no specific knowledge of their crimes, he's responsible for hiring them and for supervising them.