Book Hypocrisy @ Face Value

Sue is so pleased she never joined Facebook. I guess she does not particularly fancy the Arab revolutions (allegedly cause, or at least boosted by the Internet “social networks”, including Facebook). What about a bit more geo-historical perspective, ladies and gentlemen?

The present essay tries to depict better my position on the burning issue of burning kittens. Should people of outstanding moral values condemn Facebook for letting people publish videos of burning kittens there, and hide the face of those who burn said kitten? (I am, in general, for showing crimes; a crime one does not see, one cannot prosecute! Not showing crime was how the Nazis could run 5,000 extermination camps!)

As Alex Jones (who supported Scottish Independence, as Paul Handover did) puts it in “The question of liberty, control and censorship”:

“Because Facebook is happy to host content involving the torture of animals I closed my Facebook account, a subject I wrote about on Liberated Way here and here.  Paul Handover of Learning from Dogs indicated he was closing his Facebook account over the content on animal torture on Facebook, and said why in his own article, suggesting readers might consider doing the same thing. Patrice Ayme in his WordPress article condemned me and Paul Handover as supporting censorship by closing our accounts with Facebook, which brings me to my views on censorship, liberty and control… Censorship is a tool, it is neither good or bad…”

Well, I believe censorship is always bad.

In the Roman civilization, all the latter censors were emperors. And I do believe that, from this intellectual fascism, the decay of civilization, and, in particular Rome’s incapacity to adapt to a sustainable economy, and its horrendous dictatorial theocracy, proceeded.

I joined Facebook early on, but then I observed it seemed to be more about sex, narcissism, and various obsessive-compulsive disorders in slightly deranged people who believed that a picture of their pet canary drinking was world news. So I long ignored it, in spite of entreaties by some individuals who said I should advertise my work on Facebook.

But I spited the FB mania, all the more when I saw celebrities, or plutocrats connected to IT get 60,000 “friends” on their first day on FB. And then cashing on that (literally making huge amounts of money).

Then there were a number of local revolutions, culminating with the “Arab Spring”. That definitively changed my mind. If “social networks” could be used for revolutions, they were good.

What did the Social Networks do? They disseminated information. In other words, the truth. That’s good.

Some will say that could be done through other tribunes. Indeed, I sent articles, or comments to more established electronic media: the Huffington Post blocked me after 6 (completely innocuous) comments. It probably read my site, found I detested plutocracy, and barred me.

The “European Tribune” was even more blatant. I was actually physically threatened there, and banned the same day… for alleging that some big bankers had supported Hitler. The site manager told me many bankers were reading the site, and he was told to shut me down.

For similar economico-political reasons, the New York Times has censored more than 1,000 of my comments, and ponders every single one, sometimes for more than 12 hours, before publishing them (thus insuring no one reads them, while claiming they did not censor).

At least on Facebook, I am free to rant about plutocracy, and was never blocked.

Of course FB is despicable. If one publishes a picture there of a bare breasted statue, 2,000 year old, like the Venus de Milo, they will close the account.

Yet, by closing it for puny reasons, you close information, even revolution.

1.3 BILLION people are on facebook. How many people are on my site? Well, not enough. How many people are on Paul’s plus Alex’s? 2,700.

Puny reasons? Of course. It’s even worse. It’s hypocritical. Not just ineffectual. I was watching a line of people around city blocks, 5 abreast, at 7 am, anxiously waiting for the latest iphone.

Thousands of people. Some had spent the night, waiting for the latest gimmick. All on Facebook. How does the iphone, or, in general, smartphones work?

With Coltan. Where does much Coltan come from, keeping the prices low? Congo. Illegally. Thank the dictator of Rwanda, Kagame, and his Anglo-Saxon puppet masters. Never heard of him? Indeed, not a kitten.

Five million burned kittens? Will you close the smartphone account? Vote with your pocketbook?

No, stand reassured, good people. Only 5 million dead Africans, and counting (although Obama has started lately squeezing Kagame a little bit, out of Congo, under French and UN pressure). With the full complicity of Susan Rice, national Security Adviser (and a long story all by herself).

Susan Rice? A very rich woman, whose father was on the board of the Federal Central Bank, the Fed.,  Obama’s National Security Adviser very friendly with plenty of African dictators from Rwanda to Ethiopia (and having millions invested at some point in gas pipelines from Canada…). All too complicated, too dreadful to consider? Most people feel that way: back to crying about kittens.

And let’s not forget to protect the kitten burning maniacs, by protesting the showing of their pictures in the social media.

Hypo-Crisy means criticizing less than it deserves. Yes, FB is terrible, yes they are hypocrites, yes, the plutocrats associated to Facebook ought to be in the 99% tax bracket. Yes, indeed. But the average guy who lives off the cell phone like a leech, to save ten bucks, has collaborated with the death of millions.

And how did the collaboration start? By refusing to get the information. All burning kittens, 99%, and then making sure the perpetrators prosper on the burning kitten channel, as long as the good people persuaded of their own goodness avert their eyes, and then fork out cash for the world’s richest company, which pays only 2% tax, whereas the local bookstore, soon to burn down, from all the burning kittens running around, and the 35% tax the pro-plutocratic government insists the bookstore ought to be paying.

Before we get brains, we need eyes. And how could those who cannot even book the world at face value, think about it fairly? Plus, direct, real democracy, where all laws get voted by the people, and only the people, is only possible if, and only if, We The People get all, and the best, information.

Hence, those who advocate censorship reject real democracy. Instead they believe that higher human beings, the Big Brothers (let’s give them a name), have the right, and even the duty, to determine who and what, we, the Plebs, can be allowed to look at.

Ban censorship. In democracy We The People are free, free to know all.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

16 Responses to “Book Hypocrisy @ Face Value”

  1. gmax Says:

    Thick skulls won’t get it: for them, kittens are real, and the most important thing. They cry, just looking at a kitten. They never heard of Congo, Kagame, Coltan, and will hate you for reminding them of that. They even believe minds and hearts are local. They believe a good guy is someone who says he is good, writes he is good for the world to see, and burst in tears each time he sees a kitten.

    Naturally, they are condemning of higher mental types.

  2. gmax Says:

    So all of us can be like NSA, or Obama?

  3. Alex Jones Says:

    Alex Jones | September 20, 2014 at 7:46 pm

    Hi Patrice, thanks for your comment.

    When I used Facebook I modified my settings that only “friends” could see it, and those “friends” had to be known to me and be involved in the creative industry in Colchester. Had you posted to FB people like me would never have seen your post, because of their settings and as Facebook deliberately places limits on how far posted information will be read, because they want you to pay for more people to see your information.

    The part played by FB in the Arab Spring is in my opinion overrated. If anyone thinks that organising with their fellows a revolution in a nation through FB is safe they are seriously misguided, as 1. FB works closely with intelligence agencies; 2. FB can be hacked 3. FB has and does give personal information over to the authorities. FB is a gift from god to spys and tyrants, since all the so-called revolutionaries can be identified and monitored through their FB postings.

    FB is drowning in junk information to the point that most people never read others posts, they are too busy posting rubbish nobody will ever read.

    The only reason FB allows you to post controversial content is that it is unable to cope with the huge daily volume of verbose vomit that gets pumped into its servers, and it is likely most people will never read it.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Alex: I am not Facebook expert, and I had no idea that FB limited how far information can travel, except if people pay for it. I will look into that (low priority).

      FB changed the way they operate, I have noticed this. When I see the top FB people meet with the USA/France presidents, I cringe.

      I actually have written against Google long ago. I alleged long ago (15-10 years) that Google searches were extremely biased. Silicon Valley people laughed in my face, and told me I was a paranoid conspiracy face value zero twerp who never heard of thinking.

      However, the EU has made such charges in 2013, and now in 2014, is getting exasperated, as Google had said it would not do this anymore, but, apparently, still does.

      Participants in the Tunisian revolution claim that social networking worked splendidly to organize the resistance. OK, just one country where the revolution worked well.

      Still, nowadays, we get so much raw data from the Internet. Preceding Hamas-Israel war, Israel used White Phosphorus. Including on a school. Although this time it was nearly as bad, they did not use White Phosphorus.

      Well, I agree about the vomit out there. But that’s what the dogs love. How are we going to make those dogs human?

      Maybe by shocking them.

  4. Paul Handover Says:

    As has been repeated elsewhere, what Alex and I both wrote about was not, repeat not, about censorship. The word was neither inferred nor mentioned.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      It’s not a question of whether a word is used, or not. It’s the attitude. After all, raping children is called children-love (pedo-philia).

      You are saying to all and sundry: Facebook is bad, because it allowed somebody to show something, somewhere (I tried to see the video from your link, and the picture showed a guy, not a cat).
      The something was a burning cat.
      You say: let’s tell everybody that looking at crimes is… a crime.
      That’s instituting, from the People up, what is already happening, from the (criminal) top, down.

      Each time you use a cell phone, you are collaborating in the death of millions. Me too. But me I look at it. When Obama, under pressure, was inclined to make Ms Coltan, I mean Susan Rice, great priestess of cheap electronics, Sec. of State, I VIOLENTLY protested, exhibiting the badness she had been presiding over for decades.

      Most people, hanging to their smartphones, have no idea who Susan Rice is, and why she is master of their destinies. And could not care less, as long as they stroke a cat.

      Of course, if all I cared was kittens, or my German Shepherd Blondi, I won’t mind, or even know about the killing of millions, as I said. Hitler was very fond of dogs.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blondi
      And that’s no accident. That, and his loud vegetarianism allowed him to go everywhere claiming he was a man of peace, caring about beast and man alike.

      Indeed, people have no idea whatsoever of the crimes Apple Inc (among others) is associated with). Actually, their entire knowledge of the world’s criminal hierarchy (plutocracy) escapes them. And that comes from having their sensitivities all in the wrong places. 200,000 killed in Syria by London Plutos supported dictator, no problem. Hair of kitten on fire, big problem.

      I know there is censorship on Facebook (the word is neither used, nor inferred, nor mentioned, of course). That’s a very bad thing. It allows the weird Mr. Z to manipulate the world. In full cooperation with the plutocracy. However, just like refusing to use a smartphone won’t help, making a huge deal of a crime much smaller than others encourages moral escapism, an absolute wrong.

      Tartuffe and Facebook say: “Hide this breast, which I would not know how to see.” Now we have to say: “Hide this crime, which I would not know how to see!” Whereas Moliere condemned religious hypocrisy in the matter of sex, I condemn hypocrisy, in the matter of crime.

      • dominique deux Says:

        “his loud vegetarianism”

        Very loud indeed, as his fiber-rich diet made him fart often and loudly. Which nobody seemed to notice once he was chief honcho. Getting to the top may have been a means to achieve the right to fart at leisure, regardless of accepted social behavior. When he only had to re-enact Imperator Claudius’ edict (never abrogated) which forbade courtiers to hold their wind in his presence (not out of some olfactory perversion, but because a sudden demise in the throne room was hastily explained by the Imperial Medics as caused by held-up wind). (Suetonius if memory serves)

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Excellent. On the serious side, Germany became an ecologist’s dream (before Merkler), thanks to the Nazis. They put national parks everywhere and very strong laws against cruelty to animals.
          Better to exterminate humans, of course. And that’s what I have been trying to explain to Paul…
          Over-sensitivity to critters is Tartuffe-like… While people use their precious earths laden smartphones without questioning how cheap.
          PA

  5. John Rogers Says:

    They banned you for “. . . alleging that some big bankers had supported Hitler”?! How delightfully Orwellian! It’s as if Stalin were still alive and just discovered the power of photoshop.

    You could send them a copy of James Pool’s Hitler and His Secret Partners with the details of how the American, British and German plutocrats [no “allegedly” about it] financed the Nazis. But I think we can all agree that it’s more important that we look forward and not backward at whatever it was Bush grandpere and his buddies did.

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: