Plutocrats Want You To Love Putin’s Nipples, & Hate Yours.


Sexism can provide with comic relief, when it goes over the top. I went to a gym where guys would flaunt their naked chests, mighty muscles rippling. Women trying the same trick would be promptly arrested.

Getting “stopped” by the police, or, better, arrested, in the USA, is a serious thing. It is a test everybody undergoes, to see how you respect the Authority Principle. The slightest non-strict observance of police officers’ orders results in much higher charges… If one does not get terminated outright.

By age 23, 41% of USA citizens have been arrested at least once. Black guys tend to fail the test, and get addicted to incarceration. Strange? Things are getting stranger quickly: We now have a sort of plutocratic corporate moral police emerging. It determines what is “safe”, and what is not. Ravenous, ever more powerful billionaires are in the lead. They decide that their friend Putin’s chest is glorious, while female chests are “unsafe”.

Naked Truth: Safe, Handsome Putin, Ugly, Unsafe Female Breasts?

Naked Truth: Safe, Handsome Putin, Ugly, Unsafe Female Breasts?

[On left, showing a real man, maybe gay, and certainly evil, but that’s alright. On right “unsafe” female according to great philosopher Zuckerberg, owner Facebook, NSA collaborator. Glorious dictators, OK, unsafe females, not OK.]

The gym finally decided everybody would wear a shirt. The old practice, naked men, veiled women was discontinued.

Truly, any time a group is allowed to do something others are not allowed to, is a discrimination. It better have a good justification. (Justified discrimination exists: forbidding drunk people to drive is justified, for example.)

Chelsea Handler (an actress I never heard of before), poked fun at the photo of Russian Dictator Vladimir Putin, by posting the topless photo of herself on a horse above. Handler warned, alongside her photo: “Taking this down is sexist. I have every right to prove I have a better body than Putin.”

Female nudity goes against the Facebook-owned Instagram posting rules: the picture was removed. Silicon Valley’s silicon men have no problems with “gays”, but mammals are something else entirely.

“If a man posts a photo of his nipples, it’s ok, but not a woman? Are we in 1825?” Handler responded. Instagram removed the picture again, with the consummate hypocrisy of plutocratic mind control: “Please read our Community Guidelines to learn what kinds of posts are allowed and how you can help keep Instagram safe.

Keep Facebook safe from female skin! Safety is big in the USA ever since Bush flew bin Ladens around the USA in 2011. Presumably to keep safe, Bush flew dozens of feudal relative of bin Laden out of the USA. Plutocrats’ safety comes first, in the USA. Somehow, female breasts threaten it.

Why to keep the USA safe from female breasts? Are we not named after those? “Mammal” comes from the Latin mammalis “of the breast”. (In Latin, breast is “mamma”.)

In truth, safety is not the paramount consideration. As we will see, quite the opposite. One plutocratic principle consists in creating fake problems, so that nobody has ever enough energy to address the real ones.

That’s why, when the financial sector exploded from plutocratic abuse, we were told that the problem came from We The People spending too (although real salaries have not augmented for a generation in most of the West).

That’s also why, confronted to an exponentiating CO2 density curve, the plutocrats tell us the weather has always changed, and our uneducated paranoia is making us attach unwarranted importance to insignificant problems, such as seas rising in level and acidity, 2014 being the warmest year ever, while permafrost starts to explode on a titanic scale in Siberia.

That’s why Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg wants to keep the world safe from female breasts, but not from his Chinese (his wife and her mother are Chinese).

Both subjects, Zuckerberg’s obsession with breasts, and himself as a person, are insignificant, but brandishing them presumptuously is highly significant: it preoccupies minds with crushing insignificance. Exactly as planned by those masters of pettiness, the plutocrats.

And Putin is their hero, the brazen way he seizes whatever he can grab, from Crimea, half of the Black Sea, and the entire educational industry of Russia, as the New York Times exposes in a gigantic, detailed “Special Report”, November 1, 2014. “Putin’s Way. Putin’s Friend Profits in Purge of Schoolbooks.”

I am sure Mark Zuckerberg is drooling about Putin’s power, and manly ways.

Chelsea Handler did not quit, and rightly so: “If Instagram takes this down again, you’re saying Vladimir Putin has more 1st amendment rights than me. Talk to your bosses.”

Talking to Mark Zuckerberg is like talking to a NSA robot: it will go nowhere. (The head of the NSA was recently saying yes and no all over about the Snowden divulgations, making sure nobody could get a handle on his mind.)

The so-called “media service” removed the photo again. Handler left Instagram (she went to Twitter, which does not censor what is lawful). Hopefully her 994,000 Instagram followers will follow.

Instagram is owned by Facebook, the firm owned by a number of major plutocrats, some of them looking like total robots, others singing about how good they are (“Bono”)… And all of them giving dozens of millions to charity (to show they are good robots).

If I were the new Caesar, I would make them pay billions of dollars in taxes, instead (but then they would have me assassinated, just like they did Julius: can’t win). American plutocrats in general paid at most 15% tax, for more than a decade (now they pay nominally a bit more, but they cheat thoroughly through Dark Pools and “charities”).

The ever greater power of plutocrats to tell us what is “safe” to see, or think, is entirely due to them paying not enough taxes, and getting ever more monstrous, from their gathering power (a typical exponential: it feeds on its own growth).

My take? “Social media”, when large enough, ought to respect existing laws, and not impose their own rules. I am not aware of a USA Federal Law against female torso nudity.

Am I discriminating against large media outfit? Yes, I am. But I have a justification. Big is different. Any time that a company becomes huge (and it could be Facebook, Amazon, Google, TOTAL, BP, whatever), it becomes an institution.

Zuckerberg, the boss of Facebook is treated like a king: wherever he goes he meets with heads of state (all knowing the CIA, NSA, and the likes of Lawrence Summers, Clinton and Obama administrations, and the entire American plutocratic machine is behind him).

In a democracy all institutions ought to be democratic institutions. That means they ought to respect the law, the whole law, and nothing but the law. They cannot invent their own laws. Because, if when they do, they are imposed on a vast part of the world.

Zuckerberg and his kind are closer to the Saudi religious “police” than the futuristic do-gooders they pose as. They have banned authors from Facebook, just on the ground that they believed the obvious, namely that there were no direct historical or archeological evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. As I explained above, this sort of behavior, on Facebook part, ought to be unlawful.

In the second part of this essay, I will show that discriminating against females is extremely unsafe for civilization.

So the anti-female propaganda of Facebook (“female flesh is not safe”) is not just distasteful, borderline hate speech, but also outright a threat for life on this planet. Because life on this planet is what is presently threatened by the rise of the uncontrolled chain reaction of plutocracy untaxed.

I deliberately cut the essay in two, because the second part is actually more important than the preceding one. Experience shows that the scattered brains we are all becoming nowadays, have not enough attention span to go through what is even more important after already reading 1333 words.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

14 Responses to “Plutocrats Want You To Love Putin’s Nipples, & Hate Yours.”

  1. Kevin Berger Says:

    Just wondering if you might not be letting the peculiarities of “Anglo” culture off the hook too easily, to focus on the mood-shapers plutocrats? Especially in your nipple example here? My admittedly uninformed “feel” of that “Anglo” cultural mindset, from what I could get from osmosis (interracting with the English-speaking internet since 2000 or so, at my very modest scale, but with the benefit of the www-induced anonymity/autism that washes away many of the interpersonal niceties), is that there’s something quite “off” about it.
    Or, if I’m allowed to put it as bluntly, it’s fucked up, on many levels, differently, if one is talking about the UK, the USA, Australia, but with constants – namely, sex, races and classes.

    Not talking about individuals, of course, but about “National mores” (IE “moods”, to follow you)? Forged by History and/or geography no doubt, but very toxic nonetheless (insularism, exceptionalism, supremacism, fixations on “communities”, races,…), AND, becoming the “Western” norm(s)?
    (Stupid point in case of cultural phagocyting : the recent “evil clowns” BS in France/the French media, the mind boggles… but I’m sure that the MRA, PUA, MGTOW phenomenon, mainstreaming as of late from sick symptoms of poisoned relations between the sexes to welcome newcomers in the libertarian/conservative big tent, will soon find its echo in France, for example, oh, joy).

    Are your points here, from sex to plutocratic rule, the results of “plutocrats”, or are the “plutocrats” the logical and natural results of a “mood”, an Anglo “mood” specifically, that can’t bear any other results unless kept in check?
    Meaning that you points out the actors, but not the play? Not sure if I’m being confuse, but this is basically an egg and chicken question.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Kevin: I roughly agree with what you say. However, the Internet is changing flavor. It did not use to be a big time money making operation. Now that it is, the Puritanism is pushed forward. Now, Puritanism, as I have tried to explain long ago, is central to the exploitation scheme, because:
      1) It gives a good conscience
      2) It provides with an alibi (“Me? Oh, no, can’t be, I’m against it!” That’s why I suggested that maybe Putin is gay: precisely because he claims so much to be against it!)
      3) It provides with a distraction, a red herring…

      So I don’t think the Silly Cone valley types are, truly Puritans. I have known a few, and they were swallowing girls like croissants in the morning. A girl a day was reasonable. For them. So I do think that, if some traditions are coming to the fore, that’s the will to USE Puritanism, CYNICALLY.


  2. Kevin Berger Says:

    Ok, I’m not being very clear, even to myself, but this where you usually lose me, in that you for example regularly reaffirm the civilisational shared identity between France and the UK (and/or the USA), or the comminality between “Anglo-normand” and French.
    All this is true, but yet, IMHO is also meaningless.

    As a demonstration by the absurd, check the latest comment by Chris Snugg : at the top of your mind, how many times have you read a very random French commenter harp/wish/proclaim the upcoming near or eventual demise, disparition, etc, etc, choose your poison, of GB as an entity?
    Yet, this is something of a schtick for Mr. Snuggs, and it’s part and parcel of the background noise of the Anglo (unreciprocated) fixation on France, the eventual demise of that continous source of frustration being a favored theme of many (btw, “French arrogance” = from “France following its interests” to “France still existing”, depending on the occasion, in my experience).

    We may be one, our language(s) may be one, but there is no “we”.

    And this because the other side so to speak is IMHO rejects us, quite knowingly – hat tip to the recent and quite entertaining media agitation in the UK about the EU, btw, showcasing the mental disarray of a good chunk of the islanders being forced to cohabit with the rest of their European cousins, and not liking it, not one bit.
    (from memory and from a gun nuts boards a while ago, a British tory to an US wingnut : “we may be in Europe, but we are not of Europe”, rightie).


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      dear Kevin: Chris Snuggs is a case onto himself… Or maybe not: he reminds me of Cameron. Cameron loves Europe, needs Europe, scolds Europe and hates Europe.
      Chris taught more than 10 years in Quimper (yes, Small Britain!… Although Dominique may disagree… About “small”) He has been all over Europe, married to a German (she asked me to use my German!), etc.

      My vision is that he has some good points about the Eurocrats. They should be incorporated. No Eurocrat, though, profited from EU subsidies as mush as Britain’s own Prince Charles (of course they will say HIS farm, not himself profited…)

      My position about the EU is that it has become completely irrelevant. Their whining, screaming and brat like behavior is distracting, and Merkel is having enough too!

      The UK should pay their two billions Euros in SUPPLEMENTARY contributions, and, if they don’t like it, they can leave. Does not matter. Europe is mostly a Franco-German story, and Britain just a dependency… (Hahaha)


  3. Kevin Berger Says:

    Last one, and I’m done : that “evil clowns” crap is a mildly amusing case of the outlier’s outlier (the “fringe” USA of the “fringe” UK of European mores) setting the mental and cultural norms.
    Which is kind of interesting to me, re France, as France and all things French are in large part antinomic to that supra “mood” (the reverse is just not true I believe) and the global system that feeds from and sustain it. As an added feature, its global nature has Anglo “bias” against France leaks rather readily in others cultures – random examples would be such and such idiot from Singapoor, Macedonia, Poland,… parroting the white-flag-surrender-mo,nkey character assassination, nice.

    This, while the French are globally either unaware of this and not fighting back, or just plain happy about it, France being after all outdated and in need of replacement, and thus collaborating eagerly.
    Notice how I’m writing this in English, which makes it all the more amusing.

    How I’d get here, from wanting to talk about US hang-ons about titties, I’ll never know.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      “Evil Clowns” would be shot in California by an unamused police. Where I am (SV) there were 2 shootings in 2 days, one of them 300 meters away. American police shoots first, and discuss later (among themselves, as survivors are not available).


  4. gmax Says:

    The woman’s nipples were grided out above, and Facebook censored the same picture on your Facebook page, my friend! :-)!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well, there is a total war between Plutos and anti-Plutos. I have met people who told me their comments to me were actively censored. Diverse publications have censored me (the NYT more than 1,000! And mangled some of my comments)
      Mr. Z looks friendly but his goons strike… He is himself employed by higher-ups, whether he realizes it, or not.


  5. Nathan Curry Says:

    Strange I responded to this [0n Facebook] but it seems to have gotten deleted.

    I read your piece on Putin’s nipples (and the world’s official bias on the issue) after I wrote what I wrote above. I don’t think that one can call Girard’s logic “silly.” I would say it is fundamental. Mimetic desire is not something that can just be dismissed. It is an essential component of how civilisations and individuals rise and fall. Either a scapegoat is created and the shadow work is overlooked – and violence follows – or not. It really is as simple as that. That’s an elemental process that cannot be denied nor underestimated in how it influences us. It is at the heart of how we interact as a species and as individuals. It is also core to cultural evolution and ethics.

    2 factors influences it:

    1. how we choose to value ideas and effort and how we exploit resources in general
    2. how tribalism and indivdiuals share that value – whether our actions (as individuals, a members of society and as a species) exclude and demean or not.


  6. Patrice Ayme Says:

    @ Nathan: What’s silly about Girard [eminent French philosopher who made all his career in the USA] is the claims that “mimetism” (aka mimetic desire) explains everything. I am sure that’s false.

    Most of my life I lived in places where I had absolutely no wish to mimic or to find scapegoats. Often people like Girard reveal themselves, by rolling out their obsessions (this is true for all bad philosophers; good philosophers are much harder, and often impossible, to figure out, or then only partly explainable).

    “Scapegoats” are not the end all, be all. Chimpanzees don’t look for scapegoats. They look for the enemy to annihilate it. When a baboon wants to have sex with a female in heat, he connives something, maybe with the help of some friends and steals from the alpha male…

    It has nothing to do with scapegoat. Girard is at Stanford University, he just want to sell his wares by making himself special. It’s (nearly) all about marketing.


  7. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Facebook is apparently actively censoring what I write. Anyway, I have been censored in many ways, including in search engines, including is search engines, since at least 2003.

    It would not happen to Girard. Why? Because he is a second order philosopher, making the plutos feel comfy.

    No philosophy that can’t explain the baboon can stand to the savannah… Let alone scrutiny.


  8. John Rogers Says:

    A couple of thoughts:

    1. Chelsea Handler is primarily a comedian (had/has a TV show) rather than an actress. Which, of course, reminds us that authoritarians REALLY don’t like comedians who do not show them the required respect and obsequious deference.

    2. American prudishness has always seemed to me to be of a piece with Northern German priggishness (lot of German immigrants in the U.S.) and both cultures have this fascination (mirror effect of repressed sexuality?) with scheiss and fart jokes.

    3. There was a biography last year claiming basically that Putin is a very repressed gay who prefers to hang out with animals like tigers instead of people (shades of Siegfried and Roy!)


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Roger: Yes, Ms. Handler showed lots of intellectual creativity and courage. Marks of a good comic.

      As I said I know some Silicon Valley types who are completely dissolute sexually, while preaching the opposite, once they put a tie (even Zuckerberg puts ties). In general I am highly suspicious of strident upholders of good morality of the sexual type. Experience shows they are often just the opposite of what they preach.

      The case of Putin seems one of these to me (if I had to guess officially). I view Putin as slightly sick, philosophically insecure (he hangs around monks) and emboldened by Western plutocracy (thus emulating it rather than fighting it as he claims).

      Nice thoughts in any case, and I am going to read the link. Der Spiegel has often good ideas…


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: Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: