Posts Tagged ‘Zuckerberg’

Zuckerberg Sucks Bergs

July 11, 2017

Zuckerberg, Facebook main owner: “Priscilla and I spent the weekend around Homer, Alaska as part of the Year of Travel challenge. It’s beautiful here.” Next week, he does Bali? How does he travel there? Cattle class? Probably a personal jumbo jet, like the Google guys. Full of an army of bodyguards. Could we emit more CO2 please, Antarctica is not breaking apart fast enough! OK, I have been to Alaska more than once, it’s incredibly beautiful there. But I also have (lots of) close family in Alaska (thus a good excuse to visit).

Zuckerberg: “Alaska has a form of basic income called the Permanent Fund Dividend. Every year, a portion of the oil revenue the state makes is put into a fund. Rather than having the government spend that money, it is returned to Alaskan residents through a yearly dividend that is normally $1000 or more per person. That can be especially meaningful if your family has five or six people.

This is a novel approach to basic income in a few ways. First, it’s funded by natural resources rather than raising taxes. Second, it comes from conservative principles of smaller government, rather than progressive principles of a larger safety net. This shows basic income is a bipartisan idea.”

Zuck is poorly informed: the dividend used to be much more than $1000 per year per person. But now the state is heading towards heavy debt, from the collapse of oil revenues. Zuck also has some cheeks, to call “especially meaningful” to earn one thousand dollars a year, when he earns personally several billions dollars every few months.  Notice in passing that smaller government and eschewing “progressive principles of a larger safety net… is a bipartisan idea”. According to him.

***

Pluto Zuck says: …“basic income… [to be] funded by natural resources rather than raising taxes. Second, it comes from conservative principles of smaller government, rather than progressive principles of a larger safety net. This shows basic income is a bipartisan idea.” So go hunt in the forest: there are your natural resources. “Conservative principles of smaller government… is a bipartisan idea”. Progressive principles are not bipartisan.

In other words, the bipartisan party is the plutocratic party. It’s also ironical, that a “larger safety net” is to be avoided: except for Zuck himself, who needs to be protected by his own private army.

In San Francisco where Zuckerberg (also) resides, those who bother his army of bodyguards are thrown in prison, three months at a time. A man sleeping outside Zuckerberg in his car was put in prison. In his other mansion in Palo Alto, Zuckerberg, college drop-out, but NSA collaborator, receives the safety net of 16 bodyguards, 24/7. It was not enough to buy the four mansions around his own… to insure his own “progressive principles of a larger safety net”. 

In Zuckerberg’s world, the world is about Zuckerberg. Serving Zuckerberg’s safety.

Not happy? You are probably “an unstable Internet user” and you should move to Alaska! There, you can go, live off “natural resources” as native Americans do so successfully, hunting bears and the like.

***

Not only Zuckerberg sucks the teat of state, but he gives us lessons about us, low lives, needing to quit the habit

While claiming he does not, as demonstrated by his desire to make the state much smaller … forgetting that Facebook, operating hand in hand with US intelligence, has made the state so much larger and omnipresent. This is a deliberately confusing circus, or, as the Guardian puts it: “Mark Zuckerberg is part of the bigger trend of global companies expecting the state to pick up the tab even though they’re not prepared to pay the taxes to fund it.

I have long said this, attracting opprobrium. Zuckerberg is also representative of these new plutocrats who treat the elected butlers supposed to represent us, as pigeons fighting for crumbs.

The Guardian has finally noticed how far the outrageous behavior of the Facebook founder will go. In Mark Zuckerberg’s got some cheek, advocating a universal basic income, Sonia Sodha observes that:

“Facebook’s CEO has spent the last couple of years casting himself in various guises. First, global philanthropist: he and his wife last year pledged to invest $3bn over 10 years in order to eradicate global disease (a well-meaning if hopelessly naive sentiment; it’s a tiny fraction of what’s spent on medical research worldwide). Most lately, social commentator: Zuckerberg is currently undertaking a 50-state meet-and-greet tour across the United States. Little wonder rumours are flying that he fancies himself for an imminent White House run.

Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg aim to ‘cure, prevent and manage’ all disease?

Put aside for a moment the chilling thought that if the chief of the world’s most ubiquitous media platform chose to run to be leader of the free world, his command of Facebook’s unrivalled ability to profile, segment and target voters might make him all but unbeatable. What might he do as president? The missives from his grand tour – published, of course, on Facebook – provide some clues. Last week’s was from Alaska. Zuckerberg used it as an opportunity to heap praise on the idea of a universal basic income – an unconditional income paid by government to all citizens, regardless of whether or not they’re in work.”

***

Plutocrats love men, as lions do, with no government to protect them:

We are told Marc Zuckerberg, his wife, Priscilla Chan, and their ilk, are “lovers of man” (phil-anthropos). The wealthiest spy agency operators in the world are “persons who seeks to promote the welfare of others”. Does that mean we don’t? Does that mean we don’t promote the welfare of others? Does that mean that one has to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes, to be called a lover of man? Does that mean one has to run the world’s largest spying operation, to be called a “lover of man”? Does that mean we have to pledge billions of tax money we should have paid to be called a “lover of man”?

The generosity of bandits has no limits: their survival depends upon it.

Let’s do a little computation. The median family income in the USA is 60 K. The median worth, a bit more. So “worth” and yearly income are roughly the same. Scaling this up to Zuckerberg, this means the plutocrat controls money flows of the order of his wealth, each year. Namely 50 billions. (Facebook’s revenue in 2016 was actually $28 billion.)

***

Zuckerberg and Chan claim they want to save the world, do good. But they are living, impudent, obvious, blatant symbols of inequality, the greatest factor in human misery. The more unequal a society the more selfish, violent, stupid, insane, ill, unfair, demented a society is. If Zuck Zuck and Chan were sincere, they would fund an academy for the reduction of inequality. If Zuckerberg was sincere,he would advocate for higher taxes. Instead, he advocates for the exact opposite, and he basically pays no taxes already (relative to his income and effective control output)

***

Separation of wealth and state violated:

In other words Zuckerberg directly directs the flow of 1/1000 of the world economy. However, Zuckerberg’s influence is far more ranging: Zuckerberg has been received in all the presidential palaces and heads of governments mansions, in the countries which really matter, including China. Why do the mightiest receive the wealthiest in the halls of power? Isn’t this, per se, a violation of the separation of wealth and state?

Presumably, Zuckerberg and his ilk are negotiating his power of influence versus the future incomes of elected officials, their kin, friends, children… Zuckerberg and his ilk are together-breathing (con-spirare) with the mightiest politicians. The latter are ephemeral, Zuckerberg is permanent. Here is The Guardian again:

***

“Zuckerberg’s got some cheek. The idea of a universal basic income is all very well and good in sparsely populated Alaska, where revenues from natural oil fund a modest annual dividend to the state’s permanent residents that in the last decade has varied between $800 and $2,000.

But the proponents of a basic income often talk it up as replacement for welfare benefits altogether. Funding a decent safety net that gets paid to everyone – where there isn’t a multibillion-dollar state-backed fund conveniently created in the 1970s from oil reserves – would be very expensive. The cash would either have to come from hiking up taxes or significantly cutting back state spending on other services, such as education and health.

Here’s the rub. Zuckerberg has no right to pronounce on what the welfare state should look like while Facebook takes aggressive measures to minimise its tax burden. Here in the UK, Facebook paid just £4,327 in corporation tax in 2014, despite paying its UK staff bonuses of £35m. In 2015, it offset its tax bill of £4.2m against a tax credit of £11.3m – despite making global profits of almost £5bn.”

***

Work is power, so we will take it away from you, replace it by basic income, say Silicon Valley plutocrats;

This is an infection: those plutocrats rule the world. Just as when the Roman Republic started to die, they have found tricks to avoid taxes, by using globalization, exactly as the Roman plutocrats did!

“It’s not just Facebook: global tech giants such as Amazon and Google are notorious for exploiting every loophole to get out of paying their fair share of tax. It’s deeply hypocritical for Zuckerberg to back the idea of a state-based income while his company does everything it can to avoid paying tax. And there’s a clue Zuckerberg sees a basic income as a replacement for, not in addition to, public services, “It comes from conservative principles of smaller government, rather than progressive principles of a larger safety net,” he writes.

Zuckerberg is not the first Silicon Valley CEO to talk up universal basic income: it’s an idea fast gaining traction in that corner of California. This is no coincidence. One of the beliefs that powers Silicon Valley’s fervent tech worship is the idea that artificial intelligence and automation will one day spell the end of work. This is implicit in the business plans: Uber’s growth strategy, for instance, is based on the idea that driverless technology will one day replace its drivers altogether.”

***

The More Income Inequality In A Country, The More Drug Use:

Thanks, oh you, billionaires! As Inequality Has Exploded in the USA in recent years, thanks to Obama’s Quantitative Easing and pro-plutocratic monopolies ploy, so has drug usage. There are now more death from drugs than from cars of shootings.

***

How come cockamamie plutocrats? Lack of basic education!

Most plutocrats are actually rather ignorant: Zuckerberg, Gates have no college degrees (Whereas Warren Buffet has a master of science in economics from Columbia U). They didn’t go through basic education. If he had, maybe Zuckerberg would realize the income per capita of Alaskan citizen used to be ten times more (in constant dollars). I wouldn’t be surprised if it had disappeared next year. Zuck probably knows nothing of the history of the price of oil.

About three out of 10 billionaires—29.9%—around the world did not have at least a bachelor degree in 2015, according to a billionaire census by Wealth-X. That’s 739 out of the total 2,473 billionaires.

It’s a bit of a problem, because these people are leading the world’s politicians by the nose at this point. They think they are the smartest, but, typically, they confuse smarts, greed, happenstance, and conspiracy (“Social Networks” and other high-tech as a spy agencies…)

To mitigate this capture of politics by one needs to introduce a good dose of direct democracy: then the orders will be coming not from the wealthiest, stupidest people in the world, but directly from We The People, as they did in Athens, Rome, and now Switzerland…

 

***

Civilization means government. Big Government started with Trajan, then the Merovingians:

Let’s backtrack a bit: Roman emperor Trajan fostered higher taxes on the wealthiest to enable a welfare state, including food distribution to the poor, government scholarship to meritorious students. Under Trajan, initially a general a bit similar to Eisenhower, the Roman empire reached its largest extent (Trajan ruled from 98 CE to 117 CE). Where did Trajan get his ideas? Trajan ingratiated himself with the Greek intellectual elite, including historians such as Plutarch and Dio (who was recalled to Rome). Be it Athenian leaders such as Pericles, or the kings of France in the Twelfth or Fourteenth centuries, massive progress was directly attributed with civilization class intellectuals interfacing directly with the leaders: the edge of civilization is one, top thinking allow it to cut. (De-cide means, exactly, to cut-off!)

Starting in the Sixth Century, the Merovingian Franks (ruling France and Germany, and soon, all of Europe) made secular education global, mandatory, and non-profit. Secular education became a function the government imposed on the Churches (the Pope got infuriated in vain). Later more government in the Middle Ages imposed more functions: not just free universities, but free health care, taking care of abandoned babies, no questions asked.

The “small government” movement championed by Silicon Valley monopolists inverts all this: students pay something like a third of the median family income, to attend the “public” university of California in tuition alone (not counting room and board). Meanwhile top plutocrats in the USA have earned hundreds of billions from the private healthcare system of the USA (and then claim to be democrats, and give to the “Democratic” Party which enabled their lucrative activities…)

Facebook & its ilk want to cut all that government down, so that they instead, are the oligarchy: the few (oligo) who rule. They have already achieved that status, hence their insolence and impudence. If Teddy Roosevelt were around, he would mount his white charger, and arrest them all at gunpoint, for violating anti-monopoly laws.

As The Guardian observes: “Obsessing about a universal basic income as the panacea for the shortcomings of the labour market of the future is a distraction from tackling the problems in the labour market of today.” Well, that’s exactly why they obsess: it’s very self-serving: the plutocrats want slaves.

Not just that, but the plutocrats’ obsession with self-serving issues invites us all to obsess with them on the same issues, instead of asking why is it that they pay so little taxes, have so much power, are constantly received by ephemeral power holders, have bent the tax code to serve themselves, name hospitals after themselves, made deals with spy agencies to “open backdoors”, and all sorts of deals which are rumored about in Silicon Valley, etc

***

Bigger Civilization, Bigger Government:

It’s no coincidence that the biggest civilizations had the biggest (and best) governments: Sumer, Egypt, Babylon, Achaemenid Persia, Rome, China, France…

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/synthesis-found-governmentalism/

When we consider the progress of civilization over the last 4000 years, we observe an ever greater power of just, fair, balanced, and intelligent government. However, Zuckerberg’s operation is none of this: it’s just a one man show. Put a representation of part of the anatomy of a human female chest, Zuck will get you banned. The guy is that dumb. And that’s why he wants to rule the world.

Sonia Sodha concludes: “We should be fighting for a society in which everyone has the right to a decently paid job that provides them with autonomy and fulfilment; not a future in which a big chunk of the population is consigned to exist on meagre state handouts. At best, a universal basic income is a dangerous diversion from how to improve the quality of work. At worst, it could be an enabler for the dark motives of the Silicon Valley tech scene. We’d be naive to buy into the idea that the owners of the robots would happily carry on paying the rest of us a basic income if it no longer suited them. Karl Marx would be turning in his grave at this fundamental misunderstanding of how economic power works.”

Zuckerberg himself is an epiphenomenon, like a flake of snow shining on top of the iceberg of the inversion of all values, which has led to a stalling of civilization and endangerment of the biosphere. The cult of The One is the ultimate form of intellectual fascism. It has led to tax-free monopolies in the global economy, but it was preceded by a cult of celebrities… even in science, and other intellectual domains, where only a few, the stars, get funded well.

It’s as if Usain Bolt’s starting line was ten meters ahead, noticed the scientific journal Nature in “Our obsession with eminence warps research“: “We can quantify exactly how much faster Usain Bolt is than the next-fastest sprinter. It’s much harder to say who is the best scientist, let alone how much better they are than the next-best scientist. Deciding who deserves recognition is, at least in part, a judgement call.”

It’s even harder to find out who the best thinkers are, and what the best thinking is. However, what we have now is plutocrats and their lackeys dominating the debate. There is not even an independent intellectual class, as most intellectuals in academia are on the take, or know they should have a low profile. Superstars dissenters tend to be all barking up the wrong tree (although The Guardian essay quoted above is a good sign).

A fundamental democratic right in Ancient Greece was isegoria. The right to speak equally. It is massively manipulated nowadays. The ownership of all media by the plutocratic class has led to a situation where lowering taxes on the hyper-wealthy has become “bipartisan”, and earning one thousand dollar a year is “especially gratifying” in the eyes of those earning billions a year, and they can then advertise their “love of man” and flaunt their pledges to give billions, well, you know, someday…

All these self-important tax cheating, conspiring monopolists at the teat of governments, worldwide, deserve out contempt. Really, not kidding: New York Times bans me. Who is the greatest holder of common shares of the NYT? Carlos Slims, scion of a plutocratic Mexican family. How did he become for a while the world’s richest man? Because Mexican government officials conspired to offer him Mexican Telecom at rock bottom prices. No doubt: they were well rewarded.

Now we see these government connected billionaire punks, going around the world in their personal jumbo jets, paying their way through government, media and academic circles, to mold decisions in their favor. And what of all the CO2? What of the greatest biological extinction now apparently forming and accelerating?

They don’t care: as they circle the globe in their CO2 spewing jumbo jets, billionaires and their obsequious political butlers suck entire iceberg in the maw of the global warming they generate, and it’s their friend, because they profit from disaster (be only as a distraction from their ill deeds…)

We are facing an inversion of all civilization, and even the biosphere. Plutocrats and their ideology are the prophets of the extinction of all values, and of all worth.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Brexit’s Engine Of Lies Enlightens Us

June 25, 2016

Abstract: The mood that led to Brexit is silly, racist, xenophobic, infuriated and infuriating, irrational and hopeless. However, that mood blossomed from perfectly understandable reasons. So it has an emotional logic that the logic of simple statistics do not carry. One perfectly understandable reason is that British leaders (Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown) were firmly hell-bent to make Britain into Europe’s superpower (not bad for a country which started with a GDP smaller than Italy). So these UK Prime Ministers got people and money wherever, by whatever means, possible: the most primitive manual workers, and the worst tyrants’ stolen wealth were equally welcome, no questions asked.

That flood of people and money worked well, until it became intolerable to the original English population, which was priced-out, and told centuries of civilization should go to the trashcan, to leave space to savages and plutocrats. PM Cameron promised to stop this satanic immigration machine (of people, plutocrats, tax havens, and capital), but he could not (in great part because he confused legal European immigration and immigration of illegal savages).

One mean for plutocrats to control the world is rule and divide, and the instrument of that has been to accept so-called “multiculturalism”, which says that Western democracy is not superior to the savagery of the past. According to multiculturalism, Pashtun ethics, and local Sharia, local Muslim law, is just as good as 27 centuries of refined Roman Republican law. You can see below Obama blatantly imposing the mood that multiculturalism is good, by advertising for Islam and…tax avoidance.

The present US administration enabled and promoted a crafty, entangled empire of spying, tax-avoidance, deep US state, which is starting to enrage much of the West. Indeed, the English have had enough of this circus of exploitation they are submitted to. One can’t blame them. Too bad the European Union’s plutophile leadership has been all too much of a pseudo-innocent bystander. And by “innocent” I do not mean just morally clueless, but also mentally retarded. In that sense, Brexit spearheads a fully justified rebellion which is not just good, but desperately needed. What is now needed is to divert that energy towards the correct targets, and that means to foster the noble and necessary Union Of Europe, while keeping multiculturalism withing strict Republican guidelines.

***

THE PSEUDO-DIVERSITY MACHINE AND HOW IT EXPLOITS PEOPLE:

So much to talk about, in connection with Brexit! A notion of democracy, identifying it with nationalism was brandished, as if self-obvious. Actually, identifying democracy and nationalism is as wrong as wrong can be. This is one of the most interesting lies which have fed Brexit. But there has been more, lies which have actually brought Britain to the sorry state of hateful division it now festers in. One lie has been that Britain is the second power in Europe, soon to be the first. It’s the attempt to turn that lie into a truth, which disintegrated Britain, as I will show below.

That England outside of London, and some large cities, voted to leave the European Union, was not surprising: Britain got in the EEC (predecessor of the EU), 43 years ago. However, it soon got cold feet. Thus Britain conducted a referendum, 40 years ago, to check whether it wanted to be in Europe, or not (yes, I know, the whole idea is ludicrous: anybody looking at a map can see that Britain is in Europe).

Here is a telling detail: the present leader of the official Labor campaign to “Remain”, in 2016, was, in 1976, AGAINST Europe (when his party was for Europe)! And he did not change. Indeed Jeremy Corbyn said, ten days before the vote, that Britain could not control its immigration problem if it stayed inside the EU. That’s hogwash (France and Germany could control their immigration, and still can; see below Martin Wolff of the Financial Times agreeing with that point of view I long-held). But that hogwash is also the UK Independence Party’s number one argument.

What infuriates, and should infuriate, those who voted for Brexit is exemplified by the following picture. One can see the president of the USA sitting, just after Brexit, with a number of picturesque characters. There is the Muslim woman, advertising her submissive religion, with her giant scarf. Imagine a Christian woman, sitting with a cross a foot long hanging from her neck, next to the US president: people would feel that’s ridiculous. So are submissively dressed women the future? The future of England, Mr. President? That’s what that Muslim woman flaunts. Don’t worry for this oppressed minority: she sits next to Obama because she is a founder, CEO, and probably the latest master spy produced by the NSA-Silicon Valley Entrepreneurship bandwagon. Other people in the panel are the symbolic black, the symbolic woman, and the 50 billion dollar billionaire who could not get a degree, and became hyper rich by ruining England (because Zuck extracted wealth from England, by the billions, selling their information, among other things).

Go On With This Diversity Circus Of Tax Evading Manipulative Spies, and Don't Be Surprised If A White Fascist Backlash Develops, Brexit Style, and Worse, All Over The West

Go On With This Diversity Circus Of Tax Evading Manipulative Spies, and Don’t Be Surprised If A White Fascist Backlash Develops, Brexit Style, and Worse, All Over The West

The preceding is just a panel of lies, just like the Inquisition would put on first stage giant crosses, and innocent children, to proclaim its purity. (Notice that, in the panel above, Trump is on the record protesting the advertising for Islam, and the mass tax evasion of the tech monopolies the US deep state, and Obama, have come to depend upon; Trump has explicitly declared they will have to pay taxes under his reign. Those monopolies have contributed to ruin deep England.)

This is a well-known tactic used by Inquisition, Wahhabis, Stalinists, and others mad with absolute power that:”I want to save you, so I will kill you out of compassion.” It makes them feel good about themselves, while disarming their opposition by claiming to act out of love, not hatred.

The main actors of the EU vote in Britain all hated the European UNION, but some of them hid it by making non-sensical statements: it was just a “club”. Or just a “block”. Or voting “Leave”  would adversely affect the price of housing… When, precisely, the extravagant price of housing was one of the main griefs of those who wanted to vote against the EU.

The main engine of the anti-EU vote was racism (some of it, well justified! Oopss!). Suppose that, in France, to appease the French National Front, the president decided to hold a referendum on “French Independence” and then argued obsessively about it with the head of the National Front. That’s what just happened in Britain, and worse, because no national French political figure ever had as a fanatical anti-Europe position as Nigel Farage, or Jeremy Corbyn did.  

Strikingly, in his victory speech, UKIP’s Farage imitated Hitler’s oratory style, complete with yelling in a syncopated fashion with a gaping mouth, as Adolf used to. This is getting better all the time.

Karen Eilbeck, a British national, and university biology professor in the USA, told me:”I think you mean worse. Gets worse all the time.”

No, I was trying to affect an ironical, cool, British like sense of humor. Sorry if I failed. Farage’s discourse, in content and manner, was strikingly Hitler-like. He even used Hitler’s big lie technique that:”We achieved this without firing a bullet”… exactly a week after MP Jo Cox got three bullets drilled into her, by an anti-European fanatic owner of a cherished Hitler manuscript.

***

BRITAIN, OR THE FROG WHO WANTED TO BE BIGGER THAN THE OX:

Martin Wolff, the respected (in financial, economic and plutocratic circles) columnist of the Financial Times opined that:

“Cameron the prime minister, took a huge gamble and lost. The fearmongering of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Nigel Farage, The Sun and the Daily Mail has won. The UK, Europe, the west and the world are, this morning, damaged. The UK is diminished and will, quite possibly, end up divided. Europe has lost its second-biggest and most outward-looking power.”

The last few words are sheer propaganda: in which sense is Britain “second-biggest”? In BS? Because it’s not in population (France is larger: up to 70 million belong to families who can partake in French elections, by contrast with less than 65 million in Britain).

OK, the UK is second biggest in military might: France has more nukes, and more vectors for said nukes, all made in France, not bought in the USA, and France has nuclear armed supersonic stand-off missiles that even the US does not have, and the world’s most silent submarines (said even the US military). This means that France has hundreds of nuclear vectors, some strategic nuclear subs, some attack nuclear subs, Barracuda class, some supersonic stealth bombers. Whereas the UK has just four nuclear strategic submarines with US rockets on board.

And France uses her military might by conducting wars in many more countries than Britain. If Britain had joined France against Assad, the US would not have chickened out, Assad would have been eliminated, and there would be no Syrian refugee crisis.

“Second-biggest”? A lie has been circulating in pluto media circles that British GDP is much higher than France. But it’s just a lie contradicted by IMF, World Bank and CIA data. France’s GDP is actually higher. France has also a much more diversified, modern and efficient economy.

Of countless such lies was the mood that Britain was superior yet tortured by the European Union arose. So here we see Wolff decrying something with logic, which he contradicts by building a mood adverse to it.

Only the UK scientific sector, which gets 16% of EU science subsidies when Britain pays only 11% of the EU budget, is world class. British science is clearly the best in Europe, on a par, or better, than French or German science.

Having made a offrand to British bigotry, and delirious self-satisfaction, Martin Wolff proceeds to say a few true, and relevant truths:

“The hinge between the EU and the English-speaking powers has been snapped. This is quite probably the most significant event in British history since the second world war. It could mark an important moment in the west’s retreat from globalisation. It is, above all, a victory of the disappointed and fearful over those confident in the UK’s ability to adapt to change and lead in Europe.

The geography of the outcome reveals that this has also been a revolt of the provinces against a prosperous and globalised London. It is also a revolt against the establishment — political, economic and commercial. Meanwhile, those who consider themselves losers and those who resent the changes in their country, notably the mass immigration, have won.”

Something that made England so much feeling like the “second-biggest” power in Europe, has been, precisely, this sudden and irresponsible mass immigration: London is one of the largest French cities has claimed, rather inaccurately, Boris Johnson (ex-mayor of London and next British PM) .

Wolff again:“Yet the UK might not be the last country to suffer such an earthquake. Similar movements of the enraged exist elsewhere, notably in the US, with the rise of Donald Trump, France, with the rise of Marine Le Pen, and even Germany, with the rise of Alternative for Germany. Others might follow. But, in an act of terrible self-mutilation, the UK has led.”

As I said, the French right-wingers are not dumb enough to give Le Pen a referendum. Moreover, she is a lawyer, not a professional money changer like Farage. Farage, per his employment and his family background, believes in plutocratic finance as an ultimate good.

In Italy, last Sunday, the “Five Star Movement” got two young women elected. One, 37, is now mayor of Rome, the other, 31, mayor of Turin. Italy has its own change of Constitution referendum coming, and it does not look good for Mateo Renzi, its young PM (although older than the chicks above).  What is nice in the passage below is that Wolff lays the blame at the feet of Tony Blair, as I said long ago, and that’s entirely accurate. The European Union had nothing to do with it. And it’s that Blair policy which inflated Britain… And made it nearly the “second-biggest power” in the EU:

“It is one of the great ironies that Tony Blair’s Labour government, with its decision to open the UK at once to migration from the new members of the EU, paved the way to an outcome that will horrify him and his erstwhile colleagues. It is now clear that the failure to introduce safeguards on migration when opening the EU to newer and far poorer members was a mistake. But that is ancient history. Its impact cannot be reversed.”

The French government has been struggling mightily to mitigate such immigration, while Britain did the exact opposite, in its single-minded effort to become the biggest European power. Blair “New Labor” was just new plutocracy. Now it can be seen, even by those long blind.

Instead of becoming the biggest power in Europe, Great Britain will now burn and explode.

Except, of course, if Great Britain is asked to vote again. Don’t underestimate Boris Johnson. Not only does he speak perfect French (learned in Brussels as his dad worked in the EU!), but he wrote, a few months ago, an editorial supporting :Remain” before realizing that supporting “Leave” would make him British PM.

Lies can catch up. Sometimes, thirteen hundred years pass by and the lies are still strong, and suck all the air out of democracy, as in the case of Islam. Sometimes the lies rule for only thirteen years, as they did in the case of Nazism. It all depends. In part upon the fortunes of arms. One thing is sure, though: history, propelled by technology, is going ever faster.

So there Obama was, talking next to a woman with a blatant Muslim religious symbol all over her head and shoulders, religiously listening to the spymaster Zuckerberg, a college dropout worth little more than 50 billion dollars. Zuck went on and on, speaking of power and money, and was thunderously applauded for his trite comments on how conspiracies bring people together. All lies. And lies not understood very well yet.

But those who voted Brexit, seeing this scene, would seethe with anger, and rightly so: Facebook is a lie, the woman with the Muslim scarf is a lie, the wealth of Zuck rests on lies and crimes (not paying taxes), etc. And why is all of this imposed by the leader of the so-called free world? Zuckenberg pointed out that Obama would soon wear a T-shirt, a not so subtle allusion that, within a few months, Obama is nothing, and his creature, Zuck, stronger than ever. Why all this multiculturalism and all this plutocracy to break the English’s honest to goodness civilization? Precisely to break it. And replace it by oligarchy, and that supreme form thereof, plutocracy. What else? And the Brexiteer English are not wrong. This is exactly what is going on. And those who feel like voting for Trump no doubt feel the same…  

Patrice Ayme’

 

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

November 2, 2014

PRECISELY BECAUSE LOVING ONLY PUTIN’S NIPPLES IS AN UNSAFE &  SEXIST DISTRACTION

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’