The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
The ZuckMaster Explains That the Arc of History Bends Toward Global Empire

In the kingdom of the blind vs. in the global empire of the distracted

Facebook zillionaire Mark Zuckerberg has posted a 6000 word manifesto on the meaning of history:

Building Global Community
Mark Zuckerberg · Thursday, February 16, 2017

On our journey to connect the world, we often discuss products we’re building and updates on our business. Today I want to focus on the most important question of all: are we building the world we all want?

History is the story of how we’ve learned to come together in ever greater numbers — from tribes to cities to nations. At each step, we built social infrastructure like communities, media and governments to empower us to achieve things we couldn’t on our own.

Today we are close to taking our next step. Our greatest opportunities are now global …

“History is the story of how we’ve learned to come together in ever greater numbers — from tribes to cities to nations.”

As we all know, independence and diversity have always been the enemy of progress.

For example, that’s why Thomas Jefferson wrote The Declaration of Dependence submitting the American colonies to the British Empire.

Similarly, the father of history, Herodotus, wrote to celebrate the mighty Persian Empire’s reduction of the various Greek city-states to a satrapy ruled from Babylon.

Likewise, every year Jews gather to admit that their stiff-neckedness provoked the Roman Empire into, rightfully, smashing the Temple in Jerusalem on the holy day of We-Had-It-Coming.

And, of course, who can forget Shakespeare’s plays, such as Philip II and Admiral-Duke of Medina Sidonia, lauding the Spanish Armada for conquering the impudent English and restoring to Canterbury the One True Faith?

Similarly, Oswald Mosley’s prime ministership (1940-1980) of das englische Reich is justly admired for subordinating England’s traditional piratical turbulence to the greater good of Europe.

Likewise, who can not look at the 49 nations currently united by their adherence to the universalist faith of Islam and not see that submission is the road to peace, prosperity, and progress? If only unity had prevailed at Tours in 732 instead of divisiveness. May that great historical wrong be swiftly rectified in the decades to come!

Seriously, while I realize that Mr. Zuckerberg’s views represents cutting-edge Conventional Wisdom, while I’m an extremist wacko … but my basic stance is that consolidation is some times a good thing, and other times independence or decentralization is a better thing. Getting the scale of control right all depends upon the circumstances. It’s usually a very interesting and complicated question that is the central issue of high statesmanship.

For example, George Washington is famous because he was centrally involved into two major revisions of the scale of dominion that have both, so far, proven enduring: first, splitting the British Empire and, second, partially unifying the 13 states.

Switzerland is an unusually successful state that has slowly agglomerated since 1290 into a state that is big enough to defend itself, but decentralized enough for its various cantons to not get on each others’ nerves too much, despite the great diversity of language and religion. But these are difficult questions to get right.

Now, since I’m an notoriously extremist nutjob, my prejudice in favor of moderation, realism, open-mindedness, and prudence is of course anathema to virtually all responsible, disinterested zillionaires, such as Mark Zuckerberg.

One Globe Under Zuck

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. This is why we need to bring more placenta animals to Australia, the only way forward for diversity is for the marsupials to go extinct. They couldn’t compete in our new, global world!

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    This is why we need to bring more placenta animals to Australia, the only way forward for diversity is for the marsupials to go extinct.
     
    The marsupials will actually benefit from all the new diversity. They just need to learn to welcome change. They need to think of it as an opportunity, not something scary.

    The problem is that a lot of the marsupials won't accept that it's the Current Year. They're nothing but a basket of deplorables.
    , @unpc downunder
    Aussie liberals are very conservative when it comes to bringing in exotic plants and animals, but are strongly in favour of bringing in all sorts of exotic humans. There's a huge disconnect between their environmental views and their immigration views.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-zuckmaster-explains-that-the-arc-of-history-bends-toward-global-empire/#comment-1769701
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Pinsen, this is your genius speaking…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I said he was the greatest entrepreneur/CEO of his generation, which is self-evidently true -- no other millennial has started a business from scratch and built it into a $380 billion+ company while remaining CEO. I didn't praise his politics or his pontificating.
  3. How do we help people build an inclusive community that reflects our collective values and common humanity from local to global levels, spanning cultures, nations and regions in a world with few examples of global communities?

    What collective values do the people of the world have? Zuckerberg also has a line in there about what they can do to strengthen traditional institutions. He must be able to say anything with a straight face.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    "Zuckerberg also has a line in there about what they can do to strengthen traditional institutions. He must be able to say anything with a straight face."

    These people refer to all the parochial dogmas that are peculiar to their own generation and society, and to all the institutions they've subverted to serve their radical internationalist and social liberal goals as "traditional". It's just another (characteristically dishonest) way of capturing the language in order to render dissent more difficult.

    It's like David Cameron and his ilk declaring the normalisation of homosexual activity, that until a few decades ago would have been almost universally regarded in Britain as disgusting, if not positively immoral and rightly illegal, as "traditional British values".

    In some cases it's probably genuine ignorance, in others lying propaganda, pure and simple.
    , @Mr Mack Bolan
    I really don't see any collective values, especially between the Western civilization and these stone aged holdovers that the UN and global elites are so eager for us to mingle with and embrace as our own, ( even though they want us dead. ) They want everyone to be equal and work together to make a new world empire that they will lead, because of course we can't expect them the elite to be anything but the elite.
    Maybe Zuckerberg misspoke, maybe he meant to say " collective likes" we all like to eat and have sex. Unfortunately that is about as far is it goes. I'm sure they really want us all to eat and drink ( drink alot ) and have sex with each other. This will create a mixed race of lower IQ humans who will be easier to rule over. Keeping humanity stupid is nothing new , it has been like that since the beginning. Why do you think the leaders of Islam frown on reading , art, and music. Just work make wealth for the leaders and you will be able to eat and have sex.
  4. Obviously all that facebook shit has gone to his head. Also the thirty billion this disgusting worm is worth. Anyone know who really runs facebook? Is it Zuck? For example Google really didn’t take off until Eric Schmidt came on board with his solid business background.

    Read More
  5. No surprise there, coming from the likes of Zuckerberg.

    Of course, there’s no “direction” to history in any moral sense, that’s the whig fallacy. But there are directions favoured – even favoured to the extent of being unstoppable, though only hindsight can confirm this – by technological and other circumstances. It remains to be seen whether national independence and difference can stand up to the economic and political forces ranged against it in the context of the technological shrinking of the world. Those who, like me, see a world government as the likely end of human progress, with nowhere to escape from the inevitable crushing, suffocating ideologies that all ruling elites eventually succumb to, and nowhere “outside” to provide an example of a different way, can only hope so.

    But we do seem to be at something of a key point, with a popular democratic rebellion (or is it a last stand?) ongoing against the big business globalists and leftist internationalists. But it is clearly facing a strong fight-back from the latter, and success is by no means guaranteed. The enemies of humanity are impressively wealthy and powerful, ranging from the secretively embedded “deep state” types such as those who have no hesitation in breaking the law to leak national security wiretap contents, to the open leftists in the media and political establishments, the big business global elite types like Zuckerberg, and (for those under the mistaken impression it’s a partisan party political issue) to the neoconservatives and all the leftists embedded at the very highest levels of the Republican establishment.

    As establishment “conservative” Bill Kristol openly admitted (per Breitbart) on Tuesday:

    Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state.

    How is it there is not a mass boycott of Weekly Standard by US Republicans, and protests against every appearance by this man in the media under false pretences as a “conservative”, when he so openly admits to treason against an elected Republican President?

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Technological shrinkage will certainly not lead to One-Worldism. That's never going to happen, unless and until we breed a new species for it. The battle is not about nationalism as such against globalization. It is right now about specific, currently existing nation states and how far the New World Order will go in destroying them. Will the United States survive? I don't know. But nations will.

    Globalization will fail. The modern nation-state may fail. Nationalism will not, though I may be using that term in a broader sense than most do.
    , @Hunsdon
    re: Kristol. Umm, because they agree with him?
    , @The Big Red Scary
    "Leftist" comes up often in discussions at the Unz Review, but most of the issues that are thought of as leftist ("humanitarian intervention", "globalization", "xyz rights") are either anathema to the traditional left or (in the case of "xyz rights") thought of as cynical distractions from the more fundamental problem of class warfare. If you are looking for an example of a real leftist, check out John Pilger's talk on the "Hijacking of Feminism": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jytvgHGbbws.

    The point I want to make here is that reasonable people can disagree about various minor issues (whether mahus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māhū can use the ladies washroom, for example) but can cooperate on existential issues (fighting neoliberalcon economic and military hegemony).

    By the way, there are a number of real leftists and friends of leftists who are posted on the Unz Review. Michael Hudson, for example, whose articles also appear at Counterpunch. Also, it should be known that Counterpunch was started by Alexander Cockburn, brother of Patrick Cockburn. So if you read the Unz Review, you are only a step away from discovering real leftists. You might not feel quite at home with them, but you might very well find enough common ground to have a good argument and perhaps even a principled and limited coalition.
  6. How we’ve all come together blah, blah, blah. When anyone starts talking about our future, human society, or bullshit we control only slightly better than we control weather, and does so using cliche’s straight from Pepsi commercial dorktionary, we are permitted to wish them discomfort and darkness.

    Read More
  7. “an inclusive community that reflects our collective values and common humanity” Show us a Venn diagram.

    There should be a name for this kind of foundation mush.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    “an inclusive community that reflects our collective values and common humanity” Show us a Venn diagram.

    There should be a name for this kind of foundation mush.
     

    Just call it Neo-Babelism.

    Launching schemes that try to reunify the scattered nations is a constant temptation for fallen humanity.

    , @Olorin

    There should be a name for this kind of foundation mush.
     
    There is.

    "Bullshit."

  8. Make immigration comprehensive again!

    I need comprehensive immigration reform. You need comprehensive immigration reform. He needs comprehensive immigration reform. She needs comprehensive immigration reform. Xe needs comprehensive immigration reform. They need comprehensive immigration reform. Pablo “They” Gomez needs comprehensive immigration reform. Non-binary gender non-conforming genderqueers need comprehensive immigration reform. Every one of the 58 genders available for Facebook profiles needs comprehensive immigration reform. Everybody needs comprehensive immigration reform. Because comprehensive immigration reform is more important than life, water, food and oxygen themselves.

    I am a strong, solid advocate for good, clean, top flight, top drawer, strong, solid, robust, common sense, solid as a rock, solid as they come, desperately needed, way overdue, humanitarian, compassion-based comprehensive immigration reform. The kind of immigration reform that melts in your mouth, not in your hand. The kind of immigration reform that plumps when you cook it. The kind of immigration reform that just makes you feel good and shout for joy for a job well done.

    Comprehensive immigration reform will raise wages and salaries, strengthen national security, prevent terrorism, enhance our domestic crime-fighting ability, ensure that we continue to encourage the best and brightest to partake of the American dream, enhance our competitiveness and our ability to innovate, and make America more prosperous.

    Comprehensive immigration reform will make the economy more fair and equitable, help clean and preserve our environment, bolster Social Security and Medicare, aid the cause of reproductive rights and LGBT rights, drive a stake through the heart of bigotry and discrimination, guarantee social justice for all, and make America more vibrant and diverse.

    It will also make immigration more comprehensive.

    The reason I advocate comprehensive immigration reform over other ideas is that I checked out the other ideas, and they just aren’t comprehensive, they just don’t do it for me in the comprehensiveness department. I really like the comprehensive nature of comprehensive immigration reform. The best part of comprehensive immigration reform is its comprehensiveness. With comprehensive immigration reform, I’ll be a’comprehensivin. My ultimate goal with immigration reform is to be comprehensiver than thou.

    [MORE]

    I also have a soft spot in my heart for things that are comprehensive. From a little boy, I remember sitting at our dinner table many evenings, and my father would point his finger straight at me and give me a stern look, and he told me that if I ever got a chance to screw over the goyim, to do it completely and (his own word) “comprehensively.” He was adamant that I not waste any golden or silver or green opportunities. I’m glad to say that I’m finally living up to my father’s expectations. For his most recent birthday present, I had a wooden ventriloquist style caricature doll of myself made, and I call the doll Marc de la Comprehensiva. It’s his third favorite possession in the whole world, his second is his 1978 Lincoln Town Car which he hopes will run forever, and his first is his gold plated Talmud.

    The other kinds of immigration reform are also dangerous, because they rely on rhetoric such as “round them up and deport them all,” “build walls,” “make America great again.” That’s the kind of rhetoric that reminds me of Nazi Germany, and the Nazis gassed all ten of my grandmas to death at Auschwitz, a horror which my father personally witnessed and forever vowed to avenge with a now world famous phrase of his invention: “Never again.” Ten grandmas here, ten grandmas there, and that’s how we roll that odometer up to six million. Also, I’m not in the business of making America great again or any country great again, for that matter. I’m all about the leeching off of countries, sucking them dry, and then moving on to the next warm blood source. Our people’s history is such that any time some king, emperor, dictator or politician starts yelling about making his country great again, it usually winds up to where our people either lose a lot of our power or are kicked out and exiled altogether, or, as all ten of of my grandmas can attest from the great beyond, worse.

    It’s why internationally respected scholars and researchers like Glenn Beck have concluded that the Presidential candidates who spew that kind of rhetoric are exactly like Hitler. They all run around bragging about their puny putrid pitiful little $10 billion fortunes, when the truth of the matter is that they took years to make that kind of money, I made my much larger $50 billion fortune almost overnight. And I mean that literally, because I often wake up and find out I’m worth a few billion more than when I went to sleep. Their fortunes are in old fashioned relics of the past, fuddy duddy stuff like buildings and real estate, and my fortune is in the asset of the future, Facebook stock. They had to make their money the old fashioned way, by earning it, and I made my fortune the new modern progressive way, scamming half the world to give me all their personal information in their tawdry pursuit for their cheap fifteen minutes of fame, so I can turn right around and sell it to Madison Avenue, the Mossad and the NSA. I made my money while I’m still young enough to enjoy spending it to break the back of the goyim.

    Thanks for letting me monetize your lives, by and by.

    You see, I stole someone else’s idea of a world-changing internet social media network, and it has brought me to the vestibule of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, immortality, and I’m also well on my way to being the world’s first trillionaire. The one missing ingredient is comprehensive immigration reform. At least that’s what a building full of Jewish lawyers who write all my immigration litanies and spiels tell me. Every time I go there to get new marching orders, everyone there starts rubbing their hands together. The strangest part of that is that I had to learn to shake these people’s hands in a really weird way before they started doing business with me. But I’m not going to dwell on it too much, and I’m not going to ask questions, because these are the kind of people who seem like they’ll bring down some major league hurt on your head if you ask too many questions. I’m in the business of becoming obscenely rich, not asking questions. Unfortunately, comprehensive immigration reform won’t solve the most vexing problem in my life: The wife always nagging me about buying her more shoes.

    When I think of comprehensive immigration reform, I think of the only antitode to an ill that has been ailing me for quite some time. Some cartoon frog follows me around everywhere I go throwing parentheses at me, and that damned Peter Thiel is way off in the back somewhere pointing his finger at me and laughing at me. The lack of comprehensive immigration reform is taxing my mental health.

    Sometimes, the other kinds of immigration reform wind up being scams. And believe me, I know a thing or three about scams. They promise to be comprehensive, but when you look at what you get, they wind up leaving out a lot of the comprehensiveness. Worse than that, you might get the full 100% comprehensiveness at first, but like a thief in the night, they break in and steal a lot of the comprehensiveness. That’s not the Marc Zuckurburg way, the fully comprehensive way. IEEE, ANSI and UL have certified a less than one ppb impurity ratio of the comprehensiveness in my immigration reform. I’m so nice that I’ll even throw in some extra added bonus comprehensiveness, 25% more free, no extra charge. I also guarantee the comprehensiveness in my immigration reform with a 7 year 70,000 mile limited powertrain warranty that also protects you from rust and corrosion. It covers you from bumper to bumper. It’s the best warranty in the immigration reform business.

    This is why poll after poll shows that people support comprehensive solutions to our immigration problems, instead of genocidal solutions that have Nazi rhetoric as their foundations, or solutions bereft of comprehensiveness. It’s why more and more people are giving up silly hobbies like diddling around with fishing lures, or telescopes, or collecting stamps, or sleeping, and joining in Marc’s Comprehensive Corps. People know that middle class greed hurts billionaires in need. What’s mine is mine, what’s yours will soon be mine. People know that source code is literally rotting in the fields. People know not to turn “corporate greed” into a pejorative, because I wouldn’t be where I am today, and I wouldn’t be the putz I am today without corporate greed. I fly my corporate greed flag high, tall and proud.

    Our struggle for comprehensive immigration reform is righteous, albeit arduous. Very difficult, a very steep mountain to climb. The forces of reaction and xenophobia are well funded, their four extremist hate organizations all have bank accounts that run well into the tens of dollars. In contrast, all we have to work with are most billionaires, most corporations, almost all of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, almost all of academia, and a majority of the full force of the Federal government, and the full sympathy of the current Federal executive branch. We are locked in a real Goliath versus David struggle to speak power to truth. But the crusade led by the privileged, rich, organized and powerful against the dispossessed, broke, unorganized and weak is indeed on the right side of history in the current year, and the arc of history bends in the billionaires’ direction. All we can hope for is that we wake up every morning surrounded by our fifteen morning servants to remind us that we have made it to live to fight another day. I know I’m on the right side of history, and that history will judge all of you alt right biogted xenophobes to be deficient and derelict, because I have bought all the historians.

    I know as I was growing up and going through school, especially Taking Over and Ruling the World 101 at Harvard, and I got an A in that class, I was taught that the best way to solve your problems is to get rich enough to buy them off. Either that or just wait around for the old man to kick off so you can inherit a piece of his mega-fortune, then use that money to buy off your problems. When life throws you lemons, hire a village full of illegal alien Hondurans to pick them all up, and then have your butler hoof it to Trader Joe’s to buy you some lemonade. I remember when I was in high school that we all worried about a problem called Y2K or Year 2000. Bill Gates solved his Year 2000 problems by buying the year 2000. Likewise, the status quo doesn’t bother me, because I have bought the status quo. When you’ve got the kind of money I do, you can buy lots of status quos.

    There needs to be a core focus on comprehensive immigration reform for yet another critical reason — I visit a lot of these alt right websites and blogs on many days, and all their regular commenters do is whine and bellyache about their own selfish petty little concerns. They all be like: My country, my heritage, my millennia-old civilization, my people, my future, my ancestors, my posterity, my racial purity, my blonde hair, my blue eyes, my cartoon frog memes, my border security, my personal security, my quality livable neighborhoods, my affordable family formation, my community social altruism, my country’s economic well being, my fair and equitable distribution of income and wealth, me me me me me. What a bunch of greedy self-righteous cockypop! Not a one of them have the consideration to think about what I need, what I want. And it’s not like it would hurt — I think about me all the time, and it certainly hasn’t hurt me! Me thinking about me for the last 32 years has resulted in me accumulating a $50 billion fortune. If these alt right people would take the time to think about me, my fortune would be far larger. And that would be good for me. Comprehensive immigration reform would amount to a badly needed readjustment of our priorities.

    But if my plans fail, and my wife starts snitching to the Securities and Exchange Commission, as she has threatened to do several times when I say I’m not going to buy her any more shoes, I’ll have to hot foot it and be on the next red eye to my secret condo and my secret bank account with a few billion stashed aside in my extradition-free tax haven in southeast Asia. No way I’m gonna let the Feds turn me into Bernie Madoff’s cellmate; that sonofabitch snores so loudly that he’s in a North Carolina prison and I can hear him all the way over here in San Francisco. To think, I only married her because I’m trying to infiltrate the Chinese banking system on behalf of my people, and she and the kids we have together give me an in. Anyway, if I ever seem to go off the grid, that’s where I’ll be. Don’t come looking for me, especially if you’re a Fed. I do not anticipate failure, though, because my second-to-last ditch contingency involves a concept that some debbie downer prosecutors mistakenly call “extortion.” I hold the power of life and death over all of you; you’re going to see to it that I get my comprehensive immigration reform, and if you refuse, I will do worse than kill you — I’ll delete your Facebook pages. There have been cases of people dying from the apoplectic shock caused by the mental anguish of not having access to Facebook for more than four minutes.

    It’s also why, in spite of the fact that I know my bad reputation precedes me, for example, I keep hearing everyone behind my back calling me a two-faced crapweasel, and those are just the people that work for me, and are related to me, and are close friends of me, and also my wife, and those were also the first words out of my kid’s mouth, and also, for some reason I can’t figure out, people who know me for long enough wind up saying things behind my back like “Maybe Hitler had a point,” “Maybe I should give Hitler a second look,” and cruel things like that, I want to assure all of you that my support for comprehensive immigration reform is pure and genuine. I will never betray the cause, I will always be loyal, solid as a rock, dependable. So much so that I beg you that when you think of comprehensive immigration reform, you should instantly think of me, the great Marc Zuckurburg.

    It’s also why more and more people are saying every day, and you should too:

    Make my immigration reform comprehensive, please!

    One more thing: Black Lives Matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bies Podkrakowski
    Damn. That's long.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    You've got a good start on the definitive 21st Century novel.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I’m glad to say that I’m finally living up to my father’s expectations. For his most recent birthday present, I had a wooden ventriloquist style caricature doll of myself made, and I call the doll Marc de la Comprehensiva. It’s his third favorite possession in the whole world, his second is his 1978 Lincoln Town Car which he hopes will run forever, and his first is his gold plated Talmud.

    Ten grandmas here, ten grandmas there, and that’s how we roll that odometer up to six million.

    Unfortunately, comprehensive immigration reform won’t solve the most vexing problem in my life: The wife always nagging me about buying her more shoes.

    Some cartoon frog follows me around everywhere I go throwing parentheses at me, and that damned Peter Thiel is way off in the back somewhere pointing his finger at me and laughing at me. The lack of comprehensive immigration reform is taxing my mental health.

    I hold the power of life and death over all of you; you’re going to see to it that I get my comprehensive immigration reform, and if you refuse, I will do worse than kill you — I’ll delete your Facebook pages.
     
    Mr. Zuckurburg, I must give you credit for deigning to grace us deplorables with your presence and revealing your thoughts in such a comprehensively candid manner.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I read this whole thing on Amren one time. It never gets old. Once a month or so will probably do the trick, though. Thanks, and make your replies to me comprehensive also. C'mon guys, it's all comprehension nowadays!
  9. Reflections On The Revolution In France — by Edmund Burke

    Burke is better than Zuckerberg. I always liked the way Attorney General Jeff Sessions pronounced the name “Zuckerberg” when he was a US Senator. Sessions used to say “Zuckabehhrg.”

    Edmund Burke said the French Revolution would sweep away all restraints on man’s inner passions and lead to unchecked wickedness.

    Zuckerberg is Jewish. Zuckerberg has no connection to the European Christian ancestral core of the United States. Zuckerberg wants to destroy the United States as a sovereign nation-state. Zuckerberg is an evil nation-wrecker. Zuckerberg is a corrosive force in American politics. Zuckerberg pushed the Illegal Alien Amnesty — Mass Immigration Surge bill(S744).

    Reflections On The Globalization Of The United States — by the Ruling Class of the American Empire

    Read More
  10. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    And who would be the ruling elites of this globalist empire?

    It should really be called the Anglo-Zionist Empire.

    Btw, how did Russia end up in the 90s due to this globalism?

    Read More
  11. @Marc Zuckurburg
    Make immigration comprehensive again!

    I need comprehensive immigration reform. You need comprehensive immigration reform. He needs comprehensive immigration reform. She needs comprehensive immigration reform. Xe needs comprehensive immigration reform. They need comprehensive immigration reform. Pablo "They" Gomez needs comprehensive immigration reform. Non-binary gender non-conforming genderqueers need comprehensive immigration reform. Every one of the 58 genders available for Facebook profiles needs comprehensive immigration reform. Everybody needs comprehensive immigration reform. Because comprehensive immigration reform is more important than life, water, food and oxygen themselves.

    I am a strong, solid advocate for good, clean, top flight, top drawer, strong, solid, robust, common sense, solid as a rock, solid as they come, desperately needed, way overdue, humanitarian, compassion-based comprehensive immigration reform. The kind of immigration reform that melts in your mouth, not in your hand. The kind of immigration reform that plumps when you cook it. The kind of immigration reform that just makes you feel good and shout for joy for a job well done.

    Comprehensive immigration reform will raise wages and salaries, strengthen national security, prevent terrorism, enhance our domestic crime-fighting ability, ensure that we continue to encourage the best and brightest to partake of the American dream, enhance our competitiveness and our ability to innovate, and make America more prosperous.

    Comprehensive immigration reform will make the economy more fair and equitable, help clean and preserve our environment, bolster Social Security and Medicare, aid the cause of reproductive rights and LGBT rights, drive a stake through the heart of bigotry and discrimination, guarantee social justice for all, and make America more vibrant and diverse.

    It will also make immigration more comprehensive.

    The reason I advocate comprehensive immigration reform over other ideas is that I checked out the other ideas, and they just aren’t comprehensive, they just don’t do it for me in the comprehensiveness department. I really like the comprehensive nature of comprehensive immigration reform. The best part of comprehensive immigration reform is its comprehensiveness. With comprehensive immigration reform, I’ll be a’comprehensivin. My ultimate goal with immigration reform is to be comprehensiver than thou.



    I also have a soft spot in my heart for things that are comprehensive. From a little boy, I remember sitting at our dinner table many evenings, and my father would point his finger straight at me and give me a stern look, and he told me that if I ever got a chance to screw over the goyim, to do it completely and (his own word) “comprehensively.” He was adamant that I not waste any golden or silver or green opportunities. I’m glad to say that I’m finally living up to my father’s expectations. For his most recent birthday present, I had a wooden ventriloquist style caricature doll of myself made, and I call the doll Marc de la Comprehensiva. It’s his third favorite possession in the whole world, his second is his 1978 Lincoln Town Car which he hopes will run forever, and his first is his gold plated Talmud.

    The other kinds of immigration reform are also dangerous, because they rely on rhetoric such as “round them up and deport them all,” “build walls,” “make America great again.” That’s the kind of rhetoric that reminds me of Nazi Germany, and the Nazis gassed all ten of my grandmas to death at Auschwitz, a horror which my father personally witnessed and forever vowed to avenge with a now world famous phrase of his invention: “Never again.” Ten grandmas here, ten grandmas there, and that’s how we roll that odometer up to six million. Also, I’m not in the business of making America great again or any country great again, for that matter. I’m all about the leeching off of countries, sucking them dry, and then moving on to the next warm blood source. Our people’s history is such that any time some king, emperor, dictator or politician starts yelling about making his country great again, it usually winds up to where our people either lose a lot of our power or are kicked out and exiled altogether, or, as all ten of of my grandmas can attest from the great beyond, worse.

    It’s why internationally respected scholars and researchers like Glenn Beck have concluded that the Presidential candidates who spew that kind of rhetoric are exactly like Hitler. They all run around bragging about their puny putrid pitiful little $10 billion fortunes, when the truth of the matter is that they took years to make that kind of money, I made my much larger $50 billion fortune almost overnight. And I mean that literally, because I often wake up and find out I’m worth a few billion more than when I went to sleep. Their fortunes are in old fashioned relics of the past, fuddy duddy stuff like buildings and real estate, and my fortune is in the asset of the future, Facebook stock. They had to make their money the old fashioned way, by earning it, and I made my fortune the new modern progressive way, scamming half the world to give me all their personal information in their tawdry pursuit for their cheap fifteen minutes of fame, so I can turn right around and sell it to Madison Avenue, the Mossad and the NSA. I made my money while I’m still young enough to enjoy spending it to break the back of the goyim.

    Thanks for letting me monetize your lives, by and by.

    You see, I stole someone else’s idea of a world-changing internet social media network, and it has brought me to the vestibule of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, immortality, and I’m also well on my way to being the world’s first trillionaire. The one missing ingredient is comprehensive immigration reform. At least that’s what a building full of Jewish lawyers who write all my immigration litanies and spiels tell me. Every time I go there to get new marching orders, everyone there starts rubbing their hands together. The strangest part of that is that I had to learn to shake these people’s hands in a really weird way before they started doing business with me. But I’m not going to dwell on it too much, and I’m not going to ask questions, because these are the kind of people who seem like they’ll bring down some major league hurt on your head if you ask too many questions. I’m in the business of becoming obscenely rich, not asking questions. Unfortunately, comprehensive immigration reform won’t solve the most vexing problem in my life: The wife always nagging me about buying her more shoes.

    When I think of comprehensive immigration reform, I think of the only antitode to an ill that has been ailing me for quite some time. Some cartoon frog follows me around everywhere I go throwing parentheses at me, and that damned Peter Thiel is way off in the back somewhere pointing his finger at me and laughing at me. The lack of comprehensive immigration reform is taxing my mental health.

    Sometimes, the other kinds of immigration reform wind up being scams. And believe me, I know a thing or three about scams. They promise to be comprehensive, but when you look at what you get, they wind up leaving out a lot of the comprehensiveness. Worse than that, you might get the full 100% comprehensiveness at first, but like a thief in the night, they break in and steal a lot of the comprehensiveness. That’s not the Marc Zuckurburg way, the fully comprehensive way. IEEE, ANSI and UL have certified a less than one ppb impurity ratio of the comprehensiveness in my immigration reform. I’m so nice that I’ll even throw in some extra added bonus comprehensiveness, 25% more free, no extra charge. I also guarantee the comprehensiveness in my immigration reform with a 7 year 70,000 mile limited powertrain warranty that also protects you from rust and corrosion. It covers you from bumper to bumper. It’s the best warranty in the immigration reform business.

    This is why poll after poll shows that people support comprehensive solutions to our immigration problems, instead of genocidal solutions that have Nazi rhetoric as their foundations, or solutions bereft of comprehensiveness. It’s why more and more people are giving up silly hobbies like diddling around with fishing lures, or telescopes, or collecting stamps, or sleeping, and joining in Marc’s Comprehensive Corps. People know that middle class greed hurts billionaires in need. What’s mine is mine, what’s yours will soon be mine. People know that source code is literally rotting in the fields. People know not to turn “corporate greed” into a pejorative, because I wouldn’t be where I am today, and I wouldn’t be the putz I am today without corporate greed. I fly my corporate greed flag high, tall and proud.

    Our struggle for comprehensive immigration reform is righteous, albeit arduous. Very difficult, a very steep mountain to climb. The forces of reaction and xenophobia are well funded, their four extremist hate organizations all have bank accounts that run well into the tens of dollars. In contrast, all we have to work with are most billionaires, most corporations, almost all of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, almost all of academia, and a majority of the full force of the Federal government, and the full sympathy of the current Federal executive branch. We are locked in a real Goliath versus David struggle to speak power to truth. But the crusade led by the privileged, rich, organized and powerful against the dispossessed, broke, unorganized and weak is indeed on the right side of history in the current year, and the arc of history bends in the billionaires’ direction. All we can hope for is that we wake up every morning surrounded by our fifteen morning servants to remind us that we have made it to live to fight another day. I know I’m on the right side of history, and that history will judge all of you alt right biogted xenophobes to be deficient and derelict, because I have bought all the historians.

    I know as I was growing up and going through school, especially Taking Over and Ruling the World 101 at Harvard, and I got an A in that class, I was taught that the best way to solve your problems is to get rich enough to buy them off. Either that or just wait around for the old man to kick off so you can inherit a piece of his mega-fortune, then use that money to buy off your problems. When life throws you lemons, hire a village full of illegal alien Hondurans to pick them all up, and then have your butler hoof it to Trader Joe’s to buy you some lemonade. I remember when I was in high school that we all worried about a problem called Y2K or Year 2000. Bill Gates solved his Year 2000 problems by buying the year 2000. Likewise, the status quo doesn’t bother me, because I have bought the status quo. When you’ve got the kind of money I do, you can buy lots of status quos.

    There needs to be a core focus on comprehensive immigration reform for yet another critical reason — I visit a lot of these alt right websites and blogs on many days, and all their regular commenters do is whine and bellyache about their own selfish petty little concerns. They all be like: My country, my heritage, my millennia-old civilization, my people, my future, my ancestors, my posterity, my racial purity, my blonde hair, my blue eyes, my cartoon frog memes, my border security, my personal security, my quality livable neighborhoods, my affordable family formation, my community social altruism, my country’s economic well being, my fair and equitable distribution of income and wealth, me me me me me. What a bunch of greedy self-righteous cockypop! Not a one of them have the consideration to think about what I need, what I want. And it’s not like it would hurt — I think about me all the time, and it certainly hasn’t hurt me! Me thinking about me for the last 32 years has resulted in me accumulating a $50 billion fortune. If these alt right people would take the time to think about me, my fortune would be far larger. And that would be good for me. Comprehensive immigration reform would amount to a badly needed readjustment of our priorities.

    But if my plans fail, and my wife starts snitching to the Securities and Exchange Commission, as she has threatened to do several times when I say I’m not going to buy her any more shoes, I’ll have to hot foot it and be on the next red eye to my secret condo and my secret bank account with a few billion stashed aside in my extradition-free tax haven in southeast Asia. No way I’m gonna let the Feds turn me into Bernie Madoff’s cellmate; that sonofabitch snores so loudly that he’s in a North Carolina prison and I can hear him all the way over here in San Francisco. To think, I only married her because I’m trying to infiltrate the Chinese banking system on behalf of my people, and she and the kids we have together give me an in. Anyway, if I ever seem to go off the grid, that’s where I’ll be. Don’t come looking for me, especially if you’re a Fed. I do not anticipate failure, though, because my second-to-last ditch contingency involves a concept that some debbie downer prosecutors mistakenly call “extortion.” I hold the power of life and death over all of you; you’re going to see to it that I get my comprehensive immigration reform, and if you refuse, I will do worse than kill you — I’ll delete your Facebook pages. There have been cases of people dying from the apoplectic shock caused by the mental anguish of not having access to Facebook for more than four minutes.

    It’s also why, in spite of the fact that I know my bad reputation precedes me, for example, I keep hearing everyone behind my back calling me a two-faced crapweasel, and those are just the people that work for me, and are related to me, and are close friends of me, and also my wife, and those were also the first words out of my kid’s mouth, and also, for some reason I can’t figure out, people who know me for long enough wind up saying things behind my back like “Maybe Hitler had a point,” “Maybe I should give Hitler a second look,” and cruel things like that, I want to assure all of you that my support for comprehensive immigration reform is pure and genuine. I will never betray the cause, I will always be loyal, solid as a rock, dependable. So much so that I beg you that when you think of comprehensive immigration reform, you should instantly think of me, the great Marc Zuckurburg.

    It’s also why more and more people are saying every day, and you should too:

    Make my immigration reform comprehensive, please!

    One more thing: Black Lives Matter.

    Damn. That’s long.

    Read More
  12. >are we building the world we all want?

    I wonder what a global poll of “things heading in the right direction or on the wrong track” would look like?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    Ask and ye shall receive:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-09/which-countries-are-going-right-direction-youll-never-guess
    , @Cloudbuster
    are we building the world we all want?

    Obviously not, because the world I want is simply incompatible with the world a faithful Muslim wants.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    For example who would agree that in 50 years time the world would be improved by having fewer West Afticans (and Yemenis and Pakistanis...) and more of the endangered species?
  13. So who is Zuckersperg’s ghost writer? No doubt all that nonsense is what ge has rattling around in his head. But I just can’t see him spending time writing it or having good writing abilities.

    Read More
  14. Mark Zuckerburg is developing manboobs. Maybe he should switch from t-shirts to sweatshirts. Manboobs usually mean a decline in testosterone so I’m not sure how long he will be able to maintain his imperial ambitions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    You shouldn't worry too much about his testosterone levels considering he is married to a dragon lady!
  15. A long and tedious commercial for Facebook.

    They Key to World Peace:

    Research suggests the best solutions for improving discourse may come from getting to know each other as whole people instead of just opinions — something Facebook may be uniquely suited to do. If we connect with people about what we have in common — sports teams, TV shows, interests — it is easier to have dialogue about what we disagree on. When we do this well, we give billions of people the ability to share new perspectives while mitigating the unwanted effects that come with any new medium.

    Connecting everyone to the internet is also necessary for building an informed community.

    Of course. And using Facebook.

    The second is establishing a new process for citizens worldwide to participate in collective decision-making. Our world is more connected than ever, and we face global problems that span national boundaries. As the largest global community, Facebook can explore examples of how community governance might work at scale.

    How could the Emergency Spillway not work? It got a million Likes!

    Second, our community spans many countries and cultures, and the norms are different in each region. It’s not surprising that Europeans more frequently find fault with taking down images depicting nudity, since some European cultures are more accepting of nudity than, for example, many communities in the Middle East or Asia. With a community of almost two billion people, it is less feasible to have a single set of standards to govern the entire community so we need to evolve towards a system of more local governance.

    Third, even within a given culture, we have different opinions on what we want to see and what is objectionable. I may be okay with more politically charged speech but not want to see anything sexually suggestive, while you may be okay with nudity but not want to see offensive speech. Similarly, you may want to share a violent video in a protest without worrying that you’re going to bother friends who don’t want to see it. And just as it’s a bad experience to see objectionable content, it’s also a terrible experience to be told we can’t share something we feel is important. This suggests we need to evolve towards a system of personal control over our experience.

    Well, you’ve just contradicted yourself, because you can’t make an inclusive and safe community that is decentralized for the sake of individuals, but, don’t worry about it.

    The guiding principles are that the Community Standards should reflect the cultural norms of our community, that each person should see as little objectionable content as possible, and each person should be able to share what they want while being told they cannot share something as little as possible. The approach is to combine creating a large-scale democratic process to determine standards with AI to help enforce them.

    Oh, Robots! That will work. Except that a community where everyone gets to check off the content they do not want to see will no longer be a community where people are exposed to different things.

    With a broader range of controls, content will only be taken down if it is more objectionable than the most permissive options allow.

    I’m sorry, but equivocation just does not work here.

    It’s worth noting that major advances in AI are required to understand text, photos and videos to judge whether they contain hate speech, graphic violence, sexually explicit content, and more. At our current pace of research, we hope to begin handling some of these cases in 2017, but others will not be possible for many years.

    Prediction: If AI ever “understands” text, photos, and videos, there will be a lot of porn on Facebook.

    Once again, I am left bemoaning the absence of an “Unlike” button on Facebook.

    Read More
    • LOL: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    You should see my lawyers' disclaimer at the bottom of my post Please like this post, Mark Zuckerberg as I need more facebook friends .....
    , @ben tillman

    How could the Emergency Spillway not work? It got a million Likes!
     
    Ha ha. Nicely done.
    , @Forbes

    each person should see as little objectionable content as possible, and each person should be able to share what they want while being told they cannot share something as little as possible.
     
    I'm still trying to wrap my head around that. It suggests the isolation and insularity of a padded room.

    It seems likely that Zuck is so consumed with the virtual world of FB that he has no idea how human interaction/interpersonal communication works.
  16. Bob Dylan was counseling the same prudence when he wrote, “George Lewis told the Englishman, the Italian and the Jew, ‘you can’t open up your minds, boys, to every conceivable point of view.’”

    Read More
  17. About 30 miles N of Savannah to Charleston there’s a signpost to Cuckold’s Landing. Rename it Zuckold’s Landing and you’re uptodate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SGOTI
    LOL! I drove past that just a few hours ago. It makes me laugh every time, especially since the advent of cuckservative.

    I don't know if it is fitting that it is right down the road from the pre-Revolutionary ruins of the "Temple of Sport".

    "Shrimp and grits for three, please."
  18. Likewise, who can not look at the 49 nations currently united by their adherence to the universalist faith of Islam and not see that submission is the road to peace, prosperity, and progress? If only unity had prevailed at Tours in 732 instead of divisiveness. May that great historical wrong be swiftly rectified in the decades to come!

    One of my high school teachers (2000′s) claimed the Dark Ages would’ve ended had the Muslims won.

    It would’ve been the end of an age, for sure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    One of my high school teachers (2000′s) claimed the Dark Ages would’ve ended had the Muslims won.

    It takes effort to be that deluded.
  19. Sorry, OT, but did Trump pretty much nail it in today’s press conference, or did he not?

    Read More
    • Agree: European-American
    • Replies: @vinteuil
    btw - do I correctly identify Stephen Miller & Stephen Bannon among those filing in to sit in the front row?
    , @candid_observer
    Yeah, on some level it seems not even to have occurred to the media that if it goes quite deliberately into a relentless attack on Trump, and even announces to the entire world that that is what it's going to do (because they "must not normalize Trump!"), then they will be helpless before an equally relentless and direct counterattack by the most visible person in the world, in which they are accused of ginning up Fake News and phony controversies and acting as if they are the opposition party.

    It's actually almost funny to see the media now taking terrible offense at the idea that their attacks are contrived, that they don't deserve to be treated like a genuine press with standards of objectivity, that they aren't serving the American people but only their own fanatic partisanship.

    You have to believe that many in the media know in their hearts that they've completely forfeited the right to be regarded as an honest broker of the Truth for the American people. Anybody taking even the most cursory glance at recent front pages of the NYT sees any claim to balance or objectivity as ludicrous on its face.

  20. havel:

    Yet, as we have seen, ideology becomes at the same time an increasingly important component of power, a pillar providing it with both excusatory legitimacy and an inner coherence. As this aspect grows in importance, and as it gradually loses touch with reality, it acquires a peculiar but very real strength. It becomes reality itself, albeit a reality altogether self-contained, one that on certain levels (chiefly inside the power structure) may have even greater weight than reality as such. Increasingly, the virtuosity of the ritual becomes more important than the reality hidden behind it. The significance of phenomena no longer derives from the phenomena themselves, but from their locus as concepts in the ideological context. Reality does not shape theory, but rather the reverse. Thus power gradually draws closer to ideology than it does to reality; it draws its strength from theory and becomes entirely dependent on it. This inevitably leads, of course, to a paradoxical result: rather than theory, or rather ideology, serving power, power begins to serve ideology. It is as though ideology had appropriated power from power, as though it had become dictator itself. It then appears that theory itself, ritual itself, ideology itself, makes decisions that affect people, and not the other way around.

    http://www.vaclavhavel.cz/showtrans.php?cat=eseje&val=2_aj_eseje.html&typ=HTML

    Read More
  21. OT, but in case you thought that the Democrats have gone nuts, here’s a study to show it:

    In total, the percentage of Democrats who agreed on average with the conspiracy claims in the scale increased from 27 percent before the election to 32 percent afterward. By contrast, Republicans’ willingness to endorse conspiratorial claims declined after the election over all and for three of the four statements, pushing down the percentage of Republicans who agreed on average with the statements from 28 percent to 19 percent.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/upshot/why-more-democrats-are-now-embracing-conspiracy-theories.html

    I guess those Democrats can’t get enough of their Fake News. The NYT and CNN have a glorious future.

    Really, though, the only thing worse than a total crackpot is a morally superior total crackpot.

    Read More
  22. @vinteuil
    Sorry, OT, but did Trump pretty much nail it in today's press conference, or did he not?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j7sSFNUuZk

    btw – do I correctly identify Stephen Miller & Stephen Bannon among those filing in to sit in the front row?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    btw – do I correctly identify Stephen Miller & Stephen Bannon among those filing in to sit in the front row?
     
    You did. They walked in together and seated themselves next to each other. BTW Bannon recently brought in Julia Hahn from Brietbart to be his assisstant. She wrote many articles about immigration and knew her stuff. She is 25 and iirc Jewish and from So California same as Stephen Miller.
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/13/becoming-steve-bannons-bannon
  23. Forty years ago when I was in school the One World vision was being promoted by Marxists who envisioned all humanity united under one socialist government. It appears that Fredrik Pohl and Cyril Kornbluth were prophetic in their 1952 novel The Space Merchants in which giant worldwide corporations have eliminated all governments and are the ones running the One World for their own benefit and exploitation of the now impoverished masses. It is curious that the Left continues to support the One World concept, even though it has been hijacked by capitalist megalomaniacs like Zuckerberg who think it is their ticket to being the world’s first trillionaire.
    Maybe the Left thinks that once nations have been abolished they will take over actually running this brave new world. Could be, they seem to think that by bringing in enough Muslims and third world peasants they can destroy the White Christian middle class and then because they are so bright they can exercise leadership of the wreckage with the new population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cortes
    The follow up novel ¿The Merchants' War? by Pohl is equally important.

    Both novels truly capture the corporatist world we live in.

    The depiction of the hereditary POTUS in the first novel is fantastic.

  24. “Oswald Mosley’s prime ministership (1940-1980) of Die Englische Reich”

    The German noun “Reich” is neuter gender, and there’s no need to capitalize the definite article and adjective, so this should be “das englische Reich”. Oh, wait, I take that back. I see what you’re doing: in this alternative history, we are living not in a German-speaking world, but in a world of Yiddish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    "The German noun “Reich” is neuter gender, and there’s no need to capitalize the definite article and adjective, so this should be “das englische Reich”. Oh, wait, I take that back. I see what you’re doing: in this alternative history, we are living not in a German-speaking world, but in a world of Yiddish."

    In Yiddish it would be "der englisher Reich" though.
    , @anon
    “English is a simple, yet difficult language. It's made up exclusively of foreign words which are pronounced wrong.” Kurt Tucholsky .
  25. @Luke Lea
    "an inclusive community that reflects our collective values and common humanity" Show us a Venn diagram.

    There should be a name for this kind of foundation mush.

    “an inclusive community that reflects our collective values and common humanity” Show us a Venn diagram.

    There should be a name for this kind of foundation mush.

    Just call it Neo-Babelism.

    Launching schemes that try to reunify the scattered nations is a constant temptation for fallen humanity.

    Read More
  26. You know this is all a plot to get cheap immigrant programmers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "You know this is all a plot to get cheap immigrant programmers."

    It's more than just that.
    , @mobi

    You know this is all a plot to get cheap immigrant programmers.
     
    The 'billionaires are in it for the cheap labor' explanation just seems oddly unconvincing to me.

    Sure, all else equal, they'd prefer it. But by the time they become billionaires, at the level of Zuckerberg, do they really need, or care, to save a few bucks per hour on programmers, maids, gardeners?

    What they do need, much more strongly and viscerally, is to worry about the astronomical gap between themselves and the bulk of their fellow citizens. Even to the point of worrying about their physical safety.

    (Hence Zuckerberg's personal wall, while posturing about the immorality of 'walls')

    That massive wealth gap doesn't exist in advanced societies based on common ethnic bonds (see Japan, or Germany, say).

    Arguably, it can't exist, stably, for long, for the same reason - everyone's basically an 'extended family'.

    This is consistent with the mounting evidence that trust, and with it civic pride, civic virtues, willingness to sacrifice, pay taxes, etc - break down with increasing diversity.

    This is much more valuable to the likes of Zuckerberg than shaving $2 off the minimum wage.

    It's also, of the two supposed motives, the one that cannot be put forward publicly.

  27. @vinteuil
    Sorry, OT, but did Trump pretty much nail it in today's press conference, or did he not?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j7sSFNUuZk

    Yeah, on some level it seems not even to have occurred to the media that if it goes quite deliberately into a relentless attack on Trump, and even announces to the entire world that that is what it’s going to do (because they “must not normalize Trump!”), then they will be helpless before an equally relentless and direct counterattack by the most visible person in the world, in which they are accused of ginning up Fake News and phony controversies and acting as if they are the opposition party.

    It’s actually almost funny to see the media now taking terrible offense at the idea that their attacks are contrived, that they don’t deserve to be treated like a genuine press with standards of objectivity, that they aren’t serving the American people but only their own fanatic partisanship.

    You have to believe that many in the media know in their hearts that they’ve completely forfeited the right to be regarded as an honest broker of the Truth for the American people. Anybody taking even the most cursory glance at recent front pages of the NYT sees any claim to balance or objectivity as ludicrous on its face.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Jake Tapper looked like a kid who just got bullied HARD when talking about that press conference.
    , @Boomstick
    It didn't occur to the media that they may get punched back because no one had done it before, at least no one that they didn't quickly shout down with the megaphone. Trump has enough force of character, at least so far, to smack them around.
  28. @Alfa158
    Forty years ago when I was in school the One World vision was being promoted by Marxists who envisioned all humanity united under one socialist government. It appears that Fredrik Pohl and Cyril Kornbluth were prophetic in their 1952 novel The Space Merchants in which giant worldwide corporations have eliminated all governments and are the ones running the One World for their own benefit and exploitation of the now impoverished masses. It is curious that the Left continues to support the One World concept, even though it has been hijacked by capitalist megalomaniacs like Zuckerberg who think it is their ticket to being the world's first trillionaire.
    Maybe the Left thinks that once nations have been abolished they will take over actually running this brave new world. Could be, they seem to think that by bringing in enough Muslims and third world peasants they can destroy the White Christian middle class and then because they are so bright they can exercise leadership of the wreckage with the new population.

    The follow up novel ¿The Merchants’ War? by Pohl is equally important.

    Both novels truly capture the corporatist world we live in.

    The depiction of the hereditary POTUS in the first novel is fantastic.

    Read More
  29. are we building the world we all want?

    Anybody over the age of 16 who says this should be institutionalized.

    Read More
  30. “One Globe Under Zuck”

    No.

    He can’t even take over an island!

    First he buys his promised land on Kauai:

    http://beatofhawaii.com/mark-zuckerberg-buys-on-kauai-at-pilaa-beach/

    As you can see from the article above the reception was not unfavorable.

    Second he builds a wall and upsets the locals:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mark-zuckerberg-wall-hawaii_us_5772e30be4b0d1f85d479ff0

    Third he uses a “quiet title” law suit to kick Hawaiians off of the land they have had title to since 1848:

    http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/01/18/business/facebooks-zuckerberg-sues-to-force-land-sales/

    Fourth he is accused of Zionism:

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/23/mark-zuckerberg-hawaii-land-lawsuits-kauai-estate

    Fifth he finally he realized(?) how bad he looked and withdrew:

    http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/01/27/business/business-breaking/facebook-ceo-zuckerberg-dropping-lawsuits-to-acquire-kauai-parcels/

    He could have been high-chief of Kauai if he had just followed local traditions. All he needed to to was invite the local leaders to a party and tell them that they and their friends would be taken care of. He had enough money and wealth to do this. That is what Ellison did when he bought the island of Lanai.

    No Zuckerberg acts like a caricature of what he is – a rich mainland Haole. This is what will be remembered.

    Read More
  31. I just came across a great name for news people: News Actors.

    And Zuckerberg’s company needs to face a “right to be forgotten law” where he is required to remove your name from search results.

    Problem solved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes
    I've been saying for ages that what is contrived as news is just a form of entertainment programing. Your news actors are the talking heads that appear on camera spouting The Narrative, which is their script or storyline.
  32. @Barnard

    How do we help people build an inclusive community that reflects our collective values and common humanity from local to global levels, spanning cultures, nations and regions in a world with few examples of global communities?
     
    What collective values do the people of the world have? Zuckerberg also has a line in there about what they can do to strengthen traditional institutions. He must be able to say anything with a straight face.

    Zuckerberg also has a line in there about what they can do to strengthen traditional institutions. He must be able to say anything with a straight face.

    These people refer to all the parochial dogmas that are peculiar to their own generation and society, and to all the institutions they’ve subverted to serve their radical internationalist and social liberal goals as “traditional”. It’s just another (characteristically dishonest) way of capturing the language in order to render dissent more difficult.

    It’s like David Cameron and his ilk declaring the normalisation of homosexual activity, that until a few decades ago would have been almost universally regarded in Britain as disgusting, if not positively immoral and rightly illegal, as “traditional British values”.

    In some cases it’s probably genuine ignorance, in others lying propaganda, pure and simple.

    Read More
  33. @Marc Zuckurburg
    Make immigration comprehensive again!

    I need comprehensive immigration reform. You need comprehensive immigration reform. He needs comprehensive immigration reform. She needs comprehensive immigration reform. Xe needs comprehensive immigration reform. They need comprehensive immigration reform. Pablo "They" Gomez needs comprehensive immigration reform. Non-binary gender non-conforming genderqueers need comprehensive immigration reform. Every one of the 58 genders available for Facebook profiles needs comprehensive immigration reform. Everybody needs comprehensive immigration reform. Because comprehensive immigration reform is more important than life, water, food and oxygen themselves.

    I am a strong, solid advocate for good, clean, top flight, top drawer, strong, solid, robust, common sense, solid as a rock, solid as they come, desperately needed, way overdue, humanitarian, compassion-based comprehensive immigration reform. The kind of immigration reform that melts in your mouth, not in your hand. The kind of immigration reform that plumps when you cook it. The kind of immigration reform that just makes you feel good and shout for joy for a job well done.

    Comprehensive immigration reform will raise wages and salaries, strengthen national security, prevent terrorism, enhance our domestic crime-fighting ability, ensure that we continue to encourage the best and brightest to partake of the American dream, enhance our competitiveness and our ability to innovate, and make America more prosperous.

    Comprehensive immigration reform will make the economy more fair and equitable, help clean and preserve our environment, bolster Social Security and Medicare, aid the cause of reproductive rights and LGBT rights, drive a stake through the heart of bigotry and discrimination, guarantee social justice for all, and make America more vibrant and diverse.

    It will also make immigration more comprehensive.

    The reason I advocate comprehensive immigration reform over other ideas is that I checked out the other ideas, and they just aren’t comprehensive, they just don’t do it for me in the comprehensiveness department. I really like the comprehensive nature of comprehensive immigration reform. The best part of comprehensive immigration reform is its comprehensiveness. With comprehensive immigration reform, I’ll be a’comprehensivin. My ultimate goal with immigration reform is to be comprehensiver than thou.



    I also have a soft spot in my heart for things that are comprehensive. From a little boy, I remember sitting at our dinner table many evenings, and my father would point his finger straight at me and give me a stern look, and he told me that if I ever got a chance to screw over the goyim, to do it completely and (his own word) “comprehensively.” He was adamant that I not waste any golden or silver or green opportunities. I’m glad to say that I’m finally living up to my father’s expectations. For his most recent birthday present, I had a wooden ventriloquist style caricature doll of myself made, and I call the doll Marc de la Comprehensiva. It’s his third favorite possession in the whole world, his second is his 1978 Lincoln Town Car which he hopes will run forever, and his first is his gold plated Talmud.

    The other kinds of immigration reform are also dangerous, because they rely on rhetoric such as “round them up and deport them all,” “build walls,” “make America great again.” That’s the kind of rhetoric that reminds me of Nazi Germany, and the Nazis gassed all ten of my grandmas to death at Auschwitz, a horror which my father personally witnessed and forever vowed to avenge with a now world famous phrase of his invention: “Never again.” Ten grandmas here, ten grandmas there, and that’s how we roll that odometer up to six million. Also, I’m not in the business of making America great again or any country great again, for that matter. I’m all about the leeching off of countries, sucking them dry, and then moving on to the next warm blood source. Our people’s history is such that any time some king, emperor, dictator or politician starts yelling about making his country great again, it usually winds up to where our people either lose a lot of our power or are kicked out and exiled altogether, or, as all ten of of my grandmas can attest from the great beyond, worse.

    It’s why internationally respected scholars and researchers like Glenn Beck have concluded that the Presidential candidates who spew that kind of rhetoric are exactly like Hitler. They all run around bragging about their puny putrid pitiful little $10 billion fortunes, when the truth of the matter is that they took years to make that kind of money, I made my much larger $50 billion fortune almost overnight. And I mean that literally, because I often wake up and find out I’m worth a few billion more than when I went to sleep. Their fortunes are in old fashioned relics of the past, fuddy duddy stuff like buildings and real estate, and my fortune is in the asset of the future, Facebook stock. They had to make their money the old fashioned way, by earning it, and I made my fortune the new modern progressive way, scamming half the world to give me all their personal information in their tawdry pursuit for their cheap fifteen minutes of fame, so I can turn right around and sell it to Madison Avenue, the Mossad and the NSA. I made my money while I’m still young enough to enjoy spending it to break the back of the goyim.

    Thanks for letting me monetize your lives, by and by.

    You see, I stole someone else’s idea of a world-changing internet social media network, and it has brought me to the vestibule of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, immortality, and I’m also well on my way to being the world’s first trillionaire. The one missing ingredient is comprehensive immigration reform. At least that’s what a building full of Jewish lawyers who write all my immigration litanies and spiels tell me. Every time I go there to get new marching orders, everyone there starts rubbing their hands together. The strangest part of that is that I had to learn to shake these people’s hands in a really weird way before they started doing business with me. But I’m not going to dwell on it too much, and I’m not going to ask questions, because these are the kind of people who seem like they’ll bring down some major league hurt on your head if you ask too many questions. I’m in the business of becoming obscenely rich, not asking questions. Unfortunately, comprehensive immigration reform won’t solve the most vexing problem in my life: The wife always nagging me about buying her more shoes.

    When I think of comprehensive immigration reform, I think of the only antitode to an ill that has been ailing me for quite some time. Some cartoon frog follows me around everywhere I go throwing parentheses at me, and that damned Peter Thiel is way off in the back somewhere pointing his finger at me and laughing at me. The lack of comprehensive immigration reform is taxing my mental health.

    Sometimes, the other kinds of immigration reform wind up being scams. And believe me, I know a thing or three about scams. They promise to be comprehensive, but when you look at what you get, they wind up leaving out a lot of the comprehensiveness. Worse than that, you might get the full 100% comprehensiveness at first, but like a thief in the night, they break in and steal a lot of the comprehensiveness. That’s not the Marc Zuckurburg way, the fully comprehensive way. IEEE, ANSI and UL have certified a less than one ppb impurity ratio of the comprehensiveness in my immigration reform. I’m so nice that I’ll even throw in some extra added bonus comprehensiveness, 25% more free, no extra charge. I also guarantee the comprehensiveness in my immigration reform with a 7 year 70,000 mile limited powertrain warranty that also protects you from rust and corrosion. It covers you from bumper to bumper. It’s the best warranty in the immigration reform business.

    This is why poll after poll shows that people support comprehensive solutions to our immigration problems, instead of genocidal solutions that have Nazi rhetoric as their foundations, or solutions bereft of comprehensiveness. It’s why more and more people are giving up silly hobbies like diddling around with fishing lures, or telescopes, or collecting stamps, or sleeping, and joining in Marc’s Comprehensive Corps. People know that middle class greed hurts billionaires in need. What’s mine is mine, what’s yours will soon be mine. People know that source code is literally rotting in the fields. People know not to turn “corporate greed” into a pejorative, because I wouldn’t be where I am today, and I wouldn’t be the putz I am today without corporate greed. I fly my corporate greed flag high, tall and proud.

    Our struggle for comprehensive immigration reform is righteous, albeit arduous. Very difficult, a very steep mountain to climb. The forces of reaction and xenophobia are well funded, their four extremist hate organizations all have bank accounts that run well into the tens of dollars. In contrast, all we have to work with are most billionaires, most corporations, almost all of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, almost all of academia, and a majority of the full force of the Federal government, and the full sympathy of the current Federal executive branch. We are locked in a real Goliath versus David struggle to speak power to truth. But the crusade led by the privileged, rich, organized and powerful against the dispossessed, broke, unorganized and weak is indeed on the right side of history in the current year, and the arc of history bends in the billionaires’ direction. All we can hope for is that we wake up every morning surrounded by our fifteen morning servants to remind us that we have made it to live to fight another day. I know I’m on the right side of history, and that history will judge all of you alt right biogted xenophobes to be deficient and derelict, because I have bought all the historians.

    I know as I was growing up and going through school, especially Taking Over and Ruling the World 101 at Harvard, and I got an A in that class, I was taught that the best way to solve your problems is to get rich enough to buy them off. Either that or just wait around for the old man to kick off so you can inherit a piece of his mega-fortune, then use that money to buy off your problems. When life throws you lemons, hire a village full of illegal alien Hondurans to pick them all up, and then have your butler hoof it to Trader Joe’s to buy you some lemonade. I remember when I was in high school that we all worried about a problem called Y2K or Year 2000. Bill Gates solved his Year 2000 problems by buying the year 2000. Likewise, the status quo doesn’t bother me, because I have bought the status quo. When you’ve got the kind of money I do, you can buy lots of status quos.

    There needs to be a core focus on comprehensive immigration reform for yet another critical reason — I visit a lot of these alt right websites and blogs on many days, and all their regular commenters do is whine and bellyache about their own selfish petty little concerns. They all be like: My country, my heritage, my millennia-old civilization, my people, my future, my ancestors, my posterity, my racial purity, my blonde hair, my blue eyes, my cartoon frog memes, my border security, my personal security, my quality livable neighborhoods, my affordable family formation, my community social altruism, my country’s economic well being, my fair and equitable distribution of income and wealth, me me me me me. What a bunch of greedy self-righteous cockypop! Not a one of them have the consideration to think about what I need, what I want. And it’s not like it would hurt — I think about me all the time, and it certainly hasn’t hurt me! Me thinking about me for the last 32 years has resulted in me accumulating a $50 billion fortune. If these alt right people would take the time to think about me, my fortune would be far larger. And that would be good for me. Comprehensive immigration reform would amount to a badly needed readjustment of our priorities.

    But if my plans fail, and my wife starts snitching to the Securities and Exchange Commission, as she has threatened to do several times when I say I’m not going to buy her any more shoes, I’ll have to hot foot it and be on the next red eye to my secret condo and my secret bank account with a few billion stashed aside in my extradition-free tax haven in southeast Asia. No way I’m gonna let the Feds turn me into Bernie Madoff’s cellmate; that sonofabitch snores so loudly that he’s in a North Carolina prison and I can hear him all the way over here in San Francisco. To think, I only married her because I’m trying to infiltrate the Chinese banking system on behalf of my people, and she and the kids we have together give me an in. Anyway, if I ever seem to go off the grid, that’s where I’ll be. Don’t come looking for me, especially if you’re a Fed. I do not anticipate failure, though, because my second-to-last ditch contingency involves a concept that some debbie downer prosecutors mistakenly call “extortion.” I hold the power of life and death over all of you; you’re going to see to it that I get my comprehensive immigration reform, and if you refuse, I will do worse than kill you — I’ll delete your Facebook pages. There have been cases of people dying from the apoplectic shock caused by the mental anguish of not having access to Facebook for more than four minutes.

    It’s also why, in spite of the fact that I know my bad reputation precedes me, for example, I keep hearing everyone behind my back calling me a two-faced crapweasel, and those are just the people that work for me, and are related to me, and are close friends of me, and also my wife, and those were also the first words out of my kid’s mouth, and also, for some reason I can’t figure out, people who know me for long enough wind up saying things behind my back like “Maybe Hitler had a point,” “Maybe I should give Hitler a second look,” and cruel things like that, I want to assure all of you that my support for comprehensive immigration reform is pure and genuine. I will never betray the cause, I will always be loyal, solid as a rock, dependable. So much so that I beg you that when you think of comprehensive immigration reform, you should instantly think of me, the great Marc Zuckurburg.

    It’s also why more and more people are saying every day, and you should too:

    Make my immigration reform comprehensive, please!

    One more thing: Black Lives Matter.

    You’ve got a good start on the definitive 21st Century novel.

    Read More
  34. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “History is the story of how we’ve learned to come together in ever greater numbers — from tribes to cities to nations. At each step, we built social infrastructure like communities, media and governments to empower us to achieve things we couldn’t on our own.”

    “We”

    What does he mean by ‘we’? It is like how Gomez means ‘they’?

    When Zuck says ‘we’, he really means ‘me’.

    His view of history is total caca. It would imply that tribes surrendered their tribal identity and became part of nations. But let’s look at the Jews. Did Jews give up tribalism when they joined nations? And are they giving up tribalism and Zionism as they go globalist?

    No, with Jews, I see an integral connection between tribalism and globalism.
    This is the Jewish Paradox.
    For other peoples, going from tribalism to nationalism meant loss of tribal identity and gaining of wider identity. And their loss of national identity in favor of global identity would also require a fundamental change of identity and outlook.

    But, Jews joined national systems WITHOUT giving up their tribal identity. And this wasn’t simply due to anti-Jewish discrimination but because Jews insisted on their special identity and separateness. After all, the Holocaust Narrative has a great contradiction. On the one hand, Jews gripe that gentiles saw them as The Other, even to the point of murderous-ness. But the Holocaust Narrative doesn’t say that Jews should forgo their identity and join with rest of humanity that, in turn, must forgo their own identities and join with Jews to be Brotherhood of Man. If anything, the Holocaust Narrative says gentiles should favor Jews above all with special sympathy and ‘guilt’ and that Jews should be even more tribal because they suffered like no other people.
    Early communism did have a mutually universalist idealism, but it didn’t work in the long run. Polish communists insisted on Polish communism. And USSR maintained its separate republics and cultures even though clumsy and cumbersome Russian was used as cosmo-communism. (I can’t think of a worse culture to use to unite various peoples. Russian culture and language is heavy!!)
    Anyway, Jews didn’t surrender their tribalism when they joined national systems, and they are now sticking to Jewishness as they go for globalist dominance.
    Indeed, Jews now favor globalism over nationalism precisely because globalism is useful for Jewish tribalist supremacism. After all, nationalism means barriers to the globalist elites(who are disproportinately Jewish, Anglo, European, Hindu, and Chinese). Globalism destroys most tribalisms and nationalisms, BUT it passes over(PASSOVER) Israel and it privileges Jewish tribalism.

    Also, no one is opposed to the exchange of ideas and technology and arts. Most people around the world want that.
    But Zuck-Soros brand of globalism calls for massive open borders and invasions of all nations except Israel.

    If Jews like Zuck were at least sincere in mutually surrendering their own nationalism for globalist one-world unity, they would at least have some integrity(if not much sense). But Jews haven’t even surrendered their tribalism yet. if anything, both political parties promote Universal America to serve the narrow tribalist interests of Jews. We are told America must be for everyone(so that diverse goyim can be played for ‘divide and rule’), but we must all stand up for Israel’s right to be a Jewish State.

    If indeed, Zuck’s view of history is correct, then Jews should have surrendered their Jewish tribalism long ago and just become Christians, Muslims, Germans, Russians, Poles, and etc.
    But in every nation, Jews stuck to their own tribal identity and interests. Even as they joined in the national systems and cultures, they maintained their separate sensibility, identity, and history. Also, worldwide Jewish networking had been BOTH globalist AND tribalist. After all, Jews favored other Jews in these networks. If Jews are really for mutualist globailsm, they should not favor other Jews. But what happened in Russia in the 90s? It looks like American Jews and Russian Jews made a great team. Look at Wall Street. Sure, there are lots of Jews who made it on meritocracy, but isn’t there Jewish networking? And look at Hollywood. Why are Jews are so prominent there? Yes, Jews made Hollywood, but how come it’s been so Jewish-dominant forever?

    If the Zucks of the world were truly sincere, he should call on all Jews to surrender tribal Jewish identity and even give up on Zionist-Israel mentality and just join with rest of humanity. But, he won’t.
    And he knows that globalism is about winners and losers. Since Jews are smarter and well-connected(and well-protected from criticism by Holocaust narrative), Zuck knows that globalism will mean Jews as the top winners. Also, Zuck’s business is perfectly geared for globalism. The worldwidenet is indeed a global phenom. BUT, this can’t be said for every industry. There are national industries like oil and gas in Russia and Latin America. Globalize them, and the likes of Soros will take over everything.

    Globalism isn’t about all peoples winning equally. It is about all people coming under the dominance of a few winners who take it all. Take sports. Globalized sports means blacks taking over sports in every nation. We see it in America and Europe. I hear even Vietnam has black guys on its soccer team. Since blacks are best, blacks dominate all of globo sports culture.
    So, it means the end of local national heroes. (There’s a reason why the Ancient Greeks kept the game only among themselves.)
    And since Hollywood dominates big blockbuster movies, all the world has for culture the umpteenth sequel or prequel of STAR WARS and some comic book hero movie.
    And since US military is the strongest, it feels it should be ruling all the waters and shorelines, and toppling nations to spread ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ as Americans call it.
    And since Jews are powerful in Wall Street, globalist media, and US government, the main theme of globalist culture all over the world is the almighty dollar and homomania, even to the point of having church of england become bathhouse of england. (Gaddafi thought up a new system of trade in Africa, and he was taken out.)

    Zuck fears reality because reality is sobering. It makes us wake up, gain self-control, shake ourselves from the opiate haze, grab onto and defend what is true, organic, and tangible. So, Zuck tries to suck us into a fantasy themepark maze “where where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.”

    I don’t like where the future is going.

    Read More
  35. @Marc Zuckurburg
    Make immigration comprehensive again!

    I need comprehensive immigration reform. You need comprehensive immigration reform. He needs comprehensive immigration reform. She needs comprehensive immigration reform. Xe needs comprehensive immigration reform. They need comprehensive immigration reform. Pablo "They" Gomez needs comprehensive immigration reform. Non-binary gender non-conforming genderqueers need comprehensive immigration reform. Every one of the 58 genders available for Facebook profiles needs comprehensive immigration reform. Everybody needs comprehensive immigration reform. Because comprehensive immigration reform is more important than life, water, food and oxygen themselves.

    I am a strong, solid advocate for good, clean, top flight, top drawer, strong, solid, robust, common sense, solid as a rock, solid as they come, desperately needed, way overdue, humanitarian, compassion-based comprehensive immigration reform. The kind of immigration reform that melts in your mouth, not in your hand. The kind of immigration reform that plumps when you cook it. The kind of immigration reform that just makes you feel good and shout for joy for a job well done.

    Comprehensive immigration reform will raise wages and salaries, strengthen national security, prevent terrorism, enhance our domestic crime-fighting ability, ensure that we continue to encourage the best and brightest to partake of the American dream, enhance our competitiveness and our ability to innovate, and make America more prosperous.

    Comprehensive immigration reform will make the economy more fair and equitable, help clean and preserve our environment, bolster Social Security and Medicare, aid the cause of reproductive rights and LGBT rights, drive a stake through the heart of bigotry and discrimination, guarantee social justice for all, and make America more vibrant and diverse.

    It will also make immigration more comprehensive.

    The reason I advocate comprehensive immigration reform over other ideas is that I checked out the other ideas, and they just aren’t comprehensive, they just don’t do it for me in the comprehensiveness department. I really like the comprehensive nature of comprehensive immigration reform. The best part of comprehensive immigration reform is its comprehensiveness. With comprehensive immigration reform, I’ll be a’comprehensivin. My ultimate goal with immigration reform is to be comprehensiver than thou.



    I also have a soft spot in my heart for things that are comprehensive. From a little boy, I remember sitting at our dinner table many evenings, and my father would point his finger straight at me and give me a stern look, and he told me that if I ever got a chance to screw over the goyim, to do it completely and (his own word) “comprehensively.” He was adamant that I not waste any golden or silver or green opportunities. I’m glad to say that I’m finally living up to my father’s expectations. For his most recent birthday present, I had a wooden ventriloquist style caricature doll of myself made, and I call the doll Marc de la Comprehensiva. It’s his third favorite possession in the whole world, his second is his 1978 Lincoln Town Car which he hopes will run forever, and his first is his gold plated Talmud.

    The other kinds of immigration reform are also dangerous, because they rely on rhetoric such as “round them up and deport them all,” “build walls,” “make America great again.” That’s the kind of rhetoric that reminds me of Nazi Germany, and the Nazis gassed all ten of my grandmas to death at Auschwitz, a horror which my father personally witnessed and forever vowed to avenge with a now world famous phrase of his invention: “Never again.” Ten grandmas here, ten grandmas there, and that’s how we roll that odometer up to six million. Also, I’m not in the business of making America great again or any country great again, for that matter. I’m all about the leeching off of countries, sucking them dry, and then moving on to the next warm blood source. Our people’s history is such that any time some king, emperor, dictator or politician starts yelling about making his country great again, it usually winds up to where our people either lose a lot of our power or are kicked out and exiled altogether, or, as all ten of of my grandmas can attest from the great beyond, worse.

    It’s why internationally respected scholars and researchers like Glenn Beck have concluded that the Presidential candidates who spew that kind of rhetoric are exactly like Hitler. They all run around bragging about their puny putrid pitiful little $10 billion fortunes, when the truth of the matter is that they took years to make that kind of money, I made my much larger $50 billion fortune almost overnight. And I mean that literally, because I often wake up and find out I’m worth a few billion more than when I went to sleep. Their fortunes are in old fashioned relics of the past, fuddy duddy stuff like buildings and real estate, and my fortune is in the asset of the future, Facebook stock. They had to make their money the old fashioned way, by earning it, and I made my fortune the new modern progressive way, scamming half the world to give me all their personal information in their tawdry pursuit for their cheap fifteen minutes of fame, so I can turn right around and sell it to Madison Avenue, the Mossad and the NSA. I made my money while I’m still young enough to enjoy spending it to break the back of the goyim.

    Thanks for letting me monetize your lives, by and by.

    You see, I stole someone else’s idea of a world-changing internet social media network, and it has brought me to the vestibule of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, immortality, and I’m also well on my way to being the world’s first trillionaire. The one missing ingredient is comprehensive immigration reform. At least that’s what a building full of Jewish lawyers who write all my immigration litanies and spiels tell me. Every time I go there to get new marching orders, everyone there starts rubbing their hands together. The strangest part of that is that I had to learn to shake these people’s hands in a really weird way before they started doing business with me. But I’m not going to dwell on it too much, and I’m not going to ask questions, because these are the kind of people who seem like they’ll bring down some major league hurt on your head if you ask too many questions. I’m in the business of becoming obscenely rich, not asking questions. Unfortunately, comprehensive immigration reform won’t solve the most vexing problem in my life: The wife always nagging me about buying her more shoes.

    When I think of comprehensive immigration reform, I think of the only antitode to an ill that has been ailing me for quite some time. Some cartoon frog follows me around everywhere I go throwing parentheses at me, and that damned Peter Thiel is way off in the back somewhere pointing his finger at me and laughing at me. The lack of comprehensive immigration reform is taxing my mental health.

    Sometimes, the other kinds of immigration reform wind up being scams. And believe me, I know a thing or three about scams. They promise to be comprehensive, but when you look at what you get, they wind up leaving out a lot of the comprehensiveness. Worse than that, you might get the full 100% comprehensiveness at first, but like a thief in the night, they break in and steal a lot of the comprehensiveness. That’s not the Marc Zuckurburg way, the fully comprehensive way. IEEE, ANSI and UL have certified a less than one ppb impurity ratio of the comprehensiveness in my immigration reform. I’m so nice that I’ll even throw in some extra added bonus comprehensiveness, 25% more free, no extra charge. I also guarantee the comprehensiveness in my immigration reform with a 7 year 70,000 mile limited powertrain warranty that also protects you from rust and corrosion. It covers you from bumper to bumper. It’s the best warranty in the immigration reform business.

    This is why poll after poll shows that people support comprehensive solutions to our immigration problems, instead of genocidal solutions that have Nazi rhetoric as their foundations, or solutions bereft of comprehensiveness. It’s why more and more people are giving up silly hobbies like diddling around with fishing lures, or telescopes, or collecting stamps, or sleeping, and joining in Marc’s Comprehensive Corps. People know that middle class greed hurts billionaires in need. What’s mine is mine, what’s yours will soon be mine. People know that source code is literally rotting in the fields. People know not to turn “corporate greed” into a pejorative, because I wouldn’t be where I am today, and I wouldn’t be the putz I am today without corporate greed. I fly my corporate greed flag high, tall and proud.

    Our struggle for comprehensive immigration reform is righteous, albeit arduous. Very difficult, a very steep mountain to climb. The forces of reaction and xenophobia are well funded, their four extremist hate organizations all have bank accounts that run well into the tens of dollars. In contrast, all we have to work with are most billionaires, most corporations, almost all of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, almost all of academia, and a majority of the full force of the Federal government, and the full sympathy of the current Federal executive branch. We are locked in a real Goliath versus David struggle to speak power to truth. But the crusade led by the privileged, rich, organized and powerful against the dispossessed, broke, unorganized and weak is indeed on the right side of history in the current year, and the arc of history bends in the billionaires’ direction. All we can hope for is that we wake up every morning surrounded by our fifteen morning servants to remind us that we have made it to live to fight another day. I know I’m on the right side of history, and that history will judge all of you alt right biogted xenophobes to be deficient and derelict, because I have bought all the historians.

    I know as I was growing up and going through school, especially Taking Over and Ruling the World 101 at Harvard, and I got an A in that class, I was taught that the best way to solve your problems is to get rich enough to buy them off. Either that or just wait around for the old man to kick off so you can inherit a piece of his mega-fortune, then use that money to buy off your problems. When life throws you lemons, hire a village full of illegal alien Hondurans to pick them all up, and then have your butler hoof it to Trader Joe’s to buy you some lemonade. I remember when I was in high school that we all worried about a problem called Y2K or Year 2000. Bill Gates solved his Year 2000 problems by buying the year 2000. Likewise, the status quo doesn’t bother me, because I have bought the status quo. When you’ve got the kind of money I do, you can buy lots of status quos.

    There needs to be a core focus on comprehensive immigration reform for yet another critical reason — I visit a lot of these alt right websites and blogs on many days, and all their regular commenters do is whine and bellyache about their own selfish petty little concerns. They all be like: My country, my heritage, my millennia-old civilization, my people, my future, my ancestors, my posterity, my racial purity, my blonde hair, my blue eyes, my cartoon frog memes, my border security, my personal security, my quality livable neighborhoods, my affordable family formation, my community social altruism, my country’s economic well being, my fair and equitable distribution of income and wealth, me me me me me. What a bunch of greedy self-righteous cockypop! Not a one of them have the consideration to think about what I need, what I want. And it’s not like it would hurt — I think about me all the time, and it certainly hasn’t hurt me! Me thinking about me for the last 32 years has resulted in me accumulating a $50 billion fortune. If these alt right people would take the time to think about me, my fortune would be far larger. And that would be good for me. Comprehensive immigration reform would amount to a badly needed readjustment of our priorities.

    But if my plans fail, and my wife starts snitching to the Securities and Exchange Commission, as she has threatened to do several times when I say I’m not going to buy her any more shoes, I’ll have to hot foot it and be on the next red eye to my secret condo and my secret bank account with a few billion stashed aside in my extradition-free tax haven in southeast Asia. No way I’m gonna let the Feds turn me into Bernie Madoff’s cellmate; that sonofabitch snores so loudly that he’s in a North Carolina prison and I can hear him all the way over here in San Francisco. To think, I only married her because I’m trying to infiltrate the Chinese banking system on behalf of my people, and she and the kids we have together give me an in. Anyway, if I ever seem to go off the grid, that’s where I’ll be. Don’t come looking for me, especially if you’re a Fed. I do not anticipate failure, though, because my second-to-last ditch contingency involves a concept that some debbie downer prosecutors mistakenly call “extortion.” I hold the power of life and death over all of you; you’re going to see to it that I get my comprehensive immigration reform, and if you refuse, I will do worse than kill you — I’ll delete your Facebook pages. There have been cases of people dying from the apoplectic shock caused by the mental anguish of not having access to Facebook for more than four minutes.

    It’s also why, in spite of the fact that I know my bad reputation precedes me, for example, I keep hearing everyone behind my back calling me a two-faced crapweasel, and those are just the people that work for me, and are related to me, and are close friends of me, and also my wife, and those were also the first words out of my kid’s mouth, and also, for some reason I can’t figure out, people who know me for long enough wind up saying things behind my back like “Maybe Hitler had a point,” “Maybe I should give Hitler a second look,” and cruel things like that, I want to assure all of you that my support for comprehensive immigration reform is pure and genuine. I will never betray the cause, I will always be loyal, solid as a rock, dependable. So much so that I beg you that when you think of comprehensive immigration reform, you should instantly think of me, the great Marc Zuckurburg.

    It’s also why more and more people are saying every day, and you should too:

    Make my immigration reform comprehensive, please!

    One more thing: Black Lives Matter.

    I’m glad to say that I’m finally living up to my father’s expectations. For his most recent birthday present, I had a wooden ventriloquist style caricature doll of myself made, and I call the doll Marc de la Comprehensiva. It’s his third favorite possession in the whole world, his second is his 1978 Lincoln Town Car which he hopes will run forever, and his first is his gold plated Talmud.

    Ten grandmas here, ten grandmas there, and that’s how we roll that odometer up to six million.

    Unfortunately, comprehensive immigration reform won’t solve the most vexing problem in my life: The wife always nagging me about buying her more shoes.

    Some cartoon frog follows me around everywhere I go throwing parentheses at me, and that damned Peter Thiel is way off in the back somewhere pointing his finger at me and laughing at me. The lack of comprehensive immigration reform is taxing my mental health.

    I hold the power of life and death over all of you; you’re going to see to it that I get my comprehensive immigration reform, and if you refuse, I will do worse than kill you — I’ll delete your Facebook pages.

    Mr. Zuckurburg, I must give you credit for deigning to grace us deplorables with your presence and revealing your thoughts in such a comprehensively candid manner.

    Read More
  36. @Chrisnonymous
    Pinsen, this is your genius speaking...

    I said he was the greatest entrepreneur/CEO of his generation, which is self-evidently true — no other millennial has started a business from scratch and built it into a $380 billion+ company while remaining CEO. I didn’t praise his politics or his pontificating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @newrouter
    "no other millennial has started a business from scratch and built it into a $380 billion+ company while remaining CEO. I didn’t praise his politics or his pontificating."


    Nice bubble it may last. Facezuck produces nothing but opinion and children/dog/cat videos.

    , @map
    wooppee... another lottery billionaire.
    , @Jack Highlands
    There's something strange about Zuckerberg, from his early 20th century-style narrative of 'outsmart-the-WinkelWasps', to the fact a major motion picture had to be made to explain all that to the public, to his 5/10 Chunk wife, to the sort of pronouncements analyzed in this blog entry.

    Humans are strangers even to themselves, so 99% of the time, the main conspiracies I believe in are people, even very smart people, acting out their genes with little insight. But in Zuck's case it wouldn't surprise me a smidgeon if Summers or someone a lot like him really did get a cabal together in a soundproof room at Harvard back around 2004 to announce, 'look, this kid may not be your idea of a mensch, but he's got the jump on the killer app for the whole internet: he convinces people to give him most of the individualized marketing data you could ever want, with lots of private and political details. And for nothing! What's not to love? So let's send him to the top without the usual proving ground, and back him with everything we got.'

    , @AndrewR
    Considering the majority of "millennials" have yet to reach 27 years of age, it's impossible to say how many of them will end up following a similar path as Zuck. He is one of the oldest "millennials" and he was still extraordinarily young for a highly successful entrepreneur when Facebook really took off.

    Zuck is closer in age to Google's Brin and Page than he is to the youngest "millennials" so if he's not part of BrinPage's generation then he's not part of the generation of today's college kids, any number of whom might be building budding megacorporations.

    We are many decades away from being able to definitively judge the entrepreneurship of the "millennial generation" as a whole.

  37. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    OT: I haven’t seen any discussion of California’s water woes, Oroville and what is likely a population of 5 million illegal Mexicans and other legal and illegal immigrants in California.

    My friend tried to convince me that it didn’t matter how many illegals there were because cows drinking water is really the problem. There are just too many cows.

    What say you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Agriculture is a big user of water in California.

    California actually has a lot of water, so it has never had to worry about efficient property rights.

  38. (((Mark Zuckerberg))) is married to a Chinese woman. A couple of years ago there was an odd belief that China was going to take over the world. Jews believe they are the light for the world. China will never be great again. First, Asian, second in IQ. Next, over 400 million abortions – it’s aborted itself out of any future. Jewish IQ is rapidly dropping because of intermarriage (and they weren’t that smart to start with). Zuckerberg and spouse believe they will rule over the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Schmoe

    A couple of years ago there was an odd belief that China was going to take over the world.
     
    I live in the world, the first world to be more precise, so I don't want China taking over my part of this world. However, if China were to somehow impose its one child policy on Africa, that could be okay.
  39. The tech geeks that preach this kind of stuff said the same at the start of the Arab Spring, with twitter all the Arab world will rise up and democracy will be everywhere. Obviously that did not happen, in fact the disaster that erupted made their world government dreams go backwards there. This world government dream of theirs is always utopian, they never ask whether this will lead to greater misery for all.

    Read More
  40. If we connect with people about what we have in common — sports teams, TV shows, interests — it is easier to have dialogue about what we disagree on.

    This has not been my experience on facebook at all. There are people I know that like well enough socially, but after they’ve force their political views on me I can no longer stand them. The “dialogue” concept is bullshit. If someone is expressing opinions that are rooted in emotional needs and false information, where is our dialogue supposed to lead, especially when that person views my opinions in exactly the same light? I have no interest in debating anyone whose worldview is completely contrary to mine. If my concept of the good is his concept of the bad, what is the point of it? I have one old friend who’s a committed liberal and we manage to get along despite that. He once said, “One thing we can agree on is that we both want the best possible world for our children.”

    I said, “Yes, and you could say the same of the soldiers on both sides of every war ever fought. “

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles

    If we connect with people about what we have in common — sports teams, TV shows, interests — it is easier to have dialogue about what we disagree on.

     

    Good quote. One might add that, yet when we dialogue on FB about what we disagree on, we get silenced, suspended or even banished. As so often in these cases, I'm not sure I follow the logic logic logic.
    , @AndrewR
    I think his point was that the rapport derived from bonding over relatively non-divisive things like sports and entertainment can be helpful in allowing relationships to survive disputes over more fundamental and important things.

    I agree with that to at least some extent but the internet is really not conducive to having constructive dialogue about polarizing issues. Although the internet does facilitate fact-checking and source-sharing, and writing down [or typing] one's thoughts can be very helpful in formulating strong and concise arguments, being face-to-face generally allows for much more civil discussion. And it's the breakdown in civility that destroys relationships.
    , @Forbes
    The idea that sports teams and TV shows are what people have in common, and thus easier to have a discussion of disagreeable topics, is a very naïve and primitive--I dare say ill-formed and uninformed--view of interpersonal relations.

    What are ostensibly leisure activities are unlikely to be the nexus for the discussion of substantive socio-politico-economic issues. Add religious, ethnic and sexual identities, and the whole point of leisure time, i.e. getting away form it all, is destroyed.

    What he is encouraging drives people into their own bubbles. The differences people have are (mostly) based on personal preferences and individual needs and circumstances--not primarily because they are uninformed, lack facts, or haven't been exposed to better arguments or different ways of doing things.

    Zuck had one clever idea: the customized linking of messaging posts on a shared platform. It doesn't make him the smartest or wisest man in the world--far from it.

    "The world we want" for a lot of people is to be left alone--and for Masters of the Universe like Zuck, to stop meddling in our lives as if it's their prerogative.
  41. @vinteuil
    btw - do I correctly identify Stephen Miller & Stephen Bannon among those filing in to sit in the front row?

    btw – do I correctly identify Stephen Miller & Stephen Bannon among those filing in to sit in the front row?

    You did. They walked in together and seated themselves next to each other. BTW Bannon recently brought in Julia Hahn from Brietbart to be his assisstant. She wrote many articles about immigration and knew her stuff. She is 25 and iirc Jewish and from So California same as Stephen Miller.

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/13/becoming-steve-bannons-bannon

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Clyde:

    According to various reports Julia Hahn has well established disdain for Paul Ryan and all that he stands for (i.e., being a Republican Establishment tool, or if you prefer fool).

    So far so good for being a person who is described as being more Bannon than Bannon.

    Whatever eventually transpires, Bannon will need all the allies he can muster in the Trump Administration before the knives are inevitably unsheathed for his political assassination.
  42. @Cortes
    About 30 miles N of Savannah to Charleston there's a signpost to Cuckold's Landing. Rename it Zuckold's Landing and you're uptodate.

    LOL! I drove past that just a few hours ago. It makes me laugh every time, especially since the advent of cuckservative.

    I don’t know if it is fitting that it is right down the road from the pre-Revolutionary ruins of the “Temple of Sport”.

    “Shrimp and grits for three, please.”

    Read More
  43. “…smashing the Temple in Jerusalem on the holy day of We-Had-It-Coming.”

    Hahahaaa, Steve you sarcastic bastard, nobody can beat you at this sort of thing!

    Read More
  44. @Dave Pinsen
    I said he was the greatest entrepreneur/CEO of his generation, which is self-evidently true -- no other millennial has started a business from scratch and built it into a $380 billion+ company while remaining CEO. I didn't praise his politics or his pontificating.

    “no other millennial has started a business from scratch and built it into a $380 billion+ company while remaining CEO. I didn’t praise his politics or his pontificating.”

    Nice bubble it may last. Facezuck produces nothing but opinion and children/dog/cat videos.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JerryC
    Facebook's product is information about Facebook users and its customers are marketing firms who want to sell stuff to Facebook users. The cat videos and dumb political memes are but a means to acquire said information.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Facebook is the only company to successfully compete with Google for Internet ad spending.
    , @Anonymous
    Facebook will unite the world. A few examples:

    Yesterday my son showed the world his new pair of socks on Facebook. He got five "likes". See how Facebook brings people together through sharing the intimate details of their lives with each other.

    Previously, my son showed the world the hot dog he had for lunch. The community was ecstatic over his sharing. It opened up a far-flung communal conversation that took at least 15 minutes to read and broadened our understanding of the global issues associated with diet and health.

    The best example I can recall of global unity through Facebook was my cousin posting a picture of a feral kitten and asking the global community to name it. This was a perfect opportunity for the diverse people of this world to share their different cultural perspectives on this gritty social issue.
  45. @candid_observer
    Yeah, on some level it seems not even to have occurred to the media that if it goes quite deliberately into a relentless attack on Trump, and even announces to the entire world that that is what it's going to do (because they "must not normalize Trump!"), then they will be helpless before an equally relentless and direct counterattack by the most visible person in the world, in which they are accused of ginning up Fake News and phony controversies and acting as if they are the opposition party.

    It's actually almost funny to see the media now taking terrible offense at the idea that their attacks are contrived, that they don't deserve to be treated like a genuine press with standards of objectivity, that they aren't serving the American people but only their own fanatic partisanship.

    You have to believe that many in the media know in their hearts that they've completely forfeited the right to be regarded as an honest broker of the Truth for the American people. Anybody taking even the most cursory glance at recent front pages of the NYT sees any claim to balance or objectivity as ludicrous on its face.

    Jake Tapper looked like a kid who just got bullied HARD when talking about that press conference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    I happened to see Tapper and I was really shocked - what he was doing was basically confirming that Trump was right and that the press really are in effect Democrat Party operatives.

    There is a big controversy over at the Wall Street Journal because their editor is trying to remain non-partisan and all the reporters want to go hard left anti-Trump like all their friends at all the other papers.
    , @Anonymous
    He still gets more tail than you ever will.
  46. @Anon
    OT: I haven't seen any discussion of California's water woes, Oroville and what is likely a population of 5 million illegal Mexicans and other legal and illegal immigrants in California.

    My friend tried to convince me that it didn't matter how many illegals there were because cows drinking water is really the problem. There are just too many cows.

    What say you?

    Agriculture is a big user of water in California.

    California actually has a lot of water, so it has never had to worry about efficient property rights.

    Read More
  47. @Randal
    No surprise there, coming from the likes of Zuckerberg.

    Of course, there's no "direction" to history in any moral sense, that's the whig fallacy. But there are directions favoured - even favoured to the extent of being unstoppable, though only hindsight can confirm this - by technological and other circumstances. It remains to be seen whether national independence and difference can stand up to the economic and political forces ranged against it in the context of the technological shrinking of the world. Those who, like me, see a world government as the likely end of human progress, with nowhere to escape from the inevitable crushing, suffocating ideologies that all ruling elites eventually succumb to, and nowhere "outside" to provide an example of a different way, can only hope so.

    But we do seem to be at something of a key point, with a popular democratic rebellion (or is it a last stand?) ongoing against the big business globalists and leftist internationalists. But it is clearly facing a strong fight-back from the latter, and success is by no means guaranteed. The enemies of humanity are impressively wealthy and powerful, ranging from the secretively embedded "deep state" types such as those who have no hesitation in breaking the law to leak national security wiretap contents, to the open leftists in the media and political establishments, the big business global elite types like Zuckerberg, and (for those under the mistaken impression it's a partisan party political issue) to the neoconservatives and all the leftists embedded at the very highest levels of the Republican establishment.

    As establishment "conservative" Bill Kristol openly admitted (per Breitbart) on Tuesday:

    "Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state."

    How is it there is not a mass boycott of Weekly Standard by US Republicans, and protests against every appearance by this man in the media under false pretences as a "conservative", when he so openly admits to treason against an elected Republican President?

    Technological shrinkage will certainly not lead to One-Worldism. That’s never going to happen, unless and until we breed a new species for it. The battle is not about nationalism as such against globalization. It is right now about specific, currently existing nation states and how far the New World Order will go in destroying them. Will the United States survive? I don’t know. But nations will.

    Globalization will fail. The modern nation-state may fail. Nationalism will not, though I may be using that term in a broader sense than most do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Technological shrinkage will certainly not lead to One-Worldism
     
    You can assert that, and it might be true, but unless you produce a plausible case to support the assertion it's just that.

    There are two mechanisms by which it might work towards One-Worldism. First, and simplest, technology makes a world empire materially possible where it was not materially possible in the past. Second, technology tends to enable propaganda and compress cultural difference.

    On the latter point, technology can also facilitate resistance to propaganda and cultural compression of course. It's not necessarily clear which way it will work in any given future period.
  48. OK, serious comment here:

    With regard to the last part of your post about centralization, what the globalists like Zuckerberg want is the last stage there is. It’s not like we’ve got people on Mars or Alpha Centauri. Were this last big stage of consolidation to be put into place, there would be no more way for people to divide themselves to live among their own, and no way to escape the one form of authoritarian government that would exist by running. There would also be no outside power to help in any way besides God, and if it got to a 1984 setup with Oceana and EastAsia (and whatever the 3rd one was in the book) all combined, I would hope for all of the stuff in Revelation to come prontomundo, because there would be no human hope left otherwise.

    We’d all better put a stop to this globalist nonsense before there is no reversing it for millennia to come.

    Am I being a Debbie Downer too DARK here for some of y’all?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jackmcg
    And since people would never go for that overtly, the globalists grab control through international agreements that still give people the illusion of sovereignty.

    Trade agreements like TPP that override sovereignty. The Euro. IMF. NATO. WTO.

    Anything to strip personal sovereignty from the average person, and national sovereignty from a democratic people.

    But they don't know what the hell these agreements are so they still wave the flag, thinking they're "FREE".

    Okay, I'm getting a little conspiratard here.

    But you get the point.
    , @anon
    yes - if/when we've got off the planet then any one "earth" succumbing to Zuckerborg type entropy won't be as critical
  49. but my basic stance is that consolidation is some times a good thing, and other times independence or decentralization is a better thing.

    This is similar to the balance between egalitarianism and a hierarchy. A little egalitarianism (getting rid of slavery and serfdom) is good, too much is bad – the Soviets in their early (pre-totalitarian) days tried orchestras without conductors and that didn’t work.

    But Obama tells us that the arc of history bends toward equality and apparently it can never be bent too far.

    Read More
  50. @Marc Zuckurburg
    Make immigration comprehensive again!

    I need comprehensive immigration reform. You need comprehensive immigration reform. He needs comprehensive immigration reform. She needs comprehensive immigration reform. Xe needs comprehensive immigration reform. They need comprehensive immigration reform. Pablo "They" Gomez needs comprehensive immigration reform. Non-binary gender non-conforming genderqueers need comprehensive immigration reform. Every one of the 58 genders available for Facebook profiles needs comprehensive immigration reform. Everybody needs comprehensive immigration reform. Because comprehensive immigration reform is more important than life, water, food and oxygen themselves.

    I am a strong, solid advocate for good, clean, top flight, top drawer, strong, solid, robust, common sense, solid as a rock, solid as they come, desperately needed, way overdue, humanitarian, compassion-based comprehensive immigration reform. The kind of immigration reform that melts in your mouth, not in your hand. The kind of immigration reform that plumps when you cook it. The kind of immigration reform that just makes you feel good and shout for joy for a job well done.

    Comprehensive immigration reform will raise wages and salaries, strengthen national security, prevent terrorism, enhance our domestic crime-fighting ability, ensure that we continue to encourage the best and brightest to partake of the American dream, enhance our competitiveness and our ability to innovate, and make America more prosperous.

    Comprehensive immigration reform will make the economy more fair and equitable, help clean and preserve our environment, bolster Social Security and Medicare, aid the cause of reproductive rights and LGBT rights, drive a stake through the heart of bigotry and discrimination, guarantee social justice for all, and make America more vibrant and diverse.

    It will also make immigration more comprehensive.

    The reason I advocate comprehensive immigration reform over other ideas is that I checked out the other ideas, and they just aren’t comprehensive, they just don’t do it for me in the comprehensiveness department. I really like the comprehensive nature of comprehensive immigration reform. The best part of comprehensive immigration reform is its comprehensiveness. With comprehensive immigration reform, I’ll be a’comprehensivin. My ultimate goal with immigration reform is to be comprehensiver than thou.



    I also have a soft spot in my heart for things that are comprehensive. From a little boy, I remember sitting at our dinner table many evenings, and my father would point his finger straight at me and give me a stern look, and he told me that if I ever got a chance to screw over the goyim, to do it completely and (his own word) “comprehensively.” He was adamant that I not waste any golden or silver or green opportunities. I’m glad to say that I’m finally living up to my father’s expectations. For his most recent birthday present, I had a wooden ventriloquist style caricature doll of myself made, and I call the doll Marc de la Comprehensiva. It’s his third favorite possession in the whole world, his second is his 1978 Lincoln Town Car which he hopes will run forever, and his first is his gold plated Talmud.

    The other kinds of immigration reform are also dangerous, because they rely on rhetoric such as “round them up and deport them all,” “build walls,” “make America great again.” That’s the kind of rhetoric that reminds me of Nazi Germany, and the Nazis gassed all ten of my grandmas to death at Auschwitz, a horror which my father personally witnessed and forever vowed to avenge with a now world famous phrase of his invention: “Never again.” Ten grandmas here, ten grandmas there, and that’s how we roll that odometer up to six million. Also, I’m not in the business of making America great again or any country great again, for that matter. I’m all about the leeching off of countries, sucking them dry, and then moving on to the next warm blood source. Our people’s history is such that any time some king, emperor, dictator or politician starts yelling about making his country great again, it usually winds up to where our people either lose a lot of our power or are kicked out and exiled altogether, or, as all ten of of my grandmas can attest from the great beyond, worse.

    It’s why internationally respected scholars and researchers like Glenn Beck have concluded that the Presidential candidates who spew that kind of rhetoric are exactly like Hitler. They all run around bragging about their puny putrid pitiful little $10 billion fortunes, when the truth of the matter is that they took years to make that kind of money, I made my much larger $50 billion fortune almost overnight. And I mean that literally, because I often wake up and find out I’m worth a few billion more than when I went to sleep. Their fortunes are in old fashioned relics of the past, fuddy duddy stuff like buildings and real estate, and my fortune is in the asset of the future, Facebook stock. They had to make their money the old fashioned way, by earning it, and I made my fortune the new modern progressive way, scamming half the world to give me all their personal information in their tawdry pursuit for their cheap fifteen minutes of fame, so I can turn right around and sell it to Madison Avenue, the Mossad and the NSA. I made my money while I’m still young enough to enjoy spending it to break the back of the goyim.

    Thanks for letting me monetize your lives, by and by.

    You see, I stole someone else’s idea of a world-changing internet social media network, and it has brought me to the vestibule of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, immortality, and I’m also well on my way to being the world’s first trillionaire. The one missing ingredient is comprehensive immigration reform. At least that’s what a building full of Jewish lawyers who write all my immigration litanies and spiels tell me. Every time I go there to get new marching orders, everyone there starts rubbing their hands together. The strangest part of that is that I had to learn to shake these people’s hands in a really weird way before they started doing business with me. But I’m not going to dwell on it too much, and I’m not going to ask questions, because these are the kind of people who seem like they’ll bring down some major league hurt on your head if you ask too many questions. I’m in the business of becoming obscenely rich, not asking questions. Unfortunately, comprehensive immigration reform won’t solve the most vexing problem in my life: The wife always nagging me about buying her more shoes.

    When I think of comprehensive immigration reform, I think of the only antitode to an ill that has been ailing me for quite some time. Some cartoon frog follows me around everywhere I go throwing parentheses at me, and that damned Peter Thiel is way off in the back somewhere pointing his finger at me and laughing at me. The lack of comprehensive immigration reform is taxing my mental health.

    Sometimes, the other kinds of immigration reform wind up being scams. And believe me, I know a thing or three about scams. They promise to be comprehensive, but when you look at what you get, they wind up leaving out a lot of the comprehensiveness. Worse than that, you might get the full 100% comprehensiveness at first, but like a thief in the night, they break in and steal a lot of the comprehensiveness. That’s not the Marc Zuckurburg way, the fully comprehensive way. IEEE, ANSI and UL have certified a less than one ppb impurity ratio of the comprehensiveness in my immigration reform. I’m so nice that I’ll even throw in some extra added bonus comprehensiveness, 25% more free, no extra charge. I also guarantee the comprehensiveness in my immigration reform with a 7 year 70,000 mile limited powertrain warranty that also protects you from rust and corrosion. It covers you from bumper to bumper. It’s the best warranty in the immigration reform business.

    This is why poll after poll shows that people support comprehensive solutions to our immigration problems, instead of genocidal solutions that have Nazi rhetoric as their foundations, or solutions bereft of comprehensiveness. It’s why more and more people are giving up silly hobbies like diddling around with fishing lures, or telescopes, or collecting stamps, or sleeping, and joining in Marc’s Comprehensive Corps. People know that middle class greed hurts billionaires in need. What’s mine is mine, what’s yours will soon be mine. People know that source code is literally rotting in the fields. People know not to turn “corporate greed” into a pejorative, because I wouldn’t be where I am today, and I wouldn’t be the putz I am today without corporate greed. I fly my corporate greed flag high, tall and proud.

    Our struggle for comprehensive immigration reform is righteous, albeit arduous. Very difficult, a very steep mountain to climb. The forces of reaction and xenophobia are well funded, their four extremist hate organizations all have bank accounts that run well into the tens of dollars. In contrast, all we have to work with are most billionaires, most corporations, almost all of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, almost all of academia, and a majority of the full force of the Federal government, and the full sympathy of the current Federal executive branch. We are locked in a real Goliath versus David struggle to speak power to truth. But the crusade led by the privileged, rich, organized and powerful against the dispossessed, broke, unorganized and weak is indeed on the right side of history in the current year, and the arc of history bends in the billionaires’ direction. All we can hope for is that we wake up every morning surrounded by our fifteen morning servants to remind us that we have made it to live to fight another day. I know I’m on the right side of history, and that history will judge all of you alt right biogted xenophobes to be deficient and derelict, because I have bought all the historians.

    I know as I was growing up and going through school, especially Taking Over and Ruling the World 101 at Harvard, and I got an A in that class, I was taught that the best way to solve your problems is to get rich enough to buy them off. Either that or just wait around for the old man to kick off so you can inherit a piece of his mega-fortune, then use that money to buy off your problems. When life throws you lemons, hire a village full of illegal alien Hondurans to pick them all up, and then have your butler hoof it to Trader Joe’s to buy you some lemonade. I remember when I was in high school that we all worried about a problem called Y2K or Year 2000. Bill Gates solved his Year 2000 problems by buying the year 2000. Likewise, the status quo doesn’t bother me, because I have bought the status quo. When you’ve got the kind of money I do, you can buy lots of status quos.

    There needs to be a core focus on comprehensive immigration reform for yet another critical reason — I visit a lot of these alt right websites and blogs on many days, and all their regular commenters do is whine and bellyache about their own selfish petty little concerns. They all be like: My country, my heritage, my millennia-old civilization, my people, my future, my ancestors, my posterity, my racial purity, my blonde hair, my blue eyes, my cartoon frog memes, my border security, my personal security, my quality livable neighborhoods, my affordable family formation, my community social altruism, my country’s economic well being, my fair and equitable distribution of income and wealth, me me me me me. What a bunch of greedy self-righteous cockypop! Not a one of them have the consideration to think about what I need, what I want. And it’s not like it would hurt — I think about me all the time, and it certainly hasn’t hurt me! Me thinking about me for the last 32 years has resulted in me accumulating a $50 billion fortune. If these alt right people would take the time to think about me, my fortune would be far larger. And that would be good for me. Comprehensive immigration reform would amount to a badly needed readjustment of our priorities.

    But if my plans fail, and my wife starts snitching to the Securities and Exchange Commission, as she has threatened to do several times when I say I’m not going to buy her any more shoes, I’ll have to hot foot it and be on the next red eye to my secret condo and my secret bank account with a few billion stashed aside in my extradition-free tax haven in southeast Asia. No way I’m gonna let the Feds turn me into Bernie Madoff’s cellmate; that sonofabitch snores so loudly that he’s in a North Carolina prison and I can hear him all the way over here in San Francisco. To think, I only married her because I’m trying to infiltrate the Chinese banking system on behalf of my people, and she and the kids we have together give me an in. Anyway, if I ever seem to go off the grid, that’s where I’ll be. Don’t come looking for me, especially if you’re a Fed. I do not anticipate failure, though, because my second-to-last ditch contingency involves a concept that some debbie downer prosecutors mistakenly call “extortion.” I hold the power of life and death over all of you; you’re going to see to it that I get my comprehensive immigration reform, and if you refuse, I will do worse than kill you — I’ll delete your Facebook pages. There have been cases of people dying from the apoplectic shock caused by the mental anguish of not having access to Facebook for more than four minutes.

    It’s also why, in spite of the fact that I know my bad reputation precedes me, for example, I keep hearing everyone behind my back calling me a two-faced crapweasel, and those are just the people that work for me, and are related to me, and are close friends of me, and also my wife, and those were also the first words out of my kid’s mouth, and also, for some reason I can’t figure out, people who know me for long enough wind up saying things behind my back like “Maybe Hitler had a point,” “Maybe I should give Hitler a second look,” and cruel things like that, I want to assure all of you that my support for comprehensive immigration reform is pure and genuine. I will never betray the cause, I will always be loyal, solid as a rock, dependable. So much so that I beg you that when you think of comprehensive immigration reform, you should instantly think of me, the great Marc Zuckurburg.

    It’s also why more and more people are saying every day, and you should too:

    Make my immigration reform comprehensive, please!

    One more thing: Black Lives Matter.

    I read this whole thing on Amren one time. It never gets old. Once a month or so will probably do the trick, though. Thanks, and make your replies to me comprehensive also. C’mon guys, it’s all comprehension nowadays!

    Read More
  51. @Jack Hanson
    Jake Tapper looked like a kid who just got bullied HARD when talking about that press conference.

    I happened to see Tapper and I was really shocked – what he was doing was basically confirming that Trump was right and that the press really are in effect Democrat Party operatives.

    There is a big controversy over at the Wall Street Journal because their editor is trying to remain non-partisan and all the reporters want to go hard left anti-Trump like all their friends at all the other papers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes
    A few weeks ago I was a (paid) participant in a marketing research focus group of WSJ subscribers. There was a very real sense that subscribers weren't happy with the (negative) tone of WSJ news coverage of Trump. Several comments were "If I wanted that I could read the NYT or watch CNN."

    The problem WSJ has is that they had already gone left for 8 years. Here are this week's headlines.
    Mon: Trump Faces Missile Test
    Tues: Flynn Resigns Over Russia Contacts
    Wed: Flynn Probed By FBI Over Russia Calls
    Thu: Spies Keep Intelligence From Trump
    Fri: Trump Lets Loose against Critics

    These are the headlines of opposition, not news reporting. It's about The Narrative of resisting, questioning legitimacy, claiming chaos. It's safe to say the WSJ is no longer a business and financial newspaper, but the head-to-head direct competitor of the NYT.

    But then the WSJ also reflects the dying print media business--they're no longer in the news reporting business. Every article is a feature story of analysis, speculation, and opinion. There's little reason to read or pay attention to legacy media--they've gone into the activist agenda game.
  52. @Clyde

    btw – do I correctly identify Stephen Miller & Stephen Bannon among those filing in to sit in the front row?
     
    You did. They walked in together and seated themselves next to each other. BTW Bannon recently brought in Julia Hahn from Brietbart to be his assisstant. She wrote many articles about immigration and knew her stuff. She is 25 and iirc Jewish and from So California same as Stephen Miller.
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/13/becoming-steve-bannons-bannon

    Clyde:

    According to various reports Julia Hahn has well established disdain for Paul Ryan and all that he stands for (i.e., being a Republican Establishment tool, or if you prefer fool).

    So far so good for being a person who is described as being more Bannon than Bannon.

    Whatever eventually transpires, Bannon will need all the allies he can muster in the Trump Administration before the knives are inevitably unsheathed for his political assassination.

    Read More
  53. @SPMoore8
    A long and tedious commercial for Facebook.

    They Key to World Peace:

    Research suggests the best solutions for improving discourse may come from getting to know each other as whole people instead of just opinions -- something Facebook may be uniquely suited to do. If we connect with people about what we have in common -- sports teams, TV shows, interests -- it is easier to have dialogue about what we disagree on. When we do this well, we give billions of people the ability to share new perspectives while mitigating the unwanted effects that come with any new medium.
     

    Connecting everyone to the internet is also necessary for building an informed community.
     
    Of course. And using Facebook.

    The second is establishing a new process for citizens worldwide to participate in collective decision-making. Our world is more connected than ever, and we face global problems that span national boundaries. As the largest global community, Facebook can explore examples of how community governance might work at scale.

     

    How could the Emergency Spillway not work? It got a million Likes!

    Second, our community spans many countries and cultures, and the norms are different in each region. It's not surprising that Europeans more frequently find fault with taking down images depicting nudity, since some European cultures are more accepting of nudity than, for example, many communities in the Middle East or Asia. With a community of almost two billion people, it is less feasible to have a single set of standards to govern the entire community so we need to evolve towards a system of more local governance.

     


    Third, even within a given culture, we have different opinions on what we want to see and what is objectionable. I may be okay with more politically charged speech but not want to see anything sexually suggestive, while you may be okay with nudity but not want to see offensive speech. Similarly, you may want to share a violent video in a protest without worrying that you're going to bother friends who don't want to see it. And just as it's a bad experience to see objectionable content, it's also a terrible experience to be told we can't share something we feel is important. This suggests we need to evolve towards a system of personal control over our experience.
     
    Well, you've just contradicted yourself, because you can't make an inclusive and safe community that is decentralized for the sake of individuals, but, don't worry about it.

    The guiding principles are that the Community Standards should reflect the cultural norms of our community, that each person should see as little objectionable content as possible, and each person should be able to share what they want while being told they cannot share something as little as possible. The approach is to combine creating a large-scale democratic process to determine standards with AI to help enforce them.
     
    Oh, Robots! That will work. Except that a community where everyone gets to check off the content they do not want to see will no longer be a community where people are exposed to different things.

    With a broader range of controls, content will only be taken down if it is more objectionable than the most permissive options allow.
     
    I'm sorry, but equivocation just does not work here.

    It's worth noting that major advances in AI are required to understand text, photos and videos to judge whether they contain hate speech, graphic violence, sexually explicit content, and more. At our current pace of research, we hope to begin handling some of these cases in 2017, but others will not be possible for many years.
     
    Prediction: If AI ever "understands" text, photos, and videos, there will be a lot of porn on Facebook.

    Once again, I am left bemoaning the absence of an "Unlike" button on Facebook.

    You should see my lawyers’ disclaimer at the bottom of my post Please like this post, Mark Zuckerberg as I need more facebook friends …..

    Read More
  54. Zuckerberg is mouthing the same mush all of us nerds did as we grew up watching Star Trek and reading The Foundation Trilogy.

    This is a case of arrested development. He’s a nerd who made a fortune before he grew up.

    The Emperor wears a t-shirt!

    Read More
  55. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    "Oswald Mosley’s prime ministership (1940-1980) of Die Englische Reich"

    The German noun "Reich" is neuter gender, and there's no need to capitalize the definite article and adjective, so this should be "das englische Reich". Oh, wait, I take that back. I see what you're doing: in this alternative history, we are living not in a German-speaking world, but in a world of Yiddish.

    “The German noun “Reich” is neuter gender, and there’s no need to capitalize the definite article and adjective, so this should be “das englische Reich”. Oh, wait, I take that back. I see what you’re doing: in this alternative history, we are living not in a German-speaking world, but in a world of Yiddish.”

    In Yiddish it would be “der englisher Reich” though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Schmoe

    In Yiddish it would be “der englisher Reich” though.
     
    No weak adjective endings in Yiddish? I don't know Yiddish, only German.
  56. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jack Hanson
    Jake Tapper looked like a kid who just got bullied HARD when talking about that press conference.

    He still gets more tail than you ever will.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "He still gets more tail than you ever will."

    Then somebody ought to tell his (Tapper's) wife about it. She might be in for a nice divorce settlement.
  57. President Trump is accused of being anti-Semitic by an aggressive, particularist hyper-ethnocentric radical Jew:

    Read More
  58. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    What was the point of sacrificing all those lives to liberate France just to hand it over to a bunch of morons from the Third World?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-xIAJRQqBs

    Back then, French thought German rule over France was Nazi.

    Then, French thought French rule over Africa was Nazi.

    Now, French think French rule over France is Nazi.

    France must be liberated from ‘french nazis’ by the third world, the ‘new french’.

    Read More
  59. @newrouter
    "no other millennial has started a business from scratch and built it into a $380 billion+ company while remaining CEO. I didn’t praise his politics or his pontificating."


    Nice bubble it may last. Facezuck produces nothing but opinion and children/dog/cat videos.

    Facebook’s product is information about Facebook users and its customers are marketing firms who want to sell stuff to Facebook users. The cat videos and dumb political memes are but a means to acquire said information.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ATX Hipster
    'If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold'
  60. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I have a feeling that Zuck may run for president someday as a centrist technocrat type candidate, and that he’ll have a decent chance at winning. Sort of like MIchael Bloomberg, but much more likeable. He has the wealth and fame, and as much as people here hate him, he has a nice guy demeanor that will appeal to enough people in flyover country to make him competitive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan

    [Zuckerberg] has the wealth and fame, and as much as people here hate him, he has a nice guy demeanor that will appeal to enough people in flyover country to make him competitive.
     
    Middle America is made of sterner stuff than that.
  61. @snorlax

    Likewise, who can not look at the 49 nations currently united by their adherence to the universalist faith of Islam and not see that submission is the road to peace, prosperity, and progress? If only unity had prevailed at Tours in 732 instead of divisiveness. May that great historical wrong be swiftly rectified in the decades to come!
     
    One of my high school teachers (2000's) claimed the Dark Ages would've ended had the Muslims won.

    It would've been the end of an age, for sure.

    One of my high school teachers (2000′s) claimed the Dark Ages would’ve ended had the Muslims won.

    It takes effort to be that deluded.

    Read More
  62. Wow! Does Zuck write his own drek? Congrats on being young and filthy rich Zuck. It’s not enough though is it.

    Read More
  63. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    It’s often the case that people who become successful in one area start to imagine they’re gifted in everything and start to babble nonsense. Sugarmountain guy is out of his area of expertise here and is just ego-tripping, his ego being the size of Saturn by now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    alternatively he wants more h1bs to lower his labor costs and make him more money
  64. @JerryC
    Facebook's product is information about Facebook users and its customers are marketing firms who want to sell stuff to Facebook users. The cat videos and dumb political memes are but a means to acquire said information.

    ‘If you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold’

    Read More
  65. An example in favor of Zucky Stardust’s view is that we all use IP (Internet Protocol) to talk to each other. This forum is an example. There are several other layers below and above IP that make this possible too. Keyboard revolutionaries, of all stripes, don’t alway notice the water they swim in.

    Read More
  66. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Zuck Zuck Zuck Zuck of World.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6Uht69h8Is

    A world of Zuckoldry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hubbub
    You've been zucked, my friend, for sure! Zuck you!
  67. @candid_observer
    Yeah, on some level it seems not even to have occurred to the media that if it goes quite deliberately into a relentless attack on Trump, and even announces to the entire world that that is what it's going to do (because they "must not normalize Trump!"), then they will be helpless before an equally relentless and direct counterattack by the most visible person in the world, in which they are accused of ginning up Fake News and phony controversies and acting as if they are the opposition party.

    It's actually almost funny to see the media now taking terrible offense at the idea that their attacks are contrived, that they don't deserve to be treated like a genuine press with standards of objectivity, that they aren't serving the American people but only their own fanatic partisanship.

    You have to believe that many in the media know in their hearts that they've completely forfeited the right to be regarded as an honest broker of the Truth for the American people. Anybody taking even the most cursory glance at recent front pages of the NYT sees any claim to balance or objectivity as ludicrous on its face.

    It didn’t occur to the media that they may get punched back because no one had done it before, at least no one that they didn’t quickly shout down with the megaphone. Trump has enough force of character, at least so far, to smack them around.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    They should have learned Trump is different more than a year ago. Certainly after he won the election. But they can't admit it, or change tactics. Because they're stuck on him as That Man, who can't be allowed an iota of legitimacy. So they continue to deny him legitimacy,and pay for the privilege with their own legitimacy. There it goes, month by month. All spending, no income.

    One of the laws of SJWs is about doubling down, and a majority of normal libs, and plenty of conservatives ("conservatives") too, are as nutty as SJWs on the issue of Trump.
  68. @newrouter
    "no other millennial has started a business from scratch and built it into a $380 billion+ company while remaining CEO. I didn’t praise his politics or his pontificating."


    Nice bubble it may last. Facezuck produces nothing but opinion and children/dog/cat videos.

    Facebook is the only company to successfully compete with Google for Internet ad spending.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jackmcg
    having used both, I've actually found positive ROI is easier to come by on Facebook. You gotta be razor sharp on Adwords because there are so many experts with mountains of financing competing with you. FB Ads still has a bit of cushion for the newbie. but anyway...
  69. I’m detecting of late – in the tone of Zuckerberg, but also of others of his ilk – the signs of a phase transition among the globalist/liberal elites.

    They’re regrouping from their initial shock and confusion. They’re starting to coalesce around a new position, which seems for now to be:

    ‘We didn’t realise globalism had simply been moving too fast for all the losers. Nothing wrong with the principle itself, of course – it’s just that we need to show more sympathy and compassion for all the losers on the other side, who in their pathetic loserness, are full of fear that the changes are too fast, and they’re being left behind.

    Poor losers – we feel your pain. We must tend to your weakness and failure, until you see the light, and our crusade can resume.’

    They’re doubling down on smug condescension, as of course they would, because it’s the ego-preserving position, for now.

    As long as they insist on remaining so utterly lacking in self-awareness, and of the flaws of their own beliefs, and the nature of what’s happening – they remain vulnerable to further setbacks, which is good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    To be fair, the great international reaction was given a big assist by Madwoman Merkel and the other globo-idiots of Europe. Their ridiculous "refugee" "crisis" was fuel for the Trumpening. The U.S. version of national suicide is gradual and circumspect by comparison.

    That the elites didn't jump in to try and nip it in the bud, but instead went whole hog for it, is proof they're not only evil, they're stupid. Because the War on Noticing can only go so far. You can't make things too obvious, or people will Notice by accident.

    There were always those who advocated hiding things from the losers, making them comfy, not going too fast. But the problem with One-World-ism is that the world is a big place, and you'll need a lot of people to conquer it. Some of them are going to act stupidly (as Obama would say) now and again.

    , @res

    it’s just that we need to pretend to show more sympathy and compassion for all the losers on the other side
     
    FTFY
  70. @Boomstick
    It didn't occur to the media that they may get punched back because no one had done it before, at least no one that they didn't quickly shout down with the megaphone. Trump has enough force of character, at least so far, to smack them around.

    They should have learned Trump is different more than a year ago. Certainly after he won the election. But they can’t admit it, or change tactics. Because they’re stuck on him as That Man, who can’t be allowed an iota of legitimacy. So they continue to deny him legitimacy,and pay for the privilege with their own legitimacy. There it goes, month by month. All spending, no income.

    One of the laws of SJWs is about doubling down, and a majority of normal libs, and plenty of conservatives (“conservatives”) too, are as nutty as SJWs on the issue of Trump.

    Read More
  71. @mobi
    I'm detecting of late - in the tone of Zuckerberg, but also of others of his ilk - the signs of a phase transition among the globalist/liberal elites.

    They're regrouping from their initial shock and confusion. They're starting to coalesce around a new position, which seems for now to be:

    'We didn't realise globalism had simply been moving too fast for all the losers. Nothing wrong with the principle itself, of course - it's just that we need to show more sympathy and compassion for all the losers on the other side, who in their pathetic loserness, are full of fear that the changes are too fast, and they're being left behind.

    Poor losers - we feel your pain. We must tend to your weakness and failure, until you see the light, and our crusade can resume.'


    They're doubling down on smug condescension, as of course they would, because it's the ego-preserving position, for now.


    As long as they insist on remaining so utterly lacking in self-awareness, and of the flaws of their own beliefs, and the nature of what's happening - they remain vulnerable to further setbacks, which is good.

    To be fair, the great international reaction was given a big assist by Madwoman Merkel and the other globo-idiots of Europe. Their ridiculous “refugee” “crisis” was fuel for the Trumpening. The U.S. version of national suicide is gradual and circumspect by comparison.

    That the elites didn’t jump in to try and nip it in the bud, but instead went whole hog for it, is proof they’re not only evil, they’re stupid. Because the War on Noticing can only go so far. You can’t make things too obvious, or people will Notice by accident.

    There were always those who advocated hiding things from the losers, making them comfy, not going too fast. But the problem with One-World-ism is that the world is a big place, and you’ll need a lot of people to conquer it. Some of them are going to act stupidly (as Obama would say) now and again.

    Read More
  72. @Daniel Chieh
    This is why we need to bring more placenta animals to Australia, the only way forward for diversity is for the marsupials to go extinct. They couldn't compete in our new, global world!

    This is why we need to bring more placenta animals to Australia, the only way forward for diversity is for the marsupials to go extinct.

    The marsupials will actually benefit from all the new diversity. They just need to learn to welcome change. They need to think of it as an opportunity, not something scary.

    The problem is that a lot of the marsupials won’t accept that it’s the Current Year. They’re nothing but a basket of deplorables.

    Read More
  73. @Dave Pinsen
    I said he was the greatest entrepreneur/CEO of his generation, which is self-evidently true -- no other millennial has started a business from scratch and built it into a $380 billion+ company while remaining CEO. I didn't praise his politics or his pontificating.

    wooppee… another lottery billionaire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    There's no lottery ticket that makes you worth $50 billion.

    Look, you don't have to like the guy to acknowledge that luck doesn't create $380 billion companies.
  74. @Dave Pinsen
    I said he was the greatest entrepreneur/CEO of his generation, which is self-evidently true -- no other millennial has started a business from scratch and built it into a $380 billion+ company while remaining CEO. I didn't praise his politics or his pontificating.

    There’s something strange about Zuckerberg, from his early 20th century-style narrative of ‘outsmart-the-WinkelWasps’, to the fact a major motion picture had to be made to explain all that to the public, to his 5/10 Chunk wife, to the sort of pronouncements analyzed in this blog entry.

    Humans are strangers even to themselves, so 99% of the time, the main conspiracies I believe in are people, even very smart people, acting out their genes with little insight. But in Zuck’s case it wouldn’t surprise me a smidgeon if Summers or someone a lot like him really did get a cabal together in a soundproof room at Harvard back around 2004 to announce, ‘look, this kid may not be your idea of a mensch, but he’s got the jump on the killer app for the whole internet: he convinces people to give him most of the individualized marketing data you could ever want, with lots of private and political details. And for nothing! What’s not to love? So let’s send him to the top without the usual proving ground, and back him with everything we got.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    As Steve has suggested, the plot of The Social Network may have more to do with Aaron Sorkin's issues than Zuck's. But the idea that the Winklevii would have created a $380 billion company out of their idea strains credulity. They're lucky to have made whatever millions they did from it.

    One thing you learn early on in entrepreneurship is that ideas are pretty much worthless. Execution is everything. Execution is why Facebook is worth $380 billion and Friendster was acquired for less than $27 million before being shutdown.
  75. @Achmed E. Newman
    OK, serious comment here:

    With regard to the last part of your post about centralization, what the globalists like Zuckerberg want is the last stage there is. It's not like we've got people on Mars or Alpha Centauri. Were this last big stage of consolidation to be put into place, there would be no more way for people to divide themselves to live among their own, and no way to escape the one form of authoritarian government that would exist by running. There would also be no outside power to help in any way besides God, and if it got to a 1984 setup with Oceana and EastAsia (and whatever the 3rd one was in the book) all combined, I would hope for all of the stuff in Revelation to come prontomundo, because there would be no human hope left otherwise.

    We'd all better put a stop to this globalist nonsense before there is no reversing it for millennia to come.

    Am I being a Debbie Downer too DARK here for some of y'all?

    And since people would never go for that overtly, the globalists grab control through international agreements that still give people the illusion of sovereignty.

    Trade agreements like TPP that override sovereignty. The Euro. IMF. NATO. WTO.

    Anything to strip personal sovereignty from the average person, and national sovereignty from a democratic people.

    But they don’t know what the hell these agreements are so they still wave the flag, thinking they’re “FREE”.

    Okay, I’m getting a little conspiratard here.

    But you get the point.

    Read More
  76. Today we are close to taking our next step. Our greatest opportunities are now global …

    Lead on O, Great Maker and Taker of History, lead on. Thy minions await the advance…

    Read More
  77. @Anon
    Zuck Zuck Zuck Zuck of World.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6Uht69h8Is

    A world of Zuckoldry.

    You’ve been zucked, my friend, for sure! Zuck you!

    Read More
  78. @Dave Pinsen
    Facebook is the only company to successfully compete with Google for Internet ad spending.

    having used both, I’ve actually found positive ROI is easier to come by on Facebook. You gotta be razor sharp on Adwords because there are so many experts with mountains of financing competing with you. FB Ads still has a bit of cushion for the newbie. but anyway…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I've had no luck with Google, but that's to be expected given my niche (investing, where asset managers can outbid me, because they make much more money per customer). So far, results from Apple's new app store search ads have been decent though, I think.
  79. @SFG
    You know this is all a plot to get cheap immigrant programmers.

    “You know this is all a plot to get cheap immigrant programmers.”

    It’s more than just that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    It’s more than just that.
     
    I agree it's more than that with some but I can see Zuckerborg himself as just a single tracked spergy psychopath who sees FB's accounts as a kind of video game high score.
  80. @Anonymous
    He still gets more tail than you ever will.

    “He still gets more tail than you ever will.”

    Then somebody ought to tell his (Tapper’s) wife about it. She might be in for a nice divorce settlement.

    Read More
  81. “Embrace, extend, and extinguish”, also known as “Embrace, extend, and exterminate”, is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice found was used internally by Microsoft to describe its strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

    Read More
  82. @Anonymous
    I have a feeling that Zuck may run for president someday as a centrist technocrat type candidate, and that he'll have a decent chance at winning. Sort of like MIchael Bloomberg, but much more likeable. He has the wealth and fame, and as much as people here hate him, he has a nice guy demeanor that will appeal to enough people in flyover country to make him competitive.

    [Zuckerberg] has the wealth and fame, and as much as people here hate him, he has a nice guy demeanor that will appeal to enough people in flyover country to make him competitive.

    Middle America is made of sterner stuff than that.

    Read More
  83. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Ever since Trump won, Judd Apatow(producer of GIRLS) says he gained excessive weight from anxiety. Lena Dunham(star of GIRLS) says she lost excessive weight from anxiety.

    These are silly people.

    Read More
  84. I don’t really think Steve’s counter-argument here is very persuasive, because:

    1) All the examples he provides (Persians/Romans/Spanish/Caliphate/British/Nazis) of prospective integration being a negative are of empires that conquered and oppressed lesser peoples by force, which is obviously not what Zuckerberg’s ideological vision (whatever its merits) is. I think one could reasonably draw a distinction between “soft” integration—trade, immigration, scientific and cultural exchange, international institutions, etc.—and invading countries, killing lots of people and trying to hold the survivors as unwilling imperial subjects in perpetuity.

    2) I think when considered on net, many of the empires Steve cites as negative examples, like the Romans and the British, were probably actually positive for human well-being. At least, they had some good effects in terms of creating more centralized political authority and less local violent conflict, economic development and infrastructure building, spreading scientific and cultural advances, etc. And while I’ll readily admit I have only a layman’s knowledge here, while it might have been bad if they had reached farther into Europe, were the Persian and early Islamic empires really all that bad relative to their regional predecessors either? There’s the early Islamic “golden age” that progressives like to talk about, for example.

    (Incidentally, fun fact: Hitler apparently thought it was a shame that the Muslims lost at Tours, as he thought Islam superior to Christianity.)

    3) I know Zuckerberg is an evil globalist autistic Jewish cuckold capitalist Davos man who wants to destroy everything good in America, or something, but if you actually read the (very boring) article, a lot of what he’s suggesting seem like the kind of banal and laudable goals a civically-minded captain of industry should be pursuing. For example, the first item is about how the decline of traditional social institutions is bad and maybe we should do something about it. That sounds like a pretty solid Robert Putnam-y point to me, but I guess it’s actually part of the Secret Globalist Plot somehow.

    4) Steve sort of touched on this implicitly, but it bears noting that there have indeed been many successful centralizations of power in the past that would have seemed as “ridiculous” as anything Zuckerberg is suggesting. It various points in history, it would have been just crazy talk to believe that England, Italy, Germany or China would become unified polities. But today we look back at statesmen like Alfred the Great, Cavour, Bismarck and Qui Shi Huang as being on the oft-Steve maligned Right Side of History.

    Indeed, perhaps the best illustration of this is to look at compare today’s reactionaries with people of the past. Andrew Anglin’s idea that all Europeans, including Slavs, are basically a big racial family who are fundamentally part of the same “team” would have sounded pretty “globalist” to Hitler—let alone Bismarck, Frederick the Great, Elizabeth I, Charlemagne, Arminius or Pericles. Even the most parochial people and intellectuals in the West today see themselves as part of much larger and more complex communities than the vast majority of their ancestors did. Is it really that crazy to suggest that, just as descendants of the ancient Greeks don’t actually still see their polis as the most important group they belong to, our descendants might not see current day nation-states as being as important as we do?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Njguy73

    I know Zuckerberg is an evil globalist autistic Jewish cuckold capitalist Davos man who wants to destroy everything good in America,
     
    I thought autistic people didn't have the social skills to pull off schemes like that.
    , @European-American
    Nice moderate counterpoint to all the Zuck-hating, fun as it may be.

    However Steve's serious point, "consolidation is some times a good thing, and other times independence or decentralization is a better thing" is pretty reasonable, and I bet Zuck would agree.

    I suspect he sometimes sees the runaway success of Facebook as we all do, with a bit of fear and disbelief. "This is what we dreamed of, and yet... is this what we really want? Thank you for pouring money into my bank account, but wow..."

    Basically he's got a global tool of awesome power for destruction and creation, and he's asking a valid (and possibly ingenuous) question: well, what should we do with it?

    Possible answers could be: destroy it, nationalize it, regulate it, use it but be very very careful, build another tool that's better, ignore it, ...
    , @AndrewR
    As someone who has travelled a lot, learned many languages (to greater or lesser extents) and has made many friends from very different places, I certainly value freedom of movement and cultural exchange. But increased exposure to people from other cultures can also remove any doubts as to their flaws and incompatible differences. Our descendants very well may end up far more tribal and territorial than we are.
    , @AnotherDad

    I think one could reasonably draw a distinction between “soft” integration—trade, immigration, scientific and cultural exchange, international institutions, etc.—and invading countries, killing lots of people and trying to hold the survivors as unwilling imperial subjects in perpetuity.
     
    There's absolutely nothing "soft" about immigration. The normal word for it is "invasion" or "conquest". It's people moving into someone else's territory "because they can".

    As as to your question of "force":

    "conquered and oppressed lesser peoples by force, which is obviously not what Zuckerberg’s ideological vision"
     
    It certainly is. Zuckerberg is "working through the system" or "pursuing change through the democratic process" or some other such b.s. But that just means he's trying to use his money and propaganda to put in control of the *state* people who will use *state power* to *force* those of us who want to preserve our nation to submit instead to his vision. There is nothing "soft" about it. If the nation of my birth is destroyed because the Japs marched in, took over and destroyed it or because the state decreed and implemented it's destruction ... it's still dead and in both cases my resistance to its destruction is quashed by *force*.

    In contrast, i'm certainly willing--and i think most nationalists are willing--to let Zuck and all the folks who think like him (in America, Europe, the West generally) have some spot to enact their Lennonist imaginatopia. They can have open borders, live with Muslims, invite in the Africans ... whatever the hell they want. I have no problem with it. But i absolutely fanatically object to being made to live in *his* world. To have the nation that my ancestors built stolen from me and my children.

    Killing lots of people, may not be Zuck's desire--if it's not required--but

    "trying to hold the survivors as unwilling imperial subjects in perpetuity."
     
    is a pretty fair description of exactly what he wants to do. If you don't get that you're just a fool.
    , @David Davenport
    Andrew Anglin’s idea that all Europeans, including Slavs, are basically a big racial family who are fundamentally part of the same “team” would have sounded pretty “globalist” to Hitler—let alone Bismarck, Frederick the Great, Elizabeth I, Charlemagne, Arminius or Pericles.

    So, Hitler's your standard of wisdom?

    And you're implying that Bismarck, Frederick the Great, Elizabeth I, Charlemagne, Arminius or Pericles would have welcomed Muzzie, Mexican, or Africkan immigration into their realms? I don't think so.

    Is it really that crazy to suggest that, just as descendants of the ancient Greeks don’t actually still see their polis as the most important group they belong to, our descendants might not see current day nation-states as being as important as we do?

    Who is this "our"? Our descendants may not be the same as yours.
  85. @dfordoom

    This is why we need to bring more placenta animals to Australia, the only way forward for diversity is for the marsupials to go extinct.
     
    The marsupials will actually benefit from all the new diversity. They just need to learn to welcome change. They need to think of it as an opportunity, not something scary.

    The problem is that a lot of the marsupials won't accept that it's the Current Year. They're nothing but a basket of deplorables.

    Kangaroo Jack: The Irredeemable

    Read More
  86. @map
    wooppee... another lottery billionaire.

    There’s no lottery ticket that makes you worth $50 billion.

    Look, you don’t have to like the guy to acknowledge that luck doesn’t create $380 billion companies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Rubbish.

    Percy Spencer discovered microwaves because a candy-bar inn his pocket melted while he was working on radar equipment. He (or, rather, his employer, Raytheon) later patented the technology, which is worth about one billion dollars this year alone (it's been making money since 1947).

    Alexander Fleming discovered mould had formed in Petri dishes and killed the bacteria he was experimenting upon (Fleming had accidentally left one of the dishes open, allowing the mould's spores to contaminate it). The global market for antibiotics in 2016 alone was some forty billion dollars.

    People wind up vastly wealthy due to the merest chance all of the time. The vast majority of these gain their money the old-fashioned way: they inherit it.
    , @map
    Worse in Zuck's case, since his "tech" was a copy of friendster and napster. Not even original.

    All we have is a bunch of middleware hanging out on the internet, in either Google's or Facebook's case.
  87. @SPMoore8
    A long and tedious commercial for Facebook.

    They Key to World Peace:

    Research suggests the best solutions for improving discourse may come from getting to know each other as whole people instead of just opinions -- something Facebook may be uniquely suited to do. If we connect with people about what we have in common -- sports teams, TV shows, interests -- it is easier to have dialogue about what we disagree on. When we do this well, we give billions of people the ability to share new perspectives while mitigating the unwanted effects that come with any new medium.
     

    Connecting everyone to the internet is also necessary for building an informed community.
     
    Of course. And using Facebook.

    The second is establishing a new process for citizens worldwide to participate in collective decision-making. Our world is more connected than ever, and we face global problems that span national boundaries. As the largest global community, Facebook can explore examples of how community governance might work at scale.

     

    How could the Emergency Spillway not work? It got a million Likes!

    Second, our community spans many countries and cultures, and the norms are different in each region. It's not surprising that Europeans more frequently find fault with taking down images depicting nudity, since some European cultures are more accepting of nudity than, for example, many communities in the Middle East or Asia. With a community of almost two billion people, it is less feasible to have a single set of standards to govern the entire community so we need to evolve towards a system of more local governance.

     


    Third, even within a given culture, we have different opinions on what we want to see and what is objectionable. I may be okay with more politically charged speech but not want to see anything sexually suggestive, while you may be okay with nudity but not want to see offensive speech. Similarly, you may want to share a violent video in a protest without worrying that you're going to bother friends who don't want to see it. And just as it's a bad experience to see objectionable content, it's also a terrible experience to be told we can't share something we feel is important. This suggests we need to evolve towards a system of personal control over our experience.
     
    Well, you've just contradicted yourself, because you can't make an inclusive and safe community that is decentralized for the sake of individuals, but, don't worry about it.

    The guiding principles are that the Community Standards should reflect the cultural norms of our community, that each person should see as little objectionable content as possible, and each person should be able to share what they want while being told they cannot share something as little as possible. The approach is to combine creating a large-scale democratic process to determine standards with AI to help enforce them.
     
    Oh, Robots! That will work. Except that a community where everyone gets to check off the content they do not want to see will no longer be a community where people are exposed to different things.

    With a broader range of controls, content will only be taken down if it is more objectionable than the most permissive options allow.
     
    I'm sorry, but equivocation just does not work here.

    It's worth noting that major advances in AI are required to understand text, photos and videos to judge whether they contain hate speech, graphic violence, sexually explicit content, and more. At our current pace of research, we hope to begin handling some of these cases in 2017, but others will not be possible for many years.
     
    Prediction: If AI ever "understands" text, photos, and videos, there will be a lot of porn on Facebook.

    Once again, I am left bemoaning the absence of an "Unlike" button on Facebook.

    How could the Emergency Spillway not work? It got a million Likes!

    Ha ha. Nicely done.

    Read More
  88. @Jack Highlands
    There's something strange about Zuckerberg, from his early 20th century-style narrative of 'outsmart-the-WinkelWasps', to the fact a major motion picture had to be made to explain all that to the public, to his 5/10 Chunk wife, to the sort of pronouncements analyzed in this blog entry.

    Humans are strangers even to themselves, so 99% of the time, the main conspiracies I believe in are people, even very smart people, acting out their genes with little insight. But in Zuck's case it wouldn't surprise me a smidgeon if Summers or someone a lot like him really did get a cabal together in a soundproof room at Harvard back around 2004 to announce, 'look, this kid may not be your idea of a mensch, but he's got the jump on the killer app for the whole internet: he convinces people to give him most of the individualized marketing data you could ever want, with lots of private and political details. And for nothing! What's not to love? So let's send him to the top without the usual proving ground, and back him with everything we got.'

    As Steve has suggested, the plot of The Social Network may have more to do with Aaron Sorkin’s issues than Zuck’s. But the idea that the Winklevii would have created a $380 billion company out of their idea strains credulity. They’re lucky to have made whatever millions they did from it.

    One thing you learn early on in entrepreneurship is that ideas are pretty much worthless. Execution is everything. Execution is why Facebook is worth $380 billion and Friendster was acquired for less than $27 million before being shutdown.

    Read More
    • Agree: PiltdownMan
    • Replies: @Jack Highlands
    Zuckerberg to WinkelWasps:

    'Yeah, too bad you just didn't have the work ethic and the execution there, goys.'
    , @Pericles

    But the idea that the Winklevii would have created a $380 billion company out of their idea strains credulity. They’re lucky to have made whatever millions they did from it.

     

    To be fair, it also strains credulity that Zuckerberg would create a $380 billion company out of their idea.

    The unsung portion of the FB story (as well as others of the same generation) is the role of the intelligence agencies, black budgets and general surveillance state rollout.

    , @27 year old
    This excessive admiration of the "execution" and "entrepreneurship" of (((Zuckerberg))) like you are doing here is an especially bizarre form of cucking, kind of like admiring and praising just how efficient the thrust of the other guy is as he penetrates your wife. I guess in some kind of triple bank shot way you're trying to signal your own knowledge or experience of Internet business or some shit? Either way, weird.
  89. @Teucer
    I don't really think Steve's counter-argument here is very persuasive, because:

    1) All the examples he provides (Persians/Romans/Spanish/Caliphate/British/Nazis) of prospective integration being a negative are of empires that conquered and oppressed lesser peoples by force, which is obviously not what Zuckerberg's ideological vision (whatever its merits) is. I think one could reasonably draw a distinction between "soft" integration---trade, immigration, scientific and cultural exchange, international institutions, etc.---and invading countries, killing lots of people and trying to hold the survivors as unwilling imperial subjects in perpetuity.

    2) I think when considered on net, many of the empires Steve cites as negative examples, like the Romans and the British, were probably actually positive for human well-being. At least, they had some good effects in terms of creating more centralized political authority and less local violent conflict, economic development and infrastructure building, spreading scientific and cultural advances, etc. And while I'll readily admit I have only a layman's knowledge here, while it might have been bad if they had reached farther into Europe, were the Persian and early Islamic empires really all that bad relative to their regional predecessors either? There's the early Islamic "golden age" that progressives like to talk about, for example.

    (Incidentally, fun fact: Hitler apparently thought it was a shame that the Muslims lost at Tours, as he thought Islam superior to Christianity.)

    3) I know Zuckerberg is an evil globalist autistic Jewish cuckold capitalist Davos man who wants to destroy everything good in America, or something, but if you actually read the (very boring) article, a lot of what he's suggesting seem like the kind of banal and laudable goals a civically-minded captain of industry should be pursuing. For example, the first item is about how the decline of traditional social institutions is bad and maybe we should do something about it. That sounds like a pretty solid Robert Putnam-y point to me, but I guess it's actually part of the Secret Globalist Plot somehow.

    4) Steve sort of touched on this implicitly, but it bears noting that there have indeed been many successful centralizations of power in the past that would have seemed as "ridiculous" as anything Zuckerberg is suggesting. It various points in history, it would have been just crazy talk to believe that England, Italy, Germany or China would become unified polities. But today we look back at statesmen like Alfred the Great, Cavour, Bismarck and Qui Shi Huang as being on the oft-Steve maligned Right Side of History.

    Indeed, perhaps the best illustration of this is to look at compare today's reactionaries with people of the past. Andrew Anglin's idea that all Europeans, including Slavs, are basically a big racial family who are fundamentally part of the same "team" would have sounded pretty "globalist" to Hitler---let alone Bismarck, Frederick the Great, Elizabeth I, Charlemagne, Arminius or Pericles. Even the most parochial people and intellectuals in the West today see themselves as part of much larger and more complex communities than the vast majority of their ancestors did. Is it really that crazy to suggest that, just as descendants of the ancient Greeks don't actually still see their polis as the most important group they belong to, our descendants might not see current day nation-states as being as important as we do?

    I know Zuckerberg is an evil globalist autistic Jewish cuckold capitalist Davos man who wants to destroy everything good in America,

    I thought autistic people didn’t have the social skills to pull off schemes like that.

    Read More
  90. @Dave Pinsen
    As Steve has suggested, the plot of The Social Network may have more to do with Aaron Sorkin's issues than Zuck's. But the idea that the Winklevii would have created a $380 billion company out of their idea strains credulity. They're lucky to have made whatever millions they did from it.

    One thing you learn early on in entrepreneurship is that ideas are pretty much worthless. Execution is everything. Execution is why Facebook is worth $380 billion and Friendster was acquired for less than $27 million before being shutdown.

    Zuckerberg to WinkelWasps:

    ‘Yeah, too bad you just didn’t have the work ethic and the execution there, goys.’

    Read More
  91. @jackmcg
    having used both, I've actually found positive ROI is easier to come by on Facebook. You gotta be razor sharp on Adwords because there are so many experts with mountains of financing competing with you. FB Ads still has a bit of cushion for the newbie. but anyway...

    I’ve had no luck with Google, but that’s to be expected given my niche (investing, where asset managers can outbid me, because they make much more money per customer). So far, results from Apple’s new app store search ads have been decent though, I think.

    Read More
  92. The picture was taken at a “virtual-reality conference.” That, in itself, is telling.

    In this sense, virtual might as well mean artificial. You are experiencing the reality that the programmers want you to experience. They can pick and choose which elements to include in and exclude from their virtual world; they can shovel as much bullshit into the bowels of your mind as they see fit; they can tap into the most suggestible corners of your mind and convince you that 2 + 2 is 5. The day that such technology is perfected is the day that any hope of reclaiming any shred of true liberty is lost forever.

    In the future, there will be no dissent. Devices implanted in everyone’s brains at or before birth will ensure that no one ever dreams of straying from the party line. Most likely, the devices will regulate brain chemistry to ensure that everyone is happy doing whatever it is the authorities want them to do. If the technology is sufficiently advanced and reliable, then there will be no need for punishment, oppression, or coercion as we know it. Slaves will be made to feel orgasmic joy at the thought of doing their masters’ bidding; they will be induced to crave their superiors’ approval as children crave their parents’ love. They will welcome, even embrace, even demand, the absolute prohibition of any acts deemed undesirable by the authorities.

    Eventually, our overlords will be able to add and delete thoughts in folks’ minds as easily as I’m adding and deleting words in this comment. Our great-grandchildren will never know freedom, but they’ll never know pain, sadness, or even boredom, either. So maybe it’ll be worth it.

    That being said, it would be pretty cool if someone ever developed something like the device shown in the movie Brainstorm (1983)*. It can record every facet of human experience – any and all sensory input – and then play it back.

    The person playing the tape** – is it live or is it Memorex? – experiences everything as did the person who recorded it:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1i8tRRP-mo

    (The above clip omits some of the less-wholesome acts that the technology is used to record.)

    *The movie Natalie Wood was making when she died. Douglas Trumbull fought a lengthy battle with the studio to complete the film using Wood look- and soundalikes, only to see it die at the box office. (The studio wanted to cut its losses and collect on the insurance.) Incidentally, a major plot point SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER is that one of the two designers of the recording device suffers a heart attack in the lab and dies, but not before activating the device and recording her own death. The tape is suppressed and any notion of playing it back is dismissed as “morbid.” The other designer then becomes obsessed with retrieving and playing back the tape, hoping to gain the answer to the question that has haunted man throughout the ages: what happens when life ends? (What happens, supposedly, is that our souls turn into shiny computer-animated balls and float off into the cosmos. The end sequence is a pale imitation of the acid trip in Kubrick’s 2001.)

    **Their technology is so advanced that they can tap into the nether regions of the human brain, but they still use magnetic tape as a recording medium. Go figure.

    Read More
  93. @Randal
    No surprise there, coming from the likes of Zuckerberg.

    Of course, there's no "direction" to history in any moral sense, that's the whig fallacy. But there are directions favoured - even favoured to the extent of being unstoppable, though only hindsight can confirm this - by technological and other circumstances. It remains to be seen whether national independence and difference can stand up to the economic and political forces ranged against it in the context of the technological shrinking of the world. Those who, like me, see a world government as the likely end of human progress, with nowhere to escape from the inevitable crushing, suffocating ideologies that all ruling elites eventually succumb to, and nowhere "outside" to provide an example of a different way, can only hope so.

    But we do seem to be at something of a key point, with a popular democratic rebellion (or is it a last stand?) ongoing against the big business globalists and leftist internationalists. But it is clearly facing a strong fight-back from the latter, and success is by no means guaranteed. The enemies of humanity are impressively wealthy and powerful, ranging from the secretively embedded "deep state" types such as those who have no hesitation in breaking the law to leak national security wiretap contents, to the open leftists in the media and political establishments, the big business global elite types like Zuckerberg, and (for those under the mistaken impression it's a partisan party political issue) to the neoconservatives and all the leftists embedded at the very highest levels of the Republican establishment.

    As establishment "conservative" Bill Kristol openly admitted (per Breitbart) on Tuesday:

    "Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state."

    How is it there is not a mass boycott of Weekly Standard by US Republicans, and protests against every appearance by this man in the media under false pretences as a "conservative", when he so openly admits to treason against an elected Republican President?

    re: Kristol. Umm, because they agree with him?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Umm, because they agree with him?
     
    Yes, that's rather my suspicion in many cases.

    Just shows being nominally on the political right is no guarantee of decency or sense. Though the sheer extent of the mental gymnastics required to self-identify as a "conservative" and yet support the subversion of an elected Republican President by criminal leaks of national security material seems rather implausible.

  94. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Some people think Jewish support of Muslim immigration will backfire on them because Muslims hate Jews.

    But is that really true?

    If all Muslims/Arabs coming to the US were Palestinians, that might be the case.

    BUT most Muslims are not Palestinians and don’t care about the Palestinian issue.

    What do Pakistani Muslims, Indian Muslims, Iranian Muslims, Syrian Muslims, Iraqi Muslims, Afghani Muslims, Somali Muslims, Indonesian Muslims, Egyptian Muslims, Turkish Muslims, and etc really care about Palestinians?

    It’s like expecting Japanese-Americans to care about China or Tibet cuz they’re all Asians.
    It’s like expecting Mexican-Americans to care about Cubans cuz they are both ‘Hispanic’.
    They don’t.

    The main priority of most Muslims who wanna come to the US is easy entry. If they realize that Jews are their main allies in this agenda, they will form an alliance with Jews. They won’t give a crap about Palestinians and Israel. (A few will and may commit terrorism, but most won’t. And even most who do sympathize with Palestinians won’t lift a finger since their alliance with Jewish Power is what really counts in bringing more Muslim relatives to the US.) If Jews can form an alliance with American Muslims(most of whom are NOT Palestinian and whose main priority is easy access to the US), then this Jewish-Muslim alliance will actually undermine the Palestinian cause. Jews in America will say, “Look, we are wonderful friends with most Muslims, and we are both agreed on more immigration.” And if Muslim-Americans must choose between alliance with Jews & more immigration AND alliance with Palestinians & less immigration(as Jews might support Muslim immigration restrictions out of fear), they will opt for the former. Muslims mainly care about their own family, clan, and tribe. The fact is most Muslims are NOT Palestinians. Even though they don’t like Israel, Palestinians meaning NOTHING to them.

    Also, most Muslims who want come to the US have negative feelings toward fellow Muslims in their nations of origin. Shias who come to the US hate the Sunnis, and vice versa. Syrians who come to the US hate Assad and Alawi elite rule. Almost all Iranians in the US hate the current regime in Iran. Likewise, the Vietnamese refugees after the war were not Viet Cong out to attack Americans but people who hated communist Viets and saw the US as their savior. They turned out to be useful collaborators of the US when US reopened ties with Vietnam.
    Even as they maintain their Muslim ways, they feel safer in the secular West than in their own homelands that are so corrupt and brutal, even among Muslims.

    Just like Pilgrims were Christians who fled other Christians who persecuted them in Europe, Muslims coming to the West often feel persecuted, wronged, or oppressed by other Muslims who rule the Middle East. As such, they may make good allies with Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @biz
    I don't think you are correct.

    Just look at the situation now. The Muslims who are currently making life inhospitable for Jews in France (North Africans) and Sweden (Somalians, Iraqis), and at pushing BDS and brain-dead third world-ism at universities in Britain (Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Gulf Staters) and Canada (various) are not themselves Palestinian Arabs and yet engage in plenty of antisemitism, with street violence manifestations in the former two cases, and mostly (so far) rhetorical manifestations in the latter two.
    , @Anonymous
    Sorry - I can assure you that in the UK, at least, a major part of the 'Muslim identity' - it goes with wearing long beards, pyjamas and skull caps in the burkas, hijabs, veils etc etc is the adoption of a vigorous anti semitic personality, if not actual hatred if Jews. Such a pose gives one street cred and kudos. The bark voiced Jafaican accented ritual denunciation of 'the jews' and expressed sympathy for Palestinians can be overheard everywhere.

    Believe me it is very real - and very fanatical.
  95. @Randal
    No surprise there, coming from the likes of Zuckerberg.

    Of course, there's no "direction" to history in any moral sense, that's the whig fallacy. But there are directions favoured - even favoured to the extent of being unstoppable, though only hindsight can confirm this - by technological and other circumstances. It remains to be seen whether national independence and difference can stand up to the economic and political forces ranged against it in the context of the technological shrinking of the world. Those who, like me, see a world government as the likely end of human progress, with nowhere to escape from the inevitable crushing, suffocating ideologies that all ruling elites eventually succumb to, and nowhere "outside" to provide an example of a different way, can only hope so.

    But we do seem to be at something of a key point, with a popular democratic rebellion (or is it a last stand?) ongoing against the big business globalists and leftist internationalists. But it is clearly facing a strong fight-back from the latter, and success is by no means guaranteed. The enemies of humanity are impressively wealthy and powerful, ranging from the secretively embedded "deep state" types such as those who have no hesitation in breaking the law to leak national security wiretap contents, to the open leftists in the media and political establishments, the big business global elite types like Zuckerberg, and (for those under the mistaken impression it's a partisan party political issue) to the neoconservatives and all the leftists embedded at the very highest levels of the Republican establishment.

    As establishment "conservative" Bill Kristol openly admitted (per Breitbart) on Tuesday:

    "Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state."

    How is it there is not a mass boycott of Weekly Standard by US Republicans, and protests against every appearance by this man in the media under false pretences as a "conservative", when he so openly admits to treason against an elected Republican President?

    “Leftist” comes up often in discussions at the Unz Review, but most of the issues that are thought of as leftist (“humanitarian intervention”, “globalization”, “xyz rights”) are either anathema to the traditional left or (in the case of “xyz rights”) thought of as cynical distractions from the more fundamental problem of class warfare. If you are looking for an example of a real leftist, check out John Pilger’s talk on the “Hijacking of Feminism”: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jytvgHGbbws.

    The point I want to make here is that reasonable people can disagree about various minor issues (whether mahus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māhū can use the ladies washroom, for example) but can cooperate on existential issues (fighting neoliberalcon economic and military hegemony).

    By the way, there are a number of real leftists and friends of leftists who are posted on the Unz Review. Michael Hudson, for example, whose articles also appear at Counterpunch. Also, it should be known that Counterpunch was started by Alexander Cockburn, brother of Patrick Cockburn. So if you read the Unz Review, you are only a step away from discovering real leftists. You might not feel quite at home with them, but you might very well find enough common ground to have a good argument and perhaps even a principled and limited coalition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles

    You might not feel quite at home with them, but you might very well find enough common ground to have a good argument and perhaps even a principled and limited coalition.

     

    Those "real leftists" are just nostalgic about 1968. No dice. They can come back and try again once they vocally embrace a White identity.
    , @Randal
    Left and right are of course shorthand terms, and only really useful, without careful qualification and definition, in polemic and the kinds of very brief communications inherent in this medium.

    That said, it's not particularly unfair to recognise the inherently "leftist" nature of many of the ideologies that push the characteristic anti-nationalism and socially liberal radicalism of the people who are the problem - antiracism, feminism, universalist ideas of human "rights" used to justify interventionist wars, the normalisation of homosexual behaviour, etc. Many of these ideas are harmless or mildly beneficial in their moderate form, but seem not to remain in those forms in political practice, ever. They move very quickly from arguments for tolerance or human decency to justifications for totalitarianism and military aggression.

    I certainly accept that there are leftists who would be my allies on many particular issues (opposing wars of aggression - though many leftists fail to do this when the war is presented as "humanitarian" or "antinationalist" as the Kosovo war was, opposing some of the globalist treaties, even in a small minority of cases opposing mass immigration). But I see no reason to define these people (a small minority of those who self-identify as left-wing, or who as in the case of the "Conservative" Party establishment in the UK, adopt leftist social radicalism without formal self-identification as left-wing), as "real" left. What claim do they have to that term, over that of the anti-racist ideologues, the migration-promoting anti-nationalists, the humanitarian interventionists, the SJW wannabee censors, and all the rest?


    You might not feel quite at home with them, but you might very well find enough common ground to have a good argument and perhaps even a principled and limited coalition.
     
    I don't have any particular problem with them (I'm very familiar with the work of Cockburn, whom I admire for his journalism, if not for some of his politics) but they do tend to have a problem with me. The leftist idea of "deplorables", of "no platforming" and of effectively shunning those they see as thought criminals in particular areas (supposed fascists, nationalists, racists, homophobes, antisemites, etc) is not something that is restricted to the Clinton elite leftists - it pervades and is to some extent inherent to left-wing thought. You can't embrace a universalist political ideology that classifies your views as inherently good and dissenting views as evil, as the left in general does, and yet deal with those who supposedly embrace those positions as though they are not evil.

    The left naturally transitions very quickly from claiming to believe in freedom of speech for all when it feels threatened, to suppressing dissent as "hate speech" or "intolerance" once it feels secure in power. I've watched this happen in Britain over the past few decades. My suspicion is that the leftist dissenters who claim to be "real" leftists would be no different, once themselves in positions of power.
    , @ben tillman

    “Leftist” comes up often in discussions at the Unz Review, but most of the issues that are thought of as leftist (“humanitarian intervention”, “globalization”, “xyz rights”) are either anathema to the traditional left or (in the case of “xyz rights”) thought of as cynical distractions from the more fundamental problem of class warfare.
     
    The real Left thinks of class warfare as a solution, not a problem. See Trotsky. But in fact the Left has been anchored by the plutocrats since at least the time of Charles.

    There is no intrinsic connection between labor and the Left.

    Originally, when the terms originated in France, the Right was the defender of Church and Crown, and the Left were the forces opposed. In France today, the terms retain similar meanings: the Right is the party of order, and the Left is the party of movement. And this is how we should use the terms.

    A concern for workers can be part of a policy of "class cooperation" (an orderly social arrangement), as opposed to class conflict (a state of disorder), meaning that it is a policy of the right.

    Of course, a putative concern for the interests of the working class can be used to fuel class conflict, and, to the extent that it is the case, it will be a policy of the left, just as faux concern for Blacks and women is now a policy of the Left. Since the Left now finds more utility in fueling racial and sexual conflict, it no longer backs the workers who are now attacked as inveterate racists and sexists.
  96. @Teucer
    I don't really think Steve's counter-argument here is very persuasive, because:

    1) All the examples he provides (Persians/Romans/Spanish/Caliphate/British/Nazis) of prospective integration being a negative are of empires that conquered and oppressed lesser peoples by force, which is obviously not what Zuckerberg's ideological vision (whatever its merits) is. I think one could reasonably draw a distinction between "soft" integration---trade, immigration, scientific and cultural exchange, international institutions, etc.---and invading countries, killing lots of people and trying to hold the survivors as unwilling imperial subjects in perpetuity.

    2) I think when considered on net, many of the empires Steve cites as negative examples, like the Romans and the British, were probably actually positive for human well-being. At least, they had some good effects in terms of creating more centralized political authority and less local violent conflict, economic development and infrastructure building, spreading scientific and cultural advances, etc. And while I'll readily admit I have only a layman's knowledge here, while it might have been bad if they had reached farther into Europe, were the Persian and early Islamic empires really all that bad relative to their regional predecessors either? There's the early Islamic "golden age" that progressives like to talk about, for example.

    (Incidentally, fun fact: Hitler apparently thought it was a shame that the Muslims lost at Tours, as he thought Islam superior to Christianity.)

    3) I know Zuckerberg is an evil globalist autistic Jewish cuckold capitalist Davos man who wants to destroy everything good in America, or something, but if you actually read the (very boring) article, a lot of what he's suggesting seem like the kind of banal and laudable goals a civically-minded captain of industry should be pursuing. For example, the first item is about how the decline of traditional social institutions is bad and maybe we should do something about it. That sounds like a pretty solid Robert Putnam-y point to me, but I guess it's actually part of the Secret Globalist Plot somehow.

    4) Steve sort of touched on this implicitly, but it bears noting that there have indeed been many successful centralizations of power in the past that would have seemed as "ridiculous" as anything Zuckerberg is suggesting. It various points in history, it would have been just crazy talk to believe that England, Italy, Germany or China would become unified polities. But today we look back at statesmen like Alfred the Great, Cavour, Bismarck and Qui Shi Huang as being on the oft-Steve maligned Right Side of History.

    Indeed, perhaps the best illustration of this is to look at compare today's reactionaries with people of the past. Andrew Anglin's idea that all Europeans, including Slavs, are basically a big racial family who are fundamentally part of the same "team" would have sounded pretty "globalist" to Hitler---let alone Bismarck, Frederick the Great, Elizabeth I, Charlemagne, Arminius or Pericles. Even the most parochial people and intellectuals in the West today see themselves as part of much larger and more complex communities than the vast majority of their ancestors did. Is it really that crazy to suggest that, just as descendants of the ancient Greeks don't actually still see their polis as the most important group they belong to, our descendants might not see current day nation-states as being as important as we do?

    Nice moderate counterpoint to all the Zuck-hating, fun as it may be.

    However Steve’s serious point, “consolidation is some times a good thing, and other times independence or decentralization is a better thing” is pretty reasonable, and I bet Zuck would agree.

    I suspect he sometimes sees the runaway success of Facebook as we all do, with a bit of fear and disbelief. “This is what we dreamed of, and yet… is this what we really want? Thank you for pouring money into my bank account, but wow…”

    Basically he’s got a global tool of awesome power for destruction and creation, and he’s asking a valid (and possibly ingenuous) question: well, what should we do with it?

    Possible answers could be: destroy it, nationalize it, regulate it, use it but be very very careful, build another tool that’s better, ignore it, …

    Read More
  97. The BBC is still this morning reporting Zuckerberg’s pronouncements on ‘fake news’ as if he’s some disinterested arbiter rather than a media zillionaire – whereas their war on Rupert Murdoch has been ongoing since the Thatcher years.

    It’s “Who, whom?” all the way down.

    Read More
  98. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Americans who push immigration are really being supremacist.

    They are telling the world “COME LIVE WITH US BECAUSE WE ARE BETTER THAN YOUR KIND AND YOUR NATION”.

    If Pakistanis should come to the US, the Immigration-Logic goes “Pakistanis are better off living with Americans as fellow countrymen than with fellow Pakistanis.”
    If Pakistanis are just as good as Americans, then Pakistanis should be happy to live in Pakistan with fellow Pakistanis. If they are just as good as Americans, why should they depart from thei own kind to go live with ANOTHER people? (It’s like, if all sports teams are equal, why should some guy leave one team to play for another?)
    But the Immigration-Logic says Pakistanis should flee from fellow Pakistanis(who are presumably not as good) and come with with Americans who’d be better countrymen to Pakistanis.

    Just think. Suppose there is Domain A and Domain B. If both domains are equally good and worthy, there is no need for those in Domain A to go to Domain B in huge numbers and vice versa.

    If people in Domain A tell people in Domain B to LEAVE YOUR OWN PLACE AND COME OVER HERE, it assumes that Domain A is better and its people make better fellow countrymen.
    It argues that people of Domain B should rush to Domain A to be with better people.

    So, this is the moral paradox of immigration. On the one hand, it argues that US should take in all these immigrants because all of us are equally human and equally worthy in every respect, but on the other hand, it implies that people in other nations should come to America because it’s better to live with Americans(and eventually become Americans) than to live with their own kind(and stick with their ancestral identity).

    Now, one could make a conditional argument for immigration: Americans are not innately better but have devised a better system based on better ideas. So, when people come to America and assimilate to American norms, they will become just as worthy as fellow Americans. (On the other hand, there is the counter-argument for immigration that implies that we need immigrants because they are superior to Americans, i.e. those born and raised in America have grown fat, lazy, and spoiled whereas immigrants come with zeal, gratitude, will to work, and good ole solid family values. But then, the US takes pride in smashing those patriarchal values. I get so confused. Immigrants are valuable because they have old-time values, but the pride of America is to instill kids of immigrants with libertarian values that turn them into whiny spoiled brats… which is why we need more immigration for people with old time values… whose children must be enlightened into libertine values… and so on and on). The weakness of conditional argument is this: If America is better because of its IDEAS, why can’t other nations take those ideas and make them work? After all, ideas are easily shared and transferable, esp in the age of the internet and universal cellphone usage.

    Anyway, even though the conditional argument has some validity — anyone can become conditioned to become a good American by assimilation — , what if the biological argument is more compelling? What if some peoples in some nations are backward and barbaric not due to lack of good ideas but ‘good’ genes? What if their arrival in the US won’t turn them into good Americans but turn parts of America into something like little Somalia or little Guatemala?

    In that case, the Immigration-Argument can only be supremacist. Inferior morons in other nations should flee from fellow inferior morons and have better lives with superior Americans who will guide, lead, and use them better. It is Compassionate Supremacism. “We take pity on you. Your own kind can’t do much of anything. If you want a half-decent life, you have to live under us and with us.” It is ‘inclusive’ but not on the premise of equality but dependency of the inferior on the superior(who is compassionate like humans over dogs).
    Now, if there a small number of inferiors who leech off superiors, the system can be maintained. But if more and more inferiors arrive, then the superiors won’t be able to maintain a world of superiors that can be compassionate toward inferiors. The superior world will come under the strain of TOO MANY inferiors, in which case society will eventually turn inferior by and large…. which is what is happening to Sweden… which is going from Compassionate Supremacism to Desperate Inferioritism(as Third Worlders may outnumber the superior natives).

    Where is this clusterzuck going?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker
    If Pakistanis really are as good citizen material as white Americans (if not that little bit better if the MSM is to be believed) then why is Pakistan not already like the US?
  99. Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman
    Ha ha. One wonders how long "Godfrey Elfwick" can keep it up before everyone realizes he's a satirist, and a really good one at that.
  100. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The other day, I broke my habit and actually watched the BBC 10 o’clock news – only because the BBC 2 Russian soccer hooligan documentary preceded it.

    First item was an apoplectic reporter, Jon Sopel, literally ‘doing his nut’ – and not even trying to hide it – whilst giving a very biased, prejudiced and absurd ‘report’ from Donald Trump’s extraordinary press conference. As it happens, Trump was calm and measured during the conference, yet an obviously enraged Sopel called Trump ‘enraged’.

    On another note, BBC local London TV news has got to be the most leftwing biased show in creation. It’s an absolute sick joke of a program.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Sopel is merely one of a considerable number of Jewish Zionist senior reporters at the BBC. On top of that you have Zionist non-Jews like Rory Cellan Jones. 3 of the 12 BBC Trust members ( former Board of Governors ) are Jewish. There is no longer even a Scots member.
    Compared to 30 or 40 years ago, the results are striking. In those days, the number of Jews in senior positions was small. BBC was certainly biased in those days, but without the unrelenting bias, distortion and fake news we have now. It still produced good quality programmes in those days.
    With the Jews in tow, we now have wall-to-wall Russophobia, Neoliberalism, Euphilia, and a mealy-mouthed attitude to Israeli atrocities. The quality of programme has dropped drastically.
    Jewish networking in this case has helped form a lugenpresse . Semitophiles like Blair and Cameron must take ultimate responsibility.
    , @anon
    BBC is pure propaganda - morality plays for the PC cult
    , @Lurker
    Thats (((Jon Sopel))).

    On another note, BBC local London TV news has got to be the most leftwing biased show in creation. It’s an absolute sick joke of a program.
     
    Based on its presenters its designed to create the impression that London is entirely populated by Women of Colour. Or perhaps more accurately - Women of Curry.
    , @res

    As it happens, Trump was calm and measured during the conference, yet an obviously enraged Sopel called Trump ‘enraged’.
     
    The best part is that Trump predicted multiple times during the press conference that the media would respond in that fashion.
  101. @Luke Lea
    "an inclusive community that reflects our collective values and common humanity" Show us a Venn diagram.

    There should be a name for this kind of foundation mush.

    There should be a name for this kind of foundation mush.

    There is.

    “Bullshit.”

    Read More
  102. @Harry Baldwin
    If we connect with people about what we have in common — sports teams, TV shows, interests — it is easier to have dialogue about what we disagree on.

    This has not been my experience on facebook at all. There are people I know that like well enough socially, but after they've force their political views on me I can no longer stand them. The "dialogue" concept is bullshit. If someone is expressing opinions that are rooted in emotional needs and false information, where is our dialogue supposed to lead, especially when that person views my opinions in exactly the same light? I have no interest in debating anyone whose worldview is completely contrary to mine. If my concept of the good is his concept of the bad, what is the point of it? I have one old friend who's a committed liberal and we manage to get along despite that. He once said, "One thing we can agree on is that we both want the best possible world for our children."

    I said, "Yes, and you could say the same of the soldiers on both sides of every war ever fought. "

    If we connect with people about what we have in common — sports teams, TV shows, interests — it is easier to have dialogue about what we disagree on.

    Good quote. One might add that, yet when we dialogue on FB about what we disagree on, we get silenced, suspended or even banished. As so often in these cases, I’m not sure I follow the logic logic logic.

    Read More
  103. @Dave Pinsen
    As Steve has suggested, the plot of The Social Network may have more to do with Aaron Sorkin's issues than Zuck's. But the idea that the Winklevii would have created a $380 billion company out of their idea strains credulity. They're lucky to have made whatever millions they did from it.

    One thing you learn early on in entrepreneurship is that ideas are pretty much worthless. Execution is everything. Execution is why Facebook is worth $380 billion and Friendster was acquired for less than $27 million before being shutdown.

    But the idea that the Winklevii would have created a $380 billion company out of their idea strains credulity. They’re lucky to have made whatever millions they did from it.

    To be fair, it also strains credulity that Zuckerberg would create a $380 billion company out of their idea.

    The unsung portion of the FB story (as well as others of the same generation) is the role of the intelligence agencies, black budgets and general surveillance state rollout.

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    To be fair, it also strains credulity that Zuckerberg would create a $380 billion company out of their idea.

    The unsung portion of the FB story (as well as others of the same generation) is the role of the intelligence agencies, black budgets and general surveillance state rollout.
     
    Yep, this is what most people don't know about. I do, because my previously job involved investigations within Deep State/TS stuff. When I started that job I used to be puzzled why some old retired military officer living in Great Falls, VA, or some some older retired executive in Monterey, CA, needed a TS/SCI clearances for simply being on the board of directors of some notable IT/SV firms. And we're not even talking about things Google X.

    From my 10 years in that world I saw a lot and I came to the conclusion that the greatest money source in the SV/high tech silly money wealth is from the U.S. Government. I imagine a good percentage of that is DoD and the intelligence budget (conveniently, the amount of that budget is classified). I could tell you unbelievable stories about have DoD/DARPA/[...] gave gobs and gobs of money (8+ figures) over years to some almost non-existent start-ups with no oversight. I remember once interviewing a former employee of a small IT startup company. He was a former military guy who only felt confortable meeting me in the food court of a local suburban mall on a Sunday afternoon. He was looking over his shoulder the whole time as he told me about how the bogus company (started by some Caltech dropout) was getting millions and millions of dollars from the U.S. Government and no one from the USG ever checked up on them and made sure they even existed. He said that during the whole time that he was there he expected 60 Minutes to come through the doors with cameras rolling exposing the whole fraud. He left when the company folded and the founder went on to start another biotech/IT company.
  104. @guest
    Technological shrinkage will certainly not lead to One-Worldism. That's never going to happen, unless and until we breed a new species for it. The battle is not about nationalism as such against globalization. It is right now about specific, currently existing nation states and how far the New World Order will go in destroying them. Will the United States survive? I don't know. But nations will.

    Globalization will fail. The modern nation-state may fail. Nationalism will not, though I may be using that term in a broader sense than most do.

    Technological shrinkage will certainly not lead to One-Worldism

    You can assert that, and it might be true, but unless you produce a plausible case to support the assertion it’s just that.

    There are two mechanisms by which it might work towards One-Worldism. First, and simplest, technology makes a world empire materially possible where it was not materially possible in the past. Second, technology tends to enable propaganda and compress cultural difference.

    On the latter point, technology can also facilitate resistance to propaganda and cultural compression of course. It’s not necessarily clear which way it will work in any given future period.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The spread of English as the second language of elites world-wide makes world empire more feasible:

    http://takimag.com/article/choose_your_words_wisely_steve_sailer/print#axzz4Yw9GY9eP

    , @guest
    It was a bald assertion, just like your speculations above were unsupported. I'm not going to produce a plausible case, but I am going to provide a formula I've seen floating around: Diversity + Proximity = War.

    People don't want to live together. They won't get along. They'll fight. Unless technology can turn us into one race, there will be no World Government. Even then, we'll find something else to fight about. Star Trek will never happen.

    Propaganda is helpless against this. Imagine if they managed to erase culture, as they're obviously trying to do in the West at least. People will still look different, and even if they didn't, each new interaction will provide grounds for new animosity. That will never, ever end.
  105. @Hunsdon
    re: Kristol. Umm, because they agree with him?

    Umm, because they agree with him?

    Yes, that’s rather my suspicion in many cases.

    Just shows being nominally on the political right is no guarantee of decency or sense. Though the sheer extent of the mental gymnastics required to self-identify as a “conservative” and yet support the subversion of an elected Republican President by criminal leaks of national security material seems rather implausible.

    Read More
  106. @The Big Red Scary
    "Leftist" comes up often in discussions at the Unz Review, but most of the issues that are thought of as leftist ("humanitarian intervention", "globalization", "xyz rights") are either anathema to the traditional left or (in the case of "xyz rights") thought of as cynical distractions from the more fundamental problem of class warfare. If you are looking for an example of a real leftist, check out John Pilger's talk on the "Hijacking of Feminism": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jytvgHGbbws.

    The point I want to make here is that reasonable people can disagree about various minor issues (whether mahus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māhū can use the ladies washroom, for example) but can cooperate on existential issues (fighting neoliberalcon economic and military hegemony).

    By the way, there are a number of real leftists and friends of leftists who are posted on the Unz Review. Michael Hudson, for example, whose articles also appear at Counterpunch. Also, it should be known that Counterpunch was started by Alexander Cockburn, brother of Patrick Cockburn. So if you read the Unz Review, you are only a step away from discovering real leftists. You might not feel quite at home with them, but you might very well find enough common ground to have a good argument and perhaps even a principled and limited coalition.

    You might not feel quite at home with them, but you might very well find enough common ground to have a good argument and perhaps even a principled and limited coalition.

    Those “real leftists” are just nostalgic about 1968. No dice. They can come back and try again once they vocally embrace a White identity.

    Read More
  107. @Randal

    Technological shrinkage will certainly not lead to One-Worldism
     
    You can assert that, and it might be true, but unless you produce a plausible case to support the assertion it's just that.

    There are two mechanisms by which it might work towards One-Worldism. First, and simplest, technology makes a world empire materially possible where it was not materially possible in the past. Second, technology tends to enable propaganda and compress cultural difference.

    On the latter point, technology can also facilitate resistance to propaganda and cultural compression of course. It's not necessarily clear which way it will work in any given future period.

    The spread of English as the second language of elites world-wide makes world empire more feasible:

    http://takimag.com/article/choose_your_words_wisely_steve_sailer/print#axzz4Yw9GY9eP

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    The spread of English as the second language of elites world-wide makes world empire more feasible:
     
    Absolutely so. Of course there have been lingua francas before, but none has been global in scope.

    That was an excellent piece, by the way, with a number of great observations and asides. I recall decades ago putting forward the view that our being "two nations divided by a common language" was in fact a huge disadvantage for us, in contrast to the nations of continental Europe who were protected to some extent from American cultural leakage by their different languages.

    Looking back, and looking at many of the European cultures as they are now, it appears that protection was pretty limited in the face of Hollywood and Madison Avenue.
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    I really don't like this trend of every place in the world looking and sounding like every other place in the world. It's funny how multiculturalism really just means a vaguely Anglo-American monoculture. Traditional dress is another loss.

    A lot of culture is driven by geography and reinforced by the creed your people developed to deal with the environment and explain their place in the cosmos. Now that we've conquered geography and can create our own environments for living and working, the truly substantive and distinctive parts of culture and creed are disappearing.

    Of course, for a lot of people this effortless existence just means we've finally reached the End of History. But then along comes Trump and his competing vision of Clash of Civilizations, which drives the former group insane. Reading Walter Russell Mead and Ross Douthat, you can see the astonishment and hurt.

    I think ultimately Zuck will be proved wrong. Technology is masking things like unsustainably low K-selected birth rates and moral rot, and enabling things like unsustainably high r-selected birth rates and a wealthy 1% decisionmakers who are becoming stupefied due to lack of consequences.
    , @Sean
    The concentration of money in super elites makes it logical for them to destroy the independence nation-states , while keeping a few domesticated ones around for tax dodging
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

    But ultimately the corporations need someone to defend them. Google and Apple have been in cahoots with Ireland but helpless in the face of EU power.
  108. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    he wants ever cheaper labor to make himself richer – or more accurately he wants to make the gap between himself and the proles bigger

    the problem with the psychopaths who dominate the globalist elite is they’re ruled by their ****ed up dopamine

    ever cheaper labor leads to economic stagnation (this is already happening) and then collapse as eventually no one has any spending money but they’re blinded to that *obvious* point by the dopamine hits they get imagining a world where everyone except them is living in a blood-soaked favela

    (if you want to understand psychopaths imagine yourself having a moment of schadenfruede seeing someone slip on ice and feeling a little pleasure at the fact it wasn’t you then multiply that feeling 100x – they deliberately put ice down to see people fall cos to them every time they see someone crack their skull open it’s like a cocaine rush)

    Read More
  109. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @newrouter
    "no other millennial has started a business from scratch and built it into a $380 billion+ company while remaining CEO. I didn’t praise his politics or his pontificating."


    Nice bubble it may last. Facezuck produces nothing but opinion and children/dog/cat videos.

    Facebook will unite the world. A few examples:

    Yesterday my son showed the world his new pair of socks on Facebook. He got five “likes”. See how Facebook brings people together through sharing the intimate details of their lives with each other.

    Previously, my son showed the world the hot dog he had for lunch. The community was ecstatic over his sharing. It opened up a far-flung communal conversation that took at least 15 minutes to read and broadened our understanding of the global issues associated with diet and health.

    The best example I can recall of global unity through Facebook was my cousin posting a picture of a feral kitten and asking the global community to name it. This was a perfect opportunity for the diverse people of this world to share their different cultural perspectives on this gritty social issue.

    Read More
  110. @The Big Red Scary
    "Leftist" comes up often in discussions at the Unz Review, but most of the issues that are thought of as leftist ("humanitarian intervention", "globalization", "xyz rights") are either anathema to the traditional left or (in the case of "xyz rights") thought of as cynical distractions from the more fundamental problem of class warfare. If you are looking for an example of a real leftist, check out John Pilger's talk on the "Hijacking of Feminism": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jytvgHGbbws.

    The point I want to make here is that reasonable people can disagree about various minor issues (whether mahus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māhū can use the ladies washroom, for example) but can cooperate on existential issues (fighting neoliberalcon economic and military hegemony).

    By the way, there are a number of real leftists and friends of leftists who are posted on the Unz Review. Michael Hudson, for example, whose articles also appear at Counterpunch. Also, it should be known that Counterpunch was started by Alexander Cockburn, brother of Patrick Cockburn. So if you read the Unz Review, you are only a step away from discovering real leftists. You might not feel quite at home with them, but you might very well find enough common ground to have a good argument and perhaps even a principled and limited coalition.

    Left and right are of course shorthand terms, and only really useful, without careful qualification and definition, in polemic and the kinds of very brief communications inherent in this medium.

    That said, it’s not particularly unfair to recognise the inherently “leftist” nature of many of the ideologies that push the characteristic anti-nationalism and socially liberal radicalism of the people who are the problem – antiracism, feminism, universalist ideas of human “rights” used to justify interventionist wars, the normalisation of homosexual behaviour, etc. Many of these ideas are harmless or mildly beneficial in their moderate form, but seem not to remain in those forms in political practice, ever. They move very quickly from arguments for tolerance or human decency to justifications for totalitarianism and military aggression.

    I certainly accept that there are leftists who would be my allies on many particular issues (opposing wars of aggression – though many leftists fail to do this when the war is presented as “humanitarian” or “antinationalist” as the Kosovo war was, opposing some of the globalist treaties, even in a small minority of cases opposing mass immigration). But I see no reason to define these people (a small minority of those who self-identify as left-wing, or who as in the case of the “Conservative” Party establishment in the UK, adopt leftist social radicalism without formal self-identification as left-wing), as “real” left. What claim do they have to that term, over that of the anti-racist ideologues, the migration-promoting anti-nationalists, the humanitarian interventionists, the SJW wannabee censors, and all the rest?

    You might not feel quite at home with them, but you might very well find enough common ground to have a good argument and perhaps even a principled and limited coalition.

    I don’t have any particular problem with them (I’m very familiar with the work of Cockburn, whom I admire for his journalism, if not for some of his politics) but they do tend to have a problem with me. The leftist idea of “deplorables”, of “no platforming” and of effectively shunning those they see as thought criminals in particular areas (supposed fascists, nationalists, racists, homophobes, antisemites, etc) is not something that is restricted to the Clinton elite leftists – it pervades and is to some extent inherent to left-wing thought. You can’t embrace a universalist political ideology that classifies your views as inherently good and dissenting views as evil, as the left in general does, and yet deal with those who supposedly embrace those positions as though they are not evil.

    The left naturally transitions very quickly from claiming to believe in freedom of speech for all when it feels threatened, to suppressing dissent as “hate speech” or “intolerance” once it feels secure in power. I’ve watched this happen in Britain over the past few decades. My suspicion is that the leftist dissenters who claim to be “real” leftists would be no different, once themselves in positions of power.

    Read More
  111. @Steve Sailer
    The spread of English as the second language of elites world-wide makes world empire more feasible:

    http://takimag.com/article/choose_your_words_wisely_steve_sailer/print#axzz4Yw9GY9eP

    The spread of English as the second language of elites world-wide makes world empire more feasible:

    Absolutely so. Of course there have been lingua francas before, but none has been global in scope.

    That was an excellent piece, by the way, with a number of great observations and asides. I recall decades ago putting forward the view that our being “two nations divided by a common language” was in fact a huge disadvantage for us, in contrast to the nations of continental Europe who were protected to some extent from American cultural leakage by their different languages.

    Looking back, and looking at many of the European cultures as they are now, it appears that protection was pretty limited in the face of Hollywood and Madison Avenue.

    Read More
  112. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Achmed E. Newman
    OK, serious comment here:

    With regard to the last part of your post about centralization, what the globalists like Zuckerberg want is the last stage there is. It's not like we've got people on Mars or Alpha Centauri. Were this last big stage of consolidation to be put into place, there would be no more way for people to divide themselves to live among their own, and no way to escape the one form of authoritarian government that would exist by running. There would also be no outside power to help in any way besides God, and if it got to a 1984 setup with Oceana and EastAsia (and whatever the 3rd one was in the book) all combined, I would hope for all of the stuff in Revelation to come prontomundo, because there would be no human hope left otherwise.

    We'd all better put a stop to this globalist nonsense before there is no reversing it for millennia to come.

    Am I being a Debbie Downer too DARK here for some of y'all?

    yes – if/when we’ve got off the planet then any one “earth” succumbing to Zuckerborg type entropy won’t be as critical

    Read More
  113. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @anonymous
    It's often the case that people who become successful in one area start to imagine they're gifted in everything and start to babble nonsense. Sugarmountain guy is out of his area of expertise here and is just ego-tripping, his ego being the size of Saturn by now.

    alternatively he wants more h1bs to lower his labor costs and make him more money

    Read More
  114. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Peripatetic commenter
    https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/03/06/crime-genetic-scientists-don-know-because-they-afraid-ask/3lhGUVuNsfdJXjvhtaxPHN/story.html

    http://quillette.com/2016/03/31/criminologys-wonderland-why-almost-everything-you-know-about-crime-is-wrong/

    excellent – good lad is Mr Boutwell

    (btw cure for psychopathy is CRISPR the wolf version of MAOA into the sheepdog version)

    Read More
  115. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Mr. Anon
    "You know this is all a plot to get cheap immigrant programmers."

    It's more than just that.

    It’s more than just that.

    I agree it’s more than that with some but I can see Zuckerborg himself as just a single tracked spergy psychopath who sees FB’s accounts as a kind of video game high score.

    Read More
  116. @Anonymous
    The other day, I broke my habit and actually watched the BBC 10 o'clock news - only because the BBC 2 Russian soccer hooligan documentary preceded it.

    First item was an apoplectic reporter, Jon Sopel, literally 'doing his nut' - and not even trying to hide it - whilst giving a very biased, prejudiced and absurd 'report' from Donald Trump's extraordinary press conference. As it happens, Trump was calm and measured during the conference, yet an obviously enraged Sopel called Trump 'enraged'.

    On another note, BBC local London TV news has got to be the most leftwing biased show in creation. It's an absolute sick joke of a program.

    Sopel is merely one of a considerable number of Jewish Zionist senior reporters at the BBC. On top of that you have Zionist non-Jews like Rory Cellan Jones. 3 of the 12 BBC Trust members ( former Board of Governors ) are Jewish. There is no longer even a Scots member.
    Compared to 30 or 40 years ago, the results are striking. In those days, the number of Jews in senior positions was small. BBC was certainly biased in those days, but without the unrelenting bias, distortion and fake news we have now. It still produced good quality programmes in those days.
    With the Jews in tow, we now have wall-to-wall Russophobia, Neoliberalism, Euphilia, and a mealy-mouthed attitude to Israeli atrocities. The quality of programme has dropped drastically.
    Jewish networking in this case has helped form a lugenpresse . Semitophiles like Blair and Cameron must take ultimate responsibility.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    Modern English culture is inherently philoSemitic.
    , @anon

    a mealy-mouthed attitude to Israeli atrocities.
     
    What type of attitude do they display toward Indonesian , Turkish , Chinese , Moroccan , Iranian ,Sudanese ,Venezuelan , Nigerian atrocities ??

    They totally ignore and refuse to report on those countries myriad of atrocities that are many times worse than Israels crimes . Hardly looks like a Zionist outfit to me .
  117. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    The other day, I broke my habit and actually watched the BBC 10 o'clock news - only because the BBC 2 Russian soccer hooligan documentary preceded it.

    First item was an apoplectic reporter, Jon Sopel, literally 'doing his nut' - and not even trying to hide it - whilst giving a very biased, prejudiced and absurd 'report' from Donald Trump's extraordinary press conference. As it happens, Trump was calm and measured during the conference, yet an obviously enraged Sopel called Trump 'enraged'.

    On another note, BBC local London TV news has got to be the most leftwing biased show in creation. It's an absolute sick joke of a program.

    BBC is pure propaganda – morality plays for the PC cult

    Read More
  118. @Barnard

    How do we help people build an inclusive community that reflects our collective values and common humanity from local to global levels, spanning cultures, nations and regions in a world with few examples of global communities?
     
    What collective values do the people of the world have? Zuckerberg also has a line in there about what they can do to strengthen traditional institutions. He must be able to say anything with a straight face.

    I really don’t see any collective values, especially between the Western civilization and these stone aged holdovers that the UN and global elites are so eager for us to mingle with and embrace as our own, ( even though they want us dead. ) They want everyone to be equal and work together to make a new world empire that they will lead, because of course we can’t expect them the elite to be anything but the elite.
    Maybe Zuckerberg misspoke, maybe he meant to say ” collective likes” we all like to eat and have sex. Unfortunately that is about as far is it goes. I’m sure they really want us all to eat and drink ( drink alot ) and have sex with each other. This will create a mixed race of lower IQ humans who will be easier to rule over. Keeping humanity stupid is nothing new , it has been like that since the beginning. Why do you think the leaders of Islam frown on reading , art, and music. Just work make wealth for the leaders and you will be able to eat and have sex.

    Read More
  119. @Dave Pinsen
    As Steve has suggested, the plot of The Social Network may have more to do with Aaron Sorkin's issues than Zuck's. But the idea that the Winklevii would have created a $380 billion company out of their idea strains credulity. They're lucky to have made whatever millions they did from it.

    One thing you learn early on in entrepreneurship is that ideas are pretty much worthless. Execution is everything. Execution is why Facebook is worth $380 billion and Friendster was acquired for less than $27 million before being shutdown.

    This excessive admiration of the “execution” and “entrepreneurship” of (((Zuckerberg))) like you are doing here is an especially bizarre form of cucking, kind of like admiring and praising just how efficient the thrust of the other guy is as he penetrates your wife. I guess in some kind of triple bank shot way you’re trying to signal your own knowledge or experience of Internet business or some shit? Either way, weird.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    You can admire the efficacy of the enemy even if you don't admire the enemy. The cultures that rejected guns, for example, might not have been fond of the efficacy of firearms but they had to realistically note it, and then co'op it.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    It doesn't take any special "knowledge or experience of Internet business" to realize that taking a company from $0 to $380 billion is an impressive achievement. That would be true if the company made widgets or whatever it did. There are only 5 bigger companies on earth by market cap.
  120. @Anonymous
    The other day, I broke my habit and actually watched the BBC 10 o'clock news - only because the BBC 2 Russian soccer hooligan documentary preceded it.

    First item was an apoplectic reporter, Jon Sopel, literally 'doing his nut' - and not even trying to hide it - whilst giving a very biased, prejudiced and absurd 'report' from Donald Trump's extraordinary press conference. As it happens, Trump was calm and measured during the conference, yet an obviously enraged Sopel called Trump 'enraged'.

    On another note, BBC local London TV news has got to be the most leftwing biased show in creation. It's an absolute sick joke of a program.

    Thats (((Jon Sopel))).

    On another note, BBC local London TV news has got to be the most leftwing biased show in creation. It’s an absolute sick joke of a program.

    Based on its presenters its designed to create the impression that London is entirely populated by Women of Colour. Or perhaps more accurately – Women of Curry.

    Read More
  121. @Anon
    Americans who push immigration are really being supremacist.

    They are telling the world "COME LIVE WITH US BECAUSE WE ARE BETTER THAN YOUR KIND AND YOUR NATION".

    If Pakistanis should come to the US, the Immigration-Logic goes "Pakistanis are better off living with Americans as fellow countrymen than with fellow Pakistanis."
    If Pakistanis are just as good as Americans, then Pakistanis should be happy to live in Pakistan with fellow Pakistanis. If they are just as good as Americans, why should they depart from thei own kind to go live with ANOTHER people? (It's like, if all sports teams are equal, why should some guy leave one team to play for another?)
    But the Immigration-Logic says Pakistanis should flee from fellow Pakistanis(who are presumably not as good) and come with with Americans who'd be better countrymen to Pakistanis.

    Just think. Suppose there is Domain A and Domain B. If both domains are equally good and worthy, there is no need for those in Domain A to go to Domain B in huge numbers and vice versa.

    If people in Domain A tell people in Domain B to LEAVE YOUR OWN PLACE AND COME OVER HERE, it assumes that Domain A is better and its people make better fellow countrymen.
    It argues that people of Domain B should rush to Domain A to be with better people.

    So, this is the moral paradox of immigration. On the one hand, it argues that US should take in all these immigrants because all of us are equally human and equally worthy in every respect, but on the other hand, it implies that people in other nations should come to America because it's better to live with Americans(and eventually become Americans) than to live with their own kind(and stick with their ancestral identity).

    Now, one could make a conditional argument for immigration: Americans are not innately better but have devised a better system based on better ideas. So, when people come to America and assimilate to American norms, they will become just as worthy as fellow Americans. (On the other hand, there is the counter-argument for immigration that implies that we need immigrants because they are superior to Americans, i.e. those born and raised in America have grown fat, lazy, and spoiled whereas immigrants come with zeal, gratitude, will to work, and good ole solid family values. But then, the US takes pride in smashing those patriarchal values. I get so confused. Immigrants are valuable because they have old-time values, but the pride of America is to instill kids of immigrants with libertarian values that turn them into whiny spoiled brats... which is why we need more immigration for people with old time values... whose children must be enlightened into libertine values... and so on and on). The weakness of conditional argument is this: If America is better because of its IDEAS, why can't other nations take those ideas and make them work? After all, ideas are easily shared and transferable, esp in the age of the internet and universal cellphone usage.

    Anyway, even though the conditional argument has some validity -- anyone can become conditioned to become a good American by assimilation -- , what if the biological argument is more compelling? What if some peoples in some nations are backward and barbaric not due to lack of good ideas but 'good' genes? What if their arrival in the US won't turn them into good Americans but turn parts of America into something like little Somalia or little Guatemala?

    In that case, the Immigration-Argument can only be supremacist. Inferior morons in other nations should flee from fellow inferior morons and have better lives with superior Americans who will guide, lead, and use them better. It is Compassionate Supremacism. "We take pity on you. Your own kind can't do much of anything. If you want a half-decent life, you have to live under us and with us." It is 'inclusive' but not on the premise of equality but dependency of the inferior on the superior(who is compassionate like humans over dogs).
    Now, if there a small number of inferiors who leech off superiors, the system can be maintained. But if more and more inferiors arrive, then the superiors won't be able to maintain a world of superiors that can be compassionate toward inferiors. The superior world will come under the strain of TOO MANY inferiors, in which case society will eventually turn inferior by and large.... which is what is happening to Sweden... which is going from Compassionate Supremacism to Desperate Inferioritism(as Third Worlders may outnumber the superior natives).

    Where is this clusterzuck going?

    If Pakistanis really are as good citizen material as white Americans (if not that little bit better if the MSM is to be believed) then why is Pakistan not already like the US?

    Read More
    • Replies: @fish

    If Pakistanis really are as good citizen material as white Americans (if not that little bit better if the MSM is to be believed) then why is Pakistan not already like the US?
     
    "Magic Dirt"!


    ....surprised you didn't know that!
  122. @kaganovitch
    "The German noun “Reich” is neuter gender, and there’s no need to capitalize the definite article and adjective, so this should be “das englische Reich”. Oh, wait, I take that back. I see what you’re doing: in this alternative history, we are living not in a German-speaking world, but in a world of Yiddish."

    In Yiddish it would be "der englisher Reich" though.

    In Yiddish it would be “der englisher Reich” though.

    No weak adjective endings in Yiddish? I don’t know Yiddish, only German.

    Read More
  123. @attilathehen
    (((Mark Zuckerberg))) is married to a Chinese woman. A couple of years ago there was an odd belief that China was going to take over the world. Jews believe they are the light for the world. China will never be great again. First, Asian, second in IQ. Next, over 400 million abortions - it's aborted itself out of any future. Jewish IQ is rapidly dropping because of intermarriage (and they weren't that smart to start with). Zuckerberg and spouse believe they will rule over the world.

    A couple of years ago there was an odd belief that China was going to take over the world.

    I live in the world, the first world to be more precise, so I don’t want China taking over my part of this world. However, if China were to somehow impose its one child policy on Africa, that could be okay.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Yes, definitely need a one child policy in Africa.
  124. @Steve Sailer
    The spread of English as the second language of elites world-wide makes world empire more feasible:

    http://takimag.com/article/choose_your_words_wisely_steve_sailer/print#axzz4Yw9GY9eP

    I really don’t like this trend of every place in the world looking and sounding like every other place in the world. It’s funny how multiculturalism really just means a vaguely Anglo-American monoculture. Traditional dress is another loss.

    A lot of culture is driven by geography and reinforced by the creed your people developed to deal with the environment and explain their place in the cosmos. Now that we’ve conquered geography and can create our own environments for living and working, the truly substantive and distinctive parts of culture and creed are disappearing.

    Of course, for a lot of people this effortless existence just means we’ve finally reached the End of History. But then along comes Trump and his competing vision of Clash of Civilizations, which drives the former group insane. Reading Walter Russell Mead and Ross Douthat, you can see the astonishment and hurt.

    I think ultimately Zuck will be proved wrong. Technology is masking things like unsustainably low K-selected birth rates and moral rot, and enabling things like unsustainably high r-selected birth rates and a wealthy 1% decisionmakers who are becoming stupefied due to lack of consequences.

    Read More
  125. @Dave Pinsen
    I said he was the greatest entrepreneur/CEO of his generation, which is self-evidently true -- no other millennial has started a business from scratch and built it into a $380 billion+ company while remaining CEO. I didn't praise his politics or his pontificating.

    Considering the majority of “millennials” have yet to reach 27 years of age, it’s impossible to say how many of them will end up following a similar path as Zuck. He is one of the oldest “millennials” and he was still extraordinarily young for a highly successful entrepreneur when Facebook really took off.

    Zuck is closer in age to Google’s Brin and Page than he is to the youngest “millennials” so if he’s not part of BrinPage’s generation then he’s not part of the generation of today’s college kids, any number of whom might be building budding megacorporations.

    We are many decades away from being able to definitively judge the entrepreneurship of the “millennial generation” as a whole.

    Read More
  126. @Harry Baldwin
    If we connect with people about what we have in common — sports teams, TV shows, interests — it is easier to have dialogue about what we disagree on.

    This has not been my experience on facebook at all. There are people I know that like well enough socially, but after they've force their political views on me I can no longer stand them. The "dialogue" concept is bullshit. If someone is expressing opinions that are rooted in emotional needs and false information, where is our dialogue supposed to lead, especially when that person views my opinions in exactly the same light? I have no interest in debating anyone whose worldview is completely contrary to mine. If my concept of the good is his concept of the bad, what is the point of it? I have one old friend who's a committed liberal and we manage to get along despite that. He once said, "One thing we can agree on is that we both want the best possible world for our children."

    I said, "Yes, and you could say the same of the soldiers on both sides of every war ever fought. "

    I think his point was that the rapport derived from bonding over relatively non-divisive things like sports and entertainment can be helpful in allowing relationships to survive disputes over more fundamental and important things.

    I agree with that to at least some extent but the internet is really not conducive to having constructive dialogue about polarizing issues. Although the internet does facilitate fact-checking and source-sharing, and writing down [or typing] one’s thoughts can be very helpful in formulating strong and concise arguments, being face-to-face generally allows for much more civil discussion. And it’s the breakdown in civility that destroys relationships.

    Read More
  127. @Steve Sailer
    The spread of English as the second language of elites world-wide makes world empire more feasible:

    http://takimag.com/article/choose_your_words_wisely_steve_sailer/print#axzz4Yw9GY9eP

    The concentration of money in super elites makes it logical for them to destroy the independence nation-states , while keeping a few domesticated ones around for tax dodging
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

    But ultimately the corporations need someone to defend them. Google and Apple have been in cahoots with Ireland but helpless in the face of EU power.

    Read More
  128. @Anon
    Some people think Jewish support of Muslim immigration will backfire on them because Muslims hate Jews.

    But is that really true?

    If all Muslims/Arabs coming to the US were Palestinians, that might be the case.

    BUT most Muslims are not Palestinians and don't care about the Palestinian issue.

    What do Pakistani Muslims, Indian Muslims, Iranian Muslims, Syrian Muslims, Iraqi Muslims, Afghani Muslims, Somali Muslims, Indonesian Muslims, Egyptian Muslims, Turkish Muslims, and etc really care about Palestinians?

    It's like expecting Japanese-Americans to care about China or Tibet cuz they're all Asians.
    It's like expecting Mexican-Americans to care about Cubans cuz they are both 'Hispanic'.
    They don't.

    The main priority of most Muslims who wanna come to the US is easy entry. If they realize that Jews are their main allies in this agenda, they will form an alliance with Jews. They won't give a crap about Palestinians and Israel. (A few will and may commit terrorism, but most won't. And even most who do sympathize with Palestinians won't lift a finger since their alliance with Jewish Power is what really counts in bringing more Muslim relatives to the US.) If Jews can form an alliance with American Muslims(most of whom are NOT Palestinian and whose main priority is easy access to the US), then this Jewish-Muslim alliance will actually undermine the Palestinian cause. Jews in America will say, "Look, we are wonderful friends with most Muslims, and we are both agreed on more immigration." And if Muslim-Americans must choose between alliance with Jews & more immigration AND alliance with Palestinians & less immigration(as Jews might support Muslim immigration restrictions out of fear), they will opt for the former. Muslims mainly care about their own family, clan, and tribe. The fact is most Muslims are NOT Palestinians. Even though they don't like Israel, Palestinians meaning NOTHING to them.

    Also, most Muslims who want come to the US have negative feelings toward fellow Muslims in their nations of origin. Shias who come to the US hate the Sunnis, and vice versa. Syrians who come to the US hate Assad and Alawi elite rule. Almost all Iranians in the US hate the current regime in Iran. Likewise, the Vietnamese refugees after the war were not Viet Cong out to attack Americans but people who hated communist Viets and saw the US as their savior. They turned out to be useful collaborators of the US when US reopened ties with Vietnam.
    Even as they maintain their Muslim ways, they feel safer in the secular West than in their own homelands that are so corrupt and brutal, even among Muslims.

    Just like Pilgrims were Christians who fled other Christians who persecuted them in Europe, Muslims coming to the West often feel persecuted, wronged, or oppressed by other Muslims who rule the Middle East. As such, they may make good allies with Jews.

    I don’t think you are correct.

    Just look at the situation now. The Muslims who are currently making life inhospitable for Jews in France (North Africans) and Sweden (Somalians, Iraqis), and at pushing BDS and brain-dead third world-ism at universities in Britain (Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Gulf Staters) and Canada (various) are not themselves Palestinian Arabs and yet engage in plenty of antisemitism, with street violence manifestations in the former two cases, and mostly (so far) rhetorical manifestations in the latter two.

    Read More
  129. @Teucer
    I don't really think Steve's counter-argument here is very persuasive, because:

    1) All the examples he provides (Persians/Romans/Spanish/Caliphate/British/Nazis) of prospective integration being a negative are of empires that conquered and oppressed lesser peoples by force, which is obviously not what Zuckerberg's ideological vision (whatever its merits) is. I think one could reasonably draw a distinction between "soft" integration---trade, immigration, scientific and cultural exchange, international institutions, etc.---and invading countries, killing lots of people and trying to hold the survivors as unwilling imperial subjects in perpetuity.

    2) I think when considered on net, many of the empires Steve cites as negative examples, like the Romans and the British, were probably actually positive for human well-being. At least, they had some good effects in terms of creating more centralized political authority and less local violent conflict, economic development and infrastructure building, spreading scientific and cultural advances, etc. And while I'll readily admit I have only a layman's knowledge here, while it might have been bad if they had reached farther into Europe, were the Persian and early Islamic empires really all that bad relative to their regional predecessors either? There's the early Islamic "golden age" that progressives like to talk about, for example.

    (Incidentally, fun fact: Hitler apparently thought it was a shame that the Muslims lost at Tours, as he thought Islam superior to Christianity.)

    3) I know Zuckerberg is an evil globalist autistic Jewish cuckold capitalist Davos man who wants to destroy everything good in America, or something, but if you actually read the (very boring) article, a lot of what he's suggesting seem like the kind of banal and laudable goals a civically-minded captain of industry should be pursuing. For example, the first item is about how the decline of traditional social institutions is bad and maybe we should do something about it. That sounds like a pretty solid Robert Putnam-y point to me, but I guess it's actually part of the Secret Globalist Plot somehow.

    4) Steve sort of touched on this implicitly, but it bears noting that there have indeed been many successful centralizations of power in the past that would have seemed as "ridiculous" as anything Zuckerberg is suggesting. It various points in history, it would have been just crazy talk to believe that England, Italy, Germany or China would become unified polities. But today we look back at statesmen like Alfred the Great, Cavour, Bismarck and Qui Shi Huang as being on the oft-Steve maligned Right Side of History.

    Indeed, perhaps the best illustration of this is to look at compare today's reactionaries with people of the past. Andrew Anglin's idea that all Europeans, including Slavs, are basically a big racial family who are fundamentally part of the same "team" would have sounded pretty "globalist" to Hitler---let alone Bismarck, Frederick the Great, Elizabeth I, Charlemagne, Arminius or Pericles. Even the most parochial people and intellectuals in the West today see themselves as part of much larger and more complex communities than the vast majority of their ancestors did. Is it really that crazy to suggest that, just as descendants of the ancient Greeks don't actually still see their polis as the most important group they belong to, our descendants might not see current day nation-states as being as important as we do?

    As someone who has travelled a lot, learned many languages (to greater or lesser extents) and has made many friends from very different places, I certainly value freedom of movement and cultural exchange. But increased exposure to people from other cultures can also remove any doubts as to their flaws and incompatible differences. Our descendants very well may end up far more tribal and territorial than we are.

    Read More
  130. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Pericles

    But the idea that the Winklevii would have created a $380 billion company out of their idea strains credulity. They’re lucky to have made whatever millions they did from it.

     

    To be fair, it also strains credulity that Zuckerberg would create a $380 billion company out of their idea.

    The unsung portion of the FB story (as well as others of the same generation) is the role of the intelligence agencies, black budgets and general surveillance state rollout.

    To be fair, it also strains credulity that Zuckerberg would create a $380 billion company out of their idea.

    The unsung portion of the FB story (as well as others of the same generation) is the role of the intelligence agencies, black budgets and general surveillance state rollout.

    Yep, this is what most people don’t know about. I do, because my previously job involved investigations within Deep State/TS stuff. When I started that job I used to be puzzled why some old retired military officer living in Great Falls, VA, or some some older retired executive in Monterey, CA, needed a TS/SCI clearances for simply being on the board of directors of some notable IT/SV firms. And we’re not even talking about things Google X.

    From my 10 years in that world I saw a lot and I came to the conclusion that the greatest money source in the SV/high tech silly money wealth is from the U.S. Government. I imagine a good percentage of that is DoD and the intelligence budget (conveniently, the amount of that budget is classified). I could tell you unbelievable stories about have DoD/DARPA/[...] gave gobs and gobs of money (8+ figures) over years to some almost non-existent start-ups with no oversight. I remember once interviewing a former employee of a small IT startup company. He was a former military guy who only felt confortable meeting me in the food court of a local suburban mall on a Sunday afternoon. He was looking over his shoulder the whole time as he told me about how the bogus company (started by some Caltech dropout) was getting millions and millions of dollars from the U.S. Government and no one from the USG ever checked up on them and made sure they even existed. He said that during the whole time that he was there he expected 60 Minutes to come through the doors with cameras rolling exposing the whole fraud. He left when the company folded and the founder went on to start another biotech/IT company.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Btw, at the level of small IT startup I referenced, it's only necessary to make it work on paper to satisfy DARPA, et al. My suspicion is that similar smoke-and-mirrors stuff goes on at the larger IT firms getting the big U.S. Government dollars and the modus operandi is complexify the operation through more employees and compartmentalization. And my investigator hunch is that lots and lots of H1B workers serves this purpose while lowering costs.
  131. When you lack the military muscle or strength in numbers necessary to impose your will upon the nation/world, you devise a strategy that places a disproportionate level of power in the hands of a technocratic elite, from which your group will be a part of. This is similar to inner circle members of the Party or Politburo benefited under Communism.

    When you remove all of the gooey double-speak, it’s quite apparent that what the Establishment Left and Right are pushing for is a not-so-slow crawl away from national self-determination and toward a dictatorship presided over by unelected global federations of power brokers. With this process likely 60% complete, it’s understandable why Donald Trump’s political ascendancy and now presidency are being undermined every step of the way, even from within. His America First inauguration speech allowed everybody to clearly choose their side.

    Read More
  132. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous

    To be fair, it also strains credulity that Zuckerberg would create a $380 billion company out of their idea.

    The unsung portion of the FB story (as well as others of the same generation) is the role of the intelligence agencies, black budgets and general surveillance state rollout.
     
    Yep, this is what most people don't know about. I do, because my previously job involved investigations within Deep State/TS stuff. When I started that job I used to be puzzled why some old retired military officer living in Great Falls, VA, or some some older retired executive in Monterey, CA, needed a TS/SCI clearances for simply being on the board of directors of some notable IT/SV firms. And we're not even talking about things Google X.

    From my 10 years in that world I saw a lot and I came to the conclusion that the greatest money source in the SV/high tech silly money wealth is from the U.S. Government. I imagine a good percentage of that is DoD and the intelligence budget (conveniently, the amount of that budget is classified). I could tell you unbelievable stories about have DoD/DARPA/[...] gave gobs and gobs of money (8+ figures) over years to some almost non-existent start-ups with no oversight. I remember once interviewing a former employee of a small IT startup company. He was a former military guy who only felt confortable meeting me in the food court of a local suburban mall on a Sunday afternoon. He was looking over his shoulder the whole time as he told me about how the bogus company (started by some Caltech dropout) was getting millions and millions of dollars from the U.S. Government and no one from the USG ever checked up on them and made sure they even existed. He said that during the whole time that he was there he expected 60 Minutes to come through the doors with cameras rolling exposing the whole fraud. He left when the company folded and the founder went on to start another biotech/IT company.

    Btw, at the level of small IT startup I referenced, it’s only necessary to make it work on paper to satisfy DARPA, et al. My suspicion is that similar smoke-and-mirrors stuff goes on at the larger IT firms getting the big U.S. Government dollars and the modus operandi is complexify the operation through more employees and compartmentalization. And my investigator hunch is that lots and lots of H1B workers serves this purpose while lowering costs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    My own experience – from the (ostensible) industry's side, rather than the government's – confirms your writings.
  133. One thing’s for sure, if Zuck ever ascends to CEO of Globocorpgov, he will have “You trusted me – dumb fucks” inscribed on the face of every brutalist ministry building.

    Something tells me that the real secret to Zuck’s success is “capital.” Just a guess, though.

    Read More
  134. @mobi
    I'm detecting of late - in the tone of Zuckerberg, but also of others of his ilk - the signs of a phase transition among the globalist/liberal elites.

    They're regrouping from their initial shock and confusion. They're starting to coalesce around a new position, which seems for now to be:

    'We didn't realise globalism had simply been moving too fast for all the losers. Nothing wrong with the principle itself, of course - it's just that we need to show more sympathy and compassion for all the losers on the other side, who in their pathetic loserness, are full of fear that the changes are too fast, and they're being left behind.

    Poor losers - we feel your pain. We must tend to your weakness and failure, until you see the light, and our crusade can resume.'


    They're doubling down on smug condescension, as of course they would, because it's the ego-preserving position, for now.


    As long as they insist on remaining so utterly lacking in self-awareness, and of the flaws of their own beliefs, and the nature of what's happening - they remain vulnerable to further setbacks, which is good.

    it’s just that we need to pretend to show more sympathy and compassion for all the losers on the other side

    FTFY

    Read More
  135. @Anonymous
    The other day, I broke my habit and actually watched the BBC 10 o'clock news - only because the BBC 2 Russian soccer hooligan documentary preceded it.

    First item was an apoplectic reporter, Jon Sopel, literally 'doing his nut' - and not even trying to hide it - whilst giving a very biased, prejudiced and absurd 'report' from Donald Trump's extraordinary press conference. As it happens, Trump was calm and measured during the conference, yet an obviously enraged Sopel called Trump 'enraged'.

    On another note, BBC local London TV news has got to be the most leftwing biased show in creation. It's an absolute sick joke of a program.

    As it happens, Trump was calm and measured during the conference, yet an obviously enraged Sopel called Trump ‘enraged’.

    The best part is that Trump predicted multiple times during the press conference that the media would respond in that fashion.

    Read More
  136. @27 year old
    >are we building the world we all want?

    I wonder what a global poll of "things heading in the right direction or on the wrong track" would look like?
    Read More
  137. @Dave Pinsen
    There's no lottery ticket that makes you worth $50 billion.

    Look, you don't have to like the guy to acknowledge that luck doesn't create $380 billion companies.

    Rubbish.

    Percy Spencer discovered microwaves because a candy-bar inn his pocket melted while he was working on radar equipment. He (or, rather, his employer, Raytheon) later patented the technology, which is worth about one billion dollars this year alone (it’s been making money since 1947).

    Alexander Fleming discovered mould had formed in Petri dishes and killed the bacteria he was experimenting upon (Fleming had accidentally left one of the dishes open, allowing the mould’s spores to contaminate it). The global market for antibiotics in 2016 alone was some forty billion dollars.

    People wind up vastly wealthy due to the merest chance all of the time. The vast majority of these gain their money the old-fashioned way: they inherit it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Highlands
    Aside: Even human skin is a Petri dish for the never-ending chemical skirmishes between prokaryote bacteria and eukaryote fungi. To this day, the common Strep strains remain among the most penicillin-susceptible bacteria and are important symbiotes on healthy skin. Often when people with low-level ringworm or athlete's foot fungi need oral antibiotics, even dead simple ones like bismuth for H. pylori, their skin fungi have a field day.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Working for Raytheon isn't starting from scratch, and patents last 20 years, not 70.

    The global market for antibiotics includes numerous antibiotics made by numerous companies.

    Mark Zuckerberg is worth $50 billion. How many people worth that much inherited their money? Maybe the Walton kids, that's about it. Most of the super-rich are self-made.
  138. @27 year old
    >are we building the world we all want?

    I wonder what a global poll of "things heading in the right direction or on the wrong track" would look like?

    are we building the world we all want?

    Obviously not, because the world I want is simply incompatible with the world a faithful Muslim wants.

    Read More
  139. that each person should see as little objectionable content as possible

    A smiley face, stomping on the human spirit, forever.

    Read More
  140. @Randal

    Technological shrinkage will certainly not lead to One-Worldism
     
    You can assert that, and it might be true, but unless you produce a plausible case to support the assertion it's just that.

    There are two mechanisms by which it might work towards One-Worldism. First, and simplest, technology makes a world empire materially possible where it was not materially possible in the past. Second, technology tends to enable propaganda and compress cultural difference.

    On the latter point, technology can also facilitate resistance to propaganda and cultural compression of course. It's not necessarily clear which way it will work in any given future period.

    It was a bald assertion, just like your speculations above were unsupported. I’m not going to produce a plausible case, but I am going to provide a formula I’ve seen floating around: Diversity + Proximity = War.

    People don’t want to live together. They won’t get along. They’ll fight. Unless technology can turn us into one race, there will be no World Government. Even then, we’ll find something else to fight about. Star Trek will never happen.

    Propaganda is helpless against this. Imagine if they managed to erase culture, as they’re obviously trying to do in the West at least. People will still look different, and even if they didn’t, each new interaction will provide grounds for new animosity. That will never, ever end.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Internal conflict, rebellion, and war have been constants in the history of the internal politics of empire,
    , @Randal

    I’m not going to produce a plausible case, but I am going to provide a formula I’ve seen floating around: Diversity + Proximity = War.

    People don’t want to live together. They won’t get along. They’ll fight. Unless technology can turn us into one race, there will be no World Government.
     

    I don't necessarily disagree with you on the likelihood of peaceful union, but neither racial nor cultural unity is required for imperial authority to be imposed. There have been numerous empires throughout history, covering progressively more and more of the world's surface, but to date there has always been somewhere on earth that is outside the reach of even the biggest empire, and none of the empires of the past has been capable, even in theory, of taking over the whole planet, for logistical and practical reasons alone. But technology has probably now enabled travel and communications to the point where a world empire is at least possible, in practical terms. If it has not now, it must be close to it

    Military and internal security power can be projected to anywhere on the surface of the earth within hours. Propaganda can be broadcast to almost the entire population of the world at the touch of a button. IT means mass surveillance need not eventually result, as was notoriously the case in the Soviet bloc, in the state running out of people to spy on the rest of the population.

    Whether a de jure empire or a de facto one like the modern US sphere, such an empire need not be particularly peaceful, or universally accepted. Star Trek was a leftist utopian fantasy. But it is probably technologically possible now where it was not for the Romans or the Chinese or the Spanish or the British or probably even the Soviets in the past.

  141. If the entire American Left now cheers on punch a NAZI, punch Richard Spencer – I’m OK with a punch Mark Zuckerberg and or William Kristol.

    The Homeless of Hawaii should invade Zuckerberg’s Hawaiian estate.

    Is it only me or do others think most American Jews are losing their collective minds over the election of President Trump?

    What kind of confused crazed Liberal Left New York, Southern California Jews are obsessed with supporting mass Muslim immigration to the USA?

    These American Jews really think President Trump is Hitler and every United Autoworker in Michigan is an anti Semite NAZI that is about to gas their Jewish grandparents.

    This is crazy.

    Read More
  142. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    What is it about getting a little money that gives certain guys a messiah complex? They need to start minding their own business. Just because you’re rich doesn’t make you right all the time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Just because you’re rich doesn’t make you right all the time.
     
    True, but it does tend to make those around you tell you that you are. Which probably has the same effect over time.
  143. Not completely off-topic, but there was an action taken in the (toothless) European parliament yesterday that reifies the point Derbyshire made several years ago.

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/secteur/high-tech/2017/02/15/32001-20170215ARTFIG00359-la-taxe-robot-divise-le-parlement-europeen.php

    Un cadre juridique pour les robots. Le Parlement européen a adopté ce jeudi un rapport sur d’un texte porté par l’eurodéputée luxembourgeoise Mady Delvaux sur les robots. Le rapport, qui se penche également sur des questions d’éthique et de responsabilité de ces machines, propose l’instauration d’une «taxe robot» destinée à financer un revenu universel en compensation de la perte de travail consécutive à l’utilisation des robots dans l’économie. Cette partie du dossier a été rejetée par les députés européens.

    (Apologies; it is in French, but the thrust of the matter is, that an initial framework was adopted in the EU parliament regarding the implications of the rise of the machines in work, the ethical and practical challenges, and a possible tax on them to finance a universal, basic income.)

    Quoting Derb, in his canonical text We Are Doomed from several years ago:

    What is the next term in the series: farm, factory, office…? There isn’t one. The evolution of work has come to an end point, and the human race knows this in its bones. Actually in its reproductive organs: the farmer of 1800 had six or seven kids, the factory worker of 1900 three or four, the cube jockey of 2000 one or two. The superfluous humans of 2100, if there are any, will hold at zero. What would be the point of doing otherwise?

    Read More
  144. @Lurker
    If Pakistanis really are as good citizen material as white Americans (if not that little bit better if the MSM is to be believed) then why is Pakistan not already like the US?

    If Pakistanis really are as good citizen material as white Americans (if not that little bit better if the MSM is to be believed) then why is Pakistan not already like the US?

    “Magic Dirt”!

    ….surprised you didn’t know that!

    Read More
  145. @Autochthon
    Rubbish.

    Percy Spencer discovered microwaves because a candy-bar inn his pocket melted while he was working on radar equipment. He (or, rather, his employer, Raytheon) later patented the technology, which is worth about one billion dollars this year alone (it's been making money since 1947).

    Alexander Fleming discovered mould had formed in Petri dishes and killed the bacteria he was experimenting upon (Fleming had accidentally left one of the dishes open, allowing the mould's spores to contaminate it). The global market for antibiotics in 2016 alone was some forty billion dollars.

    People wind up vastly wealthy due to the merest chance all of the time. The vast majority of these gain their money the old-fashioned way: they inherit it.

    Aside: Even human skin is a Petri dish for the never-ending chemical skirmishes between prokaryote bacteria and eukaryote fungi. To this day, the common Strep strains remain among the most penicillin-susceptible bacteria and are important symbiotes on healthy skin. Often when people with low-level ringworm or athlete’s foot fungi need oral antibiotics, even dead simple ones like bismuth for H. pylori, their skin fungi have a field day.

    Read More
  146. @Verymuchalive
    Sopel is merely one of a considerable number of Jewish Zionist senior reporters at the BBC. On top of that you have Zionist non-Jews like Rory Cellan Jones. 3 of the 12 BBC Trust members ( former Board of Governors ) are Jewish. There is no longer even a Scots member.
    Compared to 30 or 40 years ago, the results are striking. In those days, the number of Jews in senior positions was small. BBC was certainly biased in those days, but without the unrelenting bias, distortion and fake news we have now. It still produced good quality programmes in those days.
    With the Jews in tow, we now have wall-to-wall Russophobia, Neoliberalism, Euphilia, and a mealy-mouthed attitude to Israeli atrocities. The quality of programme has dropped drastically.
    Jewish networking in this case has helped form a lugenpresse . Semitophiles like Blair and Cameron must take ultimate responsibility.

    Modern English culture is inherently philoSemitic.

    Read More
  147. “History is the story of how we’ve learned to come together in ever greater numbers — from tribes to cities to nations.”

    This asshole again. I’m not sure what history he’s talking about but certainly not the Palestinian Israeli history or much of any world history I’ve studied. Bringing people together on Facebook isn’t achieving world peace. In fact social media is anything but sociable. Facebook is a proxy server platform for the intelligence community to data mine, track users, and filter and disseminate approved “news”.

    Pimple pus loves the limelight and has signed off on the Globalist NWO. Fall for his BS at your own risk.

    Read More
  148. @27 year old
    This excessive admiration of the "execution" and "entrepreneurship" of (((Zuckerberg))) like you are doing here is an especially bizarre form of cucking, kind of like admiring and praising just how efficient the thrust of the other guy is as he penetrates your wife. I guess in some kind of triple bank shot way you're trying to signal your own knowledge or experience of Internet business or some shit? Either way, weird.

    You can admire the efficacy of the enemy even if you don’t admire the enemy. The cultures that rejected guns, for example, might not have been fond of the efficacy of firearms but they had to realistically note it, and then co’op it.

    Read More
  149. Today I want to focus on the most important question of all: are we building the world (((we))) all want?

    ~ Mark E. Zuckerberg

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Does that (((we))) included Facebook board members Erskine Bowles, Peter Thiel, or Mark Andreessen?
  150. @SPMoore8
    A long and tedious commercial for Facebook.

    They Key to World Peace:

    Research suggests the best solutions for improving discourse may come from getting to know each other as whole people instead of just opinions -- something Facebook may be uniquely suited to do. If we connect with people about what we have in common -- sports teams, TV shows, interests -- it is easier to have dialogue about what we disagree on. When we do this well, we give billions of people the ability to share new perspectives while mitigating the unwanted effects that come with any new medium.
     

    Connecting everyone to the internet is also necessary for building an informed community.
     
    Of course. And using Facebook.

    The second is establishing a new process for citizens worldwide to participate in collective decision-making. Our world is more connected than ever, and we face global problems that span national boundaries. As the largest global community, Facebook can explore examples of how community governance might work at scale.

     

    How could the Emergency Spillway not work? It got a million Likes!

    Second, our community spans many countries and cultures, and the norms are different in each region. It's not surprising that Europeans more frequently find fault with taking down images depicting nudity, since some European cultures are more accepting of nudity than, for example, many communities in the Middle East or Asia. With a community of almost two billion people, it is less feasible to have a single set of standards to govern the entire community so we need to evolve towards a system of more local governance.

     


    Third, even within a given culture, we have different opinions on what we want to see and what is objectionable. I may be okay with more politically charged speech but not want to see anything sexually suggestive, while you may be okay with nudity but not want to see offensive speech. Similarly, you may want to share a violent video in a protest without worrying that you're going to bother friends who don't want to see it. And just as it's a bad experience to see objectionable content, it's also a terrible experience to be told we can't share something we feel is important. This suggests we need to evolve towards a system of personal control over our experience.
     
    Well, you've just contradicted yourself, because you can't make an inclusive and safe community that is decentralized for the sake of individuals, but, don't worry about it.

    The guiding principles are that the Community Standards should reflect the cultural norms of our community, that each person should see as little objectionable content as possible, and each person should be able to share what they want while being told they cannot share something as little as possible. The approach is to combine creating a large-scale democratic process to determine standards with AI to help enforce them.
     
    Oh, Robots! That will work. Except that a community where everyone gets to check off the content they do not want to see will no longer be a community where people are exposed to different things.

    With a broader range of controls, content will only be taken down if it is more objectionable than the most permissive options allow.
     
    I'm sorry, but equivocation just does not work here.

    It's worth noting that major advances in AI are required to understand text, photos and videos to judge whether they contain hate speech, graphic violence, sexually explicit content, and more. At our current pace of research, we hope to begin handling some of these cases in 2017, but others will not be possible for many years.
     
    Prediction: If AI ever "understands" text, photos, and videos, there will be a lot of porn on Facebook.

    Once again, I am left bemoaning the absence of an "Unlike" button on Facebook.

    each person should see as little objectionable content as possible, and each person should be able to share what they want while being told they cannot share something as little as possible.

    I’m still trying to wrap my head around that. It suggests the isolation and insularity of a padded room.

    It seems likely that Zuck is so consumed with the virtual world of FB that he has no idea how human interaction/interpersonal communication works.

    Read More
  151. Yes, Mr Suckerberg keeps telling anyone willing to keep listening to him that we’re all in this together. Meanwhile he’s built a giant wall around his house and is kicking those pesky Native Hawaiians off his estate.
    But its not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy requires principles and God knows these dickheads don’t have any of those.
    Fakebook has over a Billion users, and a stock price of Billions and Billions. What if any of that was actually real? Then maybe I would care what this dickhead was babbling about.

    Read More
  152. @map
    I just came across a great name for news people: News Actors.

    And Zuckerberg's company needs to face a "right to be forgotten law" where he is required to remove your name from search results.

    Problem solved.

    I’ve been saying for ages that what is contrived as news is just a form of entertainment programing. Your news actors are the talking heads that appear on camera spouting The Narrative, which is their script or storyline.

    Read More
  153. @Anon
    What is it about getting a little money that gives certain guys a messiah complex? They need to start minding their own business. Just because you're rich doesn't make you right all the time.

    Just because you’re rich doesn’t make you right all the time.

    True, but it does tend to make those around you tell you that you are. Which probably has the same effect over time.

    Read More
  154. Well now, the late David Landes of Harvard wrote a book called the Wealth and Poverty of Nations some years back (1998) that made, among many points, the one Steve made: that independence and diversity are what cause progress to happen.

    He pointed to the example of China and Europe and the colonization of the Americas. China was actually ahead of Europe in terms of ocean-going fleets and could easily have colonized the New World before the Europeans (instead of playing catch up as they are now). Landes noted that because China was unified under an Emperor when said Emperor, for reasons of his own, ordered China’s fleet scrapped, it was. Thus ended the Chinese voyages of discovery. The Europeans, on the other hand, being divided into various states, competed with each other in their exploration of the Americas. There was no Emperor of Europe to scrap any “European” fleet. Not only that, were any European state to scrap its fleet, the others would welcome the end of a competitor and build even more ships themselves.

    Landes’ book is far from perfect (great sweeping works like his never are) but it was at least one that provided food for thought.

    Zuckerberg might want to check it out, being a Harvard alum and all that…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer

    "Well now, the late David Landes of Harvard wrote a book called the Wealth and Poverty of Nations some years back (1998) that made, among many points, the one Steve made: that independence and diversity are what cause progress to happen.
     
    I reviewed Landes's book in National Review.
  155. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anon
    Some people think Jewish support of Muslim immigration will backfire on them because Muslims hate Jews.

    But is that really true?

    If all Muslims/Arabs coming to the US were Palestinians, that might be the case.

    BUT most Muslims are not Palestinians and don't care about the Palestinian issue.

    What do Pakistani Muslims, Indian Muslims, Iranian Muslims, Syrian Muslims, Iraqi Muslims, Afghani Muslims, Somali Muslims, Indonesian Muslims, Egyptian Muslims, Turkish Muslims, and etc really care about Palestinians?

    It's like expecting Japanese-Americans to care about China or Tibet cuz they're all Asians.
    It's like expecting Mexican-Americans to care about Cubans cuz they are both 'Hispanic'.
    They don't.

    The main priority of most Muslims who wanna come to the US is easy entry. If they realize that Jews are their main allies in this agenda, they will form an alliance with Jews. They won't give a crap about Palestinians and Israel. (A few will and may commit terrorism, but most won't. And even most who do sympathize with Palestinians won't lift a finger since their alliance with Jewish Power is what really counts in bringing more Muslim relatives to the US.) If Jews can form an alliance with American Muslims(most of whom are NOT Palestinian and whose main priority is easy access to the US), then this Jewish-Muslim alliance will actually undermine the Palestinian cause. Jews in America will say, "Look, we are wonderful friends with most Muslims, and we are both agreed on more immigration." And if Muslim-Americans must choose between alliance with Jews & more immigration AND alliance with Palestinians & less immigration(as Jews might support Muslim immigration restrictions out of fear), they will opt for the former. Muslims mainly care about their own family, clan, and tribe. The fact is most Muslims are NOT Palestinians. Even though they don't like Israel, Palestinians meaning NOTHING to them.

    Also, most Muslims who want come to the US have negative feelings toward fellow Muslims in their nations of origin. Shias who come to the US hate the Sunnis, and vice versa. Syrians who come to the US hate Assad and Alawi elite rule. Almost all Iranians in the US hate the current regime in Iran. Likewise, the Vietnamese refugees after the war were not Viet Cong out to attack Americans but people who hated communist Viets and saw the US as their savior. They turned out to be useful collaborators of the US when US reopened ties with Vietnam.
    Even as they maintain their Muslim ways, they feel safer in the secular West than in their own homelands that are so corrupt and brutal, even among Muslims.

    Just like Pilgrims were Christians who fled other Christians who persecuted them in Europe, Muslims coming to the West often feel persecuted, wronged, or oppressed by other Muslims who rule the Middle East. As such, they may make good allies with Jews.

    Sorry – I can assure you that in the UK, at least, a major part of the ‘Muslim identity’ – it goes with wearing long beards, pyjamas and skull caps in the burkas, hijabs, veils etc etc is the adoption of a vigorous anti semitic personality, if not actual hatred if Jews. Such a pose gives one street cred and kudos. The bark voiced Jafaican accented ritual denunciation of ‘the jews’ and expressed sympathy for Palestinians can be overheard everywhere.

    Believe me it is very real – and very fanatical.

    Read More
  156. @Harry Baldwin
    If we connect with people about what we have in common — sports teams, TV shows, interests — it is easier to have dialogue about what we disagree on.

    This has not been my experience on facebook at all. There are people I know that like well enough socially, but after they've force their political views on me I can no longer stand them. The "dialogue" concept is bullshit. If someone is expressing opinions that are rooted in emotional needs and false information, where is our dialogue supposed to lead, especially when that person views my opinions in exactly the same light? I have no interest in debating anyone whose worldview is completely contrary to mine. If my concept of the good is his concept of the bad, what is the point of it? I have one old friend who's a committed liberal and we manage to get along despite that. He once said, "One thing we can agree on is that we both want the best possible world for our children."

    I said, "Yes, and you could say the same of the soldiers on both sides of every war ever fought. "

    The idea that sports teams and TV shows are what people have in common, and thus easier to have a discussion of disagreeable topics, is a very naïve and primitive–I dare say ill-formed and uninformed–view of interpersonal relations.

    What are ostensibly leisure activities are unlikely to be the nexus for the discussion of substantive socio-politico-economic issues. Add religious, ethnic and sexual identities, and the whole point of leisure time, i.e. getting away form it all, is destroyed.

    What he is encouraging drives people into their own bubbles. The differences people have are (mostly) based on personal preferences and individual needs and circumstances–not primarily because they are uninformed, lack facts, or haven’t been exposed to better arguments or different ways of doing things.

    Zuck had one clever idea: the customized linking of messaging posts on a shared platform. It doesn’t make him the smartest or wisest man in the world–far from it.

    “The world we want” for a lot of people is to be left alone–and for Masters of the Universe like Zuck, to stop meddling in our lives as if it’s their prerogative.

    Read More
  157. @Jack D
    I happened to see Tapper and I was really shocked - what he was doing was basically confirming that Trump was right and that the press really are in effect Democrat Party operatives.

    There is a big controversy over at the Wall Street Journal because their editor is trying to remain non-partisan and all the reporters want to go hard left anti-Trump like all their friends at all the other papers.

    A few weeks ago I was a (paid) participant in a marketing research focus group of WSJ subscribers. There was a very real sense that subscribers weren’t happy with the (negative) tone of WSJ news coverage of Trump. Several comments were “If I wanted that I could read the NYT or watch CNN.”

    The problem WSJ has is that they had already gone left for 8 years. Here are this week’s headlines.
    Mon: Trump Faces Missile Test
    Tues: Flynn Resigns Over Russia Contacts
    Wed: Flynn Probed By FBI Over Russia Calls
    Thu: Spies Keep Intelligence From Trump
    Fri: Trump Lets Loose against Critics

    These are the headlines of opposition, not news reporting. It’s about The Narrative of resisting, questioning legitimacy, claiming chaos. It’s safe to say the WSJ is no longer a business and financial newspaper, but the head-to-head direct competitor of the NYT.

    But then the WSJ also reflects the dying print media business–they’re no longer in the news reporting business. Every article is a feature story of analysis, speculation, and opinion. There’s little reason to read or pay attention to legacy media–they’ve gone into the activist agenda game.

    Read More
  158. @Daniel Chieh
    This is why we need to bring more placenta animals to Australia, the only way forward for diversity is for the marsupials to go extinct. They couldn't compete in our new, global world!

    Aussie liberals are very conservative when it comes to bringing in exotic plants and animals, but are strongly in favour of bringing in all sorts of exotic humans. There’s a huge disconnect between their environmental views and their immigration views.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Aussie liberals are very conservative when it comes to bringing in exotic plants and animals, but are strongly in favour of bringing in all sorts of exotic humans. There’s a huge disconnect between their environmental views and their immigration views.
     
    The liberal open immigration position conflicts with pretty much everything else in the nominal (claimed) left-liberal agenda--employment, wage levels, income equality, an expansive welfare state, community, quality public education, women's rights, etc. etc.

    But nothing is quite as stark as the conflict as the flat out direct conflict of immigration with every single possible environmental goal--pollution, resource use, environmental stress, population stabilization, sustainability, global warming, open space, sprawl, wilderness preservation ...

    Does not faze them in the least.
  159. @Teucer
    I don't really think Steve's counter-argument here is very persuasive, because:

    1) All the examples he provides (Persians/Romans/Spanish/Caliphate/British/Nazis) of prospective integration being a negative are of empires that conquered and oppressed lesser peoples by force, which is obviously not what Zuckerberg's ideological vision (whatever its merits) is. I think one could reasonably draw a distinction between "soft" integration---trade, immigration, scientific and cultural exchange, international institutions, etc.---and invading countries, killing lots of people and trying to hold the survivors as unwilling imperial subjects in perpetuity.

    2) I think when considered on net, many of the empires Steve cites as negative examples, like the Romans and the British, were probably actually positive for human well-being. At least, they had some good effects in terms of creating more centralized political authority and less local violent conflict, economic development and infrastructure building, spreading scientific and cultural advances, etc. And while I'll readily admit I have only a layman's knowledge here, while it might have been bad if they had reached farther into Europe, were the Persian and early Islamic empires really all that bad relative to their regional predecessors either? There's the early Islamic "golden age" that progressives like to talk about, for example.

    (Incidentally, fun fact: Hitler apparently thought it was a shame that the Muslims lost at Tours, as he thought Islam superior to Christianity.)

    3) I know Zuckerberg is an evil globalist autistic Jewish cuckold capitalist Davos man who wants to destroy everything good in America, or something, but if you actually read the (very boring) article, a lot of what he's suggesting seem like the kind of banal and laudable goals a civically-minded captain of industry should be pursuing. For example, the first item is about how the decline of traditional social institutions is bad and maybe we should do something about it. That sounds like a pretty solid Robert Putnam-y point to me, but I guess it's actually part of the Secret Globalist Plot somehow.

    4) Steve sort of touched on this implicitly, but it bears noting that there have indeed been many successful centralizations of power in the past that would have seemed as "ridiculous" as anything Zuckerberg is suggesting. It various points in history, it would have been just crazy talk to believe that England, Italy, Germany or China would become unified polities. But today we look back at statesmen like Alfred the Great, Cavour, Bismarck and Qui Shi Huang as being on the oft-Steve maligned Right Side of History.

    Indeed, perhaps the best illustration of this is to look at compare today's reactionaries with people of the past. Andrew Anglin's idea that all Europeans, including Slavs, are basically a big racial family who are fundamentally part of the same "team" would have sounded pretty "globalist" to Hitler---let alone Bismarck, Frederick the Great, Elizabeth I, Charlemagne, Arminius or Pericles. Even the most parochial people and intellectuals in the West today see themselves as part of much larger and more complex communities than the vast majority of their ancestors did. Is it really that crazy to suggest that, just as descendants of the ancient Greeks don't actually still see their polis as the most important group they belong to, our descendants might not see current day nation-states as being as important as we do?

    I think one could reasonably draw a distinction between “soft” integration—trade, immigration, scientific and cultural exchange, international institutions, etc.—and invading countries, killing lots of people and trying to hold the survivors as unwilling imperial subjects in perpetuity.

    There’s absolutely nothing “soft” about immigration. The normal word for it is “invasion” or “conquest”. It’s people moving into someone else’s territory “because they can”.

    As as to your question of “force”:

    “conquered and oppressed lesser peoples by force, which is obviously not what Zuckerberg’s ideological vision”

    It certainly is. Zuckerberg is “working through the system” or “pursuing change through the democratic process” or some other such b.s. But that just means he’s trying to use his money and propaganda to put in control of the *state* people who will use *state power* to *force* those of us who want to preserve our nation to submit instead to his vision. There is nothing “soft” about it. If the nation of my birth is destroyed because the Japs marched in, took over and destroyed it or because the state decreed and implemented it’s destruction … it’s still dead and in both cases my resistance to its destruction is quashed by *force*.

    In contrast, i’m certainly willing–and i think most nationalists are willing–to let Zuck and all the folks who think like him (in America, Europe, the West generally) have some spot to enact their Lennonist imaginatopia. They can have open borders, live with Muslims, invite in the Africans … whatever the hell they want. I have no problem with it. But i absolutely fanatically object to being made to live in *his* world. To have the nation that my ancestors built stolen from me and my children.

    Killing lots of people, may not be Zuck’s desire–if it’s not required–but

    “trying to hold the survivors as unwilling imperial subjects in perpetuity.”

    is a pretty fair description of exactly what he wants to do. If you don’t get that you’re just a fool.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Spot on. I expect Teucer is another ignorant (I'm giving rhe benefit of the doubt that he is neither stupid nor evil, the other explanations...) inhabitant of rural Ohio or some such with not one foggy clue about the accelerating invasion.

    These types call to mind some smug douche on a remote plantation in Alabama who object to all the pissing and moaning for more materiel and higher taxes to support the whiny Army of Northern Virginia because, "Hey, what's the fuss? I haven't seen any Yankees around here at all; everything is fine."
  160. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    What was left out of the Lazarus poem.

    Once the huddled masses arrive,
    Give each a rifle and send him out West
    To take the remaining lands from Indians
    Who must make way for Immigrants
    With guns and plows.

    We can easily tie the Immigration Narrative with the Final Conquest and Demise of the Indians.
    After all, one of the reasons for allowing massive immigration back then was to settle the West, like Minnesota with Swedes.

    But that part of the Narrative isn’t very convenient to the Immigrationists.
    They don’t wanna confront the fact that More Immigration was integral to Manifest Destiny that hammered the final nails in the Indian coffin.

    What HEAVEN’S GATE failed to show. Immigrants too were invaders, like the Anglos who came before.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nulLaR7Hqkg

    Read More
  161. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    What we need is a satirical sitcom called Down in the Trumps.

    It would be about the hysteria, meltdown, nuttery, panic, paranoia, and lunacy of the progs, Jewish globalists, feminists, Muslims, etc. in the Trump era.

    It can be funnier than ALL IN THE FAMILY. And we wouldn’t even need to invent much since real life people are supplying all the craziness. Just represent them as they are unfolding before our eyes.

    Imagine a family where the father is someone like Apatow, mother is someone like Meryl Streep, uncle is someone like Michael Moore, grandpa is someone like Soros and grandma is someone like Hillary, and kids are like Lena Dunham, Shia Lagoof, Miley Cyrus. And the school teachers are like Joy Behar, Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow, Sarah Silverman, and etc. And the neighbors are like Robert Deniro, Paul Schrader, Ashley Judd, and etc. And the town mayor is someone like Joe Biden.

    The topics for episodes: intersectionality of muslims and feminists, rape culture, KKK sightings, Haven Monahan comes to town, homo parades and BLM and Muslim pride and Israel pride all on same day, pussy hatters, etc.

    Actually, a reality TV show with all these people together would do the trick.

    And for extra fun, let’s say there is a Trump supporter in town who happens to be Ruuuuuuussian. Think of the rumors among townfolks about this suspicious Ruuuuuuuussian.

    Read More
  162. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @guest
    It was a bald assertion, just like your speculations above were unsupported. I'm not going to produce a plausible case, but I am going to provide a formula I've seen floating around: Diversity + Proximity = War.

    People don't want to live together. They won't get along. They'll fight. Unless technology can turn us into one race, there will be no World Government. Even then, we'll find something else to fight about. Star Trek will never happen.

    Propaganda is helpless against this. Imagine if they managed to erase culture, as they're obviously trying to do in the West at least. People will still look different, and even if they didn't, each new interaction will provide grounds for new animosity. That will never, ever end.

    Internal conflict, rebellion, and war have been constants in the history of the internal politics of empire,

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Of course, the U.N. or whatever could declare itself emperor of infinite space, and whatever conflict was happening anyway they could declare by law to be civil war within the global empire. But there's no reason we have to believe them.
  163. Re: M. Zuckerberg, the guy has one good idea in his entire life, that catches on with a large segment of the population and makes him filthy rich, and he thinks that makes him an expert in everything else. One good idea and he is suddenly an expert in global economics, sociology, political science and history??

    Read More
  164. @celt darnell
    Well now, the late David Landes of Harvard wrote a book called the Wealth and Poverty of Nations some years back (1998) that made, among many points, the one Steve made: that independence and diversity are what cause progress to happen.

    He pointed to the example of China and Europe and the colonization of the Americas. China was actually ahead of Europe in terms of ocean-going fleets and could easily have colonized the New World before the Europeans (instead of playing catch up as they are now). Landes noted that because China was unified under an Emperor when said Emperor, for reasons of his own, ordered China's fleet scrapped, it was. Thus ended the Chinese voyages of discovery. The Europeans, on the other hand, being divided into various states, competed with each other in their exploration of the Americas. There was no Emperor of Europe to scrap any "European" fleet. Not only that, were any European state to scrap its fleet, the others would welcome the end of a competitor and build even more ships themselves.

    Landes' book is far from perfect (great sweeping works like his never are) but it was at least one that provided food for thought.

    Zuckerberg might want to check it out, being a Harvard alum and all that...

    “Well now, the late David Landes of Harvard wrote a book called the Wealth and Poverty of Nations some years back (1998) that made, among many points, the one Steve made: that independence and diversity are what cause progress to happen.

    I reviewed Landes’s book in National Review.

    Read More
  165. @res

    it’s just that we need to pretend to show more sympathy and compassion for all the losers on the other side
     
    FTFY

    FTFY

    Yes, I caught that too late.

    Read More
  166. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Verymuchalive
    Sopel is merely one of a considerable number of Jewish Zionist senior reporters at the BBC. On top of that you have Zionist non-Jews like Rory Cellan Jones. 3 of the 12 BBC Trust members ( former Board of Governors ) are Jewish. There is no longer even a Scots member.
    Compared to 30 or 40 years ago, the results are striking. In those days, the number of Jews in senior positions was small. BBC was certainly biased in those days, but without the unrelenting bias, distortion and fake news we have now. It still produced good quality programmes in those days.
    With the Jews in tow, we now have wall-to-wall Russophobia, Neoliberalism, Euphilia, and a mealy-mouthed attitude to Israeli atrocities. The quality of programme has dropped drastically.
    Jewish networking in this case has helped form a lugenpresse . Semitophiles like Blair and Cameron must take ultimate responsibility.

    a mealy-mouthed attitude to Israeli atrocities.

    What type of attitude do they display toward Indonesian , Turkish , Chinese , Moroccan , Iranian ,Sudanese ,Venezuelan , Nigerian atrocities ??

    They totally ignore and refuse to report on those countries myriad of atrocities that are many times worse than Israels crimes . Hardly looks like a Zionist outfit to me .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Venezuelan ? Iranian ? Sudanese ? I don't think so. Also, Israeli actions are almost all on the West Bank, in areas recognised as illegally occupied. When did a BBC hack last say illegally occupied.
    Conclusion: You're a hasbara troll, crawl back under your stone.
  167. @SFG
    You know this is all a plot to get cheap immigrant programmers.

    You know this is all a plot to get cheap immigrant programmers.

    The ‘billionaires are in it for the cheap labor’ explanation just seems oddly unconvincing to me.

    Sure, all else equal, they’d prefer it. But by the time they become billionaires, at the level of Zuckerberg, do they really need, or care, to save a few bucks per hour on programmers, maids, gardeners?

    What they do need, much more strongly and viscerally, is to worry about the astronomical gap between themselves and the bulk of their fellow citizens. Even to the point of worrying about their physical safety.

    (Hence Zuckerberg’s personal wall, while posturing about the immorality of ‘walls’)

    That massive wealth gap doesn’t exist in advanced societies based on common ethnic bonds (see Japan, or Germany, say).

    Arguably, it can’t exist, stably, for long, for the same reason – everyone’s basically an ‘extended family’.

    This is consistent with the mounting evidence that trust, and with it civic pride, civic virtues, willingness to sacrifice, pay taxes, etc – break down with increasing diversity.

    This is much more valuable to the likes of Zuckerberg than shaving $2 off the minimum wage.

    It’s also, of the two supposed motives, the one that cannot be put forward publicly.

    Read More
  168. @unpc downunder
    Aussie liberals are very conservative when it comes to bringing in exotic plants and animals, but are strongly in favour of bringing in all sorts of exotic humans. There's a huge disconnect between their environmental views and their immigration views.

    Aussie liberals are very conservative when it comes to bringing in exotic plants and animals, but are strongly in favour of bringing in all sorts of exotic humans. There’s a huge disconnect between their environmental views and their immigration views.

    The liberal open immigration position conflicts with pretty much everything else in the nominal (claimed) left-liberal agenda–employment, wage levels, income equality, an expansive welfare state, community, quality public education, women’s rights, etc. etc.

    But nothing is quite as stark as the conflict as the flat out direct conflict of immigration with every single possible environmental goal–pollution, resource use, environmental stress, population stabilization, sustainability, global warming, open space, sprawl, wilderness preservation …

    Does not faze them in the least.

    Read More
    • Agree: dfordoom, res, Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Francis G.
    The environmentalist movement in the United States used to be restrictionist on immigration up until the mid-1990s. The Sierra Club in particular made it an explicit part of their agenda. Then a multibillionaire named (((David Gelbaum))) "donated" $100M to the Sierra Club on the condition that they stop opposing immigration, and that was that.
  169. @anon

    a mealy-mouthed attitude to Israeli atrocities.
     
    What type of attitude do they display toward Indonesian , Turkish , Chinese , Moroccan , Iranian ,Sudanese ,Venezuelan , Nigerian atrocities ??

    They totally ignore and refuse to report on those countries myriad of atrocities that are many times worse than Israels crimes . Hardly looks like a Zionist outfit to me .

    Venezuelan ? Iranian ? Sudanese ? I don’t think so. Also, Israeli actions are almost all on the West Bank, in areas recognised as illegally occupied. When did a BBC hack last say illegally occupied.
    Conclusion: You’re a hasbara troll, crawl back under your stone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Sir , there is no need for crass name calling . BBC never gives any coverage to Indonesia illegal occupation of Papua. Considering it has been occupying Papua since 1963 , 4 years longer than Israel has been in the west bank, has killed half a million Papuans as opposed to 22,000 Palestinians killed by Israel, and is occupying 128,000 square miles of Papua , compared to the 2,000 square miles of west bank , you would think it would be mentioned .
    Turkish occupation of Cyprus , Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara , ongoing genocide in Sudan all ignored by BBC.
  170. @27 year old
    >are we building the world we all want?

    I wonder what a global poll of "things heading in the right direction or on the wrong track" would look like?

    For example who would agree that in 50 years time the world would be improved by having fewer West Afticans (and Yemenis and Pakistanis…) and more of the endangered species?

    Read More
  171. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/17/professors-anti-immigration-comments-social-media-fuel-day-action-campus

    “Illegal immigrants lower the confidence in the rule of law and add people and workers and students we don’t need,” Dan Demetriou, associate professor of philosophy, recently wrote on Facebook, according to screenshots that have been made public. “They on average have IQs lower than natives and low skills. They are harmful to an economy about to automate, especially when it is a welfare state.”

    Heather Peters, a professor of psychology at Morris specializing in cultural psychology, is participating in the teach-in and told City Pages that she’d already worked Demetriou’s comments — anonymously — into her lectures on immigration. She later had students fact-check the professor’s arguments, she said, and they found peer-reviewed research challenging his blanket assertions about IQ and immigrants’ effect on society. Indeed, IQ in relation to nationality is a vexed corner of study, both because intelligence is such a complex topic and because neither Americans nor immigrants are monolithic groups.

    “This wasn’t about [Demetriou]. It was about the thoughts that are out there,” she told the local newspaper. “Hopefully we can pull together as a community and refute these outright lies.”

    Cultural psychology?

    Microaggressions: The experience of individuals with mental illness
    Apr 2016 · Counselling Psychology Quarterly
    Heather J. Peters Haley N. Schwenk

    Moving Cultural Background to the Foreground: An Investigation of Self-Talk, Performance, and Persistence Following Feedback
    Article · Sep 2006 · Journal of Applied Sport Psychology
    Heather J. Peters Jean M. Williams

    Read More
  172. @JimB
    Mark Zuckerburg is developing manboobs. Maybe he should switch from t-shirts to sweatshirts. Manboobs usually mean a decline in testosterone so I'm not sure how long he will be able to maintain his imperial ambitions.

    You shouldn’t worry too much about his testosterone levels considering he is married to a dragon lady!

    Read More
  173. @Joe Schmoe

    A couple of years ago there was an odd belief that China was going to take over the world.
     
    I live in the world, the first world to be more precise, so I don't want China taking over my part of this world. However, if China were to somehow impose its one child policy on Africa, that could be okay.

    Yes, definitely need a one child policy in Africa.

    Read More
  174. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwSHOI7DwWM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVXnoIoWu88

    Million dollar business idea. There are these compilations that offer meditation sounds for people into that sort of New Age thing. Or maybe they just wanna relax.

    In this age of Trump, aka Literally Hitler(though one might say Ironically Hitler since he is surrounded by certain powerful Jews), we know lots of progs and globs are under extreme duress, mostly due to auto-fear-mongering that actually wants to believe in the very worst. This is the paradox of ultra-pessimism or the ‘black pill’. It has therapeutic value of certainty even as it portends doom. In some ways, it is easier to resign oneself to the worst possible scenario because it offers certainty. In contrast, an element of hope leads to anxiety that, maybe just maybe, the ‘good guys’ will win. Of course, hope also has therapeutic value, but it breeds anxiety because it keeps you rooting against all odds. In contrast, total pessimism may lead to doom-and-gloom mindset, but you don’t have to worry about losing anymore. You figure your side lost, and that’s that.

    And, extreme reaction offers the therapy of self-righteousness. If one believes that Trump is an a**hole with lots of bad ideas but some good & valid ideas, one cannot feel totally justified in his anti-Trump-ism. But if you say he is Hitler and devil incarnate, it makes YOU the noble hero or martyr. So, even though believing that Trump is Hitler and the devil himself is depressing and fearful, it also feels kinda good because your enemy is none other than Hitler Redux.

    Progs are esp going nuts because one of the dominant mode of Western Culture since the 60s(and even earlier) has been therapeutism. We no longer subscribe to a tragic and hardy view of life. No, the world must do things to cater to us, soothe us, hold our hands, be sensitive, offer us advice, assure us, listen to us, and etc. Such social mindset led to a culture of sensitivity and touchy-feely-goodiness. Granted, the effect has been uneven. After all, therapy requires some degree of catharsis. Some people have to cry out in pain that they are hurting, suffering, and etc. So, the groups that tend to be most vocal, articulate, demanding, creative, clever, and/or relentless in their hysterics have garnered the most sensitivity pokemon points.

    This has led to a paradoxical political culture where we are expected to be most sensitive toward certain groups that have become the least sensitive. We must be touchy-feely with those who are most touchy-meanie. So, blacks can howl like nuts about ‘black bodies’ and ‘black lives’. They can holler in political speeches, rap music, with gangster gunfire, and threats, BUT, such antics are not seen as hate or insensitivity. They are treated as cries of pain and pleas for help. It’s not blacks being rude or nasty or hostile or arrogant. No, it’s poor Negroes wailing in pain in search of catharsis from all that historical and social trauma. So, we must accommodate these poor babies. Jews and homos, and increasingly Muslims, are also very good at this. Howling, throwing tantrums, screaming, ranting, seething, hissing, and etc. Just listen to Tim Wise. Feminists are less good at this because women just don’t have the vocal power and aggressiveness of men and homos and Muslim nuts. Lesbians do it better because they have some manliness. But someone like Ashley Judd just comes across as inane yapping about her ‘nasty womanhood’ seeking catharsis in the age of pussy-grabbing Trump rapist. Black women are somewhat better at it cuz they are wilder and have louder voices, but black feminism isn’t really a thing. Black women generally just identify as black, and black culture is so sexualized — being called a ‘ho’ is a badge of honor — that black women and white feminists don’t really see eye to eye. When black women are about the pu**y, they gyrate their groins in lustful performance. When white women are about pu**y, they put on cute pink hats as a ‘statement’.
    It’s physical vs cerebral.

    Anyway, the contradiction within therapeutic culture is plain to see. On the one hand, a therapeutic society is supposed to calm all of us, make us all nicer and more kindly and more sensitive and more in tune with the harmonious side of us that is under constant pressure by hectic modern life. But the very existence of therapy presupposes that some people or many people are suffering from something. And in order for them to be treated, they must pour our their trauma in cathartic fashion, and that is never a pleasant(or sensitive) process. (Those who demand sensitivity on our part don’t show any sensitivity to others since they are so wrapped up in their own pain, real or imagined.) It can range from BLM riots to feminist rape culture hysteria to Jewish fears of Trumpen-fuhrer to homo fears of Christo-fascists electrocuting homos to tranny granny trauma that they might not be allowed to wee wee in girls room to Muslims fretting that they won’t be allowed into the West to freeload on whites.. and maybe blow up a few things for Allah.
    Now, white people have gripes too, but therapeutism, as practiced in the West, is closely aligned with PC, and PC says certain groups have legit trauma while others don’t. So, those WITHOUT valid trauma license must be infinitely patient, sensitive, and receptive to those with valid trauma accreditation, such as Negroes, Jews, homos, feminists, illegal aliens, and even Muslims. (It’s telling that the Palestinian-American at Fort Hood was a therapist blind to his own rage, which others, esp whites, were expected to be sensitive to.) Over time, such an schema was bound to lead to some groups becoming spoiled crybabies while others became over-stressed babysitters. Catharsis is supposed to lead to healing. But under the current therapeutic regimen, it never does. If anything, the PC-favored-and-diagnosed groups keep going for one catharsis after another and after ad infinitum. Instead of seeking healing and resolution with the final catharsis, they just aim for the next one and then the next one. Instead of healing, they got more reeling. They’ve become addicted to the treatment and no longer care for the cure. After all, if they were to be declared cured, they would no longer get special preference and attention. It’s like some of the patients want to remain in the clinic in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST. In the real world, they are nothing. But in the ward, they get special treatment as people afflicted with problems. It’s like Fred G. Sanford’s heart attacks. A way for special attention.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK9HXu9g5qA

    For a time, the special trauma was reserved for blacks and Jews. But then, homos got onboard. Homos being homo, they dramatized their trauma in more flamboyant ways. Every year, we must have massive homo parades as a kind of therapy for homos to feel ‘pride’ because they would be sooooo triggered and depressed otherwise, whoopity doo. And once this mutated into gender politics that suggested that the gender binary of ‘male’ and ‘female’ was all wrong, even perfectly normal kids began to wonder if, gee, they are really a mix of male, female, homo, and whatever than simply male or female. And once this mindset spread, even perfectly normal middle class kids who haven’t much to complain wanted something to complain about. It became the New Normal. So, maybe some affluent white kid in college might one day feel that he isn’t really male but ze-male or some such, and therefore in need of special consideration, safe space, and protection from potentially triggering micro-aggressions, like those who might laugh at the very notion of ze-male, xe-male, etc.
    And colleges is a a perfect place for such lunacies cuz high school is a depressing time for many. High school is where there are popular kids and unpopular kids. If you’re ‘unpopular’, you get no love and attention. But in college where ideology plays a bigger factor in social and academic life, someone who was a zero in high school could dye her hair green, take on some silly gender identity, and feel simultaneously oppressed and empowered, or empowered by invoking oppression. The OLEANNA factor. Colleges are more ideological because professors can create their own ideological agendas. In high schools, most teachers must just stick to teaching the basics of science and math and english. After it’s over, the students leave. But in colleges, professors are allowed to cook up some School of Thought. Also, if ALL students must leave high school after four yrs, many college students remain forever in the college environment by becoming professors, advisers, or some campus activist. In this sense, even though college is more advanced than high school, it does a poorer job of promoting maturation among the students. (For some, the relative lack of discipline leads to excessive partying and flunking out, something that was more difficult in highschool under the watchful eyes of parents.) High schools must turn freshmen into seniors ready for graduation. There is no post-high-school studies in high school. After 4 yrs, you must leave!! In contrast, college students can potentially stick around forever on campus. B.A, then M.A. then Ph.D then professorship, and etc. Indeed, a lot of professors are really little more than college-students with jobs.
    And if some college student enters a dumb dumb department(like in OLEANNA), he or she never needs to grow up. He or she can be stuck in college-radical mentality forever. Is it any wonder that some boomers who never left the academia still act like they’re 60s revolutionaries? Many colleges are the “parent’s basements” writ large and paid for by the government or rich donor class.

    So, we have the eternal catharsis syndrome among certain groups. Though conservatives complain that they are ignored and brushed aside, the positive side of such ‘neglect’ is they’ve come under greater pressure to grow up, be tough, and put away childish things. If a Jew, homo, Negro, feminist, or etc acts like a crybaby, he or she is pampered and doted on by society. But if a white conservative acts like that, he is told to shut up and grow up.
    But if white conservatives are the most mature and well-mannered people in America, shouldn’t they be the model for Jews, blacks, homos, and etc to emulate? But PC logic doesn’t work like that. White Conservatives need to grow up and man up because they are NOT deserving of pity and compassion. They must be made to carry the pail and mop up the floor. In contrast, certain other favored groups have every right to act like Helen Keller in THE MIRACLE WORKER, and it is up to OTHERS to clean up the mess, be it black riots, Wall Street meltdown, neocon war meltdown, feminist hysterics, AIDS epidemic, and etc.
    (Of course, the message of THE MIRACLE WORKER is the opposite of current therapeutism. We know that Helen Keller was born with a condition deserving of pity. BUT, the movie says that is no reason to indulge her or spoil her. What is needed is tough love that compels her to stop acting like the Regan in THE EXORCIST and try to learn something for a change. Pity is necessary precondition at times, but it mustn’t indulge the worst tendencies of the afflicted. After all, the mentor-figure Anne Sullivan suffered from eye problems herself, but she didn’t wallow in self-pity. She has tough Yankee work ethic, and did all she could to make herself useful in the world. In a sense, THE MIRACLE WORKER could be seen as Yankee vs Southerner thing. The Southerner, having lost the Civil War, was endlessly wallowing in self-pity, stuck in the past, and blind to new possibilities. His kind needed a good hard kick in the behind by a tough-minded Yankee. There used to be tough-minded Yankees, but what happened to them? Boston protestants are now just a bunch of silly homo-worshipers. The difference between Anne Sullivan and Nurses Ratched is Sullivan really wants her ‘patient’ to gain freedom through self-control whereas Ratched wants to keep the men castrated forever so that they’ll cling to the mother hen. She clips their wings so they can never fly away.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W1NRq6DekY

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Sullivan

    Anyway, the hysterics we’ve seen during and since the election owes something to the therapeutics that took over our culture. We have high schools that offer ‘counseling’ to students over something that happened far away. So, if an earthquake hits California, students in Massachusetts should be able to see a counselor if they feel ‘saddened’ by the event. And daytime talk shows like Donahue and Oprah popularized therapeutism nationwide even among the hoi polloi. Granted, just in case things get too mushy, there is Dr. Phil and Judge Judy to offers some reality-check balance. But to the extent hat Dr. Phil owes his success to Oprah, he won’t attack the belly of the beast.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSUXTFceilo

    In the Current Year, political defeats take on psychological significance. It’s like Rachel Maddow rather deranged reaction to Trump’s win. Not only do these people feel that something is politically or socially wrong with America. There is something PSYCHICALLY wrong with America. It is like a demon-possessed nation. Therapeutism over the years have conditioned these people to believe their minds are in sync with history itself. The world exists to cater to their desires, will, dreams, hopes, and agendas. They deserve to win always not simply because they try harder but because it is psycho-cosmically ordained and just. And this mindset took greater hold with Obama’s victory. I mean Jewish and Homo power could even will a black guy to become president despite his funny name. He was Mr. Hope. And he could even push ‘gay marriage’ and trannies in the military with almost no opposition. Wish it and it comes true!! He won re-election, and even the GOP could only produce cucks. Even though Progs detested Bush II, his sheer ineptness and goofiness seemed to confirm their conviction that conservatives have no future. Also, the platform of Bush, Romney, and McCain was essentially Globalism Lite. So, all of history seemed to be heading in the direction as willed by the GLOB-PROG psychic will. It was as if what began as psychoanalysis became a kind of psychic network. History seemed to be in sync with Glob-Prog agenda, and nothing could stop it. The worst possible scenario would be Jeb Bush as president, but he wouldn’t be that triggering since he is Mr. Cuckaroo.

    But Trump happened. It was especially triggering since he was supposed to be a joke.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjPMzBfPoqc

    Trumphenom was threatening to the GLOB-PROG for two reasons that were actually contradictory. On the one hand, Trumpism was anti-PC and anti-therapeutic. His style was tough and hard, blustery and saying it like it is. He seemed to enjoy triggering people.
    While the Proglob disliked this side of Trump, that wasn’t what they feared the most.
    What the Proglob really fears is that there is a counter-therapeutic element in Trumpism. They fear that he has awoken the side of White Politics that is calling for its own catharsis, and this is where the ‘literally Hitler’ fears enter into the fray.

    It’s one thing for Trump to say that we all need to grow up and stop complaining and become good Americans. That is one part of Trumpism. But another side of Trumpism, subtly and sometimes not-so-subtly, plays on white resentment and suppressed white rage. Over the years, so much abuse, neglect, and humiliation has been heaped on White Americans that there is a potential for serious tremors in US and Europe. Such tremors in Russia of the 90s led to rise of nationalism. During the Obama yrs, the proglob media spared nothing in heaping abuse on GOP as dying old whitey party. The attitude among some globalist elites is that white power is just a beached whale or a piece of carcass that could be pissed on. The Newsweek cover of Obama the Conqueror was just one of the many. In sports, music, demographics, sex culture, education, and etc, whiteness, especially white maleness, seemed to be fading into wussy cuckhood. And so, anti-white abuse just piled on and on. And cucks like Bush, Romney, and McCain just took all the insults and beatings. Bill Maher even joked that Romney after defeat looked like a cucked husband. Of course, such abusers knew their remarks would be deeply wounding to many white Americans, but they didn’t care since they were so sure of their total and eternal victory. So, who cares if whites are angry? They no longer have the power, numbers, connections, and representation to do anything about it. Something like Trumpism was not supposed to happen. But it did. And now, the very people who’d been insulted, spat on, pissed on, and slapped have representation in Trump(at least somewhat). And because their humiliation went so far, could their anger be about to explode?

    Though Trump is nothing like Hitler, the dangerous thing about Hitler was he was both anti-therapeutic and ultra-therapeutic. On the one hand, he mocked the Jewish psychobabble and exhorted the Germans to be heroic, manly, tough, and hardy. But his brand of ultra-nationalist trimphalism was a kind of massive collective therapy to cleanse the nation of psychic demons that were most potently represented in the figure of the Jew. Hitler played on the themes of Germanic heroism, but there was also an element of Germanic victim-ism and trauma-ism. Germany had suffered the great ‘wrong’ of defeat in WWI(by the stab-in-the-back), economic hardships, and cultural degradation. So, it was a time for the German catharsis to purge all that is bad to make way for a new healthy orderly society. His vision wasn’t merely socio-economic but sorcerer-psychological. He promised the magic cure to heal the German body and soul and to ‘make Germany great again’. To a physically and psychologically wounded people, therapeutism has great appeal. And part of Hitler’s appeal was that his oratory had a cathartic effect for the German masses who felt so lost and disoriented. It’s like Ossie Davis said of Malcolm X that, whatever his faults, X made black men feel like a MAN.

    On some level, the globalists must know that many white Americans have suffered both physically and ‘psychically’ since the end of the Cold War. There is White Death. But there is also cultural degradation. During the Great Depression, many Americans suffered, but the moral culture remained intact and served as spiritual insurance through hard times. Most Americans had moral fiber and national character.
    But the sheer vulgarity and venality of pop culture since the 60s(much of it owing to Negro and homo influences), the spread of drug culture, the breakdown of family, and decline of church compounded the problems of economics. After all, even with rust-belt towns in the age of globalism, no one need to worry about starving in America. Everyone is assured of food, clothing, roof over head, and even free medicine.
    Also, plenty of white people did very well under globalism, especially if they had elite professional skills and lived in cities. But, the moral and cultural degradation of America had rendered many white Americans vulnerable to socio-economic upheavals. Imagine if Ma Joad had a ring in her nose and if Pa Joad had an ass tattoo and smoked meth in THE GRAPES OF WRATH, and the entire family’s idea of culture is watching Jerry Springer and Family Guy. Imagine if the mama in RAISIN IN THE SUN watches TV all day, cares mostly about fancy fingernails, and watches twerking biatches in music videos. There goes the culture. Real culture is insurance against bad economic times. Lose the culture, and there is nothing to hold people together hard times. Beyonce’s songs and latest gossip about Miley Cyrus aren’t going to give you direction when things are down. And it’s not going to keep a family together. We now live in the Planet of the Apes of Wrath.

    So, there’s a lot of messed up white folks too. They too are angry, confused, and in search of catharsis. But for so long, there were told that they are NOT deserving of sensitivity, hearing, consideration, and etc because they got ‘white privilege’ or because they are ‘racist’ or ‘homophobic’, in which case they deserve to suffer in misery, as the likes of Tim Wise keeps reminding them.
    In some ways, the Proglob fear of Trumpism suggest that they know of their role in the humiliation of the white middle class and working class. After all, it is the guilty party that most fears the reckoning. Japanese and Germans were fearful as WWII wore on because they knew they’d caused so much harm to other nations. So, it just made them more desperate in their war effort and violence. If the proglog did nothing wrong to white Americans, they have nothing to fear. But their nervous fear is sign that they know that they’ve been responsible in the deracination and de-industrialization of much of America. So, when Trump’s inauguration speech said something about the forgotten Americans, the proglob got cold feet. Trump said many Americans lost out while some in the big cities got everything. Who would those fortunate people be? The globalist elites fear nationalism because the targets are them.

    Now, Trump’s power has been greatly exaggerated. Washington DC is wall to wall Democratic. Deep State is hostile to him. All the globalist centers of power in NY, SF, LA, Chicago, Atlanta, and etc are against him. He hasn’t all that much room to maneuver. But the Proglob fear that he has tapped into something beyond politics. Not just an idea or -ism but an -ality, a psychological state. An -ism is abstract and dry. It exists in the mind. A sentiment can be soft and sappy, like Jeb Bush’s love for illegal aliens or George W. Bush cwying over Kanye West saying he doesn’t like black people. Goo.
    In contrast, Trumpism seems to have tapped into something in the white racial psyche, a convergence of ideas, fears, hopes, rage, hatred, and love based on something deeper and more ancient than theories, propositions, constitution, or even tradition. Psyche is the home of the warrior, poet, prophet, lover, hero, hunter, creator, destroyer. It is both lower and higher than any law, ideal, or tradition. It is both more animal and more spiritual than merely ‘human’. It is the source of greatest inspiration and greatest dangers.

    Trump himself is essentially a brash philistine and has no clue why the Proglob hate him so much. He sees himself as a blowhard(he knows it) civic nationalist who is trying to restore some order in the globalist disorder. But his enemies, especially among the globalist intellectuals, sense in Trumpism an implication of something much grander and darker. Trump doesn’t know what he has awakened.
    This awakened hero, giant, or monster may take on greater vitality and learn to walk on its own two legs. Or, maybe it can be killed in the crib while it is opening its eyes and learning to walk under Trump’s protection. But the important thing is his enemies, especially the intellectual types, know that Trumpism isn’t just about white politics or economics. It has something to do with white psyche, a consciousness that is bigger than any set of rules, ideals, or laws. Trump doesn’t know this, but his style manifests it. The connection between his words and his emotions are fast and furious. The ‘psychic’ connection between the public man and personal feelings is too apparent for anyone to miss. This is so different from other GOP candidates whose every word had little to do with their ‘temperaments’ paved over with PC cement many times over.

    Trump brought back white emotions back to politics, but it’s more than that. After all, even John McCain has been known to ‘lost it’ and get angry. It’s really about where the emotions come from. With someone like McCain, it’s just personal ego losing control. With Trump, the emotions connect with the deeper well of what a lot of white patriots are feeling. And this is what the Proglob fear most. It’s not so much that many Trump supporters may agree with certain policies of Trump, which would be a political issue. Rather, there seems to be a groundswell of shared feelings that go deeper than politics. It is a kind of feeling that Jews feel among each other. Blacks feel it too in their shared sense of blood and history. But whites have been told that they mustn’t have any such ‘atavistic’ feelings since whites are historically guilty(and therefore undeserving of tribal unity) and innately prone to bring about another holocaust if they don’t expunge themselves of the white soul.

    Trumpism is also deeply disturbing and troubling to white gentile opponents of Trump because, over the years, they invested so much time and energy into expunging their own sinful whiteness to be ‘inclusive’ and merge wicked whiteness with the superior nobility of other races. This wasn’t easy since the natural tendency of most people is to feel closer to their own kind. But because PC told them it was the righteous thing, white progs did everything to raise their children to be un-white, embrace non-whites, worship homos, celebrate the Other, atone for various historical sins, and etc. They went against their own nature to become Good People. Sure, they had to hear anti-white slurs and insults from Jews, blacks, browns, and others, but they taught themselves to laugh along and ho-de-do since evil whiteness must be mocked.
    They went along with the sanctimonious homilies of CucKen Burns. They raised their kids to believe that Degrassie Tyson is the greatest scientific genius of all time.
    Also, since no one can take too much abuse, the white progs have crafted a clever way to redirect most of the anti-white invective toward the ‘deplorables’. That way, they could be on the side of anti-white PC and Diversity while rigging them so that most of the slings and arrows would be lobbed at conservatives and other ‘racists’. So, if blacks at HAMILTON bashed whites, the ‘good whites’ could flatter themselves that they are with the noble blacks, and the REAL TARGET is the ‘bad whites’ who still cling to Bibles and guns. They were offered Political Dispensation IF they collaborated with the right side of history against the ‘racists’ and ‘deplorables’.
    White progs did all that, and they thought they too had a seat at the Globo-Diversity Table. Since they are ‘good whites’, there’s no reason to punish them as much as the ‘bad whites’ who must be the ones to be removed to make more room for Diversity.

    But Trump’s presidency messed up this narrative, especially since unapologetic Trump turned the tables on the globalists and said YOU GUYS ARE THE ONES WITH PRIVILEGE WHO’VE BEEN HOGGING EVERYTHING while American citizens, white and black, have been shunted to the sidelines in a game rigged to favor the urban elites and invasive immigrant masses.

    Progs called Trump a boor and dummy and ignoramus, but they really fear his Mind Game.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zge6UEwUGn0

    Anyway, back to the Million Dollar Business ideas.

    Since we live in such a therapeutic age when the Glob and Progs are flipping over and being triggered by Trump’s every statement, word, and deed — even though he hasn’t done anything radical so far — , some company should come up with certain products that alleviate the fears and offer them relief…. like Yoga clinics where people chant ‘You will not divide us’. Or a virtual reality program in which users can imagine that Clinton or Bernie Sanders won in 2016.
    Or a cult or new church where the adherents pray for the death of Trump.

    Read More
  175. @Anonymous
    Btw, at the level of small IT startup I referenced, it's only necessary to make it work on paper to satisfy DARPA, et al. My suspicion is that similar smoke-and-mirrors stuff goes on at the larger IT firms getting the big U.S. Government dollars and the modus operandi is complexify the operation through more employees and compartmentalization. And my investigator hunch is that lots and lots of H1B workers serves this purpose while lowering costs.

    My own experience – from the (ostensible) industry’s side, rather than the government’s – confirms your writings.

    Read More
  176. My basic stance is that consolidation is some times a good thing, and other times independence or decentralization is a better thing. Getting the scale of control right all depends upon the circumstances. It’s usually a very interesting and complicated question that is the central issue of high statesmanship.

    Yep. I don’t think nationalism, conservativism, masculinity, or a return to 1950′s values are absolute unqualified goods. Everything has its good and bad aspects. Balance is what is truly needed. Things like nationalism and localism are needed now as a counterbalance to the far more sinister globalist corporatism and anti-white, anti-male identity politics.

    Go to the villages of Rajasthan or villages in the Carpathians as an outsider to see how great territorialism is. Of course people have the right to preserve their own way of life, but sometimes territorialism just expresses itself as ignorant, pigheaded, nonthinking hypermasculine HURR DURR they are different than us DERP. It is at times no more advanced than the “thinking” of a dog.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    It is at times no more advanced than the “thinking” of a dog.

    Precisely that. And not by accident.
  177. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Verymuchalive
    Venezuelan ? Iranian ? Sudanese ? I don't think so. Also, Israeli actions are almost all on the West Bank, in areas recognised as illegally occupied. When did a BBC hack last say illegally occupied.
    Conclusion: You're a hasbara troll, crawl back under your stone.

    Sir , there is no need for crass name calling . BBC never gives any coverage to Indonesia illegal occupation of Papua. Considering it has been occupying Papua since 1963 , 4 years longer than Israel has been in the west bank, has killed half a million Papuans as opposed to 22,000 Palestinians killed by Israel, and is occupying 128,000 square miles of Papua , compared to the 2,000 square miles of west bank , you would think it would be mentioned .
    Turkish occupation of Cyprus , Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara , ongoing genocide in Sudan all ignored by BBC.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome

    Indonesia illegal occupation of Papua ... Turkish occupation of Cyprus , Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara , ongoing genocide in Sudan all ignored by BBC

     

    Belgian occupation of Congo, French occupation of Algeria, Dutch occupation of South Africa, British occupation of Rhodesia, genocide of native Americans all ignored by BBC. Oh, wait, not ignored because the oppressors are white.

    Welcome to the world of anti-racism.

    Lets look at your examples:
    Indonesia in Papua. Indonesians are not white, no concern.
    Turks in Cyprus. Turks are not white, no concern.
    Moroccans in Western Sahara. Moroccans are not white, no concern.
    Genocide in Sudan. Not whites, no concern.

    Non-whites can do no wrong and no one cares.

    The Jewish colonists who immigrated to Israel from European countries, who have mixed significantly with white Europeans, have lighter skin than the darker palestinians. Therefore they are racist white oppressors of the non-white Palestinians.

    BBC takes a consistent anti-racist stand against white colonists in any non-white country. As an example, here's a sympathetic human interest story about an Algerian Muslim terrorist who bombed white French colonists. They would not make such a sympathetic story about a Palestinian suicide bomber.

    Algeria's revolution: A child bomber with 'no regrets'
    ... In July 1962, Algeria won its independence from France after eight years of violent struggle. Fifty years on, one revolutionary re-tells her story and says that, despite an explosion in which she lost both legs, she has never regretted a single moment.
    ...
    It was a neighbour who persuaded her to join the cause and for months she carried messages between members of the FLN, along with money and food to the freedom fighters in prison.
    ...
    "Then one day I was taken into the mountains to meet some of the leaders of the movement," she says. "They were making bombs to be placed in French cafes and police stations in the capital."
    ...
    Yasmine had a fierce desire to play a bigger part in the conflict and to help oust the occupiers who, she says, had forced her countrymen into poverty and humiliation.
    ...
    She begged the FLN to let her plant one of the homemade bombs.

    Reluctant at first, they finally relented and dropped her off near a police station. With great care, she carried the bomb in a little black suitcase, towards the gendarmerie.

    But something went wrong. The timer malfunctioned and, before she got the chance to deposit the suitcase, it exploded in her hands.
    ...
    "Of course, after it had happened, I thought to myself, 'Now I will never be able to walk again, to swim or dance again'," she says, her hands smoothing her trousers which cover the prosthetic legs she had fitted in the US, two years after the bomb went off.

    "But I knew that I had done the right thing."

     

  178. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    An Announcement from the International Socialist Union of Progressive Peoples Worldwide:

    These are dangerous times. The Presidency of Donald Trump means fascism has come to Washington. We are now at the mercy of an American Hitler whose evil agenda is to scapegoat Jews, round up Muslims, hunt down undocumented immigrants, enslave women, and murder homosexuals.
    Heroic attempts to punch Nazis are insufficient to roll back the tide of tyranny. When Trump’s minions come to assault and dispossess us, we must be ready. We must stand together as brothers, sisters, and one of the many genders.
    Trump and his evil white supremacists will surely try to divide us, but, as Shia Lebeouf has declared, they will not divide us. We are all one under the sun, inseparable and resolute in our solidarity. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘We Shall Overcome’ because we have a Dream, and that dream is to struggle in unity with progressives forces in the mass media, Ivy League universities, FBI, CIA, NSA, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and Las Vegas to counter and take down Trump, the American Hitler.

    And in this struggle, every voice, every pair of hands, and every heart & soul matter because it is only the alliance of men, women, homosexuals, trans-gendered people, whites, blacks, browns, Asians, Muslims, Hindus, immigrants, youths, and intellectuals that can strike a blow at the tyranny whose tentacles are now stretching from Washington DC, which has become like Vichy France during World War II.

    Unlike stupid and retarded Conservatives, Republicans, fascists, racists, homophobes, reactionaries, sexists, misogynists, transphobes, Islamophobes, and assortment of right-wing retards who get their information from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, and Alex Jones, we on the progressive & humanitarian Left know the truth from Real News(as opposed to Fake News), and we know damn well that Trump is a shill of Vladimir Putin, the new Czar of Russia who has Hitlerian, Mussolinian, Franco-ean, and Tojo-maniacal designs on the free world. It is only a matter of time before he invades Poland, Lithuania, Germany, Austria, Italy, France, and Iceland to massacre all Muslims, Jews, Homosexuals, and Transsexual people. Putin has shown his true face in his Gestapo tactics against the Pussy Riot who tried to spread love and peace across Russia.

    You are likely asking the question that all good Americans are asking: What Can I Do? Yes, what can each of us do in these dark and depressing times? Countless conscientious Americans are traumatized that their countrymen elected an American Hitler who, furthermore, is a puppet of Russian Hitler(Putin). Those good Americans feel paralyzed and don’t know what to do. Some have given up and thrown in the towel. Some have gained excessive weight like Judd Apatow by turning to comfort food. Some have shed excessive weight like Lena Dunham who lost the will to live.

    But we mustn’t give up hope. Each of us can play a part. Each of us can join the growing network of progressive, socialist, liberal, leftist, feminist, homosexual, queer, transsexual, bisexual, communist, globalist, pro-immigration, anti-Islamophobic, and pro-celebrity individuals who have committed their lives to fighting the good fight to decide the destiny of the world.
    Yes, America now stands at the crossroads. One way is the road to Nazism, fascism, racism, hate, Islamophobia, misogyny, sexism, homophobia, fat-shaming, tyranny, ugliness, odiousness, noxiousness, divisiveness, xenophobia, paranoia, and hysteria. The other road leads to happiness, justice, progress, equality, diversity, tolerance, inclusion, love, peace, socialism, free healthcare, free college tuition, and mixed-race babies who must be the future because white babies are born-racists and may grow up to be Nazis.

    We must stand with forces of progress and march together. And this calls for an alliance of Hollywood studio heads, movie stars, gangster rappers, porn actors, homosexuals, transsexuals, Muslims, pro-gay Christians, undocumented immigrants, single mothers, antifa anarchists, communists, Marxists, Harvard academics, Mexican lettuce pickers, cleaning ladies, Zionists, Palestinians, Wall Street globalists, and girls wearing pussy hats.

    So, what can YOU do? What should any of us do? Before we act, we must know our enemy. This is easier said than done because their views and ‘values’ are so toxic and dangerous that we don’t want to go near them.
    It is like handling radioactive material. But, as a wise man once said, Know Thine Enemy. And we must know ours. We must pick up the trash if we are to throw it out. We must see what makes our vile, venal, sick, and disgusting enemy tick, and we must share our intelligence as we embark on devising a grand plan of rolling back the Nazi Trump tide.

    We, the International Socialist Union of Progressive Peoples Worldwide, recommend that each of our comrades pore through the hateful screeds, diatribes, hysterics, ramblings, and rants of our enemies and inform the US government of whatever dark plots that may be lurking among the Nazis, fascists, homophobes, theocrats, populists, Alt Right, Islamophobes, Russophiles, patriarchal misogynists, fans of Pepe, and other assorted reactionaries.

    We have assembled a list of Hate Sites and Fake News Sites funded by Putin and endorsed by Trumpen-Fuhrer who is working relentlessly to undermine the founding principles of America that call for progress, socialism, open borders, free trade, hedonism, feminism, Muslim immigration, and American military & financial domination around the world to spread the blessing of the homosexual rainbow into every nation.

    If you come across any Plot Against America in the hate-press of the Right, be sure to inform the FBI, CIA, NSA, NYT(New York Times), and City Hall. We are all in this fight together:

    http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html

    Read More
  179. @eah
    Peak SJWhood may yet doom FB.

    https://twitter.com/GodfreyElfwick/status/832508856228003840

    Ha ha. One wonders how long “Godfrey Elfwick” can keep it up before everyone realizes he’s a satirist, and a really good one at that.

    Read More
  180. @grapesoda

    My basic stance is that consolidation is some times a good thing, and other times independence or decentralization is a better thing. Getting the scale of control right all depends upon the circumstances. It’s usually a very interesting and complicated question that is the central issue of high statesmanship.
     
    Yep. I don't think nationalism, conservativism, masculinity, or a return to 1950's values are absolute unqualified goods. Everything has its good and bad aspects. Balance is what is truly needed. Things like nationalism and localism are needed now as a counterbalance to the far more sinister globalist corporatism and anti-white, anti-male identity politics.

    Go to the villages of Rajasthan or villages in the Carpathians as an outsider to see how great territorialism is. Of course people have the right to preserve their own way of life, but sometimes territorialism just expresses itself as ignorant, pigheaded, nonthinking hypermasculine HURR DURR they are different than us DERP. It is at times no more advanced than the "thinking" of a dog.

    It is at times no more advanced than the “thinking” of a dog.

    Precisely that. And not by accident.

    Read More
  181. @27 year old
    This excessive admiration of the "execution" and "entrepreneurship" of (((Zuckerberg))) like you are doing here is an especially bizarre form of cucking, kind of like admiring and praising just how efficient the thrust of the other guy is as he penetrates your wife. I guess in some kind of triple bank shot way you're trying to signal your own knowledge or experience of Internet business or some shit? Either way, weird.

    It doesn’t take any special “knowledge or experience of Internet business” to realize that taking a company from $0 to $380 billion is an impressive achievement. That would be true if the company made widgets or whatever it did. There are only 5 bigger companies on earth by market cap.

    Read More
  182. @Ari
    Today I want to focus on the most important question of all: are we building the world (((we))) all want?

    ~ Mark E. Zuckerberg

    Does that (((we))) included Facebook board members Erskine Bowles, Peter Thiel, or Mark Andreessen?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ari
    People betraying their own for some shekels of Mammon is nothing new, unfortunately. Peter Thiel is the only one who could be forgiven in a certain sense of the word, as his homosexuality blinds him to any trans-generational issue.
  183. @Autochthon
    Rubbish.

    Percy Spencer discovered microwaves because a candy-bar inn his pocket melted while he was working on radar equipment. He (or, rather, his employer, Raytheon) later patented the technology, which is worth about one billion dollars this year alone (it's been making money since 1947).

    Alexander Fleming discovered mould had formed in Petri dishes and killed the bacteria he was experimenting upon (Fleming had accidentally left one of the dishes open, allowing the mould's spores to contaminate it). The global market for antibiotics in 2016 alone was some forty billion dollars.

    People wind up vastly wealthy due to the merest chance all of the time. The vast majority of these gain their money the old-fashioned way: they inherit it.

    Working for Raytheon isn’t starting from scratch, and patents last 20 years, not 70.

    The global market for antibiotics includes numerous antibiotics made by numerous companies.

    Mark Zuckerberg is worth $50 billion. How many people worth that much inherited their money? Maybe the Walton kids, that’s about it. Most of the super-rich are self-made.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Mark Zuckerberg is worth $50 billion. How many people worth that much inherited their money? Maybe the Walton kids, that’s about it. Most of the super-rich are self-made.
     
    Nobody is self-made.
  184. @Anonymous
    Internal conflict, rebellion, and war have been constants in the history of the internal politics of empire,

    Of course, the U.N. or whatever could declare itself emperor of infinite space, and whatever conflict was happening anyway they could declare by law to be civil war within the global empire. But there’s no reason we have to believe them.

    Read More
  185. @The Big Red Scary
    "Leftist" comes up often in discussions at the Unz Review, but most of the issues that are thought of as leftist ("humanitarian intervention", "globalization", "xyz rights") are either anathema to the traditional left or (in the case of "xyz rights") thought of as cynical distractions from the more fundamental problem of class warfare. If you are looking for an example of a real leftist, check out John Pilger's talk on the "Hijacking of Feminism": https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jytvgHGbbws.

    The point I want to make here is that reasonable people can disagree about various minor issues (whether mahus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māhū can use the ladies washroom, for example) but can cooperate on existential issues (fighting neoliberalcon economic and military hegemony).

    By the way, there are a number of real leftists and friends of leftists who are posted on the Unz Review. Michael Hudson, for example, whose articles also appear at Counterpunch. Also, it should be known that Counterpunch was started by Alexander Cockburn, brother of Patrick Cockburn. So if you read the Unz Review, you are only a step away from discovering real leftists. You might not feel quite at home with them, but you might very well find enough common ground to have a good argument and perhaps even a principled and limited coalition.

    “Leftist” comes up often in discussions at the Unz Review, but most of the issues that are thought of as leftist (“humanitarian intervention”, “globalization”, “xyz rights”) are either anathema to the traditional left or (in the case of “xyz rights”) thought of as cynical distractions from the more fundamental problem of class warfare.

    The real Left thinks of class warfare as a solution, not a problem. See Trotsky. But in fact the Left has been anchored by the plutocrats since at least the time of Charles.

    There is no intrinsic connection between labor and the Left.

    Originally, when the terms originated in France, the Right was the defender of Church and Crown, and the Left were the forces opposed. In France today, the terms retain similar meanings: the Right is the party of order, and the Left is the party of movement. And this is how we should use the terms.

    A concern for workers can be part of a policy of “class cooperation” (an orderly social arrangement), as opposed to class conflict (a state of disorder), meaning that it is a policy of the right.

    Of course, a putative concern for the interests of the working class can be used to fuel class conflict, and, to the extent that it is the case, it will be a policy of the left, just as faux concern for Blacks and women is now a policy of the Left. Since the Left now finds more utility in fueling racial and sexual conflict, it no longer backs the workers who are now attacked as inveterate racists and sexists.

    Read More
  186. @Dave Pinsen
    Working for Raytheon isn't starting from scratch, and patents last 20 years, not 70.

    The global market for antibiotics includes numerous antibiotics made by numerous companies.

    Mark Zuckerberg is worth $50 billion. How many people worth that much inherited their money? Maybe the Walton kids, that's about it. Most of the super-rich are self-made.

    Mark Zuckerberg is worth $50 billion. How many people worth that much inherited their money? Maybe the Walton kids, that’s about it. Most of the super-rich are self-made.

    Nobody is self-made.

    Read More
  187. @Teucer
    I don't really think Steve's counter-argument here is very persuasive, because:

    1) All the examples he provides (Persians/Romans/Spanish/Caliphate/British/Nazis) of prospective integration being a negative are of empires that conquered and oppressed lesser peoples by force, which is obviously not what Zuckerberg's ideological vision (whatever its merits) is. I think one could reasonably draw a distinction between "soft" integration---trade, immigration, scientific and cultural exchange, international institutions, etc.---and invading countries, killing lots of people and trying to hold the survivors as unwilling imperial subjects in perpetuity.

    2) I think when considered on net, many of the empires Steve cites as negative examples, like the Romans and the British, were probably actually positive for human well-being. At least, they had some good effects in terms of creating more centralized political authority and less local violent conflict, economic development and infrastructure building, spreading scientific and cultural advances, etc. And while I'll readily admit I have only a layman's knowledge here, while it might have been bad if they had reached farther into Europe, were the Persian and early Islamic empires really all that bad relative to their regional predecessors either? There's the early Islamic "golden age" that progressives like to talk about, for example.

    (Incidentally, fun fact: Hitler apparently thought it was a shame that the Muslims lost at Tours, as he thought Islam superior to Christianity.)

    3) I know Zuckerberg is an evil globalist autistic Jewish cuckold capitalist Davos man who wants to destroy everything good in America, or something, but if you actually read the (very boring) article, a lot of what he's suggesting seem like the kind of banal and laudable goals a civically-minded captain of industry should be pursuing. For example, the first item is about how the decline of traditional social institutions is bad and maybe we should do something about it. That sounds like a pretty solid Robert Putnam-y point to me, but I guess it's actually part of the Secret Globalist Plot somehow.

    4) Steve sort of touched on this implicitly, but it bears noting that there have indeed been many successful centralizations of power in the past that would have seemed as "ridiculous" as anything Zuckerberg is suggesting. It various points in history, it would have been just crazy talk to believe that England, Italy, Germany or China would become unified polities. But today we look back at statesmen like Alfred the Great, Cavour, Bismarck and Qui Shi Huang as being on the oft-Steve maligned Right Side of History.

    Indeed, perhaps the best illustration of this is to look at compare today's reactionaries with people of the past. Andrew Anglin's idea that all Europeans, including Slavs, are basically a big racial family who are fundamentally part of the same "team" would have sounded pretty "globalist" to Hitler---let alone Bismarck, Frederick the Great, Elizabeth I, Charlemagne, Arminius or Pericles. Even the most parochial people and intellectuals in the West today see themselves as part of much larger and more complex communities than the vast majority of their ancestors did. Is it really that crazy to suggest that, just as descendants of the ancient Greeks don't actually still see their polis as the most important group they belong to, our descendants might not see current day nation-states as being as important as we do?

    Andrew Anglin’s idea that all Europeans, including Slavs, are basically a big racial family who are fundamentally part of the same “team” would have sounded pretty “globalist” to Hitler—let alone Bismarck, Frederick the Great, Elizabeth I, Charlemagne, Arminius or Pericles.

    So, Hitler’s your standard of wisdom?

    And you’re implying that Bismarck, Frederick the Great, Elizabeth I, Charlemagne, Arminius or Pericles would have welcomed Muzzie, Mexican, or Africkan immigration into their realms? I don’t think so.

    Is it really that crazy to suggest that, just as descendants of the ancient Greeks don’t actually still see their polis as the most important group they belong to, our descendants might not see current day nation-states as being as important as we do?

    Who is this “our”? Our descendants may not be the same as yours.

    Read More
  188. As to your first two sentences: I made a general proposition, supported it with specific examples, then implicitly asked of the reader some rudimentary inductive reasoning, all precluding the need for me to write a tedious essay. I similarly assumed an understanding of inflation and the compounding of financial interest over time.

    If instead you want to pick nits: the overwhelming majority of that fifty billion dollars is tied up in the stock of a single corporation, and it famously and frequently seesaws by tens of billions of dollars, so it’s not half as impressive as most casual observers reckon. Facebook is as liable as not to go the way of Myspace any time.

    Most of the super-rich are most certainly not self-made. I’m surprised you would assert so here, given how often Steve discusses the empirical research. Most super-rich people inherit enormous sums of money and they are concomitantly insulated from risks and enabled to undertake ventures and weather failures normal people dare not (cf. Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and, yes, Mark Zuckerberg – if you think for one moment that, absent a vanishingly improbable series of unfortunate events, the child of a dentist and a psychiatrist ever has to worry about going hungry or homeless, you’ve a vivid imagination indeed). The only stratospherically rich person alive I can think of offhand who can genuinely be described as self-made is Oprah Winfrey.

    As to your question: I don’t know anyone worth so much as one million dollars; I’ve met a lot of people worth that and much more, and the experience assures me I don’t want to know them.

    Setting aside our disagreement about how illustrative he is of Horatio Alger’s paradigm, why all the breathless adoration for this particular Ragged Dick, anyhow? Do you manage his portfolio or something?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    As to your question: I don’t know anyone worth so much as one million dollars; I’ve met a lot of people worth that and much more, and the experience assures me I don’t want to know them.
     
    I thought you lived in the SF Bay Area? Do you really not know anyone who has owned a home there for more than say 20 years resulting in a net worth over $1M who is worth knowing? $1M in investable assets is very different of course (and typically how things like "high net worth individual" are defined: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hnwi.asp ). But even for that, one lucky Tahoe cabin purchase years ago is enough. Then there are all the people (from secretaries on) who hit the startup lottery.

    P.S. It might have helped me to read your "Conceded..." reply to David Davenport before writing this... Saw it during the edit window.

  189. Percy Spencer discovered microwaves because a candy-bar inn his pocket melted while he was working on radar equipment.

    Microwaves at wavelengths good for heating food can also overheat human body parts located in between front pockets.

    Wonder how many children this Mr. Spencer fathered after the candy bar melted in his pocket?

    … And no,no,no, Percy S. did not discover microwaves. He is credited with the microwave oven application.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Conceded. It's a terribly trickly business here balancing concise, interesting writing against pedantic essays with scholarly attention to minutiae, asides to acknowledge and explain exceptions, and comprehensive citations. Mostly I reckon it's best to just let it lie if a reaction indicates failure to understand one's tone.

    Maybe I can improve some means to distinguish my voices, to better differentiate when I am indulging in a bit of playful raillery and when I am seeking to or simplicity for brevity's sake and when I represent comprehensive detail. Then, too, one cannot resonate with all of the people all of the time.

    I realise the sun is a mass of incandescent gases, a giant nuclear furnace turning hydrogen into helium at a temperature of billions of degrees.

    We all know that song. Sometimes, though, it's more useful to refer to it as a big ball of fire even though it decidely is not!

    In the event, I don't much care about defending my point that people can and do get rich by dumb luck (the phenomenon hardly needs any proof from me); rather, I'm now genuinely intrigued about Mr. Pinson's raging turgidity for The Vapid One, His Most Auto-Reverend Self-Importance, & Defender of the Faithless.
  190. On Topic:

    There is a good blog post in the Urbanophile about writer Richard C. Longworth and his book Global Squeeze. It’s another one of those 1990′s books that got ignored.

    Read More
  191. @AnotherDad

    I think one could reasonably draw a distinction between “soft” integration—trade, immigration, scientific and cultural exchange, international institutions, etc.—and invading countries, killing lots of people and trying to hold the survivors as unwilling imperial subjects in perpetuity.
     
    There's absolutely nothing "soft" about immigration. The normal word for it is "invasion" or "conquest". It's people moving into someone else's territory "because they can".

    As as to your question of "force":

    "conquered and oppressed lesser peoples by force, which is obviously not what Zuckerberg’s ideological vision"
     
    It certainly is. Zuckerberg is "working through the system" or "pursuing change through the democratic process" or some other such b.s. But that just means he's trying to use his money and propaganda to put in control of the *state* people who will use *state power* to *force* those of us who want to preserve our nation to submit instead to his vision. There is nothing "soft" about it. If the nation of my birth is destroyed because the Japs marched in, took over and destroyed it or because the state decreed and implemented it's destruction ... it's still dead and in both cases my resistance to its destruction is quashed by *force*.

    In contrast, i'm certainly willing--and i think most nationalists are w