The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Zuck's with Her
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Ted Cruz has a sharp mind and a quick wit, and he knows how to find his way to a polemical jugular:

He’s probably also aware that he doesn’t have a single sympathizer among Zuck’s legions of soylent staff.

The following graph shows individual donations made by Facebook employees to presidential candidates during the 2016 campaign season:

Want to know what a male Hillary Clinton supporter–a nümale–looks like? Find a Facebook employee.

That’s right, crooked Hillary received more than 85% of all campaign contributions made by Facebook employees during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign. Democrats took 93.1% of the total; Republicans 5.8%, and third-party candidates 1.1%.

Politically, Facebook and the Imperial Capital have a lot in common.

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
Hide 19 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I'm surprised that any of them donated to anyone but Hillary. They KNOW how everything online is being tracked. I wonder if the non-Hillary donations were merely for plausible deniability.

  2. Zuck is really a slimeball weasel. I'm glad Cruz nailed him good.

  3. I can't wait until Cruz and the Repubs are IN CHARGE!!! No doubt they will REPEAL AND REPLACE Facebook with Fannie Faceborg and put it under the Federal Reserve's neutral oversight. Take that, mofos!!! Izzzbeezaaacuckservzativvvvvv!!!

  4. It's not Yabe Boosh, it's Please Clap. He earned that nick.

  5. Why is it called Nü-male? Is it because of the Chinese 女, pronounced "nü" and meaning female?

  6. If anyone's interested in doing the (tedious) research it'd be interesting to see what % of the Trump donors are no longer working there.

  7. Great job by Ted Cruz. The biggest leverage against these tech vampire squid is calling them out publicly. Legal solutions are unavailable when the legal power structure is so hateful of its own civilization.

  8. I get the impression Zuck has surrounded himself with sycophants. He was like a rabbit in the headlights. He was prepared for none of those questions. They were easy to predict and he predicted not of them.

    Either that or he is not as smart as I thought and Taki is right when he says he stole someone else's company.

  9. Anonymous [AKA "SkynetAlert"] says:

    Disagree with Dan. The biggest leverage against these tech vampire squids is other tech vampire squids who want to eat their lunch.

    Google and Facebook are in my mind the #1 biggest threats to *humanity* on the planet right now. Success for them literally means a dark age where humans are ruled over by corporate overlords in control of AI algorithms that silently control us by tracking us and manipulating our stimuli. Eventually this path leads to complete human subjugation at the hands of AI because the elites won't be able to keep this genie in the bottle for very long.

    They need to be brought to heel. Unfortunately in order to successfully dismantle them without also screwing up the rest of society we need to do some hard work. Step 1 is controlling the vampire nature of data and mandating technology comply with data privacy protocols. This has the further effect of completely disrupting their current business models. Step 2, concurrent with 1, is antitrust. Advertising networks are actually the biggest single vector of control due to privacy violations, the biggest two are currently Google & Facebook. That should not be allowed.

    New competitors could/would arise. A complementary step 3 approach would be to mandate that these social services must agree to an interop protocol to work within, so no single provider can completely dominate a service in the way Google / Facebook / Reddit / Twitter do. This aspect is harder to quantify and requires knowledgeable people to make workable, but is possible.

    The web would become a very different place, but a better and more ethical place.

  10. Kentucky Headhunter,

    Like the kind of plausible deniability that the president of Turkmenistan "only" gets 98% of the vote instead of the full 100%!

    Black Death,

    Zack's testimony should, if nothing else, put to rest speculation about him running for president. He doesn't have any charisma, wit, or charm (and he's short).


    Doubt anyone here has any illusions about this, but it's still fun to see the overlords get taken down a peg. Dirt People pleasure, like watching Ow my balls!




    Not sure. Some other definitions don't have it. I'm sure Heartiste has his reasons.


    Same thought crossed my mind, though it's hard to find these people. Otoh, using Facebook might help, heh.


    Facebook is in a precarious spot. It's more susceptible to being replaced than Google is. Anything to turn its image towards being a laughingstock is probably helpful in speeding along its ultimate downfall.


    Yeah, it was striking to watch. He had the questions in advance and time to prepare for them. His answers were surprisingly mockable. We don't allow "anything that makes someone feel unsafe". That's uttered in front of the Senate?! That could turn out to have some enormous legal ramifications down the road.


    Another way to attack this is through the gradual abandonment of privacy expectations. Irrespective of whether it's good or bad, it seems to me inevitable. Trump was a salient example of this on the biggest stage possible. A lot was known about him and a lot more was exposed, but people just shrugged it off. That's probably the future.

    Yep, I searched those terms. Yep, I watched that. Yep, I wrote that. What's your point?

  11. "Disagree with Dan. The biggest leverage against these tech vampire squids is other tech vampire squids who want to eat their lunch."

    One would hope that this is a competitive market, but that is completely false. Tech defenders talk about how dynamic tech is, but the reality is that tech companies are the most monopolistic in the marketplace.

    If you look at what the dominant tech companies were ten years ago, it was Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and to a lesser extent Twitter. Have any names changed at all?

    They are network monopolies. Gab for example tried to be an alternative to twitter, but twitter is where all the users are. If you are on gab, you aren't in the main conversation. With Google racking up juicier revenues than have ever been seen in history, one would think that everyone would line up to steal market share from them but this is almost impossible. Since Google has the userbase, all the advertisers go there, all the revenues go there and so on.

    Microsoft has not been particularly innovative in a long time, but their thirty-plus–year-old operating system monopoly makes them the second most valuable company in the world right now, passing Amazon which has been far more innovative and is itself a kind of network monopoly. The Microsoft monopoly has been unassailable in spite of outsize profits all these years. In the 10,000 person organization where I work the market share of Windows is 100.00%, afaik. That doesn't bode well for these other big tech companies.

    Who will go anti-trust against these companies? Republicans? Ha. And the Dems are no doubt pleased with all the censorship. What does the Green party think?

  12. "That doesn't bode well for these other big tech companies." should read

    "That doesn't bode well for those who would hope to out compete these other big tech companies."

    And more, the tech megacompanies buy any upstart competitor. The biggest upstarts in recent years, instagram and YouTube, are owned by Facebook and Google respectively.

  13. AE –

    Running for president? Yow! I hadn't heard that one. I think I'd almost rather have Hillary. She has a lot more experience in being a slimeball weasel (although he has more money).

  14. Speaking of billionaires, where the F is the help for all those like General Flynn who got caught up in Mueller's investigations?

    Where is the legal financial support for the people who helped Trump during the campaign? They are all being harmed financially.

    Trump has a bunch of billionaires and decamillionaires in his cabinet. Here are just the billionaires?

    Todd Ricketts: $5.3 billion (deputy commerce secretary)
    Betsy DeVos: $5 billion
    Peter Thiel: $2.5 billion
    Wilbur Ross: $2 billion
    Linda McMahon: $1.5 billion

    How is it that none of these people or others will help legally support those being wrecked financially by the Mueller probe? Here is another one being wrecked.

  15. Anonymous[] • Disclaimer says:

    My apologies for being completely off topic,

    I was sure I had read something here, a couple years ago, about people with high IQ having more '' fragile'' health than the rest of the population.

    google searches are not helping…

    if anyone can point me in the right direction I would really appreciate it!

  16. Anon,

    Don't remember anything like that here, so you may be thinking of someone else. Inductivist, maybe?

  17. "How is it that none of these people or others will help legally support those being wrecked financially by the Mueller probe? Here is another one being wrecked."

    We're in a transition period right now. We're going to be in a much different place in the 2020's. We go through political/economic cycles that last about 50 years. After 40-50 years of doing things a particular way, we get fed up or bored with it and then have a decade with a lot of consternation and wildly incoherent policy. The 1970's were the transition between the progressive 1930's-1960's (which as I've pointed out before neatly matches the slowdown in immigration levels) and the 1980's-2000's era of no accountability for corrupt elites. People in the 70's felt uneasy about a lot of things, since people were starting to question the progressive schemes of the 1930's-1960's yet also didn't trust conservatives either. Similarly, right now you sense that people have a lack of trust in both sides.

    The defining trait of a progressive era is greater restrictions on greed and arrogance. The defining trait of a conservative era is social Darwinism. In the 70's people started to feel chafed by too many rules and regulations placed on everyone, elites included, yet people weren't ready quite yet to jump onto the every man for himself train. In the 2010's people are sick and tired of elites getting away with murder, yet neither side want to, ahem, pull the trigger on a specific set of policies which will rein elites in.

    If the Carter era of 1977-1980 represented the psychic death of progressive America, with middle aged people throwing up their hands and saying "I give up" on The Great Society we were promised in the 1930's-60's, than the Trump era of 2017-2020 will represent the psychic death of Reagan's America, with many people abandoning the principle of privately sought affluence and public square squalor. Also worth noting is that those who were born in well, the 30's-60's sought to reject the culture into which they were born, and they ultimately gave us the values of the Reagan-Clinton-Bush-Obama era, which couldn't be further removed from the culture of FDR-Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy-LBJ-Nixon. Those who were born into the culture of the 70's-2000's will reject the values of their (Silent and Boomer) forefathers.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS