Billionaire speculator George Soros has called for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his COO to be deposed, accusing them of seeking to “maximize profits” without regard for consequences, in perhaps the most ironic attack ever.
Zuckerberg and Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg “follow only one guiding principle: maximize profits irrespective of the consequences,” Soros snarled on Friday in a New York Times op-ed. While his detractors might have used those exact words to describe the financier’s own “guiding principle,” Soros meant it as a scathing condemnation.
One way or another, they should not be left in control of Facebook.
Also on rt.com
Monopoly? What monopoly? Big Tech defends itself from antitrust allegations with denial & doublespeak
Soros doesn’t just want Zuckerberg and Sandberg removed from power – he wants “those who spread false information” punished more severely. Lest one think he’s merely referring to users who circulate viral hoaxes, the iron-fisted philanthropist made it clear he had set his sights on Section 230, the now-well-known US law that protects social media platforms from liability for content their users post. Facebook, he said, should be treated as a publisher, not a platform, and “held accountable for the content that appears on its site.”
Accusing the Menlo Park behemoth of maintaining an “informal mutual assistance operation or agreement” with US President Donald Trump “in which Facebook will help President Trump to get reelected and Trump will, in turn, defend Facebook against attacks from regulators and the media,” Soros sounded for all the world like one of the ‘conspiracy theorists’ that the fact-checking NGOs he funds have tried to muscle off Facebook.
Soros’s denunciations of what he insisted was pro-Trump bias on the platform – first voiced last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos – echoed the laments of prominent Democratic politicians. No surprise, given that he’d already poured $5.1 million into the party’s coffers by August 2019. Hillary Clinton, who blamed her failed 2016 candidacy on Facebook’s spread of so-called “
Russia’s relations with “Israel” in recent years are much deeper and more strategic than its historic ones with Palestine so it’s unthinkable that Moscow won’t tacitly support the so-called “deal of the century” despite expectedly voicing mild reservations about it in public for the sake of retaining its regional soft power.
Trump finally unveiled his much-touted and over-hyped “deal of the century” on Tuesday, which more or less matches what was previously reported about its contents. In practice, it treats the Palestinians as a conquered people who are forced to perpetually accept “Israel‘s” hegemony seeing as how the latter will retain its existing settlements and continue to functionally exercise dominance over them in almost all matters of life. Palestinian refugees and their descendants also won’t be allowed to return to their original homeland except for the part that the US and “Israel” recognize as constituting their so-called “state”, meaning that they couldn’t in theory democratically overturn the current state of affairs between them and their oppressors if they voted to dismantle the self-professed “Jewish State” and replace it with something more inclusive for example. The American leader portrayed his plan as supposedly being the “only option for peace”, which isn’t surprising since nobody should have expected anything different from the US.
The “deal of the century” is basically an attempt to generate more foreign support for “Israel’s” decades-long occupation of Palestine, “sweetening” the deal with promises of economic aid so as to create the “publicly plausible” pretext for Muslim countries such as those in the GCC to officially support this plan. It’s already an open secret that those aforementioned countries are on excellent terms with “Israel”, especially in regards to coordinating joint regional strategies against their shared Iranian foe, so they’re expected to eventually (if not immediately) use this proposal as their excuse for openly formalizing their relations. The dramatic marketing behind the plan also puts Palestine’s sincere and superficial international supporters alike in a soft power bind since they’ll now be portrayed as supposedly “standing against peace in order to advance their (‘anti-Semitic’) interests” if they don’t go along with it. This is even more so the case since the memory of the 75h anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz which helped “justify” “Israel’s” establishment is still fresh on the world’s mind.
Here is something you may not have thought about. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Please share this video and if you fancy supporting me you can do so by sending a gift via Paypal using the email: [email protected] or Bitcoin: 3PrSXJntXEs9V6TZRtf19iV3GTQFihFTfn
Please take a moment to support Ole on Patreon!
Much of the daily content we publish is notable to us for various reasons. Having said that, the views and opinions expressed in this content, (articles, videos or any other content), are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the authors of this site.
As always, please do your own research. Please do not believe what you are told. Take what you like, and leave the rest.
In the late 1990’s I bought an early model Ericsson mobile phone. Travelling around the UK countryside visiting farmers, it seemed quite useful, in spite of the very intermittent signal availability of that time. However, I found the masts which transmitted the signals to be extremely ugly and completely unfitting to the rolling beauty of much of the English countryside.
After a while I started feeling the side of my head to which I held the phone, heating-up. It was an unpleasant sensation and it concerned me that using this device involved putting-up with such physical discomfort. So one fine day I dumped it – kissing goodbye to the supposed ‘need’ for this wireless gismo and being thankful for the experience of being once again free to muse on the deeper nature of things without being interrupted by a plethora of incoming communications that, more often than not, contained little of value and could have been made via a landline.
It wasn’t until about ten years later that I started realising that others were completely addicted to this form of communication, and that the wireless cell phone’s way of working meant that the signals from the masts penetrated the human body and affected internal organs, especially the frontal cortex and hippocampus areas of the brain.
I remembered the x ray machines which, when I was a young boy, I used to stand in in the shoe shop and see the bones of my feet outlined clearly in a rather spooky pale green light. It made me realise that something similar was happening here – with the cell phone held against the sacred temple of the human head.
Soon I heard of people suffering headaches, nausea and giddiness after extensive time spent talking on their mobiles. I learned that the reason for this is that the transmission signals are actually microwaves – and I already knew that microwave ovens cook from the inside out – destroying the nutrients of foods cooked in the normal way, from the outside in. The UK organic food standards, which I contributed to as an early organic farmer, banned the use of microwave ovens in restaurants serving organic food, for this reason.
In the early years of the new millenium,
There is nothing ethical in trading in products made with stolen natural resources on stolen land. There can be no meaningful peace process that normalizes war crimes and violations of international law
November 15 marks 31 years since the Palestinian Declaration of Independence. A courageous document of national sentiments mixed with pragmatism, in which the Palestine National Council, the PLO’s legislative…
Want to enjoy ‘Zen’ reading – with no ads and just the article? Subscribe today
to join the conversation.
Your comment was successfully submitted and will be published in
accordance with site policy.
If you would like to be notified when your comment is published,
please fill in your email address in the form below.
An error has occurred
Please try again later
Snowden said this:
I wouldn’t use WiFi at home, because global maps of every wireless access point’s unique ID—including yours—are free and constantly updated. I would use ethernet; yes, ethernet on a phone.
Using ethernet on your phone? I explain why you shouldn’t turn your WiFi router on, and why you shouldn’t turn your phone into a hotspot. It’s shocking how unsafe it makes your location.
Wigle.net provides an amazing resource for WiFi mapping. They also respect the privacy of anyone who requests their information to be removed from the database. To have records of your access point removed from their database send an email to: WiGLE-admin[at]WiGLE.net (please include BSSID (MAC) in removal requests).
Also, append the tag ‘_nomap’ or ‘_optout’ to your SSID to stop other website tracking your location.
HUGE thank you to everyone on Reddit and Twitter who answered my questions about this, and the article on osintcurio which was super helpful!
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.
Taken from one of Bob Dylan’s songs, Subterranean Homesick Blues, this lyric “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” is fitting for what went down on 9/11/01 in that classroom in Sarasota, Florida.
If you recall, Junior Bush was on a scheduled visit to an elementary school in Sarasota, Florida on the morning of September 11th, 2001. When he arrived at the school, before entering Ms. Daniels’ classroom Junior Bush was told that a plane had crashed into one of the Twin Towers. It is said that he exclaimed “They’d better check that pilot’s license” as he readied to begin his visit. While reading to the children some time after, Bush’s chief of staff Andrew Card whispered in his ear that a 2nd plane had crashed into the other tower. Researcher David Ray Griffin then offers this:
On the one hand, the Secret Service, which has the responsibility for protecting the president from any possible threat to his life, should have assumed, once it was clear that terrorists were going after high-value targets, that the president might have been one of those targets. As one article put it, “Bush’s presence made… the planned reading event a perceived target,” because “the well-publicized event at the school assured Bush’s location that day was no secret.” On the other hand, people observed that the Secret Service had not acted accordingly. The day after 9/11, Canada’s Globe and Mail commented: “For some reason, Secret Service agents did not bustle [Bush] away.”
The background for this comment was explained by Philip Melanson, the author of a book about the Secret Service. “With an unfolding terrorist attack,” Melanson said, “the procedure should have been to get the president to the closest secure location as quickly as possible.” That this indeed would have been standard operating procedure is illustrated by the fact that, as soon as the second strike on the World Trade Center was seen on television, one agent said to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill: “We’re out of here. Can you get everybody ready?”
But this agent’s decision was obviously overridden by some higher-level Secret Service agent, as Bush was allowed not only to remain in the classroom for seven or more minutes,
A Fortress, Disguised As A Country
Morgarten, Switzerland – Here, in 1315, a force of Swiss mountaineers ambushed an invading force of Austrian feudal knights who had come to reassert Hapsburg feudal rule over the rebellious Swiss.
The burly Swiss farmers and woodsmen from the forest cantons Unterwalden, Uri and Schwytz fell upon the close-packed Austrian knights and men-at-arms, using long pikes or deadly pole axes known as halbards, and massacred them without quarter.
Two years later, a second Austrian expeditionary force was caught by the Swiss peasant infantry near Lucerne at Sempach and crushed.
These fierce battles were the first time in modern history that foot soldiers had withstood heavily armored mounted knights. These epochal encounters marked the beginning of the end of European feudalism and the rise of infantry armies. They also freed Switzerland’s forest cantons of Austrian rule, creating Europe’s first independent democratic state, the Swiss Confederation.
The always-astute Machiavelli said of the Swiss warriors: ‘Most heavily armed, most free.’ Indeed, most free to this day.
Those who think of Switzerland as a quaint land of cuckoo clocks and chocolate are sorely mistaken. To paraphrase Voltaire’s bon mot about Prussia, Switzerland is a giant fortress, disguised as a country.
I attended school and university in Switzerland. Over the decades, I kept hearing about mountains opening up to disgorge warplanes, or cliffs studded with hidden artillery. But even my Swiss friends didn’t know much about these seemingly fantastic sightings.
Fifteen years ago, I was the guest of the Swiss Fortress Guard Corps, a top-secret military outfit that operates Switzerland’s mountain fortresses. I was one of the first non-Swiss to be shown the mountain forts that guard the heart of the nation’s ‘Alpine Redoubt.’ What I was shown astounded me – and continues to do so.
In the late 1930’s, as one European nation after another bowed down to Hitler’s demands, the Swiss military and its popular rifle clubs, banded together and decided their nation would not bend the knee as the Czechs, Dutch, Norwegians, Belgians, and then the French had done.
This article is a wake-up call for those who do not understand the true purpose of monetary inflation, and do not realise they are the suckers being robbed by monetary policy. With the world facing a deepening recession, monetary inflation will accelerate again. It is time for everyone to recognise the consequences.
All this year I have been warning in a series of Goldmoney Insight articles that the turn of the credit cycle and the rise of American protectionism was the same combination that led to the Wall Street crash in 1929-32 and the depression that both accompanied and followed it. Those who follow statistics are now seeing the depressing evidence that history is rhyming, though they have yet to connect the dots. Understandably, their own experience is more relevant to them than the empirical evidence in history books.
They would benefit hugely from a study of the destructive power of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act combining with the end of the 1920s credit expansion. The devastating synergy between the two is what crippled the American and global economy. And as we slide into a renewed economic torpor, contemporary experience tells us the Fed and all the other central banks will coordinate their efforts to restore economic growth, cutting interest rates while accelerating the expansion of money and credit. The current generation of investors argues that this policy has always worked in the past (at least in the past they have experienced) so the valuation-basis for financial assets and property should stabilise and improve.
This brief summary of current thinking in financial markets ignores the fact that a catastrophic tariff-cum-credit-cycle mixture is baking in the economic cake. Crashing government bond yields, reflecting a flight to relative safety, are only the start of it. If the 1929-32 comparison is valid, today we have the additional problems of excessive government debt coupled with consumer debt, and hundreds of trillions of over-the-counter derivatives adding to systemic risk. The banking system all but collapsed in the 1930s, as banks desperately dumped collateral assets into falling markets. This time, the debt is not confined to industry; a debt contraction will hit consumers directly and threaten domino defaults in OTC derivatives as well.
How many people advocating for war against Iran actually know what it looks like from an on the ground perspective? How many neocon advocates for bombing Tehran have actually seen the ultra-modern downtown skyline of the capital city? How many know flesh and blood Iranians who whose world and families and whole existence will be shattered when the missiles are unleashed?
Once again, the armchair hawks are clamoring to bomb far-away places which for them contain abstract “villains” which in reality pose little to no direct threat to the United States — all based on anonymously sourced and vague “intelligence”. Like the disastrous Iraq war, Washington is now saying, just “trust us”. And like Iraq, the results of yet another war to “take out the regime” will no doubt be a worse nightmare than the current status quo and stability, however undesirable Iran’s current leaders might be.
Downtown Tehran, Iran at night.
Is it just a coincidence that TV networks are re-running old “Dirty Harry” films just as a powerful US Naval armada and Air Force B-52 bombers are headed for what could be a clash with Iran? Here we go again with the “good guys” versus the “bad guys,” and “make my day.”
Maybe it’s more bluffing? The current US military deployment was scheduled before the latest flare-up with Iran, but the bellicose threats of White House neocon crusaders like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo certainly create the impression that the US wants war.
Adding to the warlike excitement, President Trump just ordered seizure of a large North Korean bulk cargo ship. This was clearly a brazen act of war and violation of international law. More dangerous brinkmanship by administration war-mongers who increasingly appear besotted by power and hubris.
So much for the president who vowed to avoid foreign wars – and so much for the millions of anti-war voters who believed him.
Why does Trump let his two horsemen of the apocalypse get away with this?
Déjà vu: The same rhetoric used to justify going into Iraq is back,
An older woman and her middle-aged son were at a public restaurant for Thanksgiving. He spent the whole of the dinner flipping through his phone, without uttering a word. She did her best to maintain her dignity while looking past him and trying to pretend that this is what life is like. This tragic scene lasted until they paid the bill and left.
The scene was relayed to me by a senior in college who explains how her generation is figuring out the right and wrong ways to use new technology, correcting for the errors of their parents, who somehow allowed their lives to be drained by the newness of it all.
Zak Tebbal drew the perfect cartoon for how our relationship to our smartphones has changed over the last 10 years.
No one planned it. It just seemed to happen. The gadget scratched an itch. We have to know everything, to be in touch with everyone, to be everywhere at once. It’s an everything box, miraculous in its own way. Why are so many people creeped out these days that we seem to have turned over the whole of our lives to our smartphones?
It began with Facebook’s brilliant notification system. Your friends are contacting you, liking you, appreciating you, and surely you need to know that! Every application caught on. More buzzes, dings, alerts, reasons to stare and scroll. During this time, your device holds your primary attention, and interrupts anything else that is happening.
Hours and hours per day, adding up to a day or two in a week, a week in a month, and, ultimately, years and years of our lives, staring senselessly at things that matter maybe a little but not that much.
And at what cost? Disciplined reading, social engagement with those around us, our attention span, serious thought, and even our sleep. No one signed up for our lives to be put into total upheaval one step at a time, forsaking all human connection and conversation, and eschewing serious mental and emotional development, in favor of digital trivia 24/7.
It would be nice to think the president has final say on foreign policy, given the U.S. Constitution. But the misleading troop withdrawal announcement, followed by Trump’s boastful tweet, suggests the exact opposite, says Patrick Lawrence.
By Patrick Lawrence
Special to Consortium News
The announcement on Wednesday that the U.S. will withdraw all remaining troops from Syria within the next month looked at first like a rare victory for Donald Trump in his admittedly erratic opposition to senseless wars of adventure. “We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there,” the president tweeted with an unmistakable air of triumph.
Don’t get your hopes up. Just about everything in these initial reports is either wrong or misleading. One, the U.S. did not defeat the Islamic State: The Syrian Arab Army, aided by Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah militias did. Two, hardly was ISIS the only reason the U.S. has maintained a presence in Syria. The intent for years was to support a coup against the Assad government in Damascus—in part by training and equipping jihadists often allied with ISIS. For at least the past six months, the U.S. military’s intent in Syria has been to counter Iranian influence.
Last and hardly least, the U.S. is not closing down its military presence in Syria. It is digging in for an indefinite period, making Raqqa the equivalent of the Green Zone in Baghdad. By the official count, there are 503 U.S. troops stationed in the Islamic State’s former capital. Unofficially, according to The Washington Post and other press reports, the figure is closer to 4,000—twice the number that is supposed to represent a “full withdrawal” from Syrian soil.
It would be nice to think Washington has at last accepted defeat in Syria, given it is preposterous to pretend otherwise any longer. Damascus is now well into its consolidation phase. Russia, Iran, and Turkey are currently working with Staffan de Mistura, the UN’s special envoy for Syria, to form a committee in January to begin drafting a new Syrian constitution.
At the beginning of 2018 I wrote extensively on what was likely to happen under the administration of Jerome Powell, the new Federal Reserve Chairman. In my article ‘New Fed Chairman Will Trigger A Historic Stock Market Crash In 2018‘, published in February, I predicted that the Fed would continue interest rate increases and balance sheet cuts throughout the year and they would knowingly initiate a crash in equities.
To be clear, this was not a very popular sentiment at the time, just as it wasn’t popular when I predicted in 2015 that the Fed would launch interest rate hikes instead of going to negative rates in order to start a catalyst for economic crisis. The problem some people have with this concept is that they just can’t fathom that the central bank would deliberately crash the system. They desperately cling to the notion that the Fed and other central banks want to keep the machine rolling forward at any cost. This is simply not true.
The claim is that the banking elites are “required” to keep the system propped up in a state of reanimation because they are reliant on the system to provide capital and thus “influence.” The people that assert this argument don’t seem to understand how central banks operate.
As most liberty activists should know by now, central banks are essentially a legally protected counterfeiting scheme. Using fractional reserve banking at a ratio that is secret, central banks create their own capital from thin air, and they can infuse capital into international banks at will when it suits their purposes. There is no “profit motive” for the banking syndicate. They can print the cash or digitally conjure it anytime they wish, and they can use it to purchase tangible assets before their printing diminishes the buying power of the currency, passing price inflation on to regular citizens.
Thus, keeping the system in perpetual positive motion is not necessary in terms of the transfer of wealth from the population to the banking class. In fact, economic crisis events are very useful to the elites because these events allow the banks to buy up concrete assets like natural resources,
It’s basically a battle between billionaires Axel Springer SE and Google. But it is ordinary internet users who will fall victim to the EU’s new copyright law, which urgently needs modification.
It’s good to share. But the European Parliament clearly doesn’t think so. Its new copyright legislation, passed last week, clamps down quite severely on sharing things online. The dynamism of the internet is at threat. When Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, warns us of the dangers the new law poses, we should all sit up straight and pay attention.
For a start, the legislation shifts the responsibility for the uploading of copyright material to the internet platforms themselves. Beforehand it was the job of the companies who thought their copyright was infringed to do this. Many don’t bother, and are happy to see their material uploaded to sites like YouTube as they know it promotes an artist’s work and boosts sales. But all that is likely to change.
Under Article 13, platforms would have to install “upload filters”.YouTube could be shorn of much of its content. Big sites would probably survive but, as ZDNet warns here, smaller sites could easily be put out of business by “copyright trolls”.
Not that there’s anything wrong of course, with sensible protection of copyright. As a prolific five-articles-a-week writer and author I can’t tell you how frustrated and angry I feel when I see my work “pirated”by a commercial website which hasn’t even asked my permission to reprint it, let alone offer me payment. Copyright law needs reform for the digital age. There needs to be an easy way for creators of content to receive payment from those who have stolen their work. The trouble is, the EU has used a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Look at the way the ability to link to, and quote from, other work without payment, is threatened by the directive.
Sites like RT’s ‘Op-ed’ section, which you are reading now, would be adversely affected and may be even put out of action.
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; Our government here in Argentina has told us we should expect more poverty and there is no hope for the future. Socrates has been amazing on its forecasts on our currency. There are enough of us down here who would sincerely ask would you consider advising Argentina to straighten out our economy and nation? You have forecast this emerging market crisis long before anyone else and your solution video on YouTube is very thought-provoking. If we can demand the government meets with you, would you do it?
ANSWER: The sone maybe Don’t Cry for Me Argentina, but it applies to the entire world for what happens in Argentina is merely the beginning of the global debt crisis. We can see from the chart that the dollar has been soaring. However, the Array picked August as the Panic Cycle and that has been spot on. Unfortunately, it does not look like this is going to calm down. We may be headed into a real Emerging Market crisis by October.
The reason why we are able to forecast such events well in advance is rather common sense. As I have said before, every solution to a crisis sets the stage for the next crisis. The Emerging Market debt crisis is unfolding because central banks in the USA and Europe lowered interest rates to “stimulate” the economy and they have no idea about how an economy truly functions. This is all based upon Keynesianism which is in turn based upon an isolated theory of the economy. They never consider that you lower interest rates and there are pensions who simply need higher rates to break-even. Then emerging markets issued debt in dollars with higher yields for the pension funds bought it assuming there was no currency risk. Now we have Portuguese and Spanish banks who would not lend to their domestic economies for there were way too many nonperforming loans so they ran and bought Turkish debt.
What began in Argentina and Turkey has snowballed into broader collapse complete confidence in Emerging Market debt and the pension funds stopped buying and simply are now trying to get out as fast as they can.