Tag Archives: Piers Morgan

Andrew Tate, the man, the exploited

Sounds weird does it not, it sounds like I am inverting what is happening, but I am not. The media is exploiting Andrew Tate for every digital dollar they can muster. First off, I know very little of him and the little I do know and what I did find out started after the Thunberg issue. I honestly do not care about the man, why should I? We travel in very different circles. He is a former kickboxer, he went from nothing to $700,000,000 in almost no time flat. He communicates that a little too much in your face and that all makes perfectly sense. Yet when you take a moment to consider what he is saying, we see that he is making sense, he is making too much sense to some.

So when I now reconsider what the media did with headlines like ‘Did feminism create Andrew Tate?’, ‘Andrew Tate isn’t feminism’s inadvertent bastard child. He’s sexism’s last gasp’ (written by a girl of course), ‘‘Vulnerable boys are drawn in’: schools fear spread of Andrew Tate’s misogyny’ and that list goes on, for some time no less. You see, whatever Andrew Tate is, he is accused and anyone accused is innocent until PROVEN guilty. But the media seemingly doesn’t like self made multi millionaires (or billionaires) for that matter. 

Al Arabiya gives us (at https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2023/01/10/Romanian-court-to-rule-on-ex-kickboxer-Andrew-Tate-s-challenge-to-detention) “A Romanian court is due to rule on Tuesday on a challenge filed by Andrew Tate, an internet personality notorious for hate speech, against his 30-day arrest for alleged human trafficking and formation of an organised crime group to exploit six women.

Tate, his brother Tristan and two Romanian female suspects were detained by Romanian anti-organised crime prosecutors on December 29 pending a criminal investigation. They have denied wrongdoing through an attorney and have challenged the arrest warrant.” Now lets be clear. The man was already a multi millionaire and he did this in numerous ways. So why would he exploit 6 women? What would be in it for him? I am not saying that this did not happen, I am asking if this might not have happened. We see the confiscation of expensive cars, we see all kinds of emotional reporting, but like that attempted murderer of 6 years old, when do we actually see facts? We got “In a news conference on Monday, police in Virginia said the child brought the pistol to school in his backpack” as well as “A six-year-old child used his mother’s legally purchased handgun to shoot his teacher at a US school” yesterday by the BBC. So where are the parents? Why are they not interrogated by police and the media? Too soft? Too many pussies in the media? How does a 6 year old get his mommies gun? The media left it untouched all this time and now we get back to Andrew Tate, it is all related. The media exploiting whatever they can to get the digital dollars. And Andrew Tate makes a fine target for the media. For 2 weeks the media did not dig into the accusation, merely focussing on misogeny. 

So I tried to look up a few things. Now, this does not make him innocent of that claim, but I wonder how true some claims are. The first is the interview with Piers Morgan, the full interview of 45 minutes is there. He talks about the failing of the UK, why nurses are striking and he makes a lot of sense. And with the ‘in your face’ stage that he has (I personally think that is the kickboxer in him) he does get the interest of all the boys and men, but there is a truth that women should consider to a much larger degree. 

You see, thee are those women who are truly self-sufficient and those merely claiming that they are. I reckon that this is set to 1500:250,000 so for every 250,000 women only 1500 are truly self sufficient, the rest is merely making the claim and calling the nearest man as soon as they can, preferably one that is either gay or one that they can tell that assistance is not agreeing to sex. Let be clear sex is never part of such a deal, but I get that women want to be clear about that upfront. So in a stage where only 0.6% are real self sufficient women, a misogenistic paint will aid the media in colouring a person so that the wannabe’s have someone to hate. Making them instant click bitches to coin a phrase. By the way ‘misogenistic’ means “strongly prejudiced against women”, and to be honest. The video’s I saw did not give the stage that he is AGAINST women. The videos do show that he is full of himself, but when you consider that he went from nothing to $700,000,000 whilst most people (well over 80%) never get more than 0.1% over twice the lifespan we can agree that he is allowed to be full of himself. 

So there we have one setting. Then we get the image (from a YouTube video) below.

So is this true? YouTube is not a reliable source, and when we seek. We do get a lot of articles linked to Cosmin Gusa. But there is still no real evidence that this was Andrew Tate. In this day and age when we can see cyber transgressions in every direction. Does it make sense for someone like Andrew Tate to go ‘after’ the daughter of some mogul? And this is not America, this is Romania, as such a man like that has all kinds of connections. The math just does not work out. Any loser or non-wealthy might make a move like that. It does not make the Tate’s guilty, not innocent either. EVIDENCE is required and I have so far seen close to ZERO evidence on anything that could prosecute Andrew Tate. This could be a stage where connected people take over his business and that might be the case, but that also implies that we now have a decent setting where the media is jumping to the greedy needs of organised crime.  

Tomorrow his case is decided whether he is to remain arrested, I wonder what will happen next. Because there is a lot wrong here and the media needs to do its actual job (implying not whoring for digital dollars). They need to look into the accusations which Al Arabiya actually did (most others did not), there we also see “The victims were then taken to properties on the outskirts of capital Bucharest and through physical violence and mental intimidation were sexually exploited by being forced to produce pornographic content for social media sites which generated large financial gains, according to prosecutors. Prosecutors also said one of the brothers raped one of the victims in March of last year, which is when the investigation started”, this is an actual accusation, this is something that needs to be investigated, but why did the western media avoid giving us this? It will be about the evidence, not some he said, she said setting and that is not the easiest case to have, no matter where it is. And it needs to be proven, not painted by the media. Time will tell how this ends, I have no idea what will happen next.

Advertisement

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

BBC to the whatever

There was an issue from the start. I had reported on it before, so I initially decided to let it go. Yet then I remembered something. It is time to hold the BBC like other papers accountable for their fuck ups, and that includes the BBC as a media outlet. So lets take a look at the article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-64109777) giving us ‘Twitter in data-protection probe after ‘400 million’ user details up for sale’. You see, it might be about Twitter but it is larger then Twitter. The first instance is “Ireland’s Data Protection Commission (DPC) says it “will examine Twitter’s compliance with data-protection law in relation to that security issue”. Twitter has not commented on the claim.” The second part is “The data is said to include phone numbers and emails, including those belonging to celebrities and politicians, but the purported size of the haul is not confirmed. Only a small “sample” has so far been made public.” Wo far it is very neat, the extent of lack of mentions is also a lot more clear. You see there are two issues. When it was gotten and how it was gotten (the how is given to some extent later on). There is a setting emerging, but I will mention it soon. Then we get “data of US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was included in the sample of data published by the hacker. The data of broadcaster Piers Morgan, who recently had his Twitter account hacked, is also reported to be included. Twitter has so far not responded to press inquiries about the claimed breach. Chief executive Elon Musk did not reply to a tweeted request for comment from leading cyber-security reporter Brian Krebs – though the breach, as Mr Krebs notes, probably occurred before the Tesla boss took over.” The first gem is here. It is “probably occurred before the Tesla boss took over” and another stage where the media should have held Jack Dorsey to account, but it could not be bothered to do their bloody jobs. The media is showing to be as useless as a silent politician without the limelights. Then we get “While acknowledging the amount of data taken had not been verified, the firm’s chief technology officer, Alon Gal, told the BBC a number of clues appeared to support the hacker’s claim. The data did not appear to have been copied from an earlier breach in which details were published from 5.4 million Twitter accounts, Mr Gal said. Only 60 emails out of the sample of 1,000 provided by the hacker in the earlier incident appeared, “so we are confident that this breach is different and significantly bigger”, he said.

There are all kinds of issues here, but the fact that there is an earlier breach gives a larger rise that the media should have looked at the fares of Jack Dorsey, but they ignore that part. I wonder what Jack Dorsey has on the media, because that is the only part that makes sense to me. And there is no reliability with ‘Only 60 emails out of the sample of 1,000 provided by the hacker in the earlier incident appeared’ which is at best merely an alleged side of the matter. There are heaps of other sides (like alternative email address) but there remains an issue. Was it the same hack? There might not be reliable information there, so Jack Dorsey is back in the frame. But the media keeps him intentionally out, on at least 5 events and that is worrisome. That they report now makes sense, but the earlier absence of reporting does not and they pushed for a stage where Elon Musk paid well over twice the amount he should have, and the media is no longer a trustworthy institution, no matter what they claim on their websites. 

So when we see ““Ryushi” has said that it exploited a problem with a system that lets computer programmes connect with Twitter to compile the data. Twitter fixed the weakness in the system in 2022. But the flaw is also believed to have been used in the earlier breach affecting more than five million accounts.” There are several issues here, but the fact that it was fixed in 2022 indicates that he became the owner on October 27, 2022. That gives the hack 8 weeks at best and even shorter if it was fixed, as such there is another issue and the BBC is not clean on mentioning it and even less on the responsibilities by Jack Dorsey and that too is on the BBC (and other media). 

My issue with the article is that is was so cleanly written, to keep names out of it and to make sure that nothing hits Jack Dorsey, why not? They never had that issue before, so something is up and it is time the media is seen as the untrustworthy source it has been for too long. But I reckon they will decide not to do so and make claims to IPSO that they can police themselves. In the meantime there is now a too large an issue with the media. Perhaps it is whoring for digital dollars, perhaps it is something more and the course of the media to avoid Jack Dorsey all over the field makes me believe that there is more. I wonder when we get that part, if ever.

For me, I am having another beer, the first 5G IP went public on 4Chan 20 hours ago and I wonder who finds it and who registers it. I hate waiting, but that I all I can do at present. Such is life.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media

The joke that was once CCCP

I grew up in the aftermath of the cold war. My friends and myself, my street friends as well as myself, we feared Russia, we worried about what they were able to do. Russia was regarded as very dangerous. Then the 90’s came. The stories of collaboration came, the stories of acceptance came and we rejoiced in part. There was an option of co-existence. We rejoices and we saw and hoped for the best. And for 30 years that continued. At some point there were sides in me that had a pro-Russian side. I abhorred the Chechen attack on Moscow civilian buildings. There was a side we all saw that Russia was not as bad as the Americans made them out to be. An afterthought of McCarthyism and I was wondering if America would ever learn their one sided hatred.

March 2022
The Ukrainian invasion is going on for about a week, for about a week we have questions, we wonder what set this in motion. What did the EU do, what did NATO do? But there is no clear answer and within a week we get to see the other side, the side that sanctifies the position of America. At present a dozen sources show me the Putin monster. The Russian acts of crime, transgressions of the articles of war, transgressions of humanitarian war and we see this all happen and we see governments do too little, or nothing at all. They send equipment, they send hardware, they send software but the Ukrainians fight by themselves (largely) and the 21st largest army on the planet is pushing back the second largest army in the world. The Russia we feared is losing hardware, people and morality. They lose on much larger scales than ever expected and Russia merely changes what the truth is on their TV stations and via trolls all over the world. There are some who fights these parties, but too little of them are there to make sure the people get to see the truth. The Guardian gave us in one instance “He said in one interview: “You see these atrocities and you are still not ready to do anything to make Putin lose his appetite for these atrocities. How can you sleep if you find strong words after these pictures, but do nothing? What else should happen so that the toughest sanctions are put on the table? Chemical attacks, or what is it you are waiting for?”” What is it you are waiting for is a generic question, it applies to governments as well as others and it applies to a lot of governments. Russia is done for. It could start a nuclear war, but all nations will turn on Russia that much they do know. China will not act until provoked but when they do it will be the end of Russia and it is not even close to the near end. 

The BBC gives us ‘Ukraine war: The Syrians signing up to fight for Russia’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-60931180) there we are given “Social media in Syria has been flooded with requests for people to join Russian troops in return for up to $7,000 for deployment” how long do you think Russia can set this game? If these troops get paid after 6 months, they are stupid and they will die stupid, their families will get nothing. If they get paid ahead and they hand it to their families, the Ukrainians will end their lives and we will see two parts, A Syria without men, women with money and nowhere to go and Russia with even more debt. And that is not the end. Nations like the Netherlands are showing themselves to have too many pro-Putin people in too powerful places and that should worry NATO, when FVD party leader Thierry Baudet states that there is no Russian aggression. When we see the dozens of photographs, the cadavers burned, shot in the streets, the setting of a government too dangerous to be part of any decision maker stream involving NATO. There is a clear stage that this merely involved 2-3 people, but they have too much power and any intelligence going to Russia is not acceptable. We need to set a much stronger example and we need to make sure that politicians, just like the WW2 NSB politicians are set to example. If they want to run to Russia fine, but they better leave fast and no argument on ‘the stage of nuance’ will be accepted, not when one states “there is no Russian aggression” and we see dozens of photographs, videos of civilian bombings, shooting of civilians in the streets will be accepted as some form of nuance. I will personally hang that traitor in a tree and if I have to spend the rest of my life in jail for that, then so be it. 

And we are nowhere near the end yet. You see the Russian army is about to become a joke, a bad one at that and the deployment of Syrian troops in Ukraine merely because the Russians do not have the ability makes me wonder why we were ever nervous about Russia. It makes me wonder what the Russians are about, when they have such a political and military engine, when they openly and knowingly support inhumane actions against civilians, what is left of a once proud nation is not worthy of writing down. I believe that Piers Morgan stated it best “How much of a cowardly society have we become?” As I see it, the Russian bear was defeated buy Paddington bear and the other nations were for the most on the sidelines watching. And lets not forget, their inactions is what Russia is using to gain Syrian fighters and that is the next round of slaughter we get to see and it is clear that Putin is not about diplomacy, it is to satisfy the need for blood, to make sure that if Ukraine wins, it will be on the premise of scorched earth. 

And we all have front row tickets to watch these events unfold. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Is it your taste?

Taste is a peculiar thing, it is more than personal at times and sometimes it is massively selective, I for one loved to try my new girlfriend having a Chicken Vindaloo (before I went to Australia), or an Indonesian restaurant. You see, I need to know that she at least likes the dishes I love. I had an ex who hated pizza and therefore I ended up not having pizza for a year. And that setting of taste (and balance) continues over a larger field. So when the BBC gives me ‘GB News: Several brands pull advertising from news channel’, it gets me in two ways (both with happiness), the first is seen in “it has faced criticism from campaigners such as the group Stop Funding Hate, who say its launch brings highly partisan Fox News-style programming to the UK”, yes it all seems nice, but haters will be haters and the choices some channels make are at times proven to be hateful, the other media makes sure that it is hateful. And this can happen in a whole range of ways and the media is all over that part. For the largest reasons they do not want another mouth eating from the digital advertising dish. 

Andrew Neil (chairman) gives us “In an opening monologue to viewers on Sunday night, Neil said GB News would aim to “puncture the pomposity of our elites in politics, business, media and academia and expose their growing promotion of cancel culture for the threat to free speech and democracy that it is”” is not hateful, yet the part I have stated several times in the past and even yesterday is seen in “puncture the pomposity of our elites in media and expose their growing promotion of cancel culture”, I did not phrase it like that, but it does fit. Consider these two parts, the first is an alleged attack on Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist no one cares about and the media is hounding it for the longest time, more importantly the UN is helping push the media agenda on this via some essay writer called Agnes Calamard. Yet the actions of Martin Bashir, who as seen by a lot of people as a massive reason of het divorce and ultimately led to her death is pushed outside of the media limelight, moreso as an inquiry showed him to be manipulative using forged documents and he is not even arrested (not even pro forma). Andrew Neil has a point, will he have a case? Time will tell, I remain skeptical of nearly all media outlets that are not presented by trained journalists, morning entertainment channels giving us filtered information.

The second part is actually not good for Andrew Neil. We see Kopparberg and Octopus Energy cancelling what they had seemingly placed, as such even as the channel is only now on the air, these people did not do their due diligence, and even I cannot call whether GB News is actually hateful. Yet there is a place in the media for Fox News, not my favourite channel but I believe that we can only see actual news when we are not depending on Al Jazeera and Reuters. In this the other side of that coin is that Kopparberg, Open University, Ovo Energy and Ikea had made suspensions hiding behind “not knowingly booked slots on the channel”, implying that they advertise without investigation, as such, how stupid is that? I believe that there is more behind that. I would speculate that not unlike the old PS2 versus Dreamcast issue in 1999, some media outlets might have stated that if you are with them, you cannot be with us. I can never prove that, but I was a witness to the PS2-Dreamcast event. So it is not too far-fetched. 

Oh and by the way, so far there is the indication that GB News and Andrew Neil is getting more news flak from other media that Martin Bashir so far has. I wonder why that is, especially after these same sources had no issues posting whatever speculative (not evidence) based posting on the Jamal Khashoggi case. Do not take my word for that, investigate yourself! I do not care whether you watch GB News, that is your choice, I merely wonder how much of the news media has not been trustworthy for the longest of times and that includes the views of Piers Morgan. You see I avoided the interview for my own reasons, he had a point of view, and I am not judging him to be valid or invalid, it was a point of view, he is allowed HIS point of view and we see thousands of complaints on a point of view. So how many complaints did these people lodge against Martin Bashir? And that was before I saw ‘Meghan Markle’s claim ‘doesn’t add up’ – ‘Strange’ remark in Oprah interview picked apart’ from the Express (at https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1447782/meghan-markle-oprah-winfrey-interview-queen-elizabeth-II-prince-harry-lee-cohen-news-VN). There we were given “Mr Cohen pointed to a moment in the Oprah Winfrey interview where Meghan said she was unaware of needing to curtsy the Queen and did not know the words to the UK national anthem. The political writer found it “odd”, stating he was given stringent protocol training when he met the Queen and questioned whether the Duchess of Sussex was overall willing to learn the new customs”, it is a point of view, but that also gives a rather large nudge towards Piers Morgan optionally might having a case. As I avoided the interview I cannot really say, but who else had that part Mr Cohen stated? Why was the rest of the media not all over that? Was it the ‘Awwwww’ moment? Now take these elements and you will see that there might be place for someone like GB News. Will it be on my list? Not sure, I will look at it initially via YouTube (as I am on the other side of the planet for now), yet its future will not be depending on the advertisers, it will largely be depending on the quality of journalism and that part is left out of the media consideration, at least the dozen articles I saw and none mentioned that part, I wonder why that is, don’t you?

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

If it bleeds, it leads

Yes, one of the famous sayings from the entertainment media regarding the media and the news media. We can find all kinds of response regarding the media, yet at present we see an overly cool head when it comes to the matters involving Martin Bashir. We saw the media blow out of proportions when it came to news regarding Lady Diana Spencer, even more when she became the wife of the prince of Wales, it continued as they divorced and continued as she became close to Dodi Fayed. The people still believe that paparazzi’s were directly responsible for her death, as such I still believe that it is my civic duty to mutilate any paparazzi if I ever get the chance. The paparazzi and the media have never been held to account, the media wants its images, its pound of flesh to get revenue through circulation, yet when it comes to their own (like Martin Bashir) the bare minimum of exposure is required. Yet, that might soon change. As we are told by the Texas News Today (at https://texasnewstoday.com/martin-bashir-misled-and-duped-michael-jackson-during-2003-interview-former-lawyer-claims/314833/): ‘Martin Bashir ‘misled’ and ‘duped’ Michael Jackson during 2003 interview, former lawyer claims’, we see “The attorney, Brian Oxman, claimed in an exclusive interview with DailyMail.com that while Bashir was ‘not evil’, his ‘careless actions’ were fuelled by ambition and began a fatal downward spiral for the star”, if this is proven we get 3.5 million plus 47 million fans.

Well over 50 million fans out for blood, for the blood of Martin Bashir and this time the media will not abide, they are scared that they are optionally a future target. So as the Guardian gives us “Just three weeks after the devastating Dyson report into Bashir’s use of fake documents to secure an interview with Princess Diana in 1995, the BBC’s internal investigation cleared the corporation and its existing executives of any wrongdoing when it rehired him to report on religion some 20 years later”, the Guardian seemingly goes out of its way to not investigate the Michael Jackson interview, and now we see “Bashir’s interview with Jackson was aired in the explosive 2003 documentary Living with Michael Jackson on British channel ITV. The documentary was credited with sparking a child sex abuse prosecution against the star, in which Bashir testified. Jackson was acquitted of all charges in 2005”, and the media is largely reporting as little as possible as I see it. Even now, the Guardian is all about being as timid as possible, we get to see “BBC did not get to bottom of Martin Bashir’s lies, Hall tells MPs”, yet the rest is all about “Of course, it depends what allegations you mean. But the report from Lord Hall, which has already been discussed, went to the board of management and the board of governors and it was on the basis of those reports that an understanding was reached”, yet the foul stench that accompanied Martin Bashir is avoided as much as possible, even now when we see from a few sources “Martin Bashir: ‘No evidence’ journalist was rehired by BBC in cover-up over Princess Diana interview, review finds”, yet the smallest sentiment is ignored: ‘Why was he rehired at all?’, with the abundance of decent journalists out there seeking a job, they rehired the one with a report against him, a damning one that was thrown to the bottom of any available pile. And the media is apparently not asking the questions, or at least not loud enough. So when we now consider “Oxman is now calling for an investigation by ITV, similar to a recent inquiry into Bashir’s landmark BBC interview with Princess Diana in which she candidly admitted to cheating on Prince Charles, prompting a scandal and royal family crisis. The inquiry, run by UK lawmaker Lord Dyson at a cost of $2million to the corporation, found Bashir fabricated bank statements and lied to convince Diana to talk”, should something be found, than it is more than the end of Martin Bashir, it will damage both ITV and the BBC further. If 40,000 complaints was enough to remove Piers Morgan from a show, what do you think 50,000,000 complaints gets us all? And at that point the media will find it in its heart (and their wallets) to burn a media man at the stake, revenues are to be considered (as I personally see it). It is such a shame that when it comes to ethics and evidence the media is willing to take a page from ‘unnamed sources’ a little too often. And when the people reconsider that part 2 of the Leveson inquiry would be about “the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International, other media organisations or other organisations. It will also consider the extent to which any relevant police force investigated allegations relating to News International, and whether the police received corrupt payments or were otherwise complicit in misconduct”, we need to consider the small part called ‘other media organisations’. And even as the Tories scrapped it, they might no longer have that option, the setting we currently see regarding Martin Bashir could sway the people in demanding part 2 and that is what the media fears. The accusations by Brian Oxman are of a very different nature and it might fuel a few additional parts in this debate. It might be the one part the BBC (and ITV) never banked on and that is the one flaw the people will get to see a lot more than the media bargained for. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

You poor little sheep!

Yup, this is me having a go at my readers. You see, we need to wake up, we need to see the exploitation and we need to realise that the BBC is every bit a part of it. My rage started about three hours ago when the BBC gave us ‘Martin Bashir: I never wanted to harm Diana and don’t believe we did’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57215498), in my view he set a chain of events in motion, or at the very least accelerated it to cause the death of Diana, Princes of Wales. 

I will get to my reasoning down the track of this article, but first we need to see how complicit the BBC is. The BBC had no issue framing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia into events that may or may not have happened to Jamal Khashoggi. They did not pull any punches and in addition, they did not question evidence handed to them. Now we see evidence of Martin Bashir ordering the forging of documents and they quote him using the word ‘mockup’. In addition we now see “he rejected Prince William’s claim that he fuelled her paranoia, saying they were close and he “loved” her”, which I regard to be an absolute lie. Then we get “he comments on having showed her brother Earl Spencer forged bank statements and says: “Obviously I regret it, it was wrong. But it had no bearing on anything. It had no bearing on [Diana], it had no bearing on the interview.”” If it had no impact there would not be a reason to do it, would it? More important, there is enough evidence that Diana, Princes of Wales had some form of paranoia, it is my speculation and it takes a psychology master to look at that and, oh yes, the BBC did not bother with that part, did they? The BBC did not bother with a lot of issues, apart from the cover up and it seems now that people like Lord Hall are running for their lives, they give all kind of reasonings, but the truth is that Diana, princes of Wales was the darling of the British people and they have been deprived of her, a dozen people, including Martin Bashir and optionally Lord Hall as well are in the scope of well over 30,000,000 people all willing to string them up for what they did and these 30,000,000 people might have a decent (not a legal one) reason to kill the roaches that were all about exploitation. And the BBC is still helping them! When you see “Asked whether he is able to forgive himself”, we see the absence of killing questions, isn’t that what reporters are supposed to do?

Se when we see the interview that (by Dulcie Lee) it reads like a marketing joke. Consider that “The average salary for a news editor is £34,055 per year in United Kingdom”, now consider that he had a one point nine million pound house, he has a sixty thousand pound car. Please try to get these two on that income. Are you waking up now? And the money keeps on rolling in (optionally for him) we see again and again “Bashir left the BBC without a pay-off earlier this month”, perhaps there is more happening than a tap on the shoulders? It might have been a “Leave now, or else” setting, and that would be speculating, but in all this does my stance make sense? I believe it does and it goes a bit further than Lord Tony Hall. The media is protecting itself because it needs a massive overhaul, it needs to be held accountable. 

My reasoning
This is part of the caper, I need to tell you the reasoning here. There are a few settings that give rise to the stage that Diana, Princes of Wales was to some degree paranoid. We can argue if it was merely the media and the paparazzi, but that is as far as I can take it. Now, consider that the one institution that has for decades seem like it was above all suspicion hand over FORGED documents to a relative that there was a foundation of her paranoia, would that simmer it down or fuel it? We must understand that paranoia is a complex issue and that it takes an educated psychologist to give value to my assessment and I accept that but, oh wait, the BBC never bothered with that side of the equation, did they? In all this the BBC tip toed around Martin Bashir, and left half a dozen clues unanswered, the media protect its own and that is the larger failing as they cater to Shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers. The BBC might not have a lot of advertisers to cater to, but they do have shareholders and they definitely have stakeholders. 

And part of this is given by the BBC through Lord Dyson, in another piece we get “Lord Dyson’s report suggests the corporation’s values and principles were parked to protect its corporate reputation. The BBC used its press office to deflect difficult questions, the kind of institutional cover-up its own journalists seek to expose”, which is what I was saying all along, or perhaps equally valid is the setting that I agree with the statement. And as we see other versions all over the net, some via the Sun, we get to see “Bashir has since hit back at the Duke of Cambridge, telling The Sunday Times “everything we did (Diana) wanted. My family and I loved her.”” I would like to remind you all that he is disgraced and shown to be a liar, as such he has no credibility, and the Sun and other media let him get away with that, so how do you feel about the princess you all loved being pushed into a situation where she got killed, will you finally demand the media be held to accountable standards? I’ll tell you right now, if it suits the media, they will allow a person like Martin Bashir (optionally Lord Tony Hall as well) to be stung up to a tree, they would rather lose two people than be held to actual standards where they can end up in the dock answering for all carefully phrased denials. 

The Spencers (source: The Sun)

The media likes the Status Quo, the change there is not one they accept because their shareholders and stakeholders do not accept them. So whilst some will look towards Oliver Dowden on what is next, I think it is equally important to keep a keen eye on the Earl Charles Spencer, it is time we all listened to him and take his word. The BBC has been knowingly and intentionally been lying to us all for a quarter of a century and they need to learn the hard way that this was not OK. 

Their feigned answers have no business in media, especially as Martin Bashir and Lord Tony Hall willingly walked away (as quickly as possible), their reasons do not hold water, the media not investigating their actions have no value and it is time that the larger group of the British people wake up to that, if Piers Morgan can be pushed into some direction with 41,000 complaints, what do you think is possible with well over 30,000,000 angry people?

Do not become one of the sheep, be a wolf and mess up the wrongdoers. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

The tweets that flame

Yes, it seems harsh, and it is not meant to be. You see, this might be the tweet of today, but the setting has never changed not for three decades. Even as political windbags are all claiming that they are doing their bit, they are actually relying on emotional events to keep the flames going, especially when they do not resolve anything. My blog has covered it for almost a decade, and I have been stating it for another two decades. And this tweet is bringing it to the surface yet again.

People are all about ‘taxing billionaires’, ‘taxing corporations’, and ‘taxing churches’, the last one is nice, I hardly ever see that one. So let’s take a jab at this (yet again).

Taxing Billionaires
Yes, it is all about discrimination, taxing the billionaires. I still hope to become one, that is if Papa Smurf (Sergey Brin), Clever Smurf (Larry Page) and optionally Tracker Smurf (Sundar Pichai) wake up and take notice. OK, wake up is incorrect and uncalled for, they are likely awake 18 hours a day and they optionally take notice of a dozen matters every hour of every day, but so far they are not noticing my 5G IP (darn).  So at what point will we ‘tax’ the billionaires? Will we check their bank accounts and levy it for 20%? At what point do you think will these 614 billionaires move to Canada, or Europe and leave the US completely bankrupt? What do you think happens when $5,000,000,000,000 moves to another nation? I have another issue, these people made money in whatever way, and not all are a Lawrence Elliot, Mark Zuckerberg or Google top. As such do you really want the creative top of the world to vacate to another place?

Taxing Churches
There is a larger stage here and I am not against taxing the churches. The Catholic church has pillaged in their own way the planet for centuries. So will you tax one (discrimination) or tax all? It is a slippery slope, and ever as it is not the worst idea, it is a trap waiting t explode in all our faces, we just do not know how. 

Taxing corporations
They are getting taxed, it is the degree of required taxation that is the issue. 

The point is not taxing them, it is overhauling the tax laws and on both sides, both democratic and republican presidents, they all failed. From 1993 onwards the USA has had two democrats, two republicans and now another democrat President, the last 4 all failed to overhaul the tax laws.  As such, blame Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump for this failure. In April 2019 we saw “Amazon, Netflix, IBM, and General Motors are among the 60 big companies paying $0 in federal income taxes in 2018”, not one, not two, not three, but 60 big companies all avoiding taxation, avoiding not evading. Evading taxation is illegal, avoiding it is only paying what the letter of the law tells you to pay and that is how it should be, as such tax laws need an overhaul and this has been clear for 30 years, so why is it not done?

Because we see flames, we react to flames and no one is considering (intentional or not) to push legislation to overhaul the tax laws. It is the same joke again and again. Tax and gun laws are trodden on, we see all the crocodile tears, but people die and die again and until gun laws are truly overhauled, starting by giving the ATF the teeth they need to take a chunk out of guns, this will continue. And the media knows this too, but they cater to their shareholders, their stake holders and their advertisers and none of those three are happy about overhauling tax laws. 

And until the people unite complaining to the media nothing will change. It is funny that a valid objection by a journalist regarding an Oprah Winfrey interview, where we see a reported “Over 57,000 complaints have been delivered to Ofcom” regarding the point of view of a reporter, yet I am willing to bet that NONE of those 57,000 people ever complained on the need to overhaul tax laws. And we notice people complaining that nothing gets done, well, does this not start with you? A person can tweet to high heaven, but that does not change things. Getting hundreds even thousands complain to electable officials never happens (and the politicians, as well as corporations are happy about this), they need the rich to pay for their reelections and that will not happen when tax laws are overhauled.  

This is also not limited to the US, it is a global issue and if people really want poverty to go away, you need to demand an overhaul of the tax laws. It is really that simple. But beware, when you push corporations away it has other impacts. California is now learning that the hard way as more and more corporations are moving to Texas. So this is a much larger slippery scale and their will be consequences, no matter how we slice that tax cake.

But I am not against taxation, but I too will take the tax avoidance route when called on, it is not because I am against paying taxation, I am against paying too much taxation, that is why tax laws were created. A paper in 2014 gave us “‘Tax avoidance is a taxpayer’s course of action in line with the letter but contrary to the spirit of the law’. Definitions phrased along these lines can be found in many policy statements and legal provisions. They are common, but nonetheless problematic. It is the ‘spirit of the law’ part which poses problems. These difficulties not only have theoretical import; they also cast doubt on the legitimacy of efforts to combat tax avoidance. And the skeptics – ‘non-believers’ in the spirit of the law – are many.” The paper by Hanna Filipczyk gives us a lot in that regard, on the problems and on the 27 references that show that this has been going on for a long time, and until politicians stop wanking about the spirit of tax law and do something about the letter of tax law, this will continue, and its continuation will never cease. And the media is making it easy for them as they cater to part of that group. Should you doubt that, then wonder when the media told you to that to achieve a proper level of taxing, tax laws need to change. Do not take my word, check what THEY said, you will see I was right and I have been correct in this case for well over a quarter of a century. 

It was never hard, it was never complex, it merely needed to be done and the previous 4 presidents did not achieve it, why not? I will let you ponder that part for a little part longer.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Et tu, Guardian?

We all have views, we all have issues and we all have believes. Some are agreed upon, some are debatable and some are just silly. You, I, we all have them in all three categories. I for one do not claim to be any different here. A lot of them involve family, freedom, security, loyalty, intelligence, connection, creativity and humanity. Yet these are the big eight. We have some version of a belief here and it seems that some are not allowed the freedom part. For me this all started a little over two years ago. Piers Morgan got attacked online for a view he had. Now, I had no real issue either way, but the attack was seemingly unrelenting, as such I started to follow him on Twitter to see what made him such a danger. As such I learned that he was not that much of a danger, he came across as reasonably intelligent and a little bit of a clown, a funny one at that. I saw (on YouTube) his views on Monaco, Dubai and Shanghai, three places I was least likely to visit and I saw three often light presented views on paces that were fun and educational to watch. Educational? Well, I knew nothing before and little more afterwards, I also saw a nice side to Dubai which was unexpected. So when the initial interview with a couple was given, with several sides, I backed off, I still haven’t see it (reason to follow). Piers Morgan made personal statements in this as one is allowed and it came with a charade of accusations and no less then 41,000 complaints (in a place that has 68,000,000 people, and he walked off. 

There was something with the wife of Ozzy Osbourne on the Talk and now she is off her show as well. Something did not sit well and I almost regret staying away from that interview. 

The Interview?

No not the movie with Seth Rogan, the interview with Prince Harry and his wife. My issue is that the media to the largest degree uses the Royal family for click bait and to watch flames go up again and again, a distasteful view of the media exercising its right to speech and expression, it has been going on for well over a decade. As such I keep away from most of these events (it is impossible to avoid them all), I personally belief that the royal family is intentionally targeted (beyond the click bait needs). For this we need to see that the media has its own version of the truth. It adheres to shareholders and stake holders and after that it sets the story to the need of the advertisers, only if none of the three are a part, we get the goods as is. That is my personal belief, and I feel that I have been shown correct on a number of events. Yet this is about Piers Morgan, and he had an issue of disbelief on the interview. He stated against it and felt that the setting and the facts presented were incorrect. OK, we has a dissenting voice. I believe it was his right to disagree, yet in all this we see an explosion of opposition against his presence pretty much anywhere. Why is that? I personally belief, and I have had this believe for some time that the stakeholders abhors monarchy. You see, monarchial views are set to the need of ALL the people, non monarchial views are set to the people that matter and that difference is rather big, especially in this Covid age. These stakeholders are there to make sure that their enablers and facilitators have a better view, because that is what they need. A setting to flame more completely, and the media is their number one part in this. 

So any opposition to royal attacks is a danger to their agenda, and Piers Morgan was not having any of it, it was HIS view. So as the Guardian now attacks his view too, isn’t it interesting that a reporter gets top call here? We need to consider the New Daily who gives us ‘Bitter Piers Morgan launches another tirade at ‘delusional duchess’ Meghan Markle’ (at https://thenewdaily.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/royal/2021/04/06/piers-morgan-meghan-markle/). Here we see “In his first TV interview since he departed the breakfast TV show, Morgan told conservative US news personality Tucker Carlson on Monday (US time) that he stood by his comments, accusing Harry and Meghan of the “most extraordinarily disingenuous smear, hit job” on the royal family”, we also get “Morgan accused Meghan of lying in the interview “I’m sorry, I don’t believe a word she says,” he said. “I wouldn’t believe her if she read me a weather report.””. We are given his view and he is allowed them, so far is there any clear support for the statements “she was ignored when raising concerns about her mental health and that racist comments had been made before the birth of the couple’s son, Archie”? Then we get Alex Beresford (a weatherman) giving us “I understand you don’t like Meghan Markle; you’ve made it so clear a number of times on this program – a number of times. And I understand that you’ve got a personal relationship with Meghan Markle, or had one, and she cut you off”. As such we see a little more like “the Sussexes’ Winfrey interview was “tacky, tasteless, disingenuous, and I’m afraid, I believe, in some cases, downright lying on a global scale”” whilst the article ends with “For support with mental health issues, contact Life Line on 131 114 or beyondblue on 1300 224 636”, isn’t that nice?

My issue remains that Piers Morgan is used as a wave of flammable articles, the interview by Oprah Winfrey isn’t held up to the cold light of day and we see a form of group deterrent against Pier Morgan. The Guardian who gives us “He cast aspersions on her claim that negative press and lack of support from the royal household had left her suicidal, and that a request for help with this had been rebuffed by a senior person in the monarchy” (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/06/piers-morgan-claims-he-has-universal-support-of-the-british-public). So when we look at ‘negative press and lack of support from the royal household’, well when it comes to royalty, all press is for the most in a negative light and what evidence is there agains ‘support from the royal household’, that becomes a she said, she said debate and when does that support anyone except the media needing click bait?

No one is investigating the evidence, not me, I abhor royal interviews, the media can set the pass in too much of a negative view, I believe that Oprah Winfrey is of good character, she has proven that often enough, yet in this the interview is set in an emotional premise and she is universal queen there, there is a reason she is valued at $2.6 BILLION dollars, she is the best and millions flock to her show, emotions get you there and emotions better be real and be valued, I reckon that her pre talks got her the setting she needed and the interview did the rest. I believe her to be real and to be genuine, I am not sure about Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex in this. 

No matter how that pans out, and consider that the media steered clear of evidence towards the ‘lack of support from the royal household’, as well as any evidence regarding the ‘left her suicidal’ part. So when I saw “let me just state on the record my position about mental illness and on suicide. These are clearly extremely serious things that should be taken extremely seriously”, of course Piers Morgan is right, it is serious, and that too gets painted over. So far, outside the realm of interviews, I believe that Piers Morgan is on the money for a lot of things and when his joining new TV startup GB News surpasses Good Morning Britain, I reckon that they will have a larger issue than they ever banked on. 

And consider for yourself, why anyone will have such a go at one reporter with a dissenting voice?  Yet a mere hour ago we see ‘New information exposes a total contradiction in something Meghan claimed – and the revelations don’t stop there’ (source: news.com.au), so how come no one was fired there? Oh, sorry, they didn’t walk off. The fact that we see “the deal did not go ahead and in the later months of last year, the Sussexes announced they had signed deals with Netflix and Spotify that have been estimated to be worth $180 million”, all whilst another source gives us “he’s turned into this whiny brat in his mid-30s complaining his dad isn’t still financing everything he does” shows is 180 million reasons and no one is looking into the matter? One interview sets a 180,000,000 stage? Yes, I reckon something is going on and the more genuine Megan Markle, Duchess of Sussex is, the better return of value that this 180,000,000 becomes, a decent motive right there, yet the media is steering clear from that part, or so it seems and the people are not asking questions, because (as I personally see it) the emotional whirlpool has not been siphoned enough and those enjoying the windfall can live with Piers Morgan becoming a casualty of war, a greed driven war no less.

That I how I see it and watching the interview was not needed, as I personally see it. So feel free to investigate the media and what they present, in that also watch the presented evidence and you will be surprised just how the emotional articles go.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media

One view is not another

There was a scene and I took it in to some degree and I merely cast it aside the other. It was all about Meghan Markle, a lady who became Meghan, Duchess of Sussex after she married Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. I am for the most part a royalist, just like my grandfather was before me, the only part that is not equal is that he was British and participated in WW1, I did not. Yet, I remain royalist in nature. So when the interview was on, I avoided it, my reason was that for the most, I do not trust the media, they adhere to shareholders, stakeholders and advertisers and they will use whomever they can to achieve what needs to be achieved and for the most, they see royalty as cannon fodder for their cannons. Yet, I do not attack media people directly unless it is about a specific article, and for the most part that viewpoint is in my scope. So when Piers Morgan went the other way regarding the Duchess of Sussex, I merely shrugged, so many articles, so much media, there will be views on both sides of the field, it is unavoidable.

As such I went on my merry way, that partially changed after the show on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, when his remarks also set the stage for him leaving the show. So when we see ““Who did you go to?” he said. “What did they say to you? I’m sorry, I don’t believe a word she said, Meghan Markle. I wouldn’t believe it if she read me a weather report. “The fact that she’s fired up this onslaught against our Royal Family I think is contemptible” I initially shrugged, the media will take one side or another, it is what the media does and whether this falls into their personal views is a matter of debate, there is little option for me to change my views, I have seen thousands of articles over the last 10 years and that is the stage I am stuck in. 

And then Amol Rajan (in the BBC article) gives us “There is a culture war going on, and Piers Morgan’s job on Good Morning Britain has fallen victim to it. That’s different from saying Morgan himself is a victim of it; in some ways he has been a beneficiary. But when the public position of a star presenter and a broadcaster’s CEO are in sharp contrast, about such a sensitive subject, at a time of such heightened tensions, something has to give. Tonight, it did.” In this take particular notice of ‘when the public position of a star presenter and a broadcaster’s CEO are in sharp contrast, about such a sensitive subject’ this is where we see that some stakeholders call the CEO, this is not about him versus him, this is an optional example of Piers Morgan versus THEM, them being the people who prefer that the UK becomes a republic, there is more easily made profits that way, that is how I feel. And this is not a new point of view, I have been warning about the media, their shareholders, their stakeholders and their advertisers for years and the people get to see that freedom of speech and freedom of points of view does not hold water when the CEO has an opposite view. And in reality ITV’s Good Morning Britain is not a news organisation, even if they mention that they bring the news, it is as I personally see it a ‘catering entertainment program’. And it seems that Piers Morgan in this case had enough.

It does not matter that I stayed away from the interview. We all know that Oprah Winfrey is an absolute master in playing on emotions, it made her very very rich and her dedication to her causes and how it inflamed Americans have made her even richer. Sincere dedication cannot be feigned, it can only be real, making her an even more precious commodity. 

So is Piers right or wrong? That does not matter, I actually do not care, but it was his view and there are plenty accepting his view and to those stakeholders that view is detrimental to their needs. In a stage where everyone is bitching about their right to speak, getting rid of the person not agreeing to your views is something entirely different, it is called censorship. What struck me is ‘Meghan Markle among the 41,000 people who filed a formal complaint against Piers Morgan’s comments’, you see when you look at the big picture, we see that this amounts to 0.06% of the population, we cannot get the BBC to give the British people the goods on what is actually happening in Yemen (the Iran involvement part), a setting that has caused the death of well over 100,000 people in a population of formerly set to 29 million, as such we are getting inflamed by the wrong numbers. It does not matter whether Piers Morgan is right or wrong, it was HIS point of view, as such the stage is calling for a lot more questions on the amount of stakeholders that ITV’s GMB at present has, this is how I personally see it, I will let you make up your own mind. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

On the way to a destination

It was yesterday that I came up with the Vatican game, a way to expose the truth and let it be seen to everyone who wishes to know. It was a stage where I got to design original gaming IP. I have original 5G IP, but the games (TESVII, Watchdogs IV), they are all based on IP others made. I came up with other gaming IP, but the Vatican view is 100% my IP (as a game that is). It is also intoxicating to design original IP. Originality is the food of life, in originality we trust, the rest can fake it until they make it.

Yet the intoxicating side is there, it will always be there and everyone creating or designing original pieces can concur. Yet in the light of the PS5, we can see that the intoxicating part tends to take over, especially as I spend $3 on a MAC game, only to be haunted by the bugs. Then I got a dose of irritating steam, I set up that in ONLY want to see MAC games, but I get every PC game in sight, can people not design anything without massive flaws? Oh and Apple is not off the hook, but I will tell you about that soon enough. I think back to the ideas of ME:A(1,2), Mass Effect Andromeda, both parts 1 and 2, in a very different coat, but that is not what is driving me today. Neither is it the new Mario 3D bundle out in 8.4 hours (when the shops open), no now is about the idea that is moving in my mind, left right centre, up and down. It was an idea I had written about before, a game that is based in Amsterdam, in about 500 years when the population is zero. It is set to people with two life cycles, a normalised on and a biological one. The biological one has no needs, nature preserves it in every way, the normalised one, needs tools, needs technology and it needs sustenance. Yet the two cycles are opposing one another and what heals one, will kill the other. I got the idea watching Aftermath: Population Zero, in this series we see scripted AI showing us what buildings will look like after 300 years and no population to maintain anything. This got me to thinking, what if we set that to a city (Amsterdam) and we deploy it parameters? It sets the stage where every game will be different, more importantly your neighbour playing the same game will get to face a different Amsterdam. That was the premise, so not only do yo get to seek for technology, it will be in a different place, optionally in a different building, in another street. It sets a different stage to survival. Yet this is merely one facet, the other facet is to adapt to a new stage, a stage where the plants that sustained you become poisonous. That too is part of the game and Amsterdam with all its canals will be about plants and water plants. So there I was considering the drive, curiosity can be a drive, but it is not powerful enough. Yet in all this there is a stage, and in that stage does technology drive us, or do we drive technology? 

It is important, but for different reasons. With ‘Dubai may be as indebted as South Africa if dissenters are right’ (at https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/dubai-indebted-south-africa-dissenters-200917095907711.html) we see the stage we need to see. Even as we accept “Moody’s Investors Service and S&P Global Ratings include Dubai’s local bank borrowings to make the calculation, arriving at an estimate of about 290 billion dirhams ($79 billion). The debt burden could equal 77% of this year’s gross domestic product, according to S&P, comparable with what the International Monetary Fund predicts for South Africa and just behind Oman”, consider that the UAE has a population that is less than 10 million, about the size of Sweden, yet the debt is half of that of Sweden and here is the kicker, nearly every nation on the planet has crushing debts, so who has the actual funds that allow for these debts to continue? In a stage where we are polarised against nature, we need to see that embracing nature might be the only option left. Should you doubt the and of course, you can, consider the debts out there and consider that we are handing the debts to the next generation. In all this, IP is the only way for some to keep the next generation afloat. My version of Amsterdam was more spot on than even I realised. And if patent are the next currency, or at least the grounds for basic wealth, I am sitting decently pretty, but is that enough? I reckon that the next generation will see a very different stage of life, one that is not set on what is, and what they are entitles to, but what they can conquer, what they can overcome ad nature is a bitch when it comes to adversity. There is no denying that we are in a state of change, but our governments have gone the way of the dodo and the ostrich. They merely latch onto the largest payday possible and they cloth for bad weather, but that time has come and gone, it is no longer on what we can overcome, it is about what we can survive. You see, the owners of the debts could decide t cash in, and where does that leave us? Some even set the stage by claiming that there is good debt versus bad debt, yet in the end, all debt is bad and we need to catch on. As I see it this is the first generation that is worse off then the previous generations, in addition to that, we have created a life of legalised slave labour, legalised discrimination and legalised inequality. I wonder if we realised that when we were young, did we realise that this was a stage that we were signing up for? We might want to blame covid, but that would be wrong, perhaps it drove it to the surface, but the weak spots were already there. Even as CNBC gives us ‘What Would It Mean If U.S. States Went Bankrupt?’, yet it is too late, the US is already there, with the $25,000,000,000,000 debt, we need to accept that the annual interest would be no less than $150,000,000,000. This implies an amount that taxation is not getting, in addition to that, there are the spiralling costs of keeping the US alive (infrastructure) and it is not the only nation facing this, Japan is also on that scale and the EU is almost there, but they are all in denial that this is so, they are all setting the stage that they will overcome this, so how is that? Covid-19 brought it to the surface a lot faster, but we were already there and those who want to survive, will need to change to a patent grounded economy, which means that China has a decent advantage, so does the US and Japan less so, the EU is pretty much toast. In this everyone is in denial. You see the US amounted to $3.5 trillion collected taxation, but that is before the funding of the US started. When we take this into account, we see that the US was already $900 billion short, and that is before the $150 billion interest hits them and they are not alone, it is not merely an American flaw. Japan and the EU are on the same horse, not as big, but still a massively large horse of deficit. So when this collapses (when, not if) we see that the economic value of any nation will be the patents that they hold and as such, I personally feel that I am sitting pretty and with two new IP concepts created this week alone, I wonder where I will go next, I heard that the pastries in Monte Carlo are super yummy! (Piers Morgan told us that much) and bless his heart, I do like my pastries, so where we end up being, it will be in a very different economy soon enough, how soon? Well that depends on the powerbroker holding onto this failed horse, they like to stay ahead of the debt curve, surfing that wave for as long as they can before the wave crashes, it will drown a massive group of fin-tech people, but those who survive will come to worship the nations with patents, and as the new economy comes up, will you understand that you are merely driving these exploiters, or will you demand a fair system? Because that demand went so well the last time around. 

No matter what destination you go to, the currency you currently have will no longer have value, it is a harsh reality, but it is the one we all signed up for and the only one that the powerbroker accept, they have too much invested in the idea that their arrogance is the only one that ever mattered. 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Politics, Science