I also prefer facebook to remain visually clean and in any case a firm does not belong to society, it belongs to the owner. I’m afraid there are too many neo-communists around.


Mark Zuckerbergg accused of abuse of power. In our opinion he’s not abusing power, the firm facebook belongs to him and he can choose the image he wants to give.


They start with a noble cause: the napalm girl – like abortion, it had to be for raped women who would commit suicide if they gave birth for mental breakdown and everybody saw the result – and then all the most disturbing, disgusting and pornographic images have to be exposed, showed off. I prefer facebook to remain visually clean; I also had photographs about, for example, the rape cases in Sweden and I didn’t show them. I mean, for once than a Jew in a position of power does something I like the Illuminati have to turn up against it: also facebook must look like humanity dustbin for humanity rubbish; the little women who are looking forward showing off nipples – you have understood I am a puritan – would start in mass and then disturbing/disgusting images like the express.co.uk or sometimes the Daily Mail, would flood, I can say, before posting a photograph that contains images potentially disturbing it’s better to write a warning and to link. The napalm girl is a photograph we already know, we’ve seen it many times and I don’t believe to be on facebook is obligatory, if these people are so much better than the facebook team they can open another platform full of dead kids, nipples and soft porn, but it wouldn’t be so widely successful, I believe the cleanness of the imagery allowed makes facebook look friendly and successful widely. I also like it, though I use it very little, almost only to push this website.

I also keep this website clean, if you want to know what I think of all this people who fight for liberating the internet, they push disgusting blasphemous imagery and then start the war on words, and want to send people to Alcatraz for saying “coloured” instead of people of colour or because a scientist wears a shirt with sexy bikini clad comics girls. I don’t trust them. The clean imagery may be puritan, but at least we feel fine, a part of the media has become sick.

And then, what’s abuse of power? Why is it considered “strange” that a CEO or an entrepreneur can choose the image, the style in his own firm? I am against racism, but I am also against imposing to owners receptionists in a headscarf if they want the firm to look modern and western. The owner is the owner, they must respect the employees and the customers but they are not slaves of the customers, there are too many communists around who think the customers command, and a firm is a service to society, it’s not like this, a firm can be an expression of the people who found it and own it and there’s nothing wrong. If people want the staff who represent the firm to wear jacket and tie or they have a cool approach and say no, look cool, you can wear jeans, I wear jeans too, it’s freedom in an anticommunist, light capitalist society, where the individual can also express himself through his work, not to be a slave of the system, a servant of the ethic state, remember that both Fascism and Communism were ethic states, so the state commands and the individual, particularly the talented individual should not surpass the others or be too peculiar or it is considered social injustice and a danger for the state, in any case the talented individual should be a total servant of the state now called “society” or be eliminated as a threat, so you can’t even be too beautiful ’cause fat girls feel offended in seeing sexy girls in a videogame or a bikini publicity for sun tan, you shouldn’t decide the style of your own firm ’cause the firm in their opinion belongs to “society” not to you . Facebook belongs to Zuckerberg, if Zuckerberg does not want to keep in line with the new fashion of showing off disturbing images he’s free to do it, we use facebook and we use it for free, we don’t own it: facebook does not belong to society, to think that it does is already communism, and be careful, I am seeing a lot of closed fists shown around at the Black Lives Matter at the anti-burkini-ban manifestation… they’re back, believe me and the anti-communists must be back too.

This website is Right wing: facebook belongs to the owner. If you think you are better found another platform and prove yourself. Because who can do does, who cannot do, he teaches.

Categories: Culture, Uncategorized

Tags: , ,

1 reply

  1. Facebook changed their minds about allowing publication of the “napalm girl” photo, because they realized they were wrong, that the rules did not take historical context into account. It’s an iconic photo that helped change public opinion about supporting a war. That’s far more important than whether or not the image happens to contain nudity. The initial censorship, which included banning discussion about the issue, caused a firestorm of negative reactions in Norway, including objections from the AP (who own the photo), the woman IN the photo (who now runs a charity assisting child victims of war), and from that country’s largest newspaper.

    From Facebook’s official statement:
    “In this case, we recognize the history and global importance of this image in documenting a particular moment in time. Because of its status as an iconic image of historical importance, the value of permitting sharing outweighs the value of protecting the community by removal…”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Freeword and Friends Paris

La vraie France triomphera.

%d bloggers like this: