1. Do you know who this woman is?
Have a look at the dateline – it’s the CEO or whatever they call her of youtube and what’s she doing? She’s allowing herself to be interviewed and in the interview – as it says in the heading – ‘YouTube’s Susan Wojcicki Apologizes After Demonetizing and Removing Hundreds of Channels’.
Well that’s OK, is it not? The ones almost entirely demonetised were conservatives and/or anyone falling into her definition of hate crime speakers – who likes them anyway? Anyone heard about this hate crime thing at all?
Here though, she’s apologising to all those on the right of politics whom she’s demonetised or in other words – removed their livelihoods. What a fine thing for her to do – apologising to us.
Or is she though?
Not a bit of it! She apologises, in such a heartfelt way, only to the LBheebbeeggeebee community, as we would have expected. Which river dwelling animal related to the alligator are hers the tears of?
My obvious question is – how did she ever get to be CEO in the first place? Surely the lesson of Marisa Meyer was a cautionary tale for boards?
Well, we’ve been through all that, haven’t we already. Let’s use a hypothetical analogy – maybe Britain’s first mega ski resort in the Cairngorms with cable cars and a crossparty delegation of Diane Abbott, a gin-soaked Soubry, Jess Phillips, a sozzled Juncker, Rumpy Pumpy, Merkel and visiting dignitaries Pelosi, Cortez and Omar – they’re there to open it and run the system for an hour.
Punters in ski gear are already on the chairs, the cables need attending full time to de-ice them and someone above believes it would be a great wheeze to allow these clowns to run it for an hour, never mind regulations, never mind safety, this is photo-op central. All those people on those chairs are in the hands of this lot.
Just as the lions were in the hands of the donkeys during a certain war in history.
All right, admittedly that’s not a very good analogy – let’s then pretend that a group of feminists insist on designing a bridge in, say, Florida.
Don’t like that one? How about a middle-aged feminist, let’s call her Jodi Farhat, is put in charge of the corps of Engineers for the Missouri basin and if she gets it wrong, all the homes in the basin are flooded. But she refuses to listen to her line managers, her engineers. She knows best, she has her name to make.
Don’t like that one? How about a hypothetical ship – let’s call her the USS Fitzgerald … we could always make her Norwegian of course.
The question is – why would you do it, why would you make such appointments? The answer of course is Narrative.
But why would the Narrative even contemplate putting these non-comps in charge in the first place?
Perhaps there’s a twofold answer here:
1. Whomever you appoint needs to be a follower of process, dull of mind, ambitious, capable of thinking he or she is the overlord if fed the right lines, brittle of temperament, capable of following orders, someone starstruck by seeing the letters CEO on her door.
2. Now let’s imagine that the real purpose is to wreck whatever it is – to ruin it. A typical reason for wanting to do that might involve anything disseminating anti-Narrative material, so what do you do? You put the most egotistical, incompetent person you can find in charge, someone you know will do illegal things and who is ultrasensitive to cries of parachutism, let’s call her Kahrebe Sorbok.
But first you need to do the Jason Bourne or Raymond Shaw thing to them in the operating room – you can see they’re done by the look in the eyes – that soulless look – and then they’re ready to unleash.
2. One for from the news, just to finish this for the day:
That’s a ship’s captain? I supposed the tatts are the badges of honour.
Again – who on earth …?