A new analysis by independent automotive blog FuelArc suggests that fire fatalities are 17 times more likely in a Cybertruck than in the infamous Ford Pinto — the posterchild of deadly cars if ever there was one.
The site arrives at that conclusion by comparing the total units sold so far — 34,438 for the Cybertruck, compared to 3,173,491 for the ill-fated Pinto, discontinued in 1980 — and comparing reported fire fatalities for both.
At the current rate of horrible fiery deaths, FuelArc projects the Cybertruck will have 14.52 fatalities per 100,000 units — far eclipsing the Pinto’s 0.85. (In absolute terms, FuelArc found, 27 Pinto drivers died in fires, while five Cybertruck drivers have suffered the same fate, at least so far.)
Notably, Tesla’s profit-driven love of design defects inside an opaque service model has produced “driverless” software that has killed far more Americans than even domestic terrorists who used cars.
Also notably, when a Musk-worshiping highly decorated Green Beret going through a mental health crisis carefully rigged a Cybertruck to expressly not harm anyone from a massive suicidal explosion as his cry for help, the Tesla CEO shamelessly mocked the dead soldier for failing to cause even greater harms to Americans and their property. Think about this horrible end to the Tesla faithful, killing themselves for a man who intentionally takes their money for nothing and cares not at all about them or America.
It’s All Just About Racial Hierarchy: the cruel simplicity of Trump’s foreign policy doctrine isn’t hard to decode. The two recent White House declarations on land rights lay bare a brutal, simple plan from Trump to explicitly tie racial identity to land rights around the world, declaring who deserves protection and who faces forced removal.
Favors resettlement of non-whites: In Gaza, he proposes immediate foreign “ownership” with total displacement of all Palestinians, framing it as a real estate development opportunity regardless of the past.
Opposes resettlement of whites: In South Africa, he condemns and cuts aid over laws allowing land redistribution because it would reduce historically unjust white male economic power.
These positions aren’t contradictory at all when viewed through the lens of preserving and expanding existing white power structures. They align perfectly because they ignore human rights entirely, it’s just about racism.
In Gaza, his proposal for American “ownership” and Palestinian displacement mirrors colonial practices – treating inhabited land as empty space ready for “development,” while dismissing the rights and existence of its current inhabitants. His vision of a “Riviera of the Middle East” requires first removing the Palestinians who live there, just as many colonial projects required removing indigenous populations.
The Riviera that he cites as his example emerged from and still reflects colonial extraction – a playground built on displaced communities and extracted wealth. His vision for Gaza follows this exact template: displacement first, playground for the powerful later.
To be clear, foreign ownership of Gaza by Americans reveals Trump’s ultimate vision of racial hierarchy. Netanyahu, in his shortsighted pursuit of power, fails to see how white supremacy eventually turns on all those it temporarily allies with. History shows repeatedly these alliances are always temporary – the hierarchy must always narrow, as evidenced by one Hitlerjugend’slater realization about the mass displacement program and genocide that she facilitated.
I became a National Socialist because the idea of the National Community inspired me… What I had never realized was the number of Germans who were not considered worthy to belong to this community.
If history means anything at all then Netanyahu, after he signs away all rights over Gaza to Trump’s imperialist shock troops, could expect to be put in front of their firing squad that removes all competition for power.
Netanyahu’s present overt alignment with American white supremacists very foolishly ignores they always expand targets of exclusion and would gladly push him into the sea next. Consider Netanyahu’s role in the assassination of an Israeli state leader, which eliminated democratic leadership based on extreme racial fears to provoke extra-judicial violence.
In the weeks before the assassination, Netanyahu, then head of the opposition, and other senior Likud members attended a right-wing political rally in Jerusalem where protesters branded Rabin a “traitor,” “murderer,” and “Nazi” for signing a peace agreement with the Palestinians earlier that year. He also marched in a Ra’anana protest as demonstrators behind him carried a mock coffin.
How does this not suggest that Trump easily could do the same to Netanyahu that Netanyahu did to Rabin?
The consistency of White House statements while meddling in foreign affairs carries a crystal clear pitch, the same exact whistle that Trump blows twice. It lies in non-whites being devalued, their land rights ignored or actively denied, and the non-white residents displaced. In South Africa, he opposes policies that would reduce white minority economic dominance established under colonialism. In Gaza, he proposes the exact same thing, supporting policies that would increase white minority economic dominance established under colonialism – displacing non-whites from their homeland.
Additionally, with South Africa, Trump makes racial hierarchy explicit by linking land reform there to the country’s stance against Israeli treatment of Palestinians, merging these issues into a single narrative about preserving white supremacist power structures globally. His fraudulent framing of South African justice as “discrimination” reveals the colonial mindset that treats any reduction in unjust power as persecution.
The White House barks that displacement is wrong when it affects powerful white groups, and also barks it is acceptable – even desirable – when targeting non-whites with less power. Such a coherence against human rights is historically patterned on Trump’s fetish for colonial – white supremacist – ideology about race determining whose land claims matter. When Trump decries “unjust racial discrimination” against whites in South Africa while proposing mass displacement in Gaza to develop an elitist beach resort for whites, he advocates toxic “blindness” to skin color – make America only see white again.
This is the dangerous core meaning of Trump’s campaign mantra being a heavy handed return to aggressive racist imperialism. Americans already are suffering under a foreign-obsessed regime has been rapidly and ruthlessly driven away from what, in the timeless words of Baldwin, it “must become”.
This is your home, my friend, do not be driven from it; great men have done great things here, and will again, and we can make America what America must become.
Despite the incredibly racist and difficult environment in California for American Chinese, they went to war for their country.
Though the memories are hazy after all this time, Margery Wong remembers 1944 like it was yesterday. When news came to her front door that her brother, then 20-year old, Sergeant Yuen Hop, was missing in action.
“He enlisted when he was about 18. I was probably about 12 years old. My dad was working in the orchards…and my mom…I think she took it pretty bad.”
Army Air Force Sgt. Yuen Hop’s plane had been shot down on a mission in Germany. Details at the time were slim.
[…]
About 20,000 Chinese Americans served in World War II, even despite the Chinese Exclusion Act.
“America First” (Nazi Americans) tried extremely hard to prevent these American Chinese from becoming citizens, and yet they still served with distinction and gave the ultimate sacrifice for America (killed by Nazi Germans).
Facebook was literally founded on stealing private images to abuse women, using a popularity pageant as pretext for public shaming.
Mark E. Zuckerberg ’06 said he was accused of breaching security, violating copyrights and violating individual privacy… Zuckerberg said that he was aware of the shortcomings of his site, and that he had not intended it to be seen by such a large number of students.
Yeah, ok Mark.
The bank robber didn’t expect the bank to see him rob it? Did he think he was Big Brother? All seeing, but never seen…
He setup a public website to watch and control women. We’re supposed to believe it wasn’t intended to be accountable from “such a large number of students” (meaning he thought his victims shouldn’t have a say in his abuse of them), as if that’s even a reasonable excuse?
When women of color at Harvard called out this privileged criminal’s dishonest disinformation tactics, Zuckerberg faced absolutely no consequences and instead grabbed himself a girl to ride off into Silicon Valley like a bro celebrity with millions of dollars in his pockets somehow.
But my best memory from Harvard was… I had just launched this prank website Facemash, and the ad board wanted to “see me”. Everyone thought I was going to get kicked out. My parents came to help me pack. My friends threw me a going away party… in what must be one of the all time romantic lines, I said [to a girl at the party]: “I’m going to get kicked out in three days, so we need to go on a date quickly.” Actually, any of you graduating can use that line. I didn’t end up getting kicked out — I did that to myself. …you could say [Facemash] was the most important thing I built in my time here.
Framing serious ethics violations as pranks while converting harm into personal gain didn’t just continue, it was rewarded by Harvard. The institution itself became an early investor into his bigger platform concept of capture and extraction of value from targets (especially women), setting a pattern that continues today.
Twenty years later, it seems things maybe are getting even worse, thanks to people like Joe Rogan. In his recent interview, Zuckerberg deployed a classic tactic of information warfare: reframing accountability for attacks as being persecuted.
“It really is a slippery slope,” Zuckerberg told Rogan, while expressing worry about “becoming this sort of decider of what is true in the world.”
By claiming Meta’s fact-checking was “something out of 1984” while invoking a “slippery slope” fallacy, he attempts to recast being in absolute control over his content moderation system as also being a victim of oppression by basic societal ethics (known since the 1700s as a system of inherited rights — law and order — that prevents tyrannical abuses).
His intentional self-contradiction is glaring. Every algorithm tweak and content policy is Zuckerberg actively deciding truth on his platform as evidenced by his own admission that he unilaterally was always “deciding truth” and overseeing all fact-checking.
Relationships were so frayed [by refusing to admit I was wrong] that within a year or so every single person on the management team was gone.
Zuckerberg’s rhetorical duplicity and sleight-of-hand becomes particularly stark alongside his dismantling of diversity programs and relaxation of hate speech policies. When faced with responsibility for egregious harm, Zuckerberg’s defense is as absurd as an industrial-era factory owner claiming coal restrictions would be on a slippery slope to “dangerously clean air” – it’s simply a privileged attempt to avoid accountability through childish fallacies for narrative control.
He may as well have said he was in danger of being run over by a unicorn that morning. There’s never a unicorn, there’s never a slippery slope – there’s only Zuckerberg intentionally facilitating widespread abuse of people with a big wink and a nod from someone who also rose to prominence promoting violence for profit.
The parallel is telling: Rogan got rich promoting consensual fights while Zuckerberg got rich exploiting non-consensual ones. Is it any wonder Rogan rolled over like a lapdog when Zuckerberg claimed he should face no external restrictions of any kind when aiming to profit from external harms?
a blog about the poetry of information security, since 1995
