MC Pao arrogantly flaunts his 20 wives and billions: Omar Harfouch criticizes a television network that is far too complacent

The new darling of TV studios… It took MC Pao only a few days to go from anonymity to a rather astonishing omnipresence on television. The Italian billionaire Paolo Rotelli, or more precisely, heir to a colossal fortune, self-proclaimed rapper under the name MC Pao, is now everywhere. He provokes, recounts his fortune that fell into his lap, his lifestyle, his humiliating relationships with women, all without any real conviction, while the networks seem to be fighting to get their share of this new media phenomenon.

The problem, of course, isn't that he's a billionaire. Wealth is neither a disease nor a crime. I have nothing against entrepreneurs, the very wealthy, or those who are financially successful. But possessing billions doesn't automatically grant expertise in economics, politics, culture, history, or social issues, especially when it's inherited, which would warrant a bit more humility. What's striking about his pronouncements, however, is the ease with which wealth seems to equate with intellectual authority. And, even more so, it's the complete lack of critical distance.

"Without billionaires, there would be no Apple." Really?

MC Pao keeps repeating an idea on TV that deserves a real discussion: without billionaires, there would be no Apple, Uber, Deliveroo, Amazon , Tesla, or any of those other big companies. What surprises me isn't that he says it. What surprises me is that no one seems to address the substance of his argument. Because his reasoning completely reverses the relationship between capital and labor.

Apple doesn't exist because a billionaire single-handedly manufactured the iPhone. Amazon doesn't operate because a billionaire personally prepared millions of packages. Tesla doesn't produce its cars because Elon Musk became a factory worker. Uber and Deliveroo couldn't function without their drivers, delivery workers, engineers, developers, and everyone else who keeps these companies running every day.

Behind every great fortune, there is, first and foremost, an immense amount of human labor. Women and men who produce, develop, transport, sell… They are the ones who enable a company to generate revenue and profits. And it is precisely the concentration of a portion of this value in the form of capital, shares, and dividends that can make certain executives or shareholders billionaires.

Therefore, MC Pao's statement should almost be reversed completely: it is not "thanks to billionaires" that these companies exist; it is the companies and especially the work of those who run them that have produced the fortunes of the billionaires.

So yes, billionaires do "give" jobs to others. But the real question is how the wealth produced collectively is distributed between those who work and those who own capital. Because when employees work for wages that remain far below the economic value they help produce, while capital owners see their wealth skyrocket with the company's valuation, it becomes rather strange to claim that all the wealth comes from the billionaire. The billionaire owns a share of the wealth created by the economic system, but he doesn't create it alone.

20 women: where has equality gone?

Then came MC Pao's statement explaining that he lives with around twenty women, including a main partner with whom he has shared his life for 12 years. The video was also heavily promoted by W9 itself.

Legally speaking, let's be clear: living with multiple partners is not illegal in France . What is illegal is polygamous marriage. But the issue this statement raises is much broader than a simple legal question. It concerns the image of women that we choose to present to millions of television viewers.

French women did not obtain their freedom and equality overnight. They fought for generations to be able to study, work, control their own money, choose their own lives, decide on their sexuality, leave an abusive partner, access positions of responsibility, and no longer be considered the property of a man.

So, in this context, I simply ask one question: how can we allow the presentation of 20 women as a form of personal success, power or privilege to pass without any real contradiction, simply because the person speaking has billions?

I don't know these women. I don't know their private lives, and I certainly don't claim to know why they're with him. It would therefore be unfair to assume they're necessarily interested in his money. But what we can judge is the media spectacle itself and the message it conveys. A woman should never become an outward sign of wealth.

What if this speech had been given by another man?

It's impossible not to question the double standard this intervention could provoke. Just imagine a Muslim man appearing on a French television program and proudly declaring, "I have 20 partners ." One can easily imagine the media scandal that would ensue, the debates on polygamy, the status of women, Islam, integration, and the values ​​of the Republic. So why would this statement suddenly be acceptable simply because the person making it is Christian?

This is obviously not about making religion a criterion for judgment. Quite the opposite: the same principles must apply to everyone. What would be presented as an intolerable provocation in one person should not become a pleasant whim in another simply because they are a billionaire and have a different image. Individual freedom is the same for everyone. So is respect for women.

Where are the women on set?

This is where the silence of certain programs particularly strikes me. On Cyril Hanouna's show, Tout beau, tout n9uf , Géraldine Maillet, Valérie Bénaïm, and other commentators are part of the team that provides daily commentary on current events and social phenomena. Géraldine Maillet even spoke about MC Pao on another topic during the show, proof that she's one of those who worked directly with him on set. I don't want to attribute words to them that they didn't say, nor claim to know what was said off-air. But one question deserves to be asked: where is the contradiction in presenting women in this way? Why should we laugh at a situation that we would probably condemn in another context? Is it because he's rich? Because he's creating a buzz, because he can afford a private jet, a hotel costing 15,000 euros a night, and arrive on a silver platter with jewelry worth a fortune?

If a woman is presented as an accessory to male success, women themselves should be the first to be able to ask the question. And this doesn't mean they should condemn MC Pao's private life. It simply means they can remind everyone that women's empowerment isn't a secondary issue to be shelved when a billionaire enters the picture.

The billionaire is not the new philosopher of rap

Finally, there's the question of culture and music. MC Pao presents himself as a rapper, producer, and artist. I sincerely respect all creative people, and I respect rap as a true musical and literary culture. Rap ​​demands writing, rhythm, rhymes, structure, personality, and a genuine ability to make words flow into music. You can like or dislike an artist, but there is an artistic standard. To my ears, what I've heard from MC Pao lacks the musicality, poetry, or depth that would allow me to consider him an accomplished musician.

The real problem is television.

Ultimately, what bothers me most isn't even MC Pao. It's French television, so complacent and lacking in dissenting opinions. A billionaire's right to want to talk about his life, defend capitalism, rap, discuss his women, or show off his jewelry is his prerogative. But for an entire media system to transform these elements into a constant news event without consistently offering any serious counterpoint is far more troubling.

A television station worthy of the name should ask him what happens to the employees behind the billions in revenue. It should ask him what share of the wealth produced goes to labor and what share goes to capital. It should question him about the place of women in his discourse. It should ask him what exactly he means by "creating" a company and what role the thousands of people who make it run play. It should also be able to tell him that being a billionaire is not a general education degree.

With another election just months away, this responsibility is even more important. The French don't need to be taught to hate the rich. They need to understand how the economy really works, why some become immensely wealthy while others work without being able to make ends meet, and what responsibility the very wealthy have in this society.

France doesn't need a war against billionaires. Nor does it need a billionaire cult. It needs truth, debate, and moderation. Because the real danger isn't that a billionaire is rich. The real danger begins when their wealth allows them to buy something far more precious than jewelry, cars, or private jets: the silence of those who should be holding them accountable.