from the perspective of authenticity, the Macau Venetian and the Parisian are epitomes of inauthenticity— but they were never meant to be authentic. Just like the picture of the University of Macau on its welcoming board, they are meant to show a place in its best light— or more precisely, they are not supposed to show a place at all, but how a place is seen as being seen. They show profiles of places and do not pretend to do anything else.

Just as in the capitalist economy the poor need to be given the constant opportunity to spend the little money they have (so that this money can eventually make the rich richer), in profilicity the low profiles constantly need to be given the opportunity to spend their profilic power in evaluating the profiles of others. And the cycle is self- reinforcing. By citing Naomi Klein or Judith But- ler, we further their high profiles. And if we don’t cite people like them, we lower our profile even further by not being “in the discourse.”

To Naomi Klein’s credit, it should be noted that she is very much aware of and explicitly addresses the fact that the great public success of No Logo made it a logo, too. Moreover, it made Naomi Klein her “own brand,” no matter how much she may have tried to reject it

Paradoxically, under conditions of profilicity, any “successful” attack against it will only result in more profilicity.

In authenticity, one way of feeling especially unique is to self- identify as the genius unrecognized by the masses. One can feel content living authentically only if a few people realize authenticity; after all, everyone else is fake. These strategies don’t really work in profilicity. Your family members’ likes don’t really count, and the unseen profile is all but worthless. Just as in the capitalist economy, the profilicity lottery only increases the gap between those who are really successful and those who are not.