April 16, 2014
the most important thing i learned from....decades....in school is the following:
if you're going to go to school with the purpose of doing something competitive with it (be that in employment or in academia), you have no option but to pick something you love to do. things may have been different in the past when the field was narrower, but nowadays living in north america means you're competing against two thirds of the planet for just about anything, and if you're not loving it then somebody else is going to mop the floor with you.
you might have a greater pure aptitude in the topic and in general. you might have higher test scores. you might be a harder worker, even. yet, if you're doing it for labour then the blunt reality is that you have no chance against the thousands of other people that do it for *fun*.
it's actually sort of an anarchist's ideal: the only kind of vocation any of us have any real chance in any more is what we'd love to be doing, anyways. the problem is that so few of us were raised with that mindset. we were told to do something we don't love because it is marketable (only to be outcompeted by somebody that loves it), or even to do something we loathe because it's profitable (only to run into the same problem). while that's happening, we're wasting developing skills doing things we enjoy, and getting behind those that figured this out.
if there are changes to immigration, or drastic improvements in living standard elsewhere, maybe it will once again make sense to tell your young, operatic nephew they'd be better off as a dentist. but, as it is, there's no deficit of kids that knew they wanted to be dentists when they were three years old and have spent their whole lives preparing, and the reality is that your nephew doesn't stand a fucking chance against them - he's really better off exploring his vocal chords.
i think that's a mass shift in social mindset that we need to have.
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
april 15, 2014
i have a lot of opposition to your concept of personal freedom. capitalism is a shitty way for people the world over to live because it abolishes personal freedom - both at the worker/slave level and at the consumer/bot level. a replacement order should be one where personal freedom is truly maximized. in fact, that was the whole point of the socialist program - we needed socialism precisely because industrial capitalism made liberalism impossible. but, i get your point. it just applies more to the co-modified capitalist ideal of "personal freedom" than it does to actual freedom.
besides that, i like your analogy. unfortunately, there isn't much to add to the debate. the thinking is long done. it's a question of action.
basically, oscar wilde said everything worth saying here:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/
1) civilization requires slaves. even engels admitted that this whole dictatorship of the proletariat thing was the best compromise available relative to nineteenth century technology. we need slaves, but if we make the slaves and the bosses the same thing then the slaves will hopefully be mistreated the least. that's communism, and it's not surprising that it hasn't worked (for all marx' talk of contradictions in capitalism, his solution was merely another one).
2) it's not the nineteenth century anymore. we can actually start building a lot of this stuff. we don't even have to talk about automating luxuries at this point. how about automating food? might it be the best way to solve the food crises we're facing, anyways?
3) we've consequently functionally eliminated the barrier to liberalism that marx and engels pointed out. if we can replace socialized production with automation, we can get on with building a free society.
but there's two reasons why this is going to require something as drastic as nuclear war or secretly starting a colony on another planet or something:
1) scarcity in food production is a weapon in the hands of the ruling class. they demand that breeding be roughly linearly proportional to productivity and the food be rewarded as compensation for forced labour. so, we get scarcity continually enforced as austerity, instead. they start off with this axiom with all the force they have, and they know they cannot maintain the existing system should the lie be exposed as what it is.
2) hierarchical socialism, which would cease to exist.
solution? eventually, the technology to abolish the contradiction between liberalism and industrialization will be cheap and easy enough to produce that it cannot be suppressed. it's all in the mode of production. it's all driven by technology. that's something marx was right about.
until then, the anti-capitalist (anarchism is the only real anti-capitalism) needs to adopt a strategy of avoidance. this is a highly personal thing. what does the individual despise about capitalism? how would the individual live on the other side of it? is there a way to scheme a path to an approximation of this existence? can small, shifting spaces be claimed temporarily so that it's migratory inhabitants can move from bubble to bubble? there's no way to overturn this, to reform it or to revolt against it. it's not a social choice, but a function of the technology. resistance is truly futile, until the technology is innovated upon. so, innovation is possible, but avoidance is the only real means of breaking free.
mass avoidance could raise awareness and temporarily bring the system down, but it can't change it. so long as the technology remains the same, what we call capitalism will recreate itself - because it is a function of the technology. avoidance as a revolutionary strategy could only bring us back to the dark ages, or further back. there's a primitivist strain of anarchism that understands and promotes this.
but if you're opposed to that, you're stuck waiting for the technology that can truly democratize production.
i have a lot of opposition to your concept of personal freedom. capitalism is a shitty way for people the world over to live because it abolishes personal freedom - both at the worker/slave level and at the consumer/bot level. a replacement order should be one where personal freedom is truly maximized. in fact, that was the whole point of the socialist program - we needed socialism precisely because industrial capitalism made liberalism impossible. but, i get your point. it just applies more to the co-modified capitalist ideal of "personal freedom" than it does to actual freedom.
besides that, i like your analogy. unfortunately, there isn't much to add to the debate. the thinking is long done. it's a question of action.
basically, oscar wilde said everything worth saying here:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/
1) civilization requires slaves. even engels admitted that this whole dictatorship of the proletariat thing was the best compromise available relative to nineteenth century technology. we need slaves, but if we make the slaves and the bosses the same thing then the slaves will hopefully be mistreated the least. that's communism, and it's not surprising that it hasn't worked (for all marx' talk of contradictions in capitalism, his solution was merely another one).
2) it's not the nineteenth century anymore. we can actually start building a lot of this stuff. we don't even have to talk about automating luxuries at this point. how about automating food? might it be the best way to solve the food crises we're facing, anyways?
3) we've consequently functionally eliminated the barrier to liberalism that marx and engels pointed out. if we can replace socialized production with automation, we can get on with building a free society.
but there's two reasons why this is going to require something as drastic as nuclear war or secretly starting a colony on another planet or something:
1) scarcity in food production is a weapon in the hands of the ruling class. they demand that breeding be roughly linearly proportional to productivity and the food be rewarded as compensation for forced labour. so, we get scarcity continually enforced as austerity, instead. they start off with this axiom with all the force they have, and they know they cannot maintain the existing system should the lie be exposed as what it is.
2) hierarchical socialism, which would cease to exist.
solution? eventually, the technology to abolish the contradiction between liberalism and industrialization will be cheap and easy enough to produce that it cannot be suppressed. it's all in the mode of production. it's all driven by technology. that's something marx was right about.
until then, the anti-capitalist (anarchism is the only real anti-capitalism) needs to adopt a strategy of avoidance. this is a highly personal thing. what does the individual despise about capitalism? how would the individual live on the other side of it? is there a way to scheme a path to an approximation of this existence? can small, shifting spaces be claimed temporarily so that it's migratory inhabitants can move from bubble to bubble? there's no way to overturn this, to reform it or to revolt against it. it's not a social choice, but a function of the technology. resistance is truly futile, until the technology is innovated upon. so, innovation is possible, but avoidance is the only real means of breaking free.
mass avoidance could raise awareness and temporarily bring the system down, but it can't change it. so long as the technology remains the same, what we call capitalism will recreate itself - because it is a function of the technology. avoidance as a revolutionary strategy could only bring us back to the dark ages, or further back. there's a primitivist strain of anarchism that understands and promotes this.
but if you're opposed to that, you're stuck waiting for the technology that can truly democratize production.
at
17:40
april 11, 2014
the way you actually ought to think of language is not as something inherent to self-determining peoples, or some other equally silly liberal nonsense, but as a kind of mark of ownership. you'll see states use it like this. it's basically the russian argument in this mess. they're claiming that the russian speakers are their property and they have right to protect it.
there's been a lot of talk of all kinds of nwo silliness, like inserting computer chips in people to take ownership of them. but, it's really largely unnecessary - it's just an evolution of the nation-state. why bother inserting a chip when they can teach a language and religion to children? it can't really be cheaper, and it's probably more likely to spur resistance. the id chip already exists, and it's your so-called "culture" - your language, your religion, your customs. these already turn people obedient and pliable. it's been how the state has used language and religion for centuries...
so, i can't help but snicker when i hear it from christians, especially, who don't seem to have the slightest clue that they're actually opposing what really amounts to a change in technology from one means of state control to another.
the way you actually ought to think of language is not as something inherent to self-determining peoples, or some other equally silly liberal nonsense, but as a kind of mark of ownership. you'll see states use it like this. it's basically the russian argument in this mess. they're claiming that the russian speakers are their property and they have right to protect it.
there's been a lot of talk of all kinds of nwo silliness, like inserting computer chips in people to take ownership of them. but, it's really largely unnecessary - it's just an evolution of the nation-state. why bother inserting a chip when they can teach a language and religion to children? it can't really be cheaper, and it's probably more likely to spur resistance. the id chip already exists, and it's your so-called "culture" - your language, your religion, your customs. these already turn people obedient and pliable. it's been how the state has used language and religion for centuries...
so, i can't help but snicker when i hear it from christians, especially, who don't seem to have the slightest clue that they're actually opposing what really amounts to a change in technology from one means of state control to another.
at
16:56
i'm going to say this one last time: julian assange has been living in an embassy for nearly five years, with essentially no unmonitored contact outside of it. i don't know whether he believes what he says or not. but, i don't think his analysis is very valuable.
what i suspect is that the cia played him as a patsy, and that he probably seriously thinks he had contact with a real whistleblower. let's take that step back and do the thought experiment...
if the cia (or the fsb, even) were going to feed information to assange, how would they do it? would they present themselves as cia (or fsb)? there are certain scenarios where either of them would impersonate the other, but not in this circumstance. if the cia (or fsb....) wanted to feed assange information, they would present it to him as coming from a disgruntled whistleblower. that is consequently what assange would think.
the point is not that assange is lying. the point is that nobody would ever tell him what's happening, and that the chances that he has any idea what's going on are consequently extremely remote.
there is of course also the possibility that he's come to love big brother, after all - no doubt as a consequence of some suggestive prodding. i find his choice of interviewer a little concerning.
but, he doesn't know who fed him the files or what they were trying to accomplish. and, you should not be tricked into thinking that he does.
what i suspect is that the cia played him as a patsy, and that he probably seriously thinks he had contact with a real whistleblower. let's take that step back and do the thought experiment...
if the cia (or the fsb, even) were going to feed information to assange, how would they do it? would they present themselves as cia (or fsb)? there are certain scenarios where either of them would impersonate the other, but not in this circumstance. if the cia (or fsb....) wanted to feed assange information, they would present it to him as coming from a disgruntled whistleblower. that is consequently what assange would think.
the point is not that assange is lying. the point is that nobody would ever tell him what's happening, and that the chances that he has any idea what's going on are consequently extremely remote.
there is of course also the possibility that he's come to love big brother, after all - no doubt as a consequence of some suggestive prodding. i find his choice of interviewer a little concerning.
but, he doesn't know who fed him the files or what they were trying to accomplish. and, you should not be tricked into thinking that he does.
at
16:09
Mar 27, 2014
you want to know why we can't have another cold war? because i can't find any decent recordings of rachmaninov. no, i don't want to listen to some asian child prodigy that can hit the notes but has no emotional investment because she lacks the maturity. i don't want to compete over who can do it better, either.
the best version i've heard of the second piano concerto (by far) is by the soviet orchestra, which i found as an import from france (you can keep your freedom fries) in a second hand store several years ago. it's nowhere to be found online. and, it's not hard to guess why. instead, we have versions by west germans, koreans, jews from chicago...WESTERN VERSIONS....
none of them compare to the soviet version.
what is important in life is not which set of bankers controls which oil rig. what is important is the ability to listen to high quality renditions of universally recognized russian classics. likewise, russians have an inalienable right to access american renditions of american jazz.
we have bitches brew, too. dmitri play trumpet through superior delay system. better quality big muff for vladimir's guitar.
it's not the same, dammit.
we need to put this into perspective before we revert back to that fucking bullshit all over again.
===
i agree with those arguing that she's butchering this. i've always interacted with the piece as a blaring romp, written by an emotionally insecure male that is releasing all of his anger and frustration. she's playing it in a soft and sensuous manner that invites a sultry lounge singer.
the notes are flawless, but there's just no rage or sadness or frustration in it.
i mean, maybe she's trying to sex it up. fine.
...but this really needs to be played by 40 year old virgins (ok, i'm exaggerating) to get the maximum feel out of it.
tl
+deathtokoalas your understanding of the composer's work is clearly limited if you think anything he wrote is devoid of lust or passion. also, wang's artistic conviction and integrity are what make her performance so remarkable. interpreting a piece in a way that deviates from the norm (or, in this case, your personal preference) is not indicative of poor musicianship.
jessica
+tl did i not point out that she played the piece flawlessly? but if you understand where the piece is coming from, and all the self-doubt and insecurity attached to it, you'll realize she's completely missing the point.
i mean, if i want to listen to shmaltzy, upper class nonsense i'll go listen to mozart or shostakovich or something. what makes rachmaninov special is the social anxiety in the writing. you take that away, and it's just another delve into aristocratic masturbation. there's plenty of that for those that want it, without needing to ruin that which stands away from it.
i kind of held back a little bit initially, but does she look to you like somebody that has ever experienced the kind of shit rachmaninov went through? young, beautiful, rich. she'd need a brain transplant to get her mind around this. it would be remarkable if she did understand this emotionally, that is as something more than notes on a page - which she does clearly understand quite well.
vj
eugh...welcome to music, blessed art it is, where each comes with their own interpretation.
jessica
+vj this is scored music, not jazz. personal contributions should be kept to an absolute minimum. the performer is a worthless intermediary between my ears and the composer's mind - a necessary evil. i don't care what she thinks.
vj
Scored music is still subject to interpretation (not talking about improvisation). Any two people will feel to play the same piece differently
jessica
+vj completely wrong liberal bullshit. if i want to listen to yuja wang, i'll listen to one of her compositions. i'm here to listen to rachmaninov. the moment she brings her individuality into the process is the moment she completely fucks up. you need to get your head out of this relativistic gallow before it comes down. there are correct and incorrect ways to play a piece.
i don't want to continue this into perpetuity, so i'm just going to be clear about the non-relativistic reality of things before i close off further comments.
there are two ways to perform a scored piece of music:
1) the way it was written
2) incorrectly
this slutty performance is not capturing the piece the way it was written. it's a "modern interpretation" that replaces the tortured soul of the piece with vapid and gratuitous sexuality. therefore, it's wrong. there's no further worthwhile debate on the point, unless you want to resort to the idiocy of "it's just your opinion".
it's not. and that decadent attitude is destroying our culture and our civilization.
out.
==
this is worse, he sounds bored through half of it. yeesh...
i have a version by the soviet symphony orchestra that owns everything i've seen online so far, but my discs are packed. i can't even find info online. fucking cold war, getting in the way of what really matters...
Concertos n°2 and n°3 (USSR Symphony Orchestra, feat. conductor: Gennady Provatorov, piano: Victor Eresko).
find that one if you want to hear somebody just bash this out.
xs
+deathtokoalas Or simply enjoy one of the best versions ever, by Earl Wild... but then again, we all like things differently.
jessica
+xs earl wild does not sound like a very russian name.
perhaps, you'd like to suggest a wonderful slavic folk version of 'the entertainer' while you're at it? grigorii does gershwin? on balalaika?
fucking hipsters.
==
no grit. and, look at 3:23: he's catching his breath? maybe his suit is too tight, and it's restricting his breathing. then he prances through the rest of it like it's some kind of gentle ballet...
this should be beaten down with every ounce of emotional and physical force that can be gathered, as though the police have shown up to steal your last ounce of vodka at 4:53 am and there's nothing you can do about it....
===
this is better, it seems to get the point better, but the playing is a little blurry (it sounds like he's using the sustain pedal to blur some of the notes he can't hit in the same way that electric guitarists use a distortion pedal), and the mix is pretty piano-heavy.
busted? lol...
====
ok, this sounds like a solid version. it's likely not coincidental that it's russian, but it does look like the whole concerto is up here.
so i was able to find a proper russian version on youtube, after all.
====
the orchestra sounds good, but she's just not hitting the piano hard enough.
eg
Does she need to pound the keys to mke the music? Maybe for you to hear the music.
jessica
+eg. this particular piece needs to be pounded, yes. bourgeois westerners that want to focus on masturbatory techniques have consistently failed to understand that for close to a hundred years. the russians grasp it properly...
go find a russian recording to hear it bashed out the way it's supposed to be, then come back.
russian name
+deathtokoalas amazing comeback statement-- kudos
vh
I hear nothing wrong with it. The notes are clear enough, and she plays with finesse - which is very hard to do on this piece, esp. the last movement.
jessica
+vh see, that's the problem - the finesse. this isn't a technical, subtle piece. it's a banger, meant to be played with all the bourgeois sophistication of "tutti frutti".
===
actually, rachmaninov and angst go well together. under 15, and it's just notes on a screen. but a little older than that is probably the ideal age to get this right.
she's hitting the keys with sufficient force. that's the big thing. and it's a russian thing, consistently. her western counterparts want to over-intellectualize and turn it into some dainty prance, rather than the noisy protopunk classic that it is.
i'm mildly relieved. i suppose that if we end up on the other side of some curtain, we can still rely on the former soviet states (and satellites) to play the russian classics for us properly, without having to endure westerners butchering them.
you want to know why we can't have another cold war? because i can't find any decent recordings of rachmaninov. no, i don't want to listen to some asian child prodigy that can hit the notes but has no emotional investment because she lacks the maturity. i don't want to compete over who can do it better, either.
the best version i've heard of the second piano concerto (by far) is by the soviet orchestra, which i found as an import from france (you can keep your freedom fries) in a second hand store several years ago. it's nowhere to be found online. and, it's not hard to guess why. instead, we have versions by west germans, koreans, jews from chicago...WESTERN VERSIONS....
none of them compare to the soviet version.
what is important in life is not which set of bankers controls which oil rig. what is important is the ability to listen to high quality renditions of universally recognized russian classics. likewise, russians have an inalienable right to access american renditions of american jazz.
we have bitches brew, too. dmitri play trumpet through superior delay system. better quality big muff for vladimir's guitar.
it's not the same, dammit.
we need to put this into perspective before we revert back to that fucking bullshit all over again.
===
i agree with those arguing that she's butchering this. i've always interacted with the piece as a blaring romp, written by an emotionally insecure male that is releasing all of his anger and frustration. she's playing it in a soft and sensuous manner that invites a sultry lounge singer.
the notes are flawless, but there's just no rage or sadness or frustration in it.
i mean, maybe she's trying to sex it up. fine.
...but this really needs to be played by 40 year old virgins (ok, i'm exaggerating) to get the maximum feel out of it.
tl
+deathtokoalas your understanding of the composer's work is clearly limited if you think anything he wrote is devoid of lust or passion. also, wang's artistic conviction and integrity are what make her performance so remarkable. interpreting a piece in a way that deviates from the norm (or, in this case, your personal preference) is not indicative of poor musicianship.
jessica
+tl did i not point out that she played the piece flawlessly? but if you understand where the piece is coming from, and all the self-doubt and insecurity attached to it, you'll realize she's completely missing the point.
i mean, if i want to listen to shmaltzy, upper class nonsense i'll go listen to mozart or shostakovich or something. what makes rachmaninov special is the social anxiety in the writing. you take that away, and it's just another delve into aristocratic masturbation. there's plenty of that for those that want it, without needing to ruin that which stands away from it.
i kind of held back a little bit initially, but does she look to you like somebody that has ever experienced the kind of shit rachmaninov went through? young, beautiful, rich. she'd need a brain transplant to get her mind around this. it would be remarkable if she did understand this emotionally, that is as something more than notes on a page - which she does clearly understand quite well.
vj
eugh...welcome to music, blessed art it is, where each comes with their own interpretation.
jessica
+vj this is scored music, not jazz. personal contributions should be kept to an absolute minimum. the performer is a worthless intermediary between my ears and the composer's mind - a necessary evil. i don't care what she thinks.
vj
Scored music is still subject to interpretation (not talking about improvisation). Any two people will feel to play the same piece differently
jessica
+vj completely wrong liberal bullshit. if i want to listen to yuja wang, i'll listen to one of her compositions. i'm here to listen to rachmaninov. the moment she brings her individuality into the process is the moment she completely fucks up. you need to get your head out of this relativistic gallow before it comes down. there are correct and incorrect ways to play a piece.
i don't want to continue this into perpetuity, so i'm just going to be clear about the non-relativistic reality of things before i close off further comments.
there are two ways to perform a scored piece of music:
1) the way it was written
2) incorrectly
this slutty performance is not capturing the piece the way it was written. it's a "modern interpretation" that replaces the tortured soul of the piece with vapid and gratuitous sexuality. therefore, it's wrong. there's no further worthwhile debate on the point, unless you want to resort to the idiocy of "it's just your opinion".
it's not. and that decadent attitude is destroying our culture and our civilization.
out.
==
this is worse, he sounds bored through half of it. yeesh...
i have a version by the soviet symphony orchestra that owns everything i've seen online so far, but my discs are packed. i can't even find info online. fucking cold war, getting in the way of what really matters...
Concertos n°2 and n°3 (USSR Symphony Orchestra, feat. conductor: Gennady Provatorov, piano: Victor Eresko).
find that one if you want to hear somebody just bash this out.
xs
+deathtokoalas Or simply enjoy one of the best versions ever, by Earl Wild... but then again, we all like things differently.
jessica
+xs earl wild does not sound like a very russian name.
perhaps, you'd like to suggest a wonderful slavic folk version of 'the entertainer' while you're at it? grigorii does gershwin? on balalaika?
fucking hipsters.
==
no grit. and, look at 3:23: he's catching his breath? maybe his suit is too tight, and it's restricting his breathing. then he prances through the rest of it like it's some kind of gentle ballet...
this should be beaten down with every ounce of emotional and physical force that can be gathered, as though the police have shown up to steal your last ounce of vodka at 4:53 am and there's nothing you can do about it....
===
this is better, it seems to get the point better, but the playing is a little blurry (it sounds like he's using the sustain pedal to blur some of the notes he can't hit in the same way that electric guitarists use a distortion pedal), and the mix is pretty piano-heavy.
busted? lol...
====
ok, this sounds like a solid version. it's likely not coincidental that it's russian, but it does look like the whole concerto is up here.
so i was able to find a proper russian version on youtube, after all.
====
the orchestra sounds good, but she's just not hitting the piano hard enough.
eg
Does she need to pound the keys to mke the music? Maybe for you to hear the music.
jessica
+eg. this particular piece needs to be pounded, yes. bourgeois westerners that want to focus on masturbatory techniques have consistently failed to understand that for close to a hundred years. the russians grasp it properly...
go find a russian recording to hear it bashed out the way it's supposed to be, then come back.
russian name
+deathtokoalas amazing comeback statement-- kudos
vh
I hear nothing wrong with it. The notes are clear enough, and she plays with finesse - which is very hard to do on this piece, esp. the last movement.
jessica
+vh see, that's the problem - the finesse. this isn't a technical, subtle piece. it's a banger, meant to be played with all the bourgeois sophistication of "tutti frutti".
===
actually, rachmaninov and angst go well together. under 15, and it's just notes on a screen. but a little older than that is probably the ideal age to get this right.
she's hitting the keys with sufficient force. that's the big thing. and it's a russian thing, consistently. her western counterparts want to over-intellectualize and turn it into some dainty prance, rather than the noisy protopunk classic that it is.
i'm mildly relieved. i suppose that if we end up on the other side of some curtain, we can still rely on the former soviet states (and satellites) to play the russian classics for us properly, without having to endure westerners butchering them.
at
14:18
mar 27, 2014
i couldn't condemn the russians for moving into poland or the baltics to dismantle that offensive weapons system before it comes up. the world might not really understand, but that falls under the rubric of self-defense in my estimation. it could actually prevent a catastrophe.
nato has a mutual defense clause, though. so, any invasion would have to be engineered to appear to be a local revolution, so as to not invoke the clause. crimea may be something of a model. it was so fast and smooth that it seemed to be a contingency plan. so, that's something to keep an eye out for.
one of the reasons the neo-con propaganda in iraq was effective was that the idea of preemptive war is indeed justifiable as self-defense. the problem was that the rhetoric didn't meet the reality. saddam wasn't building weapons. he wasn't a threat to anybody. russia, on the other hand, is coming up against the possible necessity to truly move preemptively. the united states is building weapons, and is a threat to the existence of russia.
that being said, i'm having a hard time taking the reports of an imminent russian invasion of eastern ukraine seriously. i'm just having a hard time imagining it, after so many years of russian complicity.
but i was speaking before about a pandora's box. the base in crimea is so strategically imperative that it is tempting to think of it exceptionally. eastern ukraine? not at all. there's some factories, but factories can be built elsewhere. if they move into ukraine, it will dispel all questions as to whether this box has opened, and it will signal russia's intent to shift strategies and aggressively move deep into europe.
...and it *is* america's fault. all of this militarization has created a situation where seeming russian acts of aggression are entirely rational, as they are rooted not in aggression but in defense.
americans do understand this, even if they don't immediately realize it. it's the same logic as the cuban missile crisis. again, people don't know about turkey, so for the sake of the example let's forget about it. how many americans would argue that kennedy should have just shrugged off missiles in cuba? how many would condemn preemptive action against cuba? so, how can they expect putin to just ignore this provocation?
i'm not trying to draw attention to the double standard. that much is obvious. i'm pointing out that if the americans don't change their policy, they are going to be held responsible by history for provoking the russians into a major conflict. at this point, abandoning the missile shield may be the only way to prevent that conflict.
but that will be determined by the severity of russia's next move.
i couldn't condemn the russians for moving into poland or the baltics to dismantle that offensive weapons system before it comes up. the world might not really understand, but that falls under the rubric of self-defense in my estimation. it could actually prevent a catastrophe.
nato has a mutual defense clause, though. so, any invasion would have to be engineered to appear to be a local revolution, so as to not invoke the clause. crimea may be something of a model. it was so fast and smooth that it seemed to be a contingency plan. so, that's something to keep an eye out for.
one of the reasons the neo-con propaganda in iraq was effective was that the idea of preemptive war is indeed justifiable as self-defense. the problem was that the rhetoric didn't meet the reality. saddam wasn't building weapons. he wasn't a threat to anybody. russia, on the other hand, is coming up against the possible necessity to truly move preemptively. the united states is building weapons, and is a threat to the existence of russia.
that being said, i'm having a hard time taking the reports of an imminent russian invasion of eastern ukraine seriously. i'm just having a hard time imagining it, after so many years of russian complicity.
but i was speaking before about a pandora's box. the base in crimea is so strategically imperative that it is tempting to think of it exceptionally. eastern ukraine? not at all. there's some factories, but factories can be built elsewhere. if they move into ukraine, it will dispel all questions as to whether this box has opened, and it will signal russia's intent to shift strategies and aggressively move deep into europe.
...and it *is* america's fault. all of this militarization has created a situation where seeming russian acts of aggression are entirely rational, as they are rooted not in aggression but in defense.
americans do understand this, even if they don't immediately realize it. it's the same logic as the cuban missile crisis. again, people don't know about turkey, so for the sake of the example let's forget about it. how many americans would argue that kennedy should have just shrugged off missiles in cuba? how many would condemn preemptive action against cuba? so, how can they expect putin to just ignore this provocation?
i'm not trying to draw attention to the double standard. that much is obvious. i'm pointing out that if the americans don't change their policy, they are going to be held responsible by history for provoking the russians into a major conflict. at this point, abandoning the missile shield may be the only way to prevent that conflict.
but that will be determined by the severity of russia's next move.
at
13:43
you know, i legitimately wish i understood why it is that self-identifying right-wingers (not conservatives per se, but right-wingers) seem to be attracted to what it is that i have to say, given that we have absolutely no commonality on policy at all. but, maybe i'm answering my own question: maybe these people are not actually interested in politics, but merely interested in the theatre around it. the fact that i'm an unabashed communist seems to be less important to these people than my liberal use of cursing. it's like they're angry about everything and nothing at the same time, and willing to identify with anything at all that rejects the status quo.
this is potentially as much of an opportunity as it is a threat. i have a small sample size, and my biases are obvious. but, it seems to me that you can get these people to rally around just about anything, so long as you use the right tone - that they aren't interested in job losses, or racism, or any other specific thing so much as they just enjoy getting worked up about something.
it's hard to square, otherwise. there is literally no overlap. but, i seem to attract them in ways i don't actually even want to.
this is potentially as much of an opportunity as it is a threat. i have a small sample size, and my biases are obvious. but, it seems to me that you can get these people to rally around just about anything, so long as you use the right tone - that they aren't interested in job losses, or racism, or any other specific thing so much as they just enjoy getting worked up about something.
it's hard to square, otherwise. there is literally no overlap. but, i seem to attract them in ways i don't actually even want to.
at
13:31
Monday, March 17, 2014
i've stated before that i have the mind of a 70 year-old woman in the body of a 12 year-old girl. but i was sort of joking.
it's not that strange for people to skip their childhood. childhood is really a social construction in the first place. the truth is it's the parents that won't let go of the innocence; in reality, most of the world is working at ten and reproducing at fifteen. keeping young people juvenile throughout their teens and even into their twenties requires huge amounts of biological and psychological suppression. rather than saying "i skipped childhood", the better idea might be "i escaped the christian cult's attempt to stunt my development to uphold their warped perceptions of purity".
but, i don't expect white liberals to lose their fantasy reality any time soon.
so, skipping childhood is common and normal; it's the idea of childhood that is perverted. but, skipping adulthood is really bizarre.
i mean skipping adulthood as a phase of life, rather than having any cultural affinity with people twice my age. the entire set of goals just seemed pointless to me. property? what for? vehicles? i'd prefer something more ecological. job? status? you know you're going to die, right? what's the point? partner? i prefer my independence and i need to spend most of my time alone, anyways - it's impossible for me to maintain a relationship with the need for that much alone time. children? i'd rather be paraded through downtown by my entrails than become a slave to my offspring, thank you.
it was the goals of retirement that appealed to me directly from childhood: time to read, a space to grow a garden and maybe a pet (at this point, though, i think pets are as much enslavement as children).
i mean, we have some pretty bizarre ideas of what an adult is in our society. the definition of an adult in our society is identical to that of a slave. then, we associate adulthood with freedom. 'cause freedom and slavery are the same thing, here.
but to just skip the entire phase of existence - the dominant phase, the defining phase - is something i'm having a hard time understanding in myself, even as it is crystal clear to me that it is true.
at
03:14
it's not that strange for people to skip their childhood. childhood is really a social construction in the first place. the truth is it's the parents that won't let go of the innocence; in reality, most of the world is working at ten and reproducing at fifteen. keeping young people juvenile throughout their teens and even into their twenties requires huge amounts of biological and psychological suppression. rather than saying "i skipped childhood", the better idea might be "i escaped the christian cult's attempt to stunt my development to uphold their warped perceptions of purity".
but, i don't expect white liberals to lose their fantasy reality any time soon.
so, skipping childhood is common and normal; it's the idea of childhood that is perverted. but, skipping adulthood is really bizarre.
i mean skipping adulthood as a phase of life, rather than having any cultural affinity with people twice my age. the entire set of goals just seemed pointless to me. property? what for? vehicles? i'd prefer something more ecological. job? status? you know you're going to die, right? what's the point? partner? i prefer my independence and i need to spend most of my time alone, anyways - it's impossible for me to maintain a relationship with the need for that much alone time. children? i'd rather be paraded through downtown by my entrails than become a slave to my offspring, thank you.
it was the goals of retirement that appealed to me directly from childhood: time to read, a space to grow a garden and maybe a pet (at this point, though, i think pets are as much enslavement as children).
i mean, we have some pretty bizarre ideas of what an adult is in our society. the definition of an adult in our society is identical to that of a slave. then, we associate adulthood with freedom. 'cause freedom and slavery are the same thing, here.
but to just skip the entire phase of existence - the dominant phase, the defining phase - is something i'm having a hard time understanding in myself, even as it is crystal clear to me that it is true.
at
07:15
i seem to have dropped the alter-reality, initially. it's there, now.
http://rssmix.com/u/8219500/rss.xml
http://rssmix.com/u/8219500/rss.xml
at
06:04
ok. so, i think he's pretty much crystal clear, here.
the company is being pr-savvy, given current public opinion, in tying the decision to invest in electric vehicles in michigan to the decision to not build the new plant in mexico. then, they're taking advantage of the news cycle to cash in on what is essentially free advertising.
they're getting the opportunity to speak in prime time slots on every news network in the country, and the opportunity to spin a policy as pro-american when they do. you can't dream of that kind of marketing exposure.
so, this is a smart pr move for ford.
but, i think it's pretty clear that these were independent decisions - and i think he's clear, here, on what is driving them: low demand for small fuel efficiency vehicles, and the reality that american (and canadian) workers are still superior when it comes to more complicated types of engineering.
if there's a positive in the announcement, it is in the idea that ford may be projecting more market demand for electric vehicles in the "small car" category. that production was never going to be in mexico, anyways....or at least not in the medium term.
the company is being pr-savvy, given current public opinion, in tying the decision to invest in electric vehicles in michigan to the decision to not build the new plant in mexico. then, they're taking advantage of the news cycle to cash in on what is essentially free advertising.
they're getting the opportunity to speak in prime time slots on every news network in the country, and the opportunity to spin a policy as pro-american when they do. you can't dream of that kind of marketing exposure.
so, this is a smart pr move for ford.
but, i think it's pretty clear that these were independent decisions - and i think he's clear, here, on what is driving them: low demand for small fuel efficiency vehicles, and the reality that american (and canadian) workers are still superior when it comes to more complicated types of engineering.
if there's a positive in the announcement, it is in the idea that ford may be projecting more market demand for electric vehicles in the "small car" category. that production was never going to be in mexico, anyways....or at least not in the medium term.
at
03:45
so, what he's saying is that they're planning on building less fuel efficient vehicles and more gas guzzlers, due to market demand.
great.
"but, jobs!"
ugh.
listen: if your life goal is to work in a car factory in order to procreate, then i consider you fucking pathetic.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/03/ford-ceo-main-reason-for-canceling-mexico-plant-was-market-demand-not-trump.html
that said, trump could potentially take more credit for this than the detractors are suggesting, if you factor in the premise that it's based on the projection that the market will be for less fuel efficiency due to lower gas prices as a consequence of policies to keep gas prices low.
but, as was the case with the call centres coming back due to increasing american xenophobia, this is not something i'd personally want to take credit for or something that trump should be proud of - although i'm sure he is, because the idea of a changing climate is just all a chinese plot, anyways.
more broadly speaking, it's a great example of the right's tendency to sacrifice everything on the altar of "job creation". it's regressive, in the long run.
great.
"but, jobs!"
ugh.
listen: if your life goal is to work in a car factory in order to procreate, then i consider you fucking pathetic.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/03/ford-ceo-main-reason-for-canceling-mexico-plant-was-market-demand-not-trump.html
that said, trump could potentially take more credit for this than the detractors are suggesting, if you factor in the premise that it's based on the projection that the market will be for less fuel efficiency due to lower gas prices as a consequence of policies to keep gas prices low.
but, as was the case with the call centres coming back due to increasing american xenophobia, this is not something i'd personally want to take credit for or something that trump should be proud of - although i'm sure he is, because the idea of a changing climate is just all a chinese plot, anyways.
more broadly speaking, it's a great example of the right's tendency to sacrifice everything on the altar of "job creation". it's regressive, in the long run.
at
03:04
i know that this is contrary to what a lot of "experts" will tell you, but you just have to look at desired outcomes to understand the difference. it's not a left-right thing, either.....well, i guess it is on the authoritarian axis, but that places the colloquial liberal on the right of the axis.
what do you want? do you want an ordered society, where people are deferential to authority and call it in to solve every single problem for them? then, listen to the "experts". that's what their advice is designed to create. but, realize that it makes you intellectually and emotionally dependent on a system of hierarchy that places you at the very bottom of it.
on the other hand, if you want a society of independent-minded, free-thinking people that don't need or want authority and desire to take matters into their own hands, then you should follow my advice.
what do you want? do you want an ordered society, where people are deferential to authority and call it in to solve every single problem for them? then, listen to the "experts". that's what their advice is designed to create. but, realize that it makes you intellectually and emotionally dependent on a system of hierarchy that places you at the very bottom of it.
on the other hand, if you want a society of independent-minded, free-thinking people that don't need or want authority and desire to take matters into their own hands, then you should follow my advice.
at
02:48
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm kind of an expert in dealing with bullies.
you need to throw it back in their face. you can't just match them, either, you have to escalate at every opportunity. and, you can't give them a chance, because they'll abuse it. you can't show any empathy - they'll just take it as weakness.
you'll find the odd masochist jock that isn't smart enough to develop a sense of self-worth and enjoys being berated because s/he sees the exchange as some kind of competition to win. these are the worst, but you have to win the competition. you might not particularly care for their respect, but getting it is the only way that they'll leave you alone.
for the rest of them, you have to aim to embarrass them and intimidate them into shutting the fuck up. you want to say the meanest, harshest things you can imagine. you want to go for the jugular and the crotch at the same time. and, you want them to walk out of the exchange so dazed and confused and shattered and broken that they'll never even look you in the eye again.
i don't like this. but i'm a realist. and it's reality.
you need to throw it back in their face. you can't just match them, either, you have to escalate at every opportunity. and, you can't give them a chance, because they'll abuse it. you can't show any empathy - they'll just take it as weakness.
you'll find the odd masochist jock that isn't smart enough to develop a sense of self-worth and enjoys being berated because s/he sees the exchange as some kind of competition to win. these are the worst, but you have to win the competition. you might not particularly care for their respect, but getting it is the only way that they'll leave you alone.
for the rest of them, you have to aim to embarrass them and intimidate them into shutting the fuck up. you want to say the meanest, harshest things you can imagine. you want to go for the jugular and the crotch at the same time. and, you want them to walk out of the exchange so dazed and confused and shattered and broken that they'll never even look you in the eye again.
i don't like this. but i'm a realist. and it's reality.
at
02:29
there are those that dream of things that never were, and ask why not? i look at things the way they are, and ask why?
at
01:33
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)