june 26, 2014
(edit: the only world leader that i've seen try to tie al qaeda to iran is netanyahu. which is not to suggest some kind of jewish conspiracy theory, so much as to suggest that the conservative party is contracting out it's intelligence services to some very poor sources; when netanyahu said it, harper seems to have believed it.)
it seems as though the conservatives may be planning to stage an attack before the next election.
anybody telling you that al qaeda is collaborating with iran neither understands al qaeda (who are violently opposed to shiite iran) nor iran (the idea that iran would launch a terrorist attack in canada is laughable). but, the sitting government doesn't have a lot of respect for your intelligence.
if they try it, make sure it backfires, eh?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/16/irans-anti-canada-rhetoric-has-officials-on-guard-for-possible-ottawa-area-terror-attacks/
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
june 20, 2014
(note: yes. cops showed up at my front door as a reaction to my facebook posts. what? how? and it's not like there's a lot of options, because i had recently moved to windsor from ottawa and literally not given anybody the address. my mom denied it. there is literally not another option.
.....except the undercover cops i met at occupy.
seriously.)
lol.
some cops showed up today to talk about my suicidal facebook messages. but, the context in the messages is very clear - i'm not currently suicidal. such an autonomous decision is dependent upon the outcome of the odsp evaluation in september. i was posting to prepare others for the eventuality. further, while i'm fairly certain of the outcome, i'm actually holding out hope that it will be extended. how can i be suicidal if i'm mutedly optimistic about the future, and merely planning for the worst case should it actualize?
i've already posted my logic.
it's always interesting explaining my coldly rational, detached perspective to people that seem to think they have the ability to magically project their desires onto reality.
but, you're giving up too soon! you're young!
it's not a question of giving up. that's a subjective perspective. i'm about analyzing data and coming to objective conclusions. my attitude doesn't affect the data, which clearly demonstrates that my chances of finding employment are exceedingly low. it has nothing to do with how i feel, it's just what the data states.
but, you haven't tried.
sure i have. that's how i built up my data set. why try further when the data projects a high probability of failure? it would be *this* behaviour that would be insane.
but that was in ottawa.
the conditions here are worse than in ottawa. that's why i moved here. it follows that i should spend even less time trying here.
you're just focusing on numbers and statistics, you just need to think positively and...
no. i need to focus on data. your arguments are not convincing, because you're not challenging the data, you're merely asking me to ignore it in favour of magical thinking.
*frown*
i tried to explain it, but they didn't get it. they did, however, convince me to allow a nurse to come later today to talk to me.
btw: the correct mathematical argument against my data-driven deductions is to question whether employment data is dependent. if each process is independent of the next, my conclusions collapse.
i think there is some argument for this. in fact, it even follows that if each process is independent then the probability of eventually finding a job approaches one (because any non-zero probability implies at least one success in infinitely many trials).
however, i'm convinced that the challenges are related to personal character traits, which makes each trial dependent on the last.
(note: yes. cops showed up at my front door as a reaction to my facebook posts. what? how? and it's not like there's a lot of options, because i had recently moved to windsor from ottawa and literally not given anybody the address. my mom denied it. there is literally not another option.
.....except the undercover cops i met at occupy.
seriously.)
lol.
some cops showed up today to talk about my suicidal facebook messages. but, the context in the messages is very clear - i'm not currently suicidal. such an autonomous decision is dependent upon the outcome of the odsp evaluation in september. i was posting to prepare others for the eventuality. further, while i'm fairly certain of the outcome, i'm actually holding out hope that it will be extended. how can i be suicidal if i'm mutedly optimistic about the future, and merely planning for the worst case should it actualize?
i've already posted my logic.
it's always interesting explaining my coldly rational, detached perspective to people that seem to think they have the ability to magically project their desires onto reality.
but, you're giving up too soon! you're young!
it's not a question of giving up. that's a subjective perspective. i'm about analyzing data and coming to objective conclusions. my attitude doesn't affect the data, which clearly demonstrates that my chances of finding employment are exceedingly low. it has nothing to do with how i feel, it's just what the data states.
but, you haven't tried.
sure i have. that's how i built up my data set. why try further when the data projects a high probability of failure? it would be *this* behaviour that would be insane.
but that was in ottawa.
the conditions here are worse than in ottawa. that's why i moved here. it follows that i should spend even less time trying here.
you're just focusing on numbers and statistics, you just need to think positively and...
no. i need to focus on data. your arguments are not convincing, because you're not challenging the data, you're merely asking me to ignore it in favour of magical thinking.
*frown*
i tried to explain it, but they didn't get it. they did, however, convince me to allow a nurse to come later today to talk to me.
btw: the correct mathematical argument against my data-driven deductions is to question whether employment data is dependent. if each process is independent of the next, my conclusions collapse.
i think there is some argument for this. in fact, it even follows that if each process is independent then the probability of eventually finding a job approaches one (because any non-zero probability implies at least one success in infinitely many trials).
however, i'm convinced that the challenges are related to personal character traits, which makes each trial dependent on the last.
i quit smoking one year ago. sort of, anyways. i've bought a handful of packs over the last year, either when i had set aside all nighters for drinking or i was going through my biyearly headclear. that's certainly a lot less than 350+ packs.
350*8 = $2800. $2800/12 = $233.33/month. so, $200+/month. where did it go? the answer is that i went to more concerts, and went to more expensive concerts. i also bought some new hardware. and, i bought a lot of cigarettes for $0.50 or $1.00 a piece.
but, after a year of social smoking, i'm taking the plunge. i made this choice at the detroit bus station in october, on the way to lansing to see touche amore: i'm going zero nicotine on jan 13th, 2017.
well, i've been smoke-free since the end of the headclear, which was on dec 26th this year. so, i'm already cold turkey over the last two weeks. this has been the norm for me for the last year: zero cigarettes for several weeks, then a binge for a night or maybe two, then zero for another several weeks, etc. so, nothing changes today or this week or probably even this month.
it will be in the spring that i'll have to face going to my first concert smoke-free.
but, this is it. it was a good year for me; i made a lot of progress in breaking habits. now, i need to spend the year finishing the job.
350*8 = $2800. $2800/12 = $233.33/month. so, $200+/month. where did it go? the answer is that i went to more concerts, and went to more expensive concerts. i also bought some new hardware. and, i bought a lot of cigarettes for $0.50 or $1.00 a piece.
but, after a year of social smoking, i'm taking the plunge. i made this choice at the detroit bus station in october, on the way to lansing to see touche amore: i'm going zero nicotine on jan 13th, 2017.
well, i've been smoke-free since the end of the headclear, which was on dec 26th this year. so, i'm already cold turkey over the last two weeks. this has been the norm for me for the last year: zero cigarettes for several weeks, then a binge for a night or maybe two, then zero for another several weeks, etc. so, nothing changes today or this week or probably even this month.
it will be in the spring that i'll have to face going to my first concert smoke-free.
but, this is it. it was a good year for me; i made a lot of progress in breaking habits. now, i need to spend the year finishing the job.
i just want to say something about the genocide/isis thing, though, because the conservatives used this tactic against him when he was running for prime minister (i can't remember what it was about...) and he responded the same way both times.
broadly speaking, an opposition member wouldn't ask that question unless it was meant as a sucker punch. and, it's obvious that it was meant as a sucker punch in context, too.
if somebody asks you this question: "is isis guilty of genocide?", you're going to run off some chain of mental logic that is along the lines of "isis....bad guys...genocide....bad...bad guys...bad things....yes.". so, you'd likely respond affirmatively pretty quickly.
but, in the mind of stephane dion - and in fact most academics - this is a legal accusation that requires evidence and due process. the question of whether isis is guilty of genocide or not is reduced to the question of whether they have been found guilty of genocide in a court of law, and after due process. the accusations may exist - wildly, i may add - but no process has ever occurred to determine the accuracy of them. so, in his mind, the most uncontroversial response is going to be the one with the least number of assumptions. and, surely, we can't have a canadian minister of foreign affairs libeling a foreign group before the process of establishing guilt has been carried out.
and, i ask you: what court of law has found isis guilty of genocide?
so, we run into this problem. where dion is technically correct, and is responding in the way that he would be expected to in the circles he exists within, the response is considered to be outrageous by the general public. how can he not know if isis is guilty of genocide? doesn't he watch tv? doesn't he understand the propaganda? why isn't he repeating it? what a fool!
but, what i wanted to draw attention to was the reality that he got suckered and may still not fully know it - because it happened (at least) twice.
broadly speaking, an opposition member wouldn't ask that question unless it was meant as a sucker punch. and, it's obvious that it was meant as a sucker punch in context, too.
if somebody asks you this question: "is isis guilty of genocide?", you're going to run off some chain of mental logic that is along the lines of "isis....bad guys...genocide....bad...bad guys...bad things....yes.". so, you'd likely respond affirmatively pretty quickly.
but, in the mind of stephane dion - and in fact most academics - this is a legal accusation that requires evidence and due process. the question of whether isis is guilty of genocide or not is reduced to the question of whether they have been found guilty of genocide in a court of law, and after due process. the accusations may exist - wildly, i may add - but no process has ever occurred to determine the accuracy of them. so, in his mind, the most uncontroversial response is going to be the one with the least number of assumptions. and, surely, we can't have a canadian minister of foreign affairs libeling a foreign group before the process of establishing guilt has been carried out.
and, i ask you: what court of law has found isis guilty of genocide?
so, we run into this problem. where dion is technically correct, and is responding in the way that he would be expected to in the circles he exists within, the response is considered to be outrageous by the general public. how can he not know if isis is guilty of genocide? doesn't he watch tv? doesn't he understand the propaganda? why isn't he repeating it? what a fool!
but, what i wanted to draw attention to was the reality that he got suckered and may still not fully know it - because it happened (at least) twice.
and, regarding trump getting blackmailed by russia? i obviously have no inside information.
but, i set down my narrative quite a while ago and it's unfolding more or less as i suggested it would.
0) of course, they had to get rid of sanders first. that was the primary imperative.
1) but, then, the deep state saw both candidates as national security threats, and preferred trump to clinton rather overwhelmingly - largely because they managed to get pence on the ticket.
2) so, they rigged the election for trump.
3) but, they did it in such a way (leaking documents and blaming it on russia) that they could take him down afterwards.
4) now that clinton and sanders are both defeated, they are taking trump down as was planned all along.
5) the ultimate goal is to install not just mike pence as president, but also ted cruz as vice president. it was ted cruz that was the deep state's real preference.
this will recreate a proper republican party, with conservatives all the way down.
i can't prove any of this. it's just built up on a combination of intuition and deductive reasoning. but, i keep being right about it.
i don't know if they want to impeach trump early, force him to stand down before or close to the 20th or even assassinate him.
but, i think that this is orchestrated - and that, this time, trump is right in his paranoid claims. i'll forgive you for not believing him. but, i'll plead with you to listen to what i'm saying.
but, i set down my narrative quite a while ago and it's unfolding more or less as i suggested it would.
0) of course, they had to get rid of sanders first. that was the primary imperative.
1) but, then, the deep state saw both candidates as national security threats, and preferred trump to clinton rather overwhelmingly - largely because they managed to get pence on the ticket.
2) so, they rigged the election for trump.
3) but, they did it in such a way (leaking documents and blaming it on russia) that they could take him down afterwards.
4) now that clinton and sanders are both defeated, they are taking trump down as was planned all along.
5) the ultimate goal is to install not just mike pence as president, but also ted cruz as vice president. it was ted cruz that was the deep state's real preference.
this will recreate a proper republican party, with conservatives all the way down.
i can't prove any of this. it's just built up on a combination of intuition and deductive reasoning. but, i keep being right about it.
i don't know if they want to impeach trump early, force him to stand down before or close to the 20th or even assassinate him.
but, i think that this is orchestrated - and that, this time, trump is right in his paranoid claims. i'll forgive you for not believing him. but, i'll plead with you to listen to what i'm saying.
i just want to...
i'm not mad about dion, or something. as though i knew him? of course, i didn't.
i'm surprised, but not mad. what i'm surprised about is the decision to offer him a position outside of parliament. but, i don't think that the prime minister was being snide when he pointed out that the ambassadorship to the eu is not an unimportant job, either.
i offer no opposition to the removal of the exact portfolio. frankly, it's not the job i would have given him to begin with, and for a lot of the reasons that are being presented in his removal. rather, i would have given him a technocratic domestic portfolio from the get go. and, when his name came up, it was where i was expecting him to be shuffled in to. i may have even offered him a position as a parliamentary secretary. these are where his strengths are, after all. his english is terrible, and he's horribly awkward, but he's brutally smart. you want this guy writing policy papers, not giving speeches.
maybe you can see why i like the guy? it's for all of the same reasons so many people hate him. i have a similar temperament and similar strengths and weaknesses. so, i found something inspiring in him, when so many people just saw him as a hapless nerd. and, i haven't been shy about my contempt for jocks, either.
again: i grasp that the point of sending him to the eu is that he's a political appointee. you don't send him to brussels to never hear from him. you send him to brussels so that brussels has a direct line to ottawa. i pointed out that the media hates him for the reasons i like him, so the way they're spinning it as a deep demotion was predictable. it isn't. it's a move sideways, and it will better utilize his strengths.
but, i'm still surprised at the decision to take him out of parliament. as mentioned: he has a lot of respect in the party, and it's well deserved. you want his input on policy, even if you don't want to let him speak to the crowd. so, i would not have expected that to have been in the list of contemplated options.
but, i'll acknowledge that he might be offering me the explanation in his reaction. that is to say that he might not have accepted the offer, or may have brought an unwelcome attitude in if he did.
i'm not mad about dion, or something. as though i knew him? of course, i didn't.
i'm surprised, but not mad. what i'm surprised about is the decision to offer him a position outside of parliament. but, i don't think that the prime minister was being snide when he pointed out that the ambassadorship to the eu is not an unimportant job, either.
i offer no opposition to the removal of the exact portfolio. frankly, it's not the job i would have given him to begin with, and for a lot of the reasons that are being presented in his removal. rather, i would have given him a technocratic domestic portfolio from the get go. and, when his name came up, it was where i was expecting him to be shuffled in to. i may have even offered him a position as a parliamentary secretary. these are where his strengths are, after all. his english is terrible, and he's horribly awkward, but he's brutally smart. you want this guy writing policy papers, not giving speeches.
maybe you can see why i like the guy? it's for all of the same reasons so many people hate him. i have a similar temperament and similar strengths and weaknesses. so, i found something inspiring in him, when so many people just saw him as a hapless nerd. and, i haven't been shy about my contempt for jocks, either.
again: i grasp that the point of sending him to the eu is that he's a political appointee. you don't send him to brussels to never hear from him. you send him to brussels so that brussels has a direct line to ottawa. i pointed out that the media hates him for the reasons i like him, so the way they're spinning it as a deep demotion was predictable. it isn't. it's a move sideways, and it will better utilize his strengths.
but, i'm still surprised at the decision to take him out of parliament. as mentioned: he has a lot of respect in the party, and it's well deserved. you want his input on policy, even if you don't want to let him speak to the crowd. so, i would not have expected that to have been in the list of contemplated options.
but, i'll acknowledge that he might be offering me the explanation in his reaction. that is to say that he might not have accepted the offer, or may have brought an unwelcome attitude in if he did.
most of my songs begin as conventional guitar songs before they get
ripped apart and demented into various abstract concoctions. that means
that a lot of my pieces have two different versions. i've always
deferred the raw guitar versions to eventual live performances, but i'm
at a space in life where i realize that these live performances are not
likely to ever materialize. so, i'm going to compile the live/guitar
versions of my larger pieces here.
it's unclear to me at this point where i will space this in my discography, but it will probably be around 2008.
it's unclear to me at this point where i will space this in my discography, but it will probably be around 2008.
Jun 12, 2014
what they don't realize is that they are liberals and what they think is liberalism is actually a type of right-wing populism pushed historically by the progressive party, often as a front for christian groups. liberals are all about free speech, free markets and individual rights. crucially, they're strongly in favour of a separation of church and state.
what these idiots have succeeded in is little more than to confuse people about words and concepts that they don't actually have a good understanding of. if you watch the show, you're left to conclude that liberals are a type of fundamentalist christian.
rather, a liberal is exactly what stone and parker are, and their target of ridicule is religiosity - bordering on what engels called utopian socialism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hriKiBbw3nU
what they don't realize is that they are liberals and what they think is liberalism is actually a type of right-wing populism pushed historically by the progressive party, often as a front for christian groups. liberals are all about free speech, free markets and individual rights. crucially, they're strongly in favour of a separation of church and state.
what these idiots have succeeded in is little more than to confuse people about words and concepts that they don't actually have a good understanding of. if you watch the show, you're left to conclude that liberals are a type of fundamentalist christian.
rather, a liberal is exactly what stone and parker are, and their target of ridicule is religiosity - bordering on what engels called utopian socialism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hriKiBbw3nU
june 12, 2014
it's actually fairly common here to see unifor banners paired with conservative party yard signs (you know the ones, they're standard across north america) on the lawns of upper middle class houses. unifor is the big auto/energy union. i've been aware of this connection for a while, but i kind of expected it to be an under the rug thing rather than something openly flaunted. it's surreal to see how normal it is.
it doesn't make sense on first glance, but it does when you work the politics out in more detail. big union members in southern ontario are very well paid. they're more worried about their taxes being too high then they are about their collective bargaining rights and their political choices reflect that economic comfort. it's no longer "the bosses are stealing my wages to live in luxury" but "the government is stealing my wages to distribute to the community". the difference in function is less important than the perceived lost wages, regardless of the comfort they live in.
nobody wants to talk about it, though. the conservatives don't want to risk losing one of their most effective attack mechanisms, so they keep attacking them. the ndp don't want to come off as utterly irrelevant, so they keep acting like they represent them. but it's all a charade...
there's an election today. i'm not voting. i do sometimes, i don't sometimes. for today, i'm in a relatively new riding and i simply don't know the local candidates or local issues well enough.
i don't expect much to change, though.
it's actually fairly common here to see unifor banners paired with conservative party yard signs (you know the ones, they're standard across north america) on the lawns of upper middle class houses. unifor is the big auto/energy union. i've been aware of this connection for a while, but i kind of expected it to be an under the rug thing rather than something openly flaunted. it's surreal to see how normal it is.
it doesn't make sense on first glance, but it does when you work the politics out in more detail. big union members in southern ontario are very well paid. they're more worried about their taxes being too high then they are about their collective bargaining rights and their political choices reflect that economic comfort. it's no longer "the bosses are stealing my wages to live in luxury" but "the government is stealing my wages to distribute to the community". the difference in function is less important than the perceived lost wages, regardless of the comfort they live in.
nobody wants to talk about it, though. the conservatives don't want to risk losing one of their most effective attack mechanisms, so they keep attacking them. the ndp don't want to come off as utterly irrelevant, so they keep acting like they represent them. but it's all a charade...
there's an election today. i'm not voting. i do sometimes, i don't sometimes. for today, i'm in a relatively new riding and i simply don't know the local candidates or local issues well enough.
i don't expect much to change, though.
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
0% means 0%. it's not a discussion. and, i decided quite some time ago that chasing collectors around wasn't worth my time.
the interest on my loan exceeds my disability payments.
i talked to them last in early
2016. i have no intention of contacting them again until 2021. and, when
i do, it will be to discuss options for default.
there is simply not another way forwards.
there is no punitive measure that they can take that is meaningful. and there are no steps that i can take for repayment.
the correct lesson is that they
should carry out greater due diligence; i should have never been given
the loan, because i should have never been expected to be able to repay
it.
that's correct: i am claiming that the responsibility for the default lies with the state.
and, i have better things to do than worry about it.
even if they were to take away
my disability altogether, it wouldn't help because i would become
ineligible for disability when i get evicted. and, then you've got
another mentally ill homeless person and are no closer to recouping the
loan. it would be pretty stupid.
i've filled out the forms, and
while they understand that i am permanently disabled, and agree that i
will never pay the loan, they claim that it cannot be forgiven because i
am not *severely* permanently disabled. i can only respond by pointing
out that this is severely stupid, and go do something else with my time.
i'm not joking. they agree
that i will never pay back the loan, because i'm permanently disabled.
explicitly. i have this in writing. but, despite agreeing that the loan
will never be repaid, they won't forgive it because i'm not "severely"
disabled. it is the most amazingly idiotic thing you could imagine.
or, maybe they're right: maybe
i'll be able to pay them back in five years after all. they'll find out
in five years. until then, i can't be bothered.
since i've moved to windsor, i've spent most of my time completing
existing recordings. but, i have put aside a few demos for later, too.
i'm just interested in sharing these, right now, so they'll be here for
streaming, only. i initially had a soundcloud site for this, but i want
to shut that down.
these tracks will eventually be moved out of this space, completed and placed on to singles, eps and lps for download.
these tracks will eventually be moved out of this space, completed and placed on to singles, eps and lps for download.
i think there's another reading of the shuffle out to the ambassadorships.
neither mccallum nor dion strike me as the type to work past retirement: they'll both be cashing in at 65. and, not a day later, either.
i mean, they'll be around. just not all day. and not every day.
mccallum will be past retirement in late 2019. dion will be a few months from it.
so, they'd probably both have left before or shortly after the next election.
they're also both in relatively safe seats. certainly, either by-election would be an upset if it went to another party.
we're not quite mid-mandate, but i suspect that the government would love to get a measure of the actual support on the ground. so, this is a way you can do that: you ask some people to step down a little early, and then you can run the by-election to figure out where you're sitting.
i'm not proposing that this is the only reason things happened. i'm proposing that it may be one of the reasons things happened.
neither mccallum nor dion strike me as the type to work past retirement: they'll both be cashing in at 65. and, not a day later, either.
i mean, they'll be around. just not all day. and not every day.
mccallum will be past retirement in late 2019. dion will be a few months from it.
so, they'd probably both have left before or shortly after the next election.
they're also both in relatively safe seats. certainly, either by-election would be an upset if it went to another party.
we're not quite mid-mandate, but i suspect that the government would love to get a measure of the actual support on the ground. so, this is a way you can do that: you ask some people to step down a little early, and then you can run the by-election to figure out where you're sitting.
i'm not proposing that this is the only reason things happened. i'm proposing that it may be one of the reasons things happened.
to be clear.
there's nobody on the conservative side i'd vote for, or at least not at the prime ministerial level. the ndp don't have many promising options, either. in fact, if it's down to a local riding choice, i really couldn't imagine voting for cheryl hardcastle.
i'm hoping that the greens step up soon.
right now, i think there's a good chance i won't vote at all in 2019. and, while this riding is probably not in play, that's the liberals' worst nightmare.
there's nobody on the conservative side i'd vote for, or at least not at the prime ministerial level. the ndp don't have many promising options, either. in fact, if it's down to a local riding choice, i really couldn't imagine voting for cheryl hardcastle.
i'm hoping that the greens step up soon.
right now, i think there's a good chance i won't vote at all in 2019. and, while this riding is probably not in play, that's the liberals' worst nightmare.
i'm not exaggerating.
look up quotes about nafta by people like pierre trudeau, jean chretien, lloyd axworthy, allan rock, sheila copps...
these people had a very clear analysis of the agreement, and their statements show great foresight in how it would unfold. i'm hard-pressed to think of a better example of such clear foresight. it's truly impressive. and it's horrific that the party has apparently almost wholly adopted their opponent's position on the topic, along with all of their inaccuracies and even their historical baggage.
look up quotes about nafta by people like pierre trudeau, jean chretien, lloyd axworthy, allan rock, sheila copps...
these people had a very clear analysis of the agreement, and their statements show great foresight in how it would unfold. i'm hard-pressed to think of a better example of such clear foresight. it's truly impressive. and it's horrific that the party has apparently almost wholly adopted their opponent's position on the topic, along with all of their inaccuracies and even their historical baggage.
the liberals should be gloating, right now. they should be reminding people that they never fully supported free trade. they should be reminding everybody that they were right.
instead, they're pretending to represent the legacy of the disastrous mulroney government.
it's scandalous. truly.
and it's foolish.
if they hold to it, it will be their undoing.
this isn't like clinton. they don't need to protect a legacy. they were right all along, they're just too stupid to realize it. and so instead of capitalizing off of it, they're going to let it drag them down.
instead, they're pretending to represent the legacy of the disastrous mulroney government.
it's scandalous. truly.
and it's foolish.
if they hold to it, it will be their undoing.
this isn't like clinton. they don't need to protect a legacy. they were right all along, they're just too stupid to realize it. and so instead of capitalizing off of it, they're going to let it drag them down.
but, after correctly being skeptical about free trade for decades, now all of a sudden they seem to want to be the champions of this dying global order. where they were once correct to hold to their principles, now they seem to want to be the last in the class to learn the lesson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FEW5mh7iAI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FEW5mh7iAI
it's actually very irritating to me.
this is the guy i voted for in the election:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/frank-schiller-is-liberal-candidate-in-windsor-tecumseh-1.3051691
and the reason i voted for him is that he was a very vocal opponent to nafta. he promised he'd work to renegotiate it.
he lost in this riding to the zombie ndp vote, which preferred a local councilor running a straight-from-head-office cookie-cutter campaign. the only independent position she seemed to hold was being anti-gmo.
i would normally lean ndp, but the difference in candidates was stark. he was very independent minded and said a lot of the things i was thinking. she just read memos from the ndp's politburo, except when she decided to be vocally opposed to science.
the liberals spent years and years campaigning against nafta, but i couldn't pull up any legacy of this in my mind. or at least nothing really explicit.
the guy i actually voted for would actually be exactly the right person to send to washington right now....
this is the guy i voted for in the election:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/frank-schiller-is-liberal-candidate-in-windsor-tecumseh-1.3051691
and the reason i voted for him is that he was a very vocal opponent to nafta. he promised he'd work to renegotiate it.
he lost in this riding to the zombie ndp vote, which preferred a local councilor running a straight-from-head-office cookie-cutter campaign. the only independent position she seemed to hold was being anti-gmo.
i would normally lean ndp, but the difference in candidates was stark. he was very independent minded and said a lot of the things i was thinking. she just read memos from the ndp's politburo, except when she decided to be vocally opposed to science.
the liberals spent years and years campaigning against nafta, but i couldn't pull up any legacy of this in my mind. or at least nothing really explicit.
the guy i actually voted for would actually be exactly the right person to send to washington right now....
so, this cabinet shift...
substantively, what he's done is move what are probably his two most capable and knowledgeable mps out of cabinet roles and into the civil service. you could look at this either way.
see, in canada, most of the actual work is bureaucratic. that's the actual reason why it takes a few years for a new government to do anything. the ministers can change the direction of things, but they are expected to ultimately be figureheads and ultimately defer to the authority of the bureaucrats. we're getting to the point now where things should be starting to spin in a less conservative direction.
so, you could argue that putting these two capable ministers (mccallum and dion) in the civil service is a better use of their talents. we're not yet sure where dion is going, but sending mccallum to china is certainly a boost of confidence, if nothing else.
but, you could also argue that these two capable and knowledgeable ministers are looking for a way out of a government that is leaning further to the right than they'd like. i'm very surprised that dion would decide to leave his riding - he may be being pushed out. and, that's a very ominous signal that trudeau is planning on swinging hard to the right.
it's unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected. they're going to have to learn the hard way that a world of open markets isn't the vision that canadians voted for, and isn't the vision that canadians want.
so, this actually doesn't appear to have anything to do with adjusting to trump at all. this appears to be about the trudeau government learning the wrong lessons from the election, and deciding to follow barack obama into the dustbin of history.
pity.
substantively, what he's done is move what are probably his two most capable and knowledgeable mps out of cabinet roles and into the civil service. you could look at this either way.
see, in canada, most of the actual work is bureaucratic. that's the actual reason why it takes a few years for a new government to do anything. the ministers can change the direction of things, but they are expected to ultimately be figureheads and ultimately defer to the authority of the bureaucrats. we're getting to the point now where things should be starting to spin in a less conservative direction.
so, you could argue that putting these two capable ministers (mccallum and dion) in the civil service is a better use of their talents. we're not yet sure where dion is going, but sending mccallum to china is certainly a boost of confidence, if nothing else.
but, you could also argue that these two capable and knowledgeable ministers are looking for a way out of a government that is leaning further to the right than they'd like. i'm very surprised that dion would decide to leave his riding - he may be being pushed out. and, that's a very ominous signal that trudeau is planning on swinging hard to the right.
it's unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected. they're going to have to learn the hard way that a world of open markets isn't the vision that canadians voted for, and isn't the vision that canadians want.
so, this actually doesn't appear to have anything to do with adjusting to trump at all. this appears to be about the trudeau government learning the wrong lessons from the election, and deciding to follow barack obama into the dustbin of history.
pity.
does free trade between canada and china make sense?
in a literal sense, not at all. an attempted free trade agreement with china - in literal terms - would create downward pressure on wages and living standards, because we cannot in good faith expect them to raise in a brutal dictatorship with minimal respect for human rights. free trade with the state-capitalist dictatorship in china is neither good nor bad but impossible.
this is different than a trade agreement with the united states, with europe, with australia or with japan.
but, a trade agreement with china that takes these concerns into consideration does make sense, so long as it explicitly ties the opening of markets to increasing labour standards.
my faith in the trudeau government's ability to put together a reasonable deal on this is both relatively high, in comparison to the other options, and pretty low, in absolute terms. this is an issue that needs to be tackled one way or another. we can't just decide to not deal with this. i'm likely to end up critical, perhaps extremely so, but i'd rather this guy is doing it than the other guy.
what i don't want to see is trudeau to come out swinging for some kind of dying neo-liberal order. that is tone deaf on every level - political suicide, and not in the national interest, either. it's not even reality any more, it's just delusional. magical thinking. there has to be some kind of serious push for increasing labour standards, and not as some kind of do-gooder progressivism but as hard-nosed economic realism. we'll get destroyed if we don't pay very close attention to this.
the neo-liberal order is dead. good riddance. let's adjust. we never liked it much, anyways.
in a literal sense, not at all. an attempted free trade agreement with china - in literal terms - would create downward pressure on wages and living standards, because we cannot in good faith expect them to raise in a brutal dictatorship with minimal respect for human rights. free trade with the state-capitalist dictatorship in china is neither good nor bad but impossible.
this is different than a trade agreement with the united states, with europe, with australia or with japan.
but, a trade agreement with china that takes these concerns into consideration does make sense, so long as it explicitly ties the opening of markets to increasing labour standards.
my faith in the trudeau government's ability to put together a reasonable deal on this is both relatively high, in comparison to the other options, and pretty low, in absolute terms. this is an issue that needs to be tackled one way or another. we can't just decide to not deal with this. i'm likely to end up critical, perhaps extremely so, but i'd rather this guy is doing it than the other guy.
what i don't want to see is trudeau to come out swinging for some kind of dying neo-liberal order. that is tone deaf on every level - political suicide, and not in the national interest, either. it's not even reality any more, it's just delusional. magical thinking. there has to be some kind of serious push for increasing labour standards, and not as some kind of do-gooder progressivism but as hard-nosed economic realism. we'll get destroyed if we don't pay very close attention to this.
the neo-liberal order is dead. good riddance. let's adjust. we never liked it much, anyways.
i don't have any problem with trudeau going on a christmas vacation, and he can go wherever he'd like, but i am a little unhappy about the premise of going on a cross-country campaign when parliament is in session and he should be governing.
i don't care at all whether he comes to my town or not, and i'm not going to vote based on his travel itinerary. but, my patience is getting a little thin regarding the slow pace of legislation.
so, there is some basis to the criticism that he's not working hard enough. they're apparently missing the point.
i don't care at all whether he comes to my town or not, and i'm not going to vote based on his travel itinerary. but, my patience is getting a little thin regarding the slow pace of legislation.
so, there is some basis to the criticism that he's not working hard enough. they're apparently missing the point.
Monday, January 9, 2017
great.
national security adviser? they should put her on healthcare.
i think that it's obvious that this is a media position. so long as she doesn't plagiarize her hair, i think she'll be ok.
but, it's just as obvious that you're not going to get a job in this administration unless you make it a priority to look like a pornographic actress. this isn't even about presentation. you are required to look trashy.
well, maybe it's not coincidental.
there are going to be sex scandals in this administration. that is obvious. perhaps more so than anything else.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/report-trump-national-security-pick-monica-crowley-plagiarized-her-ph-d-dissertation/
national security adviser? they should put her on healthcare.
i think that it's obvious that this is a media position. so long as she doesn't plagiarize her hair, i think she'll be ok.
but, it's just as obvious that you're not going to get a job in this administration unless you make it a priority to look like a pornographic actress. this isn't even about presentation. you are required to look trashy.
well, maybe it's not coincidental.
there are going to be sex scandals in this administration. that is obvious. perhaps more so than anything else.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/report-trump-national-security-pick-monica-crowley-plagiarized-her-ph-d-dissertation/
i may even argue that eventual re-nationalization is inevitable.
i don't care much for contracts or private property. i'd just pass a law that says it's ours now. so sorry, charlie.
but, there's ways to compensate them. you could buy the contracts out, for example.
you can do it now and try to save the government, or you can wait and do it later when people are that much more pissed off about it. it's going to happen, eventually.
i don't care much for contracts or private property. i'd just pass a law that says it's ours now. so sorry, charlie.
but, there's ways to compensate them. you could buy the contracts out, for example.
you can do it now and try to save the government, or you can wait and do it later when people are that much more pissed off about it. it's going to happen, eventually.
"There is relatively little the government can do to lower rates through
more lasting, structural means, mostly because the Liberals have tied up
so much of the system in 20-year contracts"
i'm in favour of forced nationalization, myself.
the article fails to mention that the province had a monopoly on energy generation until the conservatives dismantled it in the 90s. while the liberals could have done things differently, and demand would be a lot higher if we were using electric cars by now, it was the privatization under harris that is the actual cause of the problem.
if the problem is privatization then the solution is nationalization.
nor is this out of bounds. there's a new generation coming up, and they want nothing to do with the status quo. what they want is an explanation as to why we let them privatize our resources.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-does-electricity-cost-so-much-in-ontario/article33453270/
i'm in favour of forced nationalization, myself.
the article fails to mention that the province had a monopoly on energy generation until the conservatives dismantled it in the 90s. while the liberals could have done things differently, and demand would be a lot higher if we were using electric cars by now, it was the privatization under harris that is the actual cause of the problem.
if the problem is privatization then the solution is nationalization.
nor is this out of bounds. there's a new generation coming up, and they want nothing to do with the status quo. what they want is an explanation as to why we let them privatize our resources.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-does-electricity-cost-so-much-in-ontario/article33453270/
the media has a hate on for dion, but he's popular in his riding and
seems to legitimately enjoy being an mp. i don't recall a single media
source even mentioning him for cabinet, and then he lands one of the
most important roles. whether the media likes it or not, he's well
respected in the party and likely to continue to play a prominent role.
sending him to france may make the dipshits at ctv news happy, but i
can't imagine the party even contemplating it.
i'm hoping they turf jim carr.
you'll notice that a lot of the speculation is around women. this is a real concern, in adjusting to trump instead of clinton, although i'm not sure how best to approach it. i would also suspect that they're going to need to avoid sending certain types of minorities to washington for the next couple of years. it's realpolitik. and, i'm sure everybody can agree that it's better than getting ignored. that might mean that harjit sajjan could be in for a new role.
freeland will do well wherever you put her. but, i actually think that the best way to approach a reanalysis of nafta is to send somebody a little more left-leaning. i don't think that the uncritically pro-trade rhetoric is accurate when applied to either trudeau or the liberals; remember that freeland is on the right wing of the party. if we're getting a chance to open this up, i'd rather they send somebody with a more skeptical approach towards trade to do it. but, is there anybody still around or are they all gone, now?
http://ipolitics.ca/2017/01/09/freelands-the-one-to-watch-in-trudeau-cabinet-shuffle/
i'm hoping they turf jim carr.
you'll notice that a lot of the speculation is around women. this is a real concern, in adjusting to trump instead of clinton, although i'm not sure how best to approach it. i would also suspect that they're going to need to avoid sending certain types of minorities to washington for the next couple of years. it's realpolitik. and, i'm sure everybody can agree that it's better than getting ignored. that might mean that harjit sajjan could be in for a new role.
freeland will do well wherever you put her. but, i actually think that the best way to approach a reanalysis of nafta is to send somebody a little more left-leaning. i don't think that the uncritically pro-trade rhetoric is accurate when applied to either trudeau or the liberals; remember that freeland is on the right wing of the party. if we're getting a chance to open this up, i'd rather they send somebody with a more skeptical approach towards trade to do it. but, is there anybody still around or are they all gone, now?
http://ipolitics.ca/2017/01/09/freelands-the-one-to-watch-in-trudeau-cabinet-shuffle/
ok, good.
this is the only major liberal paper in the country - and they're not always all so liberal. but, we need this kind of thing from the media to give our side a bit of backbone.
i mean, sometimes you wonder where the media's allegiances lie, in this country. all they seem to care about is attacking the liberal party....
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/01/09/time-for-a-new-narrative-on-nafta.html
this is the only major liberal paper in the country - and they're not always all so liberal. but, we need this kind of thing from the media to give our side a bit of backbone.
i mean, sometimes you wonder where the media's allegiances lie, in this country. all they seem to care about is attacking the liberal party....
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/01/09/time-for-a-new-narrative-on-nafta.html
if we offer to pull out in exchange for concessions - we "make a deal" - that will probably give trump the leverage he needs for congress to pull out of the deal with mexico, or at least give him authority to renegotiate bilaterally, which is what he wants.
they don't listen to the kangaroo courts, anyways. it's strictly a tool of imperial control.
they don't listen to the kangaroo courts, anyways. it's strictly a tool of imperial control.
this is objective fact, by the way: corruption in mexico is off the charts and has been forever. various interests, mostly corporate, did not want to deal with mexican lawsuits. so, they set up an isds instead.
but, it turns out that all of the corruption in mexico hasn't hurt these corporate interests much, after all. rather, the rules have primarily been used to circumvent canadian law because the regulations are more strict and more in the public good. canada is the most sued country in the world. we've lost trillions.
if we didn't see that coming, we were stupid. and we should be actively fighting to get out of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Mexico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Canada
but, it turns out that all of the corruption in mexico hasn't hurt these corporate interests much, after all. rather, the rules have primarily been used to circumvent canadian law because the regulations are more strict and more in the public good. canada is the most sued country in the world. we've lost trillions.
if we didn't see that coming, we were stupid. and we should be actively fighting to get out of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Mexico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Canada
eliminating chapter 11 would be a massive populist victory for trudeau. don't let the media tell you otherwise.
has this been successful for canada? is it something we want?
again: the reason we're stuck in chapter 11 is because the mexican judiciary is corrupt. it's completely fucking batshit insane that we ever even considered this. we should jump at an opportunity out of it.
has this been successful for canada? is it something we want?
again: the reason we're stuck in chapter 11 is because the mexican judiciary is corrupt. it's completely fucking batshit insane that we ever even considered this. we should jump at an opportunity out of it.
well, one more thing.
the media coverage in canada - clueless as always - is giving donald trump a helping hand, here, in projecting the issue as off the table. if you just read the major newspapers, you're left to conclude that the americans have infinite leverage and we'll do whatever they want to keep the agreement.
it's bullshit. in their unwavering conservative bias, they're harming the country. again.
the actual reality is that nafta has never been popular here. the conservatives managed to split the vote in '88; in a direct plebiscite, it would have failed terribly. like, not even close. it would have been like 65-35 against free trade. but, we split the vote and it passed with a 40-30-30 split.
there are plenty of canadians that would love to see it go, including a substantial number of liberal voters and liberal party members.
i would call on the media to reflect this, in order to give canada a better negotiating position.
the media coverage in canada - clueless as always - is giving donald trump a helping hand, here, in projecting the issue as off the table. if you just read the major newspapers, you're left to conclude that the americans have infinite leverage and we'll do whatever they want to keep the agreement.
it's bullshit. in their unwavering conservative bias, they're harming the country. again.
the actual reality is that nafta has never been popular here. the conservatives managed to split the vote in '88; in a direct plebiscite, it would have failed terribly. like, not even close. it would have been like 65-35 against free trade. but, we split the vote and it passed with a 40-30-30 split.
there are plenty of canadians that would love to see it go, including a substantial number of liberal voters and liberal party members.
i would call on the media to reflect this, in order to give canada a better negotiating position.
that said, i will again point out that i do not expect donald trump to ask the senate to repeal nafta.
in the context of the us-canada relationship, nafta did not offer very many tangible differences on tariffs or trade. what it did was give foreign nationals power to circumvent our legal system, because mexico's judiciary is corrupt. and, the fact that we agreed to this is insane.
i know that this isn't why trump wants to tear it up (but, remember: this is a congressional responsibility, and the congress has bipartisan support for nafta). but it's something we should take advantage of.
i might even suggest that canada should offer to make a deal with the administration to unilaterally pull out, in exchange for concessions. trump could avoid congress, that way. it might be the only way it can get done.
in the context of the us-canada relationship, nafta did not offer very many tangible differences on tariffs or trade. what it did was give foreign nationals power to circumvent our legal system, because mexico's judiciary is corrupt. and, the fact that we agreed to this is insane.
i know that this isn't why trump wants to tear it up (but, remember: this is a congressional responsibility, and the congress has bipartisan support for nafta). but it's something we should take advantage of.
i might even suggest that canada should offer to make a deal with the administration to unilaterally pull out, in exchange for concessions. trump could avoid congress, that way. it might be the only way it can get done.
i'm going to say this one last time: if trump repeals nafta, a bilateral free trade agreement negotiated in the late 80s will kick into place. a nafta repeal will consequently have very little effect on cross-border trade. what it will do is remove chapter 11, which is a massive net positive to canada.
it is in the canadian national interest to encourage this repeal.
it is in the canadian national interest to encourage this repeal.
Sunday, January 8, 2017
i don't know if you caught that at the end, there.
how's this for a simple explanation: the reason venezuela has been dealing with crippling food shortages since the death of chavez is that food production actually remains under the control of american multinationals that would prefer to export for profit than sell to the local population, and that this is happening with the tacit support of maduro?
they talk of everything except what matters, which is that resources continue to flow in a one-way direction.
i stated this countless times when he was alive: what made chavez special was that he controlled the military. this is my realism burbling back up again, and as usual i don't like the reality it presents. but, this is both the reason he survived and the reason his reforms were partially successful. the threat of force was real.
it evaporated on his death.
how's this for a simple explanation: the reason venezuela has been dealing with crippling food shortages since the death of chavez is that food production actually remains under the control of american multinationals that would prefer to export for profit than sell to the local population, and that this is happening with the tacit support of maduro?
they talk of everything except what matters, which is that resources continue to flow in a one-way direction.
i stated this countless times when he was alive: what made chavez special was that he controlled the military. this is my realism burbling back up again, and as usual i don't like the reality it presents. but, this is both the reason he survived and the reason his reforms were partially successful. the threat of force was real.
it evaporated on his death.
jun 6, 2014
the united states was violently anti-socialist centuries before the russian revolution and remains violently anti-socialist today. cuba may not be a perfect utopia, but it has ideas about common ownership that the united states cannot and will not tolerate. this thinking of a "cold war mentality" does not understand the historical war of american landowners against common ownership, which is a struggle that exists independently of the struggle for hegemony over europe.
if the americans are in a "cold war mentality" with cuba, they were in that same mentality when they crushed land revolts in the eighteenth century and when they crushed the occupy protests a few years ago. even it's use during the cold war, and especially in latin america, was generally little more than a flimsy excuse to exert property rights by extreme force. this has nothing to do with democracy, with castro, with dissidents or with russia. it has to do with ideas that the american elite has never and will never coexist peacefully with because, if exported, they would pose a threat to their own power.
Kevin J 1 year ago
The US as a whole was not "violently anti-socialist centuries before the russian revolution." In fact, there was quite a lot of sympathy for the labor movement especially among immigrants but also in society at large. In many places around the country, socialists were elected to local and state governments throughout the late nineteenth and most of the twentieth century, even during the Cold War. The idea that socialism is somehow inherently un-American and has no native history here or is some sort of alien ideology is incorrect. I do agree with you that the elites in the US are definitely violently anti-socialist and that the US used anti-Communism during the Cold War as a flimsy excuse to intervene in the affairs of Latin American countries.
jessica 1 year ago (edited)
+Kevin J i apologize if i wasn't clear.
jessica 1 year ago
an early source of violently anti-socialist writing from a prominent member of the united states elite is in the writings of james madison.
jessica 1 year ago (edited)
this is probably the most insightful paragraph in all of the literature written in the period. madison is explaining why he prefers a system of devolved power (states' rights) rather than a centralized federal government.
"The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State."
that is, the entire system was designed to limit the cancer of socialism to a small area where it can be isolated and attacked. it's modular thinking. divide and conquer. and it's pretty smart, if you're a powerful landowner trying to prevent an actual revolution.
Kevin J 1 year ago
The thing is, socialism, in particular the Marxist variety, did not exist until after the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe, long after Madison's time. While French socialism has its roots in the French Revolution, it isn't really an actual force until after the 1830s. I'm just trying to suggest that your timeline is a bit off, that's all.
jessica 1 year ago
+Kevin J it would be difficult to speak of industrial age economic systems before the industrial revolution. marxism doesn't make any more sense in a pre-industrial society than it does in a post-industrial one. but, ideas of collective ownership can be traced very far back into history. there were crusades launched against socialists in france. you just have to understand that the economic systems were different, so they had different forms - as future (current, really) forms of socialism in a post-industrial reality will not have much in common with marxism. madison lived in an essential feudal society, which meant that the socialism of his period had to do with social ownership of land (farming co-operatives, essentially) rather than social ownership of production. when there were revolutions in this period (and there were.), that's what it had to do with.
it's actually quite relevant, as cuba is not a productive force and does not threaten to export worker ownership of factories. the threat that cuba poses is in the way that it organizes farming and land use in general, and the place that it poses a threat is in the rest of latin america, which is largely still under the boot of american plantations. even venezuela still exports well over half of the food it produces, and the united states is it's largest customer.
the united states was violently anti-socialist centuries before the russian revolution and remains violently anti-socialist today. cuba may not be a perfect utopia, but it has ideas about common ownership that the united states cannot and will not tolerate. this thinking of a "cold war mentality" does not understand the historical war of american landowners against common ownership, which is a struggle that exists independently of the struggle for hegemony over europe.
if the americans are in a "cold war mentality" with cuba, they were in that same mentality when they crushed land revolts in the eighteenth century and when they crushed the occupy protests a few years ago. even it's use during the cold war, and especially in latin america, was generally little more than a flimsy excuse to exert property rights by extreme force. this has nothing to do with democracy, with castro, with dissidents or with russia. it has to do with ideas that the american elite has never and will never coexist peacefully with because, if exported, they would pose a threat to their own power.
Kevin J 1 year ago
The US as a whole was not "violently anti-socialist centuries before the russian revolution." In fact, there was quite a lot of sympathy for the labor movement especially among immigrants but also in society at large. In many places around the country, socialists were elected to local and state governments throughout the late nineteenth and most of the twentieth century, even during the Cold War. The idea that socialism is somehow inherently un-American and has no native history here or is some sort of alien ideology is incorrect. I do agree with you that the elites in the US are definitely violently anti-socialist and that the US used anti-Communism during the Cold War as a flimsy excuse to intervene in the affairs of Latin American countries.
jessica 1 year ago (edited)
+Kevin J i apologize if i wasn't clear.
jessica 1 year ago
an early source of violently anti-socialist writing from a prominent member of the united states elite is in the writings of james madison.
jessica 1 year ago (edited)
this is probably the most insightful paragraph in all of the literature written in the period. madison is explaining why he prefers a system of devolved power (states' rights) rather than a centralized federal government.
"The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State."
that is, the entire system was designed to limit the cancer of socialism to a small area where it can be isolated and attacked. it's modular thinking. divide and conquer. and it's pretty smart, if you're a powerful landowner trying to prevent an actual revolution.
Kevin J 1 year ago
The thing is, socialism, in particular the Marxist variety, did not exist until after the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe, long after Madison's time. While French socialism has its roots in the French Revolution, it isn't really an actual force until after the 1830s. I'm just trying to suggest that your timeline is a bit off, that's all.
jessica 1 year ago
+Kevin J it would be difficult to speak of industrial age economic systems before the industrial revolution. marxism doesn't make any more sense in a pre-industrial society than it does in a post-industrial one. but, ideas of collective ownership can be traced very far back into history. there were crusades launched against socialists in france. you just have to understand that the economic systems were different, so they had different forms - as future (current, really) forms of socialism in a post-industrial reality will not have much in common with marxism. madison lived in an essential feudal society, which meant that the socialism of his period had to do with social ownership of land (farming co-operatives, essentially) rather than social ownership of production. when there were revolutions in this period (and there were.), that's what it had to do with.
it's actually quite relevant, as cuba is not a productive force and does not threaten to export worker ownership of factories. the threat that cuba poses is in the way that it organizes farming and land use in general, and the place that it poses a threat is in the rest of latin america, which is largely still under the boot of american plantations. even venezuela still exports well over half of the food it produces, and the united states is it's largest customer.
but, there's a lesson here:
this is how you get him. this is accidental. but he exposed just how
fucking hard-headed he is and how glaring of a weakness it is.
he seems like he's very easily
manipulated: you just have to go after his inflated ego with a trojan,
and you can take total control of his system through the backdoor.
had he just shut up about it,
nobody would be talking about a commission that may actually outlast not
just his time in office but his time left, in total. he could be
fighting this for the rest of his life.
as it is, he's walking into a
trap. and he could very well trip it and walk right past it before he
even knows he's been tricked.
the fact that they're comparing the proposed commission into russian hacking to the warren commission and 9/11 commission (for real...) should not be lost on anybody: those were both statist cover-ups.
so, yeah: trump is going to have to shut up, eventually.
but, this is a strange topic for him to admit he's wrong about, for the first time in his life. you give him the keys to the oval office, and the first thing he does is admit he's wrong for the first time in his entire 70 years? bullshit.
when he quiets down, it's not going to be because he changed his mind so much as it's going to be because he's going to understand the context better. specifically, he shouldn't want this commission to get going. it will drag on for years. so, he's going to have to shut up or face it.
so, yeah: trump is going to have to shut up, eventually.
but, this is a strange topic for him to admit he's wrong about, for the first time in his life. you give him the keys to the oval office, and the first thing he does is admit he's wrong for the first time in his entire 70 years? bullshit.
when he quiets down, it's not going to be because he changed his mind so much as it's going to be because he's going to understand the context better. specifically, he shouldn't want this commission to get going. it will drag on for years. so, he's going to have to shut up or face it.
i'm an atheistic communist that agrees with the pope pius that the term is incoherent.
to start with, that quote from matthew is really ironic, because marx' argument against christianity was always that it co-opted revolution by promising an afterlife. marx was very explicit: there can never be a real socialist revolution until workers discard the idea of an afterlife. this is not an isolated thread, either. it was picked up by bakunin and also by kropotkin. it was really the central tactical idea on the left: how to get workers to discard this idea of the afterlife that is preventing them from revolting.
these christian societies were never classless, either. they always had supreme leaders. they could never be described as leftist.
but the biggest problem with christian socialism is that socialism argues that morality is a consequence of the economy, itself a consequence of technology. this is the central philosophical idea in marxism: that the social order follows the economic order. so, it's literally impossible to be a christian and a socialist at the same time, as understanding socialism means undercutting the very basis of christianity as a religion: it didn't come from god, it came from the economy. and, it equally follows that it would be impossible for the future moral and social order to be christianity if this is true.
i know these people exist. but they've lost the plot somewhere. it really doesn't make any sense.
to start with, that quote from matthew is really ironic, because marx' argument against christianity was always that it co-opted revolution by promising an afterlife. marx was very explicit: there can never be a real socialist revolution until workers discard the idea of an afterlife. this is not an isolated thread, either. it was picked up by bakunin and also by kropotkin. it was really the central tactical idea on the left: how to get workers to discard this idea of the afterlife that is preventing them from revolting.
these christian societies were never classless, either. they always had supreme leaders. they could never be described as leftist.
but the biggest problem with christian socialism is that socialism argues that morality is a consequence of the economy, itself a consequence of technology. this is the central philosophical idea in marxism: that the social order follows the economic order. so, it's literally impossible to be a christian and a socialist at the same time, as understanding socialism means undercutting the very basis of christianity as a religion: it didn't come from god, it came from the economy. and, it equally follows that it would be impossible for the future moral and social order to be christianity if this is true.
i know these people exist. but they've lost the plot somewhere. it really doesn't make any sense.
what bothers me about trump isn't really his policies. i should quickly clarify: i mean relatively. it's not like i think clinton would have been much better. and, what the democrats in congress are broadcasting is that the direction they're going in might actually be worse.
in four years, we may find ourselves in the situation where we're stuck rationalizing that "at least trump doesn't want to start a war with russia."
what bothers me is the delusional level of optimism that's sprouting up - this idea that trump is somehow different. and, that's what i aim to target, primarily.
in four years, we may find ourselves in the situation where we're stuck rationalizing that "at least trump doesn't want to start a war with russia."
what bothers me is the delusional level of optimism that's sprouting up - this idea that trump is somehow different. and, that's what i aim to target, primarily.
this is the correct analysis:
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/06/underwhelming-intel-report-shows-need-for-congressional-investigation-of-dnc-hack/
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/06/underwhelming-intel-report-shows-need-for-congressional-investigation-of-dnc-hack/
no. stop. the evidence is in front of you. he's asking for $10 billion dollars, without any sort of serious costing. all professional estimates suggest it's going to cost more like ten times that to build an actual wall.
if he was serious, he would be staffing a committee to figure out how much it's going to cost - to start. obviously? but, he's not. because he's not serious.
10 billion dollars sounds like a lot of money to you or i. in the context of the american budget, it isn't. and all it's going to actually succeed in building - after many years of delays and waste, no doubt - is what i've described.
you can call him incompetent if you want, but in this case you're actually being deceived.
if he was serious, he would be staffing a committee to figure out how much it's going to cost - to start. obviously? but, he's not. because he's not serious.
10 billion dollars sounds like a lot of money to you or i. in the context of the american budget, it isn't. and all it's going to actually succeed in building - after many years of delays and waste, no doubt - is what i've described.
you can call him incompetent if you want, but in this case you're actually being deceived.
so, how is this going to work? what are they going to do?
i'd expect a kind of swiss cheese of border upgrades. they'll build a very small amount of wall in a very strategic location to allow for a photo op. and, trump will certainly keep telling you that he's building a wall, and then claim he succeeded in it, too.
kind of like "mission accomplished" in iraq....
then, ten years later, they'll do public opinion polling and 40%+ of people will think he built a wall.
i'd expect a kind of swiss cheese of border upgrades. they'll build a very small amount of wall in a very strategic location to allow for a photo op. and, trump will certainly keep telling you that he's building a wall, and then claim he succeeded in it, too.
kind of like "mission accomplished" in iraq....
then, ten years later, they'll do public opinion polling and 40%+ of people will think he built a wall.
it's not the cost that's the problem.
fwiw, i would support deficit spending for infrastructure projects. if they're going to build it, i'd prefer they build it with public funds than private funds.
so, not only is that not why they're not building it, but it's also not a reason i'd oppose it. it's actually a reason i'd support it; if you ignore the context of the scenario, it would actually be good for the economy.
the reason they're not building it is that it would cut off the flow of cheap migrant labour, which would be disastrous for the surrounding agricultural industries.
the banks that control donald trump don't want a wall. they want a porous border that is easy to get across - for the people they want to allow across.
there are just a lot of very stupid people out there that fell for a lot of very obviously contrived nonsense.
fwiw, i would support deficit spending for infrastructure projects. if they're going to build it, i'd prefer they build it with public funds than private funds.
so, not only is that not why they're not building it, but it's also not a reason i'd oppose it. it's actually a reason i'd support it; if you ignore the context of the scenario, it would actually be good for the economy.
the reason they're not building it is that it would cut off the flow of cheap migrant labour, which would be disastrous for the surrounding agricultural industries.
the banks that control donald trump don't want a wall. they want a porous border that is easy to get across - for the people they want to allow across.
there are just a lot of very stupid people out there that fell for a lot of very obviously contrived nonsense.
Saturday, January 7, 2017
"It is impermissible and foreign to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism to
elevate one person, to transform him into a superman possessing
supernatural characteristics akin to those of a god." - khrushchev, reacting to stalin's attempt to deify himself as a god-emperor.
stalin did not seek to abolish religion so much as he sought to create a new religion of russian nationalism, with himself as the titular head.
near the end, he demanded that russian citizens say prayers to his images. he oversaw a massive campaign to replace images of jesus with images of himself. orthodox christians would not just have their icons seized - they would also be given replacement icons that had stalin's likeness on them. and, they would be expected to pray on a schedule, just like the church had them pray.
meet the new god: same as the old god.
you want to understand this most easily through the prism of animal farm. we've all read this. we all get the idea that the socialists became capitalists. in the process, they became religionists, too.
this is an example of a prayer to stalin that was said by russian workers over their icons:
O great Stalin, O leader of the peoples,
Thou who broughtest man to birth.
Thou who fructifies the earth,
Thou who restorest to centuries,
Thou who makest bloom the spring,
Thou who makest vibrate the musical chords...
Thou, splendour of my spring, O thou,
Sun reflected by millions of hearts.
so, you want to avoid this argument that stalin was an atheist. he really wasn't.
stalin did not seek to abolish religion so much as he sought to create a new religion of russian nationalism, with himself as the titular head.
near the end, he demanded that russian citizens say prayers to his images. he oversaw a massive campaign to replace images of jesus with images of himself. orthodox christians would not just have their icons seized - they would also be given replacement icons that had stalin's likeness on them. and, they would be expected to pray on a schedule, just like the church had them pray.
meet the new god: same as the old god.
you want to understand this most easily through the prism of animal farm. we've all read this. we all get the idea that the socialists became capitalists. in the process, they became religionists, too.
this is an example of a prayer to stalin that was said by russian workers over their icons:
O great Stalin, O leader of the peoples,
Thou who broughtest man to birth.
Thou who fructifies the earth,
Thou who restorest to centuries,
Thou who makest bloom the spring,
Thou who makest vibrate the musical chords...
Thou, splendour of my spring, O thou,
Sun reflected by millions of hearts.
so, you want to avoid this argument that stalin was an atheist. he really wasn't.
may 28, 2014
o'reilly is legitimately standing at the end of a long line of human thought, but it doesn't necessarily have to do with religion. the crux of what o'reilly is saying is that people won't behave properly unless they have a fear of consequence. because o'reilly also wants small government, he pushes it off to a higher power to enforce the threat of consequence. but, there's a lot of problems with the whole approach.
to begin with, just because bill wants the bad guys to believe they're going to have to deal with god doesn't mean they're going to. because religion is so counter-intuitive, in order for it to really work as a disincentive it needs to be enforced from the top - by government, maybe, as was done by various christian churches in the past and is still enforced in islamic theocracies, or maybe by media, as is done more viably in the united states. so, it's just a hobbesian argument, in the end - and nothing to do with religion, itself.
but, what's worse is that a really moral person doesn't require the consequence. if you're only behaving because of the threat of consequence, you're not truly moral. his ends really don't follow from his strategy.
dawkins seems to generally realize that he's often debating with social engineers, rather than legitimately religious people. whatever sort of self-constraints he imposes on himself tend to neutralize his arguments. i wish he'd engage his opponents on the level they truly exist on, rather than the level they pretend they exist on.
o'reilly's argument here is actually a type of vulgar marxism.
i should actually clarify, because that term has been co-opted. when i use the term "vulgar marxism", what i refer to is when capitalists use marxist ideas in order to promote a capitalist agenda.
so, what o'reilly is saying is that he agrees with the marxist insight that religion is a tool of social control. he's then arguing that we need religion for precisely that reason.
i, on the other hand, am following through with the deconstruction.
dawkins understands this. he knows o'reilly is full of shit. but, he bites his tongue. and he does this all of the time. it drives me nuts.
o'reilly is legitimately standing at the end of a long line of human thought, but it doesn't necessarily have to do with religion. the crux of what o'reilly is saying is that people won't behave properly unless they have a fear of consequence. because o'reilly also wants small government, he pushes it off to a higher power to enforce the threat of consequence. but, there's a lot of problems with the whole approach.
to begin with, just because bill wants the bad guys to believe they're going to have to deal with god doesn't mean they're going to. because religion is so counter-intuitive, in order for it to really work as a disincentive it needs to be enforced from the top - by government, maybe, as was done by various christian churches in the past and is still enforced in islamic theocracies, or maybe by media, as is done more viably in the united states. so, it's just a hobbesian argument, in the end - and nothing to do with religion, itself.
but, what's worse is that a really moral person doesn't require the consequence. if you're only behaving because of the threat of consequence, you're not truly moral. his ends really don't follow from his strategy.
dawkins seems to generally realize that he's often debating with social engineers, rather than legitimately religious people. whatever sort of self-constraints he imposes on himself tend to neutralize his arguments. i wish he'd engage his opponents on the level they truly exist on, rather than the level they pretend they exist on.
o'reilly's argument here is actually a type of vulgar marxism.
i should actually clarify, because that term has been co-opted. when i use the term "vulgar marxism", what i refer to is when capitalists use marxist ideas in order to promote a capitalist agenda.
so, what o'reilly is saying is that he agrees with the marxist insight that religion is a tool of social control. he's then arguing that we need religion for precisely that reason.
i, on the other hand, am following through with the deconstruction.
dawkins understands this. he knows o'reilly is full of shit. but, he bites his tongue. and he does this all of the time. it drives me nuts.
this is a nice surprise...
he seems to be spending a lot of time working this record out. the original release date was late 1999.
he didn't release what he wanted. he didn't get the response that he wanted. i've commented previously that the whole process seems to have broken him, and he just hasn't been the same since.
revisiting this and working it through may take some more time. he shouldn't be rushed. let him do it.
but i'm probably letting on that i'm building some expectations, too. i'm fully cognizant of why he needs to do this - and why he knows it.
he seems to be spending a lot of time working this record out. the original release date was late 1999.
he didn't release what he wanted. he didn't get the response that he wanted. i've commented previously that the whole process seems to have broken him, and he just hasn't been the same since.
revisiting this and working it through may take some more time. he shouldn't be rushed. let him do it.
but i'm probably letting on that i'm building some expectations, too. i'm fully cognizant of why he needs to do this - and why he knows it.
it's the same thing with organized religion. my language towards religion is pretty violent, and if you're not paying close enough attention you might conclude that i'm some kind of evil nihilist or something. but, i think that religion should be abolished precisely because i think that it's evil - and that it makes us evil, in turn.
the point of abolishing religion is that it will eliminate a deeply immoral source of powerful coercion. i'm arguing that abolishing religion will make people less immoral.
so, not only am i not a nihilist, but i'm rejecting nietzsche's premise that the death of god will make us horrible. no. i think the death of god will make us more rational, and that will in turn make us better. god is the problem, not the solution.
the point of abolishing religion is that it will eliminate a deeply immoral source of powerful coercion. i'm arguing that abolishing religion will make people less immoral.
so, not only am i not a nihilist, but i'm rejecting nietzsche's premise that the death of god will make us horrible. no. i think the death of god will make us more rational, and that will in turn make us better. god is the problem, not the solution.
put another way, my interpretation of anarchism is not that people
should be left free to lie, but that the infrastructure of the state
should not be used to protect liars from the mob under the guise of
"individual rights". that process of censure should be allowed to
proceed, however violent it may or may not be.
right libertarians tend to get this backwards. they think that if you take the state out of the equation then there is nothing preventing them from lying for whatever profit or aim. they fail to realize that the status quo is such that the state actually protects them from the consequence of lying by erecting an immunity through rights legislation, and that if you take away these statist protections then they will have to face the consequences of their actions - which may be quite grim.
right libertarians tend to get this backwards. they think that if you take the state out of the equation then there is nothing preventing them from lying for whatever profit or aim. they fail to realize that the status quo is such that the state actually protects them from the consequence of lying by erecting an immunity through rights legislation, and that if you take away these statist protections then they will have to face the consequences of their actions - which may be quite grim.
i just want to quickly clarify my views on hate speech legislation and laws around speech, in general.
1) laws where the government orders that people cease communication are statist and authoritarian and bad. that's unconstitutional on both sides of the great lakes. the state should never dictate what can and cannot be said. ever.
2) but, remedies for libel and defamation are neither statist nor authoritarian, but ways to correct rights abuses. freedom of speech always comes with the caveat of being liable for the consequence of that speech. it never means that you can say what you want without further consideration. put another way, the freedom to speak comes with the obligation of speaking responsibly. i am consequently in full and enthusiastic support of civil and common law action. the canadian legal system seems to be far more willing to award damages than the american system is; i am more in agreement with canadian jurisprudence than i am with american jurisprudence.
so, to me, the proper anarchist rights balance is that the government ought to have essentially no say in the matter of banning or allowing speech, but that people should be hit brutally with harsh financial punishments and crippling boycotts when they behave dishonestly. it is through civil litigation that people should police themselves on this manner.
this is only going to appear as a contradiction to people that wish to profit off of lies. society has a right to protect itself from this, even as it rejects statist interference.
1) laws where the government orders that people cease communication are statist and authoritarian and bad. that's unconstitutional on both sides of the great lakes. the state should never dictate what can and cannot be said. ever.
2) but, remedies for libel and defamation are neither statist nor authoritarian, but ways to correct rights abuses. freedom of speech always comes with the caveat of being liable for the consequence of that speech. it never means that you can say what you want without further consideration. put another way, the freedom to speak comes with the obligation of speaking responsibly. i am consequently in full and enthusiastic support of civil and common law action. the canadian legal system seems to be far more willing to award damages than the american system is; i am more in agreement with canadian jurisprudence than i am with american jurisprudence.
so, to me, the proper anarchist rights balance is that the government ought to have essentially no say in the matter of banning or allowing speech, but that people should be hit brutally with harsh financial punishments and crippling boycotts when they behave dishonestly. it is through civil litigation that people should police themselves on this manner.
this is only going to appear as a contradiction to people that wish to profit off of lies. society has a right to protect itself from this, even as it rejects statist interference.
May 23, 2014
i just watched a little report on the national about how the robocall scandal never happened, and it was just blown out of proportion by the media. this was filmed after the government came out with a report indicating that they couldn't find evidence of the claims.
well, that's government investigating government, and i have reason to believe it's being covered up. how much of an effect it actually had is a more complicated question that i can't begin to try and answer.
however, i was working for one of the robocall firms on election day. it was a small office out of a tall building on elgin street in ottawa. i initially started working there doing opinion surveys as a student, but i found myself going back there between jobs because they were happy to have me back. i happen to have been rather good at getting people to answer the surveys (i guess it's a combination of being interesting enough to not hang up on and being a good troll), which is an obscure and sought after talent.
anyways, the nature of the firm changed over the five or so years i was in and out of it. they were initially doing overflow for ekos or doing a lot of government of canada surveys. over time, they started doing more and more surveys for conservative political candidates. for the last several months leading up to the election, they were pretty much campaigning for the conservative party.
some of the polls were pretty straight forward - which candidate in your riding do you support, followed by some demographics about age and income. some of them were a little less straight forward, and i had caught on that something was not right by the end of it.
for example, they were polling in helena guergis' riding, but they weren't refreshing the numbers. so, you'd have people calling the same numbers over and over again, supposedly on behalf of helena guergis. that's a good way to piss people off so that they don't want to vote for helena guergis, which is what the cpc wanted at the time.
i was taken off the phone on election day to do data entry, but i do distinctly recall the *owner* of the firm periodically repeating - and it was of the utmost importance to him - to NOT tell people there was a change in the riding, because the information was false. i didn't put it together at the time, but it seems like he was actually NOT wanting to commit voter fraud, no doubt to try and protect his business' reputation.
holinshed closed it's doors almost immediately after the election and has not resurfaced since.
the people on the phone were not robots, although they may have sounded like robots from time to time.
i just watched a little report on the national about how the robocall scandal never happened, and it was just blown out of proportion by the media. this was filmed after the government came out with a report indicating that they couldn't find evidence of the claims.
well, that's government investigating government, and i have reason to believe it's being covered up. how much of an effect it actually had is a more complicated question that i can't begin to try and answer.
however, i was working for one of the robocall firms on election day. it was a small office out of a tall building on elgin street in ottawa. i initially started working there doing opinion surveys as a student, but i found myself going back there between jobs because they were happy to have me back. i happen to have been rather good at getting people to answer the surveys (i guess it's a combination of being interesting enough to not hang up on and being a good troll), which is an obscure and sought after talent.
anyways, the nature of the firm changed over the five or so years i was in and out of it. they were initially doing overflow for ekos or doing a lot of government of canada surveys. over time, they started doing more and more surveys for conservative political candidates. for the last several months leading up to the election, they were pretty much campaigning for the conservative party.
some of the polls were pretty straight forward - which candidate in your riding do you support, followed by some demographics about age and income. some of them were a little less straight forward, and i had caught on that something was not right by the end of it.
for example, they were polling in helena guergis' riding, but they weren't refreshing the numbers. so, you'd have people calling the same numbers over and over again, supposedly on behalf of helena guergis. that's a good way to piss people off so that they don't want to vote for helena guergis, which is what the cpc wanted at the time.
i was taken off the phone on election day to do data entry, but i do distinctly recall the *owner* of the firm periodically repeating - and it was of the utmost importance to him - to NOT tell people there was a change in the riding, because the information was false. i didn't put it together at the time, but it seems like he was actually NOT wanting to commit voter fraud, no doubt to try and protect his business' reputation.
holinshed closed it's doors almost immediately after the election and has not resurfaced since.
the people on the phone were not robots, although they may have sounded like robots from time to time.
May 16, 2014
if you accept all (or some) of the reasons that states are inherently corrupt and driven by the interests of those that control them (capital, today), how can you be so naive as to think that international law will ever be upheld for any reason?
fucking liberals.
can somebody give me ONE example where an empire said "gee, we shouldn't invade this area and steal it's resources. it's written here in international law."
one?
no?
didn't think so.
law requires enforcement. that's how it is. and who polices the police?
so, instead of flailing around these worthless pieces of paper, i propose that we collectively grasp the situation, realize this order has failed us, throw the laws nobody follows out the window and start building a new order instead.
if you accept all (or some) of the reasons that states are inherently corrupt and driven by the interests of those that control them (capital, today), how can you be so naive as to think that international law will ever be upheld for any reason?
fucking liberals.
can somebody give me ONE example where an empire said "gee, we shouldn't invade this area and steal it's resources. it's written here in international law."
one?
no?
didn't think so.
law requires enforcement. that's how it is. and who polices the police?
so, instead of flailing around these worthless pieces of paper, i propose that we collectively grasp the situation, realize this order has failed us, throw the laws nobody follows out the window and start building a new order instead.
may 16, 2014
it's really pretty sad just what level of effort people perceive is being put into this. the writing in this profile is largely stream of consciousness. i'll go back to correct spelling or modify sentence structures to eliminate underlying assumptions in the writing that only make sense to me, but what you're reading here is otherwise completely raw.
so, how do you approach somebody accusing you of using a thesaurus? this is shit i'm pumping out in a few minutes per post. so, when the false assumptions are stripped out, that must be a suggestion that i have an advanced vocabulary, which i actually think is not at all true - i think it's obvious that i graduated high school and have read a few books since but i wouldn't suggest that much beyond that stands out in what i'm presenting here. nor would i want it to. i fucking hate pretentious blowhards. here's a startling fact: over the approximately ten years that i spent in university i went to zero parties and made zero friends that i stayed in contact with outside of the scholastic context. the hate was really mutual, actually. it wasn't somewhere i fit into. at all.
for the first few years, i greatly preferred hanging out in the projects near my parents house, with dropouts and hustlers. then i spent a few years hanging out with street artists and ravers, followed by a few years of complete lonerism and then a few years with occupy kids before i went back to being a complete loner. i've never been or ever wanted to be the elitist educated kid. that's really a very bad way to interpret this. yet, it is also unfortunately a very bad reflection of the public education system when somebody of no meaningfully advanced education that is just scrawling out thoughts as they come up is viewed as writing carefully presented essays and agonizing over every word in them...
i always knew i would be fucking miserable in the life of an academic, but i was balancing it off against other ways to be fucking miserable. in hindsight? i regret wasting my time with it. but, i can't say i ever had a lot of choice: the alternative that was presented to me was pretty shitty, too.
there were several years when taking student loan money was literally the only way that i could pay my rent, because i wasn't able to get a job in a coffee shop or fast food restaurant.
"so, why did you go to graduate school?"
"because mcdonald's wouldn't call me back. white, unfortunately."
"oh."
"the rent just keeps coming, y'know? every fucking month. never stops. the student loans are a steady pay check for somebody that can't find work."
"why not just try welfare?"
"well, that would be better. i could do what i want instead of studying shit i don't care about. but, welfare is something like half of student loan money. it's not enough to pay the bastards. if it was, i'd go for it."
"oh. disability?"
"well, i don't have one, far as i can tell."
today, i do live on disability. but the diagnosis is pretty weak. it's something i have to do this summer, actually - get a better diagnosis. i don't know what fits best. schizophrenia. bi polar. something like that....
TheVanillatech
3 Oct 2014
Why? I know 4 months but why?
jessica
3 Oct 2014
+TheVanillatech
this post was to google, rather than youtube. it's just all cross-posted.
TheVanillatech
3 Oct 2014
+deathtokoalas
Still, why..... XD
jessica
3 Oct 2014
+TheVanillatech
i've been posting a lot to google over the last few months. i guess i have an internet addiction; before i was posting to google, i was posting to facebook, and before that i was all over the cbc (canadian state run media), and before that i was all over mailing lists and newsgroups...
but i've moved to youtube in an attempt to promote the music i've been spending more time with over the last few months.
i'm constantly being accused of being one of them no good book lerners. i've had dozens of people accuse me of sitting in front of my laptop with thesaurus.com open.
it's ridiculous. and false. but interesting. just reflecting.
(edit: feb 11, 2016…
re that last re-post.
the flip side of what some people call white privilege is an equally valid concept that one could refer to as white obligation. not the white man's burden, that's not what i mean...
never mind that i'm not really actually white. it's less than 50%, anyways. but i look white, so i'm stuck with this annoying white obligation whether i like it or not.
what white obligation states is that i'm not allowed to be an economic loser - i have an obligation to take my place in a hierarchy and live up to a set of contrived expectations. it doesn't matter that i don't at all care or have any remote interest in climbing up any kind of hierarchy. it doesn't matter that i'd rather invest my energy towards economically useless behaviour. due to my skin colour, i'm basically forbidden to work a shitty job. i'm expected to go to university and get a middle class job that i don't care about, whether i like it or not. a life of apathy and low-investment labour is verbotten, as it is beneath me on the hierarchy of expectations. so, mcdonalds will not call me back, no matter how many times i apply (and i've applied many times). further, economists and politicians will then claim that i do not want to work at mcdonalds - because i'm too privileged.
the system will allow me to take out absurdly large loans, and then place me on disability when i fail out of disinterest. but, it will not allow me to work below my racial potential. and, for me, that's equally enslaving.
i've come to care less and less as i've aged. but, i'm at the point where i no longer remotely care. if the system tried to force me into some kind of workfare, i'd walk into work drunk, spit in the boss' face, urinate on the cash register - it would be horrific. but, there was a time when i was happy enough to work a crappy job - if i'd only be allowed to.
it was the emotional investment and time expenditure required to hold a middle class job that i strenuously rejected.)
it's really pretty sad just what level of effort people perceive is being put into this. the writing in this profile is largely stream of consciousness. i'll go back to correct spelling or modify sentence structures to eliminate underlying assumptions in the writing that only make sense to me, but what you're reading here is otherwise completely raw.
so, how do you approach somebody accusing you of using a thesaurus? this is shit i'm pumping out in a few minutes per post. so, when the false assumptions are stripped out, that must be a suggestion that i have an advanced vocabulary, which i actually think is not at all true - i think it's obvious that i graduated high school and have read a few books since but i wouldn't suggest that much beyond that stands out in what i'm presenting here. nor would i want it to. i fucking hate pretentious blowhards. here's a startling fact: over the approximately ten years that i spent in university i went to zero parties and made zero friends that i stayed in contact with outside of the scholastic context. the hate was really mutual, actually. it wasn't somewhere i fit into. at all.
for the first few years, i greatly preferred hanging out in the projects near my parents house, with dropouts and hustlers. then i spent a few years hanging out with street artists and ravers, followed by a few years of complete lonerism and then a few years with occupy kids before i went back to being a complete loner. i've never been or ever wanted to be the elitist educated kid. that's really a very bad way to interpret this. yet, it is also unfortunately a very bad reflection of the public education system when somebody of no meaningfully advanced education that is just scrawling out thoughts as they come up is viewed as writing carefully presented essays and agonizing over every word in them...
i always knew i would be fucking miserable in the life of an academic, but i was balancing it off against other ways to be fucking miserable. in hindsight? i regret wasting my time with it. but, i can't say i ever had a lot of choice: the alternative that was presented to me was pretty shitty, too.
there were several years when taking student loan money was literally the only way that i could pay my rent, because i wasn't able to get a job in a coffee shop or fast food restaurant.
"so, why did you go to graduate school?"
"because mcdonald's wouldn't call me back. white, unfortunately."
"oh."
"the rent just keeps coming, y'know? every fucking month. never stops. the student loans are a steady pay check for somebody that can't find work."
"why not just try welfare?"
"well, that would be better. i could do what i want instead of studying shit i don't care about. but, welfare is something like half of student loan money. it's not enough to pay the bastards. if it was, i'd go for it."
"oh. disability?"
"well, i don't have one, far as i can tell."
today, i do live on disability. but the diagnosis is pretty weak. it's something i have to do this summer, actually - get a better diagnosis. i don't know what fits best. schizophrenia. bi polar. something like that....
TheVanillatech
3 Oct 2014
Why? I know 4 months but why?
jessica
3 Oct 2014
+TheVanillatech
this post was to google, rather than youtube. it's just all cross-posted.
TheVanillatech
3 Oct 2014
+deathtokoalas
Still, why..... XD
jessica
3 Oct 2014
+TheVanillatech
i've been posting a lot to google over the last few months. i guess i have an internet addiction; before i was posting to google, i was posting to facebook, and before that i was all over the cbc (canadian state run media), and before that i was all over mailing lists and newsgroups...
but i've moved to youtube in an attempt to promote the music i've been spending more time with over the last few months.
i'm constantly being accused of being one of them no good book lerners. i've had dozens of people accuse me of sitting in front of my laptop with thesaurus.com open.
it's ridiculous. and false. but interesting. just reflecting.
(edit: feb 11, 2016…
re that last re-post.
the flip side of what some people call white privilege is an equally valid concept that one could refer to as white obligation. not the white man's burden, that's not what i mean...
never mind that i'm not really actually white. it's less than 50%, anyways. but i look white, so i'm stuck with this annoying white obligation whether i like it or not.
what white obligation states is that i'm not allowed to be an economic loser - i have an obligation to take my place in a hierarchy and live up to a set of contrived expectations. it doesn't matter that i don't at all care or have any remote interest in climbing up any kind of hierarchy. it doesn't matter that i'd rather invest my energy towards economically useless behaviour. due to my skin colour, i'm basically forbidden to work a shitty job. i'm expected to go to university and get a middle class job that i don't care about, whether i like it or not. a life of apathy and low-investment labour is verbotten, as it is beneath me on the hierarchy of expectations. so, mcdonalds will not call me back, no matter how many times i apply (and i've applied many times). further, economists and politicians will then claim that i do not want to work at mcdonalds - because i'm too privileged.
the system will allow me to take out absurdly large loans, and then place me on disability when i fail out of disinterest. but, it will not allow me to work below my racial potential. and, for me, that's equally enslaving.
i've come to care less and less as i've aged. but, i'm at the point where i no longer remotely care. if the system tried to force me into some kind of workfare, i'd walk into work drunk, spit in the boss' face, urinate on the cash register - it would be horrific. but, there was a time when i was happy enough to work a crappy job - if i'd only be allowed to.
it was the emotional investment and time expenditure required to hold a middle class job that i strenuously rejected.)
i've explained this before, so i'll just do it briefly here as the transition approaches.
was obama a good president or a bad president? what is his legacy? they get you in the frame, and you need to answer. you don't think he was that bad, so you say good.
i propose neither. that he was inconsequential. and that he'll end up smack dab in the middle of the "nobody remembers" pile.
he has produced no independent foreign policy; he just carried on with bush'. he has produced no meaningful domestic policy that will outlive him. he just held the office for a few years. the correct term for this is caretaker president.
but, here's another thought: this may be a characteristic of this period of late capitalism that we may be exiting. i'd say the same thing about stephen harper and david cameron and angela merkel. that's what we've had over the last ten years: these bureaucratic "moderate conservatives" that have just held to power without using it.
that's changing. i don't want to give trump a chance: he will be a bad president, i think that is obvious, although good or bad is obviously subjective and we may look at the same policy and come to different conclusions. history also has somewhat of a lorentz factor to consider; the chinese have famously claimed that it's still too soon to analyze the outcome of the french revolution. but, there are changes happening in britain, too. as well as in canada.
we don't know what follows "late capitalism". marx & hegel were wrong: history does not unfold in a final cause. it could be a return to feudalism. we could be entering a period of civil war.
but, this is obama's legacy - he's a footnote to history in an era that is a footnote to history.
was obama a good president or a bad president? what is his legacy? they get you in the frame, and you need to answer. you don't think he was that bad, so you say good.
i propose neither. that he was inconsequential. and that he'll end up smack dab in the middle of the "nobody remembers" pile.
he has produced no independent foreign policy; he just carried on with bush'. he has produced no meaningful domestic policy that will outlive him. he just held the office for a few years. the correct term for this is caretaker president.
but, here's another thought: this may be a characteristic of this period of late capitalism that we may be exiting. i'd say the same thing about stephen harper and david cameron and angela merkel. that's what we've had over the last ten years: these bureaucratic "moderate conservatives" that have just held to power without using it.
that's changing. i don't want to give trump a chance: he will be a bad president, i think that is obvious, although good or bad is obviously subjective and we may look at the same policy and come to different conclusions. history also has somewhat of a lorentz factor to consider; the chinese have famously claimed that it's still too soon to analyze the outcome of the french revolution. but, there are changes happening in britain, too. as well as in canada.
we don't know what follows "late capitalism". marx & hegel were wrong: history does not unfold in a final cause. it could be a return to feudalism. we could be entering a period of civil war.
but, this is obama's legacy - he's a footnote to history in an era that is a footnote to history.
Friday, January 6, 2017
may 8, 2014
but, what about the fear of the underclass not producing enough slaves? it's amazing when you look at the history of homophobia. a consistent narrative jumps out:
1) in the early days, it was often used as a 'gotcha' type thing by the church. so, if you're a philosopher that's talking about all kinds of crazy things like atheism, and you happen to be gay, they could get you on that when they can't get you otherwise. it was often used as a pretext to shut down opposition.
2) during various phases when the empire was weak, it was attacked because it was viewed as hindering population replacement. so, if there was a famine or a plague or a disastrous war, they'd go after the gays for not doing their job in helping to produce more workers and soldiers.
3) under feudalism and slavery, it was attacked because it hindered the ability for the serf or slave's owner to produce further offspring (which would produce more wealth, or be sold).
4) then bondage became replaced by debt, but the prohibition continued for the same reason.
oddly, now that population control (rather than population replacement) is the dominant goal of the elite, the oppression has mostly slowed down, except religious opposition - which is the same basic idea as we've seen throughout history: gay people don't create a new generation of donating church goers.
well, and also in russia. where the population is declining.
i know that's grim.
here's a document that explains this in more detail:
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=310
but, what about the fear of the underclass not producing enough slaves? it's amazing when you look at the history of homophobia. a consistent narrative jumps out:
1) in the early days, it was often used as a 'gotcha' type thing by the church. so, if you're a philosopher that's talking about all kinds of crazy things like atheism, and you happen to be gay, they could get you on that when they can't get you otherwise. it was often used as a pretext to shut down opposition.
2) during various phases when the empire was weak, it was attacked because it was viewed as hindering population replacement. so, if there was a famine or a plague or a disastrous war, they'd go after the gays for not doing their job in helping to produce more workers and soldiers.
3) under feudalism and slavery, it was attacked because it hindered the ability for the serf or slave's owner to produce further offspring (which would produce more wealth, or be sold).
4) then bondage became replaced by debt, but the prohibition continued for the same reason.
oddly, now that population control (rather than population replacement) is the dominant goal of the elite, the oppression has mostly slowed down, except religious opposition - which is the same basic idea as we've seen throughout history: gay people don't create a new generation of donating church goers.
well, and also in russia. where the population is declining.
i know that's grim.
here's a document that explains this in more detail:
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=310
May 2, 2014
"whosoever is delighted in solitude is either a wild beast or a god."
i'll take the latter, up to the caveat that the classical conception of a god was not an omnipotent, monolithic force but a being with faults and strengths.
i very well may cite this, in the future, as an argument for my continued claims of not belonging to
your species.
"whosoever is delighted in solitude is either a wild beast or a god."
i'll take the latter, up to the caveat that the classical conception of a god was not an omnipotent, monolithic force but a being with faults and strengths.
i very well may cite this, in the future, as an argument for my continued claims of not belonging to
your species.
the millenial generation has, to this point, failed to generate any kind of novel art form at all. for all the talk of entrepreneurialism, they actually seem to be piss fucking poor at innovation.
i actually think that this idea of entrepreneurialism in gen y is just a projection. it's what neo-liberalism imagines ought to be true, so it therefore is true. i mean, it's right out of atlas shrugged or something. if the media says it's true, it's true. they create reality. right?
for whatever reason, they seem to be solely interested in retro, and that includes in the spectrum of electronic music. it's 2017, and they primarily want to listen to fucking folk music.
it's not reflective of a longlasting dystopia, either: the younger kids are really leap-frogging them. no, they are.
i don't know exactly what it is. but i feel like i was born at exactly the wrong time. twenty years earlier or twenty years later and i'd have avoided being stuck on what is truly an awful cusp.
i actually think that this idea of entrepreneurialism in gen y is just a projection. it's what neo-liberalism imagines ought to be true, so it therefore is true. i mean, it's right out of atlas shrugged or something. if the media says it's true, it's true. they create reality. right?
for whatever reason, they seem to be solely interested in retro, and that includes in the spectrum of electronic music. it's 2017, and they primarily want to listen to fucking folk music.
it's not reflective of a longlasting dystopia, either: the younger kids are really leap-frogging them. no, they are.
i don't know exactly what it is. but i feel like i was born at exactly the wrong time. twenty years earlier or twenty years later and i'd have avoided being stuck on what is truly an awful cusp.
this is meant to have an underlying snottiness to it.
i downgraded from 24 to 3.5, which is "html video compliant", but it's apparently not compatible with the right kind of container. 3.5 is 2009. 24 is 2013. so, there's still some potential that i can find the oldest version, and that it's just on the cusp of what is workable.
if not, i'm going to need to find a new browser for my tv.....
--
the trick to getting the machine to
work for this purpose up to now has been to use software designed for
it's life-cycle, which specifically meant holding to a very old version
of firefox from the mid 00s and a very old version of flash from the
same period (i don't care about security on this machine, and it never
leaves youtube, anyways). the html5 pushdown has forced me to upgrade to
a version of firefox that is simply too resource heavy to run on this
machine. so, now what?
lastly, i'm considering
moving from xp to a very minimal linux distro. this is what these
distros are designed for, after all. but, i'm a little apprehensive
about whether it's worth the time or not (obviously, there's only one
way to find out...). is anybody willing to put down an educated guess as
to whether this would actually get around the problem or not?
i downgraded from 24 to 3.5, which is "html video compliant", but it's apparently not compatible with the right kind of container. 3.5 is 2009. 24 is 2013. so, there's still some potential that i can find the oldest version, and that it's just on the cusp of what is workable.
if not, i'm going to need to find a new browser for my tv.....
--
hi.
i'm running a 500 MHz processor (it's a
pentium III) with one gb of RAM as a tv receiver. i know this is an old
computer (1999.), but it worked perfectly fine for this purpose before
the html5 rollout came down, and i'm not interested in upgrading it. i
mean, what else am i going to do with a PIII besides put it in a
landfill? and, that's a poor answer that should leave google hanging
it's head in shame. so, i want this to work, somehow - and google should
want this to work somehow, too. otherwise, that unnecessary waste is on
their conscience. the machine is fine, it's just old. there's no good
reason to discard it.
well, i suspect that having
stable access to video streams at 144p would help a lot, but i seem to
be unable to access streams from my primary streaming source (which is
the us state department) at lower than 360p. that was ok when i could
run an older version of firefox, but it's just too much, now. why is
youtube forcing me to stream at a quality level that is too high for my
machine to handle? why can i not make that decision myself?
if
that's impossible, the next step is to try to switch browsers. chrome
is obviously not going to work. does anybody have any suggestions
regarding html5 compliant browsers that are efficient enough to run on a
500 MHz processor?
mar 15, 2014
i know they're indignant over an act of barbarism, but why aren't these protest movements seizing factories and farms instead of getting beat up by riot cops in downtown parks?
Michael IV 1 year ago
That would be the best option if their aim was to start a civil war but it isn't. They simply want to be heard by their government, not create a new one on their own.
jessica 1 year ago (edited)
+Michael Martel yeah, there's this impossible problem we've created by not educating our citizens. as a result of living in almost total historical ignorance, they grow up thinking ridiculous ideas, like that there's some kind of culture of democracy in the western world. this leads them into protest movements that demand change from this inane, supernatural force they call 'government' - rather than realizing that government is they themselves, and their inaction (a function of their terrible education) is a function of the system's planned failure.
a better education would teach them that the class war is perpetual. the civil war is not determined by dates and events, but is always carried out between those who own capital and those who do not. there is consequently no solution other than to attack those who own property, and redistribute it to the people.
yet, so long as we are kept ignorant, we will gather in squares and chant slogans instead.
Abayarde718 1 year ago
+deathtokoalas Yo bro you're the fucking man. That was brilliant. If we gathered to grow public gardens and make abundance the norm it would be 10000X more effective than shouting words in anger. If we grew food and cannabis, our own medicines, to become independent of the need for so much capital and consuming, we could crash the economy. People Dont want real change. They want nanny states. Peave to u.
jessica 1 year ago (edited)
+Abayarde718 i think it's worse than that, actually. they seem to legitimately want things to change (or, in the case of turkey and many other places, perhaps not change), but they're fundamentally incapable of carrying out that change, which is by design. a big part of the problem is that we're taught all kinds of lies about how our governments represent us, rather than the truth, which is that they represent the interests of capital (banks and big corporations, still mostly resource and extraction based at this high a political level). this leads us to the delusional (religious, really) belief system underlying these demonstrations - prayers to the state will be heeded if they are loud enough and targeted enough. that's less a desire for a nanny state, and more blowback from social engineering.
in truth, demonstrators are doing precisely what they're taught to do, and being beaten up by a demonstration of state force like they're supposed to be. cries of "human rights violations!" exist in some parallel universe, full of rainbow unicorns prancing through fields of money trees. you've all confused the state for an entity that actually gives a fuck.
the handful of examples of large scale successful demonstrations have not been peaceful. in actual fact, gandhi was demonstrating to the british authorities the size of a potential army (and the hopelessness of their position, tactically). it was the threat of force that won him his aims (which were full of far more fail than win). likewise, the civil rights protests would have been entirely useless if the demonstrators weren't armed (they don't teach us that). in order for "non-violent protest" to be effective, it must come with the threat of imminent violence. that is to say that, when effective, it is not truly non-violent at all, but merely a more enlightened type of violence.
but, it's the government's desire to keep us ignorant and stupid that is both at the core of these protest movements and the reason they offer no hope for the future. the reason they sit in squares and sing songs isn't that they don't want to improve their own lives, it's that they don't know how to. they only know how to ask their state deity to solve problems for them - just as they're supposed to.
these protests are consequently the exact opposite of a hopeful youth movement. rather, they are evidence of the impending doom that we face as a consequence of not educating our young people.
"you mean, you shouldn't put gatorade on the crops?"
Michael IV 1 year ago
+deathtokoalas The people will always be ignorant, there's is a slow change. It's the leaders that are the ones who can bring true change and quickly. Therefore people should study for themselves and learn for themselves and then lead their people. Instead of teaching the whole populace, which seems quite impossible.
jessica 1 year ago
+Michael Martel ach, no. no gods, no masters. smashing the state is the only possible way to bring back history....this just isn't the way to do it.
leaders never represent people. they always represent capital. putting hope into leadership is only possible through not understanding the inherently exploitative nature of capitalism.
Michael IV 1 year ago
+deathtokoalas There will always be leaders in this world, that's an inevitability. There are those who follow and those who lead. The only chose we have is who are the ones to lead.
jessica 1 year ago
+Michael Martel see, michael is terribly brainwashed. he thinks there are only those who follow and those who lead. that allows him to internally validate an authoritarian system as irreplaceable in one form or another. it may convince him, one day, to pick up a gun to protect a flag, rather than attack those who handed him the gun.
leaders are those who follow from the front. the quality that defines a good leader is an ability to understand the tendencies in the herd, then repeat it back in a way that justifies their use of power. there is consequently no real difference between a leader and a follower, except where they exist in the hierarchy. if we are to be reduced to only leaders and followers, we're destined to stumble around in circles. only the blind may lead, and only the deaf may follow.
there is, however, a difference between those who engage and those who do not. rather than thinking in terms of this silly leader/follower distinction, it would rather behoove you to conceive of situations in a philosopher/actor sort of distinction. actors are leaders and followers - people who take part in the group. philosophers are those who sit back and watch the leaders follow themselves around in circles. from this point of abstraction, they are able to conceive of problems in the way people behave.
it's not that we need more philosophers. we have plenty. it's that we need to start listening to them.
Michael IV 1 year ago
+deathtokoalas We've had plenty of Scientific revolutions and extreme changes in knowledge over the years. We've all listened to plenty of philosophers and learned from them, but much of the world is deaf to sense and reason. That is why we still have wars, that is why we still have strife, because the populace fails to listen. Like Sun Tzu said, deception simply has a bad connotation. If the deaf populace is led by an enlightened leader, then there is no need to fight the redundant battle of trying to convince everyone of "the right way to think". Only one person has to understand everything, and that is the leader.
jessica 1 year ago
+Michael Martel you're deifying your government leaders; the concept you seek is called "god", and the system you envision is called "fundamentalism". it's the kind of thing that exists in iran, and that once existed in rome. there are three reasons why these systems fail. the first is that human wisdom is not only finite but bounded much lower than our imagination would like. we're dumb apes. the second is that power corrupts; there is no enlightened sage that will reform a corrupt system, it is the system itself that needs to be abolished. removing bush did not end targeted assassination programs. removing yanukovich will not end endemic ukrainian corruption. removing erdogan will not dismantle the turkish military-industrial complex. the third is that society is collaborative by definition and must function through consent to be stable. hierarchical, authoritarian societies are constantly in rearrangement, perpetually on the brink of implosion and collapse. it's these shifting class divisions, and desires to maintain power within them, that are the reason we continue to fight. there is no way to abolish conflict (this, again, is delusional religious thinking), but only a way to abolish want, making conflict difficult on an organized scale. so long as leaders may raise armies, they may start wars.
i don't wish to write off the masses. i am a member of these masses. i stand with them. rather, i point out that we are losing the fight against the leaders that wish to enslave us by reducing us to ignorant fools that are dependent upon them for survival. this is a created condition, not an endemic one.
i don't wish to continue this discussion.
Cristian Sosa 1 year ago
+deathtokoalas I wish people could start to seize government buildings around the world, and rise in an utopian anarchism. But sadly mankind is eons behind to be ready to leave in peace without the need of a government. And a change of politics in the government, say from Capitalism to Socialism for instance, would be like placing a band aid on a major laceration. We are broken, and fixing our entire society must be one of the hardest things humanity has yet to face.
jessica 1 year ago (edited)
+Cristian Sosa i'm not really in agreement with the idea that we're centuries away from actual freedom. if there's a temporal component, it's in the technology and i actually think that automated production has the potential to revolutionize the mode of production within our lifetime, and the social system will have no choice but to adjust to that extreme economic reorganization.
but, if it's true, the end point can only be accomplished by failing dozens or hundreds of times. there's no teleology in history - not marx' teleology of historical materialism, nor hegel's end of history, nor the dreaded orthogenesis that came out of trying to reconcile darwin with genesis. we will not get to an end point as a function of time, we need to push our way there. and there may be a few messes along the way...
i know they're indignant over an act of barbarism, but why aren't these protest movements seizing factories and farms instead of getting beat up by riot cops in downtown parks?
Michael IV 1 year ago
That would be the best option if their aim was to start a civil war but it isn't. They simply want to be heard by their government, not create a new one on their own.
jessica 1 year ago (edited)
+Michael Martel yeah, there's this impossible problem we've created by not educating our citizens. as a result of living in almost total historical ignorance, they grow up thinking ridiculous ideas, like that there's some kind of culture of democracy in the western world. this leads them into protest movements that demand change from this inane, supernatural force they call 'government' - rather than realizing that government is they themselves, and their inaction (a function of their terrible education) is a function of the system's planned failure.
a better education would teach them that the class war is perpetual. the civil war is not determined by dates and events, but is always carried out between those who own capital and those who do not. there is consequently no solution other than to attack those who own property, and redistribute it to the people.
yet, so long as we are kept ignorant, we will gather in squares and chant slogans instead.
Abayarde718 1 year ago
+deathtokoalas Yo bro you're the fucking man. That was brilliant. If we gathered to grow public gardens and make abundance the norm it would be 10000X more effective than shouting words in anger. If we grew food and cannabis, our own medicines, to become independent of the need for so much capital and consuming, we could crash the economy. People Dont want real change. They want nanny states. Peave to u.
jessica 1 year ago (edited)
+Abayarde718 i think it's worse than that, actually. they seem to legitimately want things to change (or, in the case of turkey and many other places, perhaps not change), but they're fundamentally incapable of carrying out that change, which is by design. a big part of the problem is that we're taught all kinds of lies about how our governments represent us, rather than the truth, which is that they represent the interests of capital (banks and big corporations, still mostly resource and extraction based at this high a political level). this leads us to the delusional (religious, really) belief system underlying these demonstrations - prayers to the state will be heeded if they are loud enough and targeted enough. that's less a desire for a nanny state, and more blowback from social engineering.
in truth, demonstrators are doing precisely what they're taught to do, and being beaten up by a demonstration of state force like they're supposed to be. cries of "human rights violations!" exist in some parallel universe, full of rainbow unicorns prancing through fields of money trees. you've all confused the state for an entity that actually gives a fuck.
the handful of examples of large scale successful demonstrations have not been peaceful. in actual fact, gandhi was demonstrating to the british authorities the size of a potential army (and the hopelessness of their position, tactically). it was the threat of force that won him his aims (which were full of far more fail than win). likewise, the civil rights protests would have been entirely useless if the demonstrators weren't armed (they don't teach us that). in order for "non-violent protest" to be effective, it must come with the threat of imminent violence. that is to say that, when effective, it is not truly non-violent at all, but merely a more enlightened type of violence.
but, it's the government's desire to keep us ignorant and stupid that is both at the core of these protest movements and the reason they offer no hope for the future. the reason they sit in squares and sing songs isn't that they don't want to improve their own lives, it's that they don't know how to. they only know how to ask their state deity to solve problems for them - just as they're supposed to.
these protests are consequently the exact opposite of a hopeful youth movement. rather, they are evidence of the impending doom that we face as a consequence of not educating our young people.
"you mean, you shouldn't put gatorade on the crops?"
Michael IV 1 year ago
+deathtokoalas The people will always be ignorant, there's is a slow change. It's the leaders that are the ones who can bring true change and quickly. Therefore people should study for themselves and learn for themselves and then lead their people. Instead of teaching the whole populace, which seems quite impossible.
jessica 1 year ago
+Michael Martel ach, no. no gods, no masters. smashing the state is the only possible way to bring back history....this just isn't the way to do it.
leaders never represent people. they always represent capital. putting hope into leadership is only possible through not understanding the inherently exploitative nature of capitalism.
Michael IV 1 year ago
+deathtokoalas There will always be leaders in this world, that's an inevitability. There are those who follow and those who lead. The only chose we have is who are the ones to lead.
jessica 1 year ago
+Michael Martel see, michael is terribly brainwashed. he thinks there are only those who follow and those who lead. that allows him to internally validate an authoritarian system as irreplaceable in one form or another. it may convince him, one day, to pick up a gun to protect a flag, rather than attack those who handed him the gun.
leaders are those who follow from the front. the quality that defines a good leader is an ability to understand the tendencies in the herd, then repeat it back in a way that justifies their use of power. there is consequently no real difference between a leader and a follower, except where they exist in the hierarchy. if we are to be reduced to only leaders and followers, we're destined to stumble around in circles. only the blind may lead, and only the deaf may follow.
there is, however, a difference between those who engage and those who do not. rather than thinking in terms of this silly leader/follower distinction, it would rather behoove you to conceive of situations in a philosopher/actor sort of distinction. actors are leaders and followers - people who take part in the group. philosophers are those who sit back and watch the leaders follow themselves around in circles. from this point of abstraction, they are able to conceive of problems in the way people behave.
it's not that we need more philosophers. we have plenty. it's that we need to start listening to them.
Michael IV 1 year ago
+deathtokoalas We've had plenty of Scientific revolutions and extreme changes in knowledge over the years. We've all listened to plenty of philosophers and learned from them, but much of the world is deaf to sense and reason. That is why we still have wars, that is why we still have strife, because the populace fails to listen. Like Sun Tzu said, deception simply has a bad connotation. If the deaf populace is led by an enlightened leader, then there is no need to fight the redundant battle of trying to convince everyone of "the right way to think". Only one person has to understand everything, and that is the leader.
jessica 1 year ago
+Michael Martel you're deifying your government leaders; the concept you seek is called "god", and the system you envision is called "fundamentalism". it's the kind of thing that exists in iran, and that once existed in rome. there are three reasons why these systems fail. the first is that human wisdom is not only finite but bounded much lower than our imagination would like. we're dumb apes. the second is that power corrupts; there is no enlightened sage that will reform a corrupt system, it is the system itself that needs to be abolished. removing bush did not end targeted assassination programs. removing yanukovich will not end endemic ukrainian corruption. removing erdogan will not dismantle the turkish military-industrial complex. the third is that society is collaborative by definition and must function through consent to be stable. hierarchical, authoritarian societies are constantly in rearrangement, perpetually on the brink of implosion and collapse. it's these shifting class divisions, and desires to maintain power within them, that are the reason we continue to fight. there is no way to abolish conflict (this, again, is delusional religious thinking), but only a way to abolish want, making conflict difficult on an organized scale. so long as leaders may raise armies, they may start wars.
i don't wish to write off the masses. i am a member of these masses. i stand with them. rather, i point out that we are losing the fight against the leaders that wish to enslave us by reducing us to ignorant fools that are dependent upon them for survival. this is a created condition, not an endemic one.
i don't wish to continue this discussion.
Cristian Sosa 1 year ago
+deathtokoalas I wish people could start to seize government buildings around the world, and rise in an utopian anarchism. But sadly mankind is eons behind to be ready to leave in peace without the need of a government. And a change of politics in the government, say from Capitalism to Socialism for instance, would be like placing a band aid on a major laceration. We are broken, and fixing our entire society must be one of the hardest things humanity has yet to face.
jessica 1 year ago (edited)
+Cristian Sosa i'm not really in agreement with the idea that we're centuries away from actual freedom. if there's a temporal component, it's in the technology and i actually think that automated production has the potential to revolutionize the mode of production within our lifetime, and the social system will have no choice but to adjust to that extreme economic reorganization.
but, if it's true, the end point can only be accomplished by failing dozens or hundreds of times. there's no teleology in history - not marx' teleology of historical materialism, nor hegel's end of history, nor the dreaded orthogenesis that came out of trying to reconcile darwin with genesis. we will not get to an end point as a function of time, we need to push our way there. and there may be a few messes along the way...
yeah.
i think it's becoming clearer and clearer that this is the time for the left to finally abandon the democrats for good. they have nothing to build on. and the basis of the opposition that they seem to want to build - support for obamacare, attacks against russia - is really appalling.
i think it's time to really put the knife in, and turn - to get really violent in the criticism. to walk away and let them die in the street....
it's time to move on in building a third party. they're done.
i think it's becoming clearer and clearer that this is the time for the left to finally abandon the democrats for good. they have nothing to build on. and the basis of the opposition that they seem to want to build - support for obamacare, attacks against russia - is really appalling.
i think it's time to really put the knife in, and turn - to get really violent in the criticism. to walk away and let them die in the street....
it's time to move on in building a third party. they're done.
dec 14, 2013
it's curious how this manages to whitewash the reality that santa claus is not actually based on "st. nicholas" but is a merging of pagan mythology with colonialism. in the reformation era northern european legends, the "gifts" that "santa" brings are made by "elves" that happen to be black and under the colonial domination of the european nation that receives the gifts. the santa claus story, itself, is a rationalization of white supremacist ideology. it follows that santa is indeed as white as adolf hitler was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdkGA_rgHRY
it's curious how this manages to whitewash the reality that santa claus is not actually based on "st. nicholas" but is a merging of pagan mythology with colonialism. in the reformation era northern european legends, the "gifts" that "santa" brings are made by "elves" that happen to be black and under the colonial domination of the european nation that receives the gifts. the santa claus story, itself, is a rationalization of white supremacist ideology. it follows that santa is indeed as white as adolf hitler was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdkGA_rgHRY
"US intelligence officials told the Washington Post and NBC
that the classified document, said to be over 50 pages long, says
intercepted communications revealed Russian intelligence officials
celebrating Trump’s win."
that's exactly the same trick they used to avoid their responsibility to provide evidence linking 9/11 to al qaeda.
i can link you to articles where netanyahu celebrates trump's win. does that prove they were in on it, too?
but, listen: they throw specious arguments like this out there because they know that this is how most humans form thoughts. this is more than enough for most people; it's actually more effective than logic.
that's exactly the same trick they used to avoid their responsibility to provide evidence linking 9/11 to al qaeda.
i can link you to articles where netanyahu celebrates trump's win. does that prove they were in on it, too?
but, listen: they throw specious arguments like this out there because they know that this is how most humans form thoughts. this is more than enough for most people; it's actually more effective than logic.
joe, listen...
i'm going to presume that you've never taken a physics course before, have you? didn't think so.
when you take a physics course, you don't quietly sit there and accept the authority of the professor. that's not how science works, joe.
rather, the professor takes it upon his or herself to demonstrate the argument using a series of mathematical deductions. and, at every step of the way the professor - if it is a good professor - will invite you to challenge and question the results being developed.
further, a physics course will have something called a lab component where the student will actually do the experiments. this is fundamental, because science does not operate on authority but on the ability of the scientist to discover results on their own.
his comments actually give a lot away about what he thinks, and it's not very flattering to his intelligence.
i'm going to presume that you've never taken a physics course before, have you? didn't think so.
when you take a physics course, you don't quietly sit there and accept the authority of the professor. that's not how science works, joe.
rather, the professor takes it upon his or herself to demonstrate the argument using a series of mathematical deductions. and, at every step of the way the professor - if it is a good professor - will invite you to challenge and question the results being developed.
further, a physics course will have something called a lab component where the student will actually do the experiments. this is fundamental, because science does not operate on authority but on the ability of the scientist to discover results on their own.
his comments actually give a lot away about what he thinks, and it's not very flattering to his intelligence.
see, when i look at this "evidence", i'm left to conclude that it couldn't possibly be the russians, because they wouldn't make errors like this. the cyrillic thing is especially obvious.
if it was the russians, they would have covered their tracks far better than this.
rather, what this "evidence" tells me is that somebody set the situation up to blame it on the russians - and didn't try very hard, either. probably because they knew they were creating a media mirage, and weren't intending it to stand up to scrutiny. we're supposed to obey.
so, who are the real suspects if you rule out the russians? who could do this the way it's been done?
outside of the cia, the only really serious possibility is mossad. and, would the cia cover for mossad? this is a stretch. it's obscure, in my opinion, but not impossible. i think it's obvious that netanyahu would prefer the republicans over the democrats.
the null hypothesis has to remain that it was cia. that's occam's razor. that's the simplest, most obvious explanation. you can gather evidence for or against this, from there.
but, if this is what you're presenting? i would take it as evidence that somebody wants you to think it's the russians, rather than that it's actually the russians. and that would all but rule the russians out.
this is why they want you to obey authority.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/
if it was the russians, they would have covered their tracks far better than this.
rather, what this "evidence" tells me is that somebody set the situation up to blame it on the russians - and didn't try very hard, either. probably because they knew they were creating a media mirage, and weren't intending it to stand up to scrutiny. we're supposed to obey.
so, who are the real suspects if you rule out the russians? who could do this the way it's been done?
outside of the cia, the only really serious possibility is mossad. and, would the cia cover for mossad? this is a stretch. it's obscure, in my opinion, but not impossible. i think it's obvious that netanyahu would prefer the republicans over the democrats.
the null hypothesis has to remain that it was cia. that's occam's razor. that's the simplest, most obvious explanation. you can gather evidence for or against this, from there.
but, if this is what you're presenting? i would take it as evidence that somebody wants you to think it's the russians, rather than that it's actually the russians. and that would all but rule the russians out.
this is why they want you to obey authority.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/
i'm not going to accept an argument from authority. and i'm not going to take your word for it.
do you have evidence? will you present it? if so, i will analyze it.
otherwise, i'd request that you shut the fuck up and stop wasting my time - until you're willing to provide some hard facts for me to look over and make a choice for myself.
of course, i know better. even if they had the evidence, they wouldn't release it - because they don't want people to approach the situation this way. they want people to listen and obey.
do you have evidence? will you present it? if so, i will analyze it.
otherwise, i'd request that you shut the fuck up and stop wasting my time - until you're willing to provide some hard facts for me to look over and make a choice for myself.
of course, i know better. even if they had the evidence, they wouldn't release it - because they don't want people to approach the situation this way. they want people to listen and obey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)