deathtokoalas
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
Why? I know 4 months but why?
deathtokoalas
this post was to google, rather than youtube. it's just all cross-posted.
TheVanillatech
Still, why..... XD
deathtokoalas
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.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
deathtokoalas
so tired.
enough of this. been going on too long,
now. need a manic episode, please. five, six days without sleeping.
that's the good stuff....
Monday, May 12, 2014
patriarchy.
it might at first seem rather remarkable that the word appears nowhere in the show, but then why would it in a panel on sexism composed of four men and one completely drowned out woman?
(although i should add that there is an attractive european woman invited to every panel i've ever seen this show put on, and she is always ignored and belittled by the host, so that's very much expected on the stream)
the mansplainers collectively display great difficulty grappling with why women are presented one way and men are not, unable to parse it through their concepts of egalitarianism. the sole female was given a brief chance to get to it, but was cut off before she could finish her thought.
to be fair, it's more reasonable to speak of the remnants of patriarchy. but, the remnants of patriarchy is the answer nonetheless. where women were once sold by their fathers to their husbands with little say in the matter, today they are given almost full autonomy over the process. yet, the market relationship between buyer and seller has not been abolished. the idea we have in our head is objectification, but the more accurate idea is commodification. the market is designed so that men are buyers and women are sellers. buyers do not need to advertise a product that they do not sell; sellers must advertise to be successful.
this is clearly an unequal situation, but it's roots are not in the media. what the marketing guy was trying to explain is that it's all about tapping into desire. the media may uphold the status quo, but it's the underlying culture that enforces the market relation.
true egalitarianism will not come when women stop selling, it will come when women start buying, which will be a function of their economic power.
so, be patient with this.
why do so many people have so much difficulty in confusing maturity with conformity?
i suspect it's a lack of maturity, actually.
but there's a lot of pressures coming down from the top, too.
i don't really want to come down particularly hard on conformists, whether it's genuine or strategic. i recognize the value of conformity as a survival tactic. i always have...
...but let's not confuse that with maturity. k?
"while generally regarded as a text on political philosophy, leviathan is also a treatise on the natural sciences that was written before newton, einstein, freud, jung, darwin and gauss. further, while hobbes may have been friends with bacon, he shows no interest in the scientific method, preferring to emulate the synthetic philosophy of geometers past. worse, he builds his politics out of his understanding of the natural sciences using a method then referred to as materialism (which is related to but quite different than what we think of as materialism today). the result can only be described as a lot of nonsense, written from a point of extreme ignorance."
from time to time, hobbes surprises but these surprises are a function of my own ignorance rather than hobbes' insight. the most important thing i've learned reading hobbes is that a number of ideas that i thought were attributable to newton are in fact older (and mostly attributable to galileo).
they need to stop interviewing kissinger. he's completely out of touch. clinton bombed him into history.
unfortunately, i suspect the rebels are pulling out to facilitate an air attack.
i'm very staunchly pro-choice, but this is not smart politics. the issue splits strongly along urban/rural lines, meaning it's an issue in currently liberal-held ridings where the ndp is often uncompetitive.
if he stays strict on it, it could be as much as +10 for the conservatives. if he's serious, it's more important to get back in power and regain an influence over the courts.
good. hopefully it gets demand down.
i just don't know why you're playing off globalization against hegemony. that's the same logic that argues that markets work because entities seek to compete for the common good. as integration does not negate nationalism, it does not negate conquest, either. i mean, it's sort of hilarious to me how often you hear this idea from leftists. it's really just a restatement of the end of history. if you really think capitalism is inherently unstable, you shouldn't be shocked by the failure of globalized markets to bring peace and stability to the world.
yup. shooting on the remembrance day ceremony is an absolutely splendid way to polarize the population, to usher in a civil war that will bog the russians down for the next decade.
what? you thought they were trying to do something else?
good. get that price through the roof, and watch the economic infrastructure adjust for the better.
tactical? mmmhmmm. unfortunately, i suspect this is to facilitate an upcoming air onslaught by nato forces.
i think it's reasonable to take farage at face value. he claims he's not geert wilders or marie le pen, and i think the evidence justifies mostly believing him.
but, what of his political support?
street protestors that call themselves leftists nowadays have a lot of views that don't make a lot of sense within traditional leftist thinking. the person briefly interviewed in this clip was presenting a libertarian or even objectivist argument that most leftists would ridicule as laissez-faire liberalism.
marx spoke of something called the "industrial reserve army". it's a simple market argument. if there are more people that want jobs than there are jobs, wages decrease and profits increase. it is consequently within the interests of capital to ensure that unemployment remains high. this is the reason that bourgeois states demand so much control over immigration - they need to ensure that unemployment does not fall below a certain level, or wages will go up.
that's not to blame the issue on the immigrants themselves, as they're merely tools in a government policy. to look the white trash protester in the eye and say "it's your fault you're poor and unemployed" is as grossly ignorant and uneducated as the white trash' argument that it's all the immigrants' fault in the first place.
these so-called leftists should be out trying to explain the economics of the situation to the working class, so that they support revolutionary movements. instead, they look down their noses at them.
fools, the lot of them. but so long as the system remains in tact, the ukip will not reverse bourgeois policies. this is neither resolvable with racism nor electoral politics.
why do people do this?
although, i have to admit it'd be fun to stumble around pretending to be napoleon for a few days, snapping dry self-deprecating wisecracks at anybody that comes near.
neither force nor authority has ever succeeded in eliminating religious superstition, which is a truth that the russian state knows very well. yet, the teacher's role is not irrelevant. the bible is full of false information, and she has an obligation to explain that to the student. what she should have done was engaged with the student in discussion and provided some other suggestions that would correct the false information he was consuming. that would have addressed the actual concern, rather than turn it into an empty clash of egos and a confused misrepresentation of otherwise meaningless "civil rights".
they should nationalize the vatican.
i don't really care if these paid murderers get their memories back or not. i'd rather see them deported to antarctica...
but, this has greater implications in the quest for immortality by peaceful, law-abiding peoples. my understanding of the situation over the last few years has been that the question of storing and restoring memories is one that belongs to the era of quantum computers, and serious applications would have to be put on hold for the next several decades as a result of that.
it'll be interesting to me to see if this research confirms or contradicts this, or if it sheds any light on possible civilian application.
this is another centuries old conflict. there's a bit of a contradiction in the liberal assault on papal totalitarianism, which is this idea of "religious freedom", which they should really understand as an oxymoron. post-liberal leftists used to understand this better, although post-leftists have returned to this liberal confusion (unfortunately).
every time they have the chance to really stamp the church out, they get trapped in their confused ideals and show it mercy. yet, when they start showing signs of rejuvenation they go into containment policy. so, it's this pointless loop that just wastes resources - and, worse, keeps a dangerous institution in existence.
they should just put the vatican out of it's misery. one approach would be to nationalize the holy see and redistribute the wealth.
yeah, it's a joke. but latvia is smaller than most american states and has an economy smaller than most major cities. it can't sustain any kind of meaningful independence in the 21st century.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
that was a pretty self-deprecated laugh.
hillary's such a shell of her former self. there used to be talk of her needing to "sound tough", and it was all written off as politics. maybe there was some truth to this. i have to admit that my major concern in '08 was that she was going to warp into an extreme liberal interventionist, and blow up half of africa to protect minority rights. it was a question of somebody that seemed to actually believe the rhetoric, rather than somebody using it as an excuse to advance an empire, as is usually the case. i mean, her foreign policy resume used to consist of helping to negotiate the good friday peace accords, and little else. but, nowadays she's just another member of the neo-con cabal. totally brainwashed. but, sadly, a willing participant. to "advance her career".
but, she also tends to speak from a position of knowledge. this is arrogant and pompous (rather than 'tough'), but it's not bullshit. the consequences of russia's insolence are being seen right now in ukraine...
the one thing the americans cannot tolerate is insubordination. they'll allow debate, and large amounts of autonomy, but actively disobeying them is always punished.
separating between the demos and the ethnos is absolutely the most imperative step, and must be the beginning point in creating meaningful local governance. and, from that realization two further points are necessary to point out.
1) nothing that's happening right now would be possible if such a separation were axiomatic to the general population, which is why all of the states involved work so hard to infuse these ideas together into a single, inseparable concept of nation-state. the states of the world want you to believe that you are a member of a nationality, and that that nationality defines who you are as an individual. a mere moment's reflection realizes the contradiction in the idea that individuality is defined by collective identity, but that kind of clarity of thought is very effectively repressed. it is only when you identify as a member of the collective that you can be manipulated into behaving the way people are behaving in ukraine.
2) the ethnos does not exist. the science is now clear on the point that any random sample of self-identifying ethnic russians is going to contain backgrounds from pretty much everywhere in the world. you can identify mutations, but they make up fractions of the population. the fact that russians and ukrainians are ethnically indistinguishable does not imply that ukrainians should not have local governance. an educated populace would go beyond the point of rejecting a tyranny of the majority to acknowledging that the majority is itself actually a fabrication and move beyond. i'd like to be optimistic about that, i would like to declare nationalism dead, but i don't have any good ideas about getting there.
so, you have these two things in contradiction to each other: the nationalism that the state enforces as a means of ownership and the biology that discards it as nonsense. as is so often the case, this is a battle between information and authority.
but, the sooner that we collectively realize that the ethnos is a myth means the sooner that we break free from statist control, and avoid the particularly profound idiocy of ethnic violence between genetically indistinguishable people - be it in ukraine or in palestine or in ireland.
so, posting here has decreased dramatically. i'm mostly only paying attention to news when i'm eating, which means i'm interacting with youtube more than facebook. i just don't have the interest to sort through rss feeds right now. i've got a large watch later playlist that i'm several weeks behind on. it's also a better way to draw traffic to my music, as the site is wide open.
this is a trend that is likely to continue. i'm not abandoning this page (it's still where i'll rant about articles) but if you're looking to follow my analysis with any real intent you're going to have to follow me on youtube.
you can also subscribe to me on youtube if you'd like, but all you're going to get in the feed is original music uploads. i have no desire or plans to be a video blogger; it's far faster and easier to type than it is to make videos, and it keeps the illiterates out of the audience.
the music is my actual passion. but it's not news analysis.
the way to actually follow the youtube postings is to add me in google+. i don't use google+ as a social network, and don't plan to, but it's a useful way to archive the youtube posts. that is, it's a one-way flow of information. but it's where this page is being slowly moved to.
if i wanted chrome, i'd run chrome. guess why i don't run chrome? yeah, that's right.
i hope it gets forked, 'cause the ui in chrome is just disgusting.
i hate buying abridged texts.
didn't think to look at the front cover. my fault...
...but you have to wonder what kind of editor thinks they're that fucking important.
just had a good laugh at myself for realizing that i'm back to carrying around the ol' blankie...
well,
i know enough now not to take it out of the house. but i actually think
i always knew enough not to take it out of the house. at least i have
no memories of taking it out of the house.
but,
whatever i'm doing in here - reading, typing, watching, playing,
recording - is all wrapped up in this blanket. and you're likely to get
hit with a frying pan if you think you're taking it away from me.
*disheveled glare*
don't
touch ma blankie. fuggin gumamint, stealing blankies. they came right
in on some kid in florida, assault rifles, pried the blankie out at
gunpoint.
i guess old habits die hard
yeah, there's that pandora's box, again.
if putin was ever in charge, he isn't anymore. the army is calling the shots now. that's how you interpret this apparent paradox.
and if this whole "destroy russia" thing is being driven by a segment of the american establishment that was never properly deconditioned to the end of the cold war, it's complement no doubt exists in russia.
once set in motion, this trajectory cannot be altered.
if putin was ever in charge, he isn't anymore. the army is calling the shots now. that's how you interpret this apparent paradox.
and if this whole "destroy russia" thing is being driven by a segment of the american establishment that was never properly deconditioned to the end of the cold war, it's complement no doubt exists in russia.
once set in motion, this trajectory cannot be altered.
dogs don't have a maternal instinct to sit on their pups. conversely, dogs are known to smother their pups to death. there's various theories about that, from reducing the stress on the dog to killing off the runts of the litter.
judging from that reaction of sitting on top of him, i'd suspect that the dog is being teased by this child rather badly and that this needs to be corrected.
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.
just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you.
"these anarchists, they think they can just do what they want, and it's not ok." - cop speaking into walky talky as i walked by, and was seemingly followed into the grocery store, and then home.
it's a good thing i'm completely boring and have no possible leads whatsoever towards anything of any interest or consequence. otherwise, they might not be wasting their time.
unless they want to have a heated debate, i guess. imagine the nerve of me, thinking i can just say what i want wherever i want to say it.
i'm pretty sure i've been through this before, and it's just basically like "whatever". the only thing they could prove is that whoever's in charge deserves a demotion.
great day to go for a walk. it went up from 10 to 20 as i was walking. and the high today is a nice 28. yay . best of all, it seems like the basement is retaining heat well. finally...
got stuck outside the music store (i needed strings) for a half hour before they opened, so i went across the street to the salvation army. i know. but, why not sort through the books while i'm waiting? i was looking specifically for an old text by thomas hobbes, which i think is actually on the banned books list. yes, there's still a banned books list. seriously.
danielle steel. wall to wall. i kid not. i burst out laughing, actually. says a lot about christian repression, doesn't it?
there's a used store down the street with literally everything. snagged my leviathan on the way back for $5.
also, i found a market that sells local tomatoes for a quarter of the cost of the imported mexican ones at the grocery store. happy about that.....
bad news: up to 12 more weeks before i hear back on my border papers. fuckers. i'm missing mt. zion this week and at this rate will probably also miss swans next month. fuck.
i have one more walking trip to make, and then i've got a nice comfy week of reading and recording.
it couldn't be that difficult to genetically engineer coffee so it doesn't stain your teeth.
deathtokoalas
yup. the russians took the bait. and now they're fucked. as this drags on for years, the americans will focus on completing their dismantling of the russian empire.
there's going to be a brief period of instability, but unless the russian army figures out how to massively multitask - and fast - this is potentially every bit as damaging to moscow as afghanistan was.
next stage is an invasion of syria.
SVGuss
US is dying and trying to bring as many to the grave as possible. In vain. And when Russia is fucked, asses are sore with some other people. 1612, 1812, 1945 to name a few biggest.
Mindaugas V
US is not dying and never will
deathtokoalas
i think these rumours of america's demise are much exaggerated. there's not a lot that has really changed, other than that they've expanded their sphere of influence. there's many decades before china or india can pose a real threat. and these arguments about debt are mostly coming from right-wing idiots that don't actually understand what money even is.
i think it remains to be seen how much of a bite the russians can take out of them on their way to the history books. that will have consequences. but, the russians are really their only serious competitor at the moment, and they're really doing a precision job on them.
lighthouse500
All empires die.
Geehad
America's not really dying, I mean if America does all of a sudden "die" you do realize it's economic collapse would bring a severe blow to the World's Economy and severely damage foreign economies as well
Jesus TheDestroyer
You think too much.
Murphy82nd
America is not going to help Ukraine. America has a laundry list of domestic issues and a populace that has become so sick of foreign intervention that I fear they'd even sit by as true atrocities are committed (Syria is already evidence of this). America is waning and Russia is waxing. Power is cyclical. In some decades down the road this may change.
deathtokoalas
it makes me laugh, continually realizing just how bad reading comprehension is out there. helping ukraine is about the last thing on america's mind, but it's more than happy to incinerate it to distract russia so it can kick them out of the middle east.
americans helping somebody. lol.
.....well, unless you mean "help", in which case they already are, they just have to be hush-hush about it due to those pesky international laws.
Murphy82nd
It makes me laugh continually reading your comments. How will intervention in Ukraine kick the Russian Federation out of the Middle East?
deathtokoalas
where did i suggest intervention? that's crazy talk, from right-wing news media. there's not going to be any armies moving around across countries in eastern europe. it's going to be a propaganda war that's going to work itself out through internal organizations clashing with each other.
you're more likely to see marine le pen seize offices in france than the russians actually invade ukraine. and, likewise, the americans have ngos operating in russia.
but, obama was just prevented from attacking syria (which is a russian protectorate, basically) a few months ago by some kind of threat from vladimir putin. we're not clear on what that was. it wasn't leaked. but it must have been naughty, 'cause it almost resulted in american destroyers docking at sevastopol.
now that vladimir is distracted, his threats are likely neutralized, or perhaps even countered. and the americans can get back to invading iran (of which syria is the second stage of, iraq being the first).
Murphy82nd
When I said intervention I was referring to Russian intervention. You're clearly stating that Russian intervention in Ukraine will somehow lead to the Russians getting "kicked out" of the middle east. How? And how would America taking Iran kick Russia out of the middle east? There is no support for any war with Iran in America, and with recent talks with President Rouhani there is less reason than ever. I seriously don't know where you're getting these conspiracy theories from.
deathtokoalas
these aren't conspiracy theories, they're published american strategic statements. i explain to you what's happening, and i get a kneejerk and ignorant response. which i'm used to. but you'll see that this is correct over time, so take the few moments to understand. it's not even particularly complicated. and it's not a question of me being right, because i'm just explaining to you what the elite have published themselves (albeit not through popular media, which is designed for mass consumption by idiots). probably the most famous is the project for a new american century letter, but it's not the only place that the establishment has explained the long war it's currently orchestrating.
since clinton's attack on yugoslavia, the goal has been to dismantle the russian empire piece by piece. that's not a conspiracy. that's stated american imperial policy. you might not know that, but that's your ignorance. all of the invasions of the region since then have been a slow process of expunging lingering russian influence from their former satellite states in afghanistan, iraq, libya and syria. that is to say that they're "cleaning up the pieces of the collapsed soviet empire". there are other dimensions driving the alliances (the saudis are opposed to all secular rule), but (despite what some conspiracy theorists might say) the americans are the hegemonic power and it's their interests - dismantling what they see as a weak competitor - that are pushing the operation.
the expansion of nato in eastern europe has also happened within this policy of dismantling the russian state. for whatever reason, probably mostly pressure from european allies but also simply due to how willing the participants have been, the americans have been mostly (excluding yugoslavia) willing to forge a peaceful path in the region. but, the ukrainian government refused to do what it was told (in rejecting the eu package) and got taken over by force instead - like several countries in the middle east have, for the same reason. but, you have to look at the wider picture to understand the timing.
just to be clear: the american government doesn't care about popular support for the wars that they launch. i'm really sick of that argument being presented, like it means something. it tacitly legitimizes the scam that is american "democracy". the united states is a military dictatorship headed by a ceremonial commander-in-chief that is increasingly controlled directly by the army, not a functioning democracy. it doesn't even call itself a democracy, it calls itself a republic. and it was designed around the idea of being headed by a strong, charismatic military leader. the closest america has ever come to democracy has been various stages of plutocracy and oligarchy. america does what the generals say, not what the american people want. and it's been that way throughout history.
pick a war. it was unpopular. it happened anyways, because it advanced the interests of the elite. that's how america works.
now, your question didn't grasp the context well. i read it the way it should have been interpreted. the russians are already intervening in ukraine. it's not direct occupation. because it's not the twentieth century. that's not how major powers operate anymore. they have to orchestrate democratic legitimacy, but people are easily malleable sheep so this is easy. the americans do this too - they just did in ukraine. and it wouldn't be particularly difficult to stage an uprising in france or the uk or the united states, either. the useful idiots don't need to know that they're advancing russian strategic interests, they just need to be worked up into a frenzy over taxes or grazing rights or whatever other stupid thing makes them angry.
so, the timing (regarding ukraine) is important because they've reached an impasse in syria - russia's last remaining military outpost in the region (excluding their "ally", iran, which does not host or want to host russian troops). vlad flexed his muscles, and obama had to back down. but, any show of power is only true so long as the factors underlying it are. for obama (or obama's generals, let us not confuse ourselves in elevating the empty suit to the position of real decision maker) to remove putin as an obstacle, he needs to collapse the conditions that allowed his threats to be credible.
looking at the way the situation has played out, it seems like the goal was sevastopol and the threat consequently had something to do with something stationed there, or perhaps the ability to deploy from there. it stands to reason that, for the time being, that threat remains.
but as ukraine becomes a long and protracted conflict it is going to bog down resources, as it did in afghanistan (even if it's under the carpet). it's going to cost billions of dollars (even if those dollars are swept under the rug). it's going to distract the russian leadership. really, it's a textbook example of a decoy.
it may even force the russians to abandon tartus, at which point a russian occupation of syria (to counter an american invasion) is no longer a credible threat.
knowing exactly what putin's threat was would clarify some of these points. but knowing that there was a threat is enough to build the broad picture, which is that putin tossed a wrench in the plan to invade syria, and got a grenade thrown into his lap in retaliation.
infiltr80r
You have it all backwards.
Americans are focused on China entirely, that's why they were moving troops out of Europe as well.
This is Russia saying to Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia etc. that "if you think you will leave our sphere of interest, we will come down and take it all".
deathtokoalas
interesting suggestion. what do you figure china's interests in central asia are?
infiltr80r
But what about the fact that China is Russia's quiet ally?
I'm from Estonia, are you familiar with the massive propaganda war towards the Baltics coming from Moscow?
Putin was also planning to do another invasion here, the only thing stopping him was the existence of NATO.
True, Americans don't do it to help anyone but in that sense they're exactly like every other country on the planet.
Do you think Russia does anything to help the people of Ukraine? It's all about securing resources which are controlled by a handful of people based in Moscow.
The average Russian could have a very good life if he had a fair share of oil profits but as it is, they're fighting for a system that is highly abusive (much more than in the west).
SugarTomAppleRoger
I disagree. The Russians are doing well here to my mind. The so called Ukraine government is being praised and supported by the English mainly, and the USA also. But they are being brutal, crushing demonstrations with tanks and rockets. Not a good publicity move.
deathtokoalas
the pr is irrelevant. the american military (who makes the real decisions) couldn't care less about public opinion. they can protest all they want, it makes no difference. don't like the democrats? well, your option is the republicans. and don't like them, either? well, then you can vote the democrats back in. it's a one-party state, with essentially no influence from the bottom up. and it's held together by police brutality.
what's important is that they're carrying out the strategic goal of draining away resources from the russians. and the hippies can march all they want, so long as they don't get too rowdy. then they got shot...
deathtokoalas +infiltr80r
sorry about the late reply. google's spam filters are not very good, and i'm not aware of a place i can go to check what it thinks is spam. i just hope it's based on a learning algorithm and will get better. if not, it's going to slowly make the site unusable.
china has a long term policy of not being anybody's ally. it's maybe a little enigmatic, but that's how it is. further, china and russia actually have difficult relations over the last century. they have some mutual defense concerns, but they're rivals for resources in central asia.
you've got the cause and effect in "the baltics" backwards. i think russia should be trying to destabilize latvia and estonia and lithuania (estonia isn't really a baltic state, it's more historically aligned with finland), because the governments in these countries are incredibly hostile to russia. they're hosting american missile bases that are being pointed directly at moscow. the correct thing to say is that if it weren't for nato expansion, russia wouldn't be justified in collapsing these states in it's legitimate self-defense.
but, what i'm getting at in this post is that it is too late for the russians to react in a meaningful way - and putin is responsible for this due to his inaction. the bases are there, now.
the russians have a better social system. but, pitting the russian oligarchy against the imf doesn't produce a set of good guys, no. that's what a lot of the propaganda is about - getting people to pick a side. but, it's one group of vampires against another. no good guys. the right side to pick is the side of the people and these are not represented by statist interests.
infiltr80r
Not a problem.
First off I should say that I'm an estonian living in estonia at the moment. Estonia is classified "Baltic" in the military-geographic division.
Quite surprised you think Baltics are treating Russia badly. It's like the military occupation that lasted for 50 years never existed in your world. Do you also know the little fact that Russia has violated the treaty of Tartu and refused to sign a border agreement with Estonia. Only until Estonia gave in and lost areas that was historically Estonian to Russia, the treaty was signed (this year of all times).
Why do you think Estonia basically welcomed NATO and the US with open arms? Was it that the experience with Russia had been so good, that we wanted to try something different? Or was it due to the fact of 50 years of ruthless military rule?
I'm quite informed what the Russian mentality is and while I oppose American wars, NATO is an absolute necessity here. In 2007 Russia threatened to invade the country as some ethnic Russians were rioting as a war statue was moved to a military cemetery.
You claim that NATO is "aiming" for Russia but you ignore the fact that Russia has deployed nukes aimed as Estonia (and all neighbors) as well. Without NATO, Russia would be here right now, russifying the whole population and destroyed what's left of the local culture (as happened during the occupation). Estonia at one point was developmentally equal to Finland, that is until the Russian invasion. Do you see why people here would resent Russia for that?
Just curious, where are you from? You seem to have read a bit on the subject but have a very warped picture of what Russia is about. The idea that Russia would let any neighboring country (that's not under Russian influence) exist peacefully is laughable at this point. You only need to look a few hundred years back to see what their intentions are.
The Russian social system in comparison to the West does not exist. I have no idea where did you get that information from.
Indeed, it should be the people who rule. Yet I contend that under western influence, the people will have a higher quality of life. Personally, even though the EU is corrupt and bureaucratic, I wouldn't want to be in any union with Russia as that would set the country decades back in time.
deathtokoalas
i don't care about international agreements. they're imaginary rules in some liberal fantasy reality that has never existed. it's delusional to keep coming back to them as though they mean something. in reality, states do what they need to advance their interests. they have never been constrained by international law and never will be. it's a failed world order that should be abandoned as utopian claptrap.
further, you're again trying to draw moral equivalences when i'm explicitly trying to reject them as propaganda. states are not moral actors and should not be analyzed as though they are. when i state that placing missiles in the region gives russia a valid pretext to invade that they should have taken advantage of in order to advance their interests, that says nothing of estonian nationals, who are (and ought to be) irrelevant in the calculation. this isn't a discussion of human rights, it's a discussion of russia's failure to secure it's own borders, which has thrust it into a desperate situation.
russia has socialized health care, to begin with. they have a better social security system, as well.
i reiterate: a smart post-yeltsin russian leadership would have realized the strategic necessity of reoccupying the baltics very early on, as a counter to their clear encirclement by american forces. at the very least, it should have been crystal clear after iraq. pointing missiles at the region is not enough to secure their borders. they must occupy the region to prevent the possibility of a ground invasion, under the cover of an sdi.
it is, however, too late. the nato bases in the region cannot be removed, and it's consequently a matter of time before the full invasion of moscow. all the russians can do is make some desperate movements that will be countered by the superior nato forces, technologies and strategies.
their focus on ukraine right now is at best a strategic blunder. a smart, strong russian leadership would be focusing on controlling poland.
if i thought states could or should be held to moral guidelines, i wouldn't be an anarchist.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
not pushing through with burke, after all. taking a swing back to hobbes, on a path through locke to tucker. we'll have to see what else that picks up along the way. end goal still that paine text.
Monday, May 5, 2014
0pTicaL823
Germany and Japan teamed up again Russia? Hmmm, wonder what happened the last time Germany and Japan teamed up against Russia.
Rytis Kurcinskas
LOL good one
Keanu Victor
Fair point but your forgetting, they had the USA and the commonwealth and the free forces of Europe on their side as well. The US, Europe and the commonwealth aren't on Russia's side anymore, they are imposing sanctions on them. Oh and Japan didn't actually team up with Germany against Russia, they were only at war for a couple of months in 1938-39 and the last month of the war. The rest of the time they were at peace. It was the US and the Chinese that defeated Japan, not Russia. They effectively did absolutely nothing to japan. Russia only won because of numbers, nothing more. For each man the Germans were 10 times better, in both skill and technology. Oh and now the people against Russia outnumber them and have better technology. So sucks to be you Russia.
deathtokoalas
indeed. it's largely understood that truman ordered the nuclear attack in order to prevent japan from falling into soviet hands. also, it should be understood that the reason the americans entered the european theatre of the war in the first place (remember that they were attacked by japan, not germany) was to prevent the soviets from taking over western europe, which no doubt would have happened otherwise. the british are a slightly different story, but for all meaningful purposes the americans entered wwII against the soviets.
in today's world, germany and japan are both client states of washington. there's nothing really meaningful in the comparison.
0pTicaL823
I'm not Russian but I know for a fact the US did not end WWII. I was brought up believing the story of US dropping 2 atomic bombs and WWII was over, US contribution to WWII was minimal at best. The USSR took the brunt of the attack and did all the work, on BOTH western AND eastern fronts. The deciding factor was the Soviet's declaration of war on Japan and what I like to call the "Manchurian Blitzkrieg" that ended WWII. Over 800,000 elite Japanese troops surrendered in less than a week. Any strategist knows that when you lose troops of that size, it's checkmate. Japanese cities were dropping faster than flies, US was carpet bombing Japanese cities for shits and giggles. Dropping 2 or 20 atomic bombs wouldn't have made a difference. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa - a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara agrees.
Keanu Victor
never said the US ended ww2, I just said that the US were a lot more involved in the defeat of JAPAN, not Germany than the soviets were. So what about August storm. The Japanese had already been pushed back from most territories by then. It was the millions of Chinese people that gave their lives which stopped Japan not the Soviet union. The soviets stopped Germany, not Japan. If America had not been in ww2 you would now be saying Heil to the fuhrer. They didn't do as much on the ground but their contribution in equipment was unquestionable. A lot of which by the way went to the USSR.
deathtokoalas
yeah. the americans were funding both sides up to '41, and some say even longer than that. lots of money involved in funding a war....
i don't think it's true that we'd be speaking german if it weren't for american involvement, but the germans and french and italians and spaniards (and maybe even the british) might be speaking russian....as a second language. attacking russia hasn't worked out for anybody that's tried it. it was a huge strategic error. and, i'm not quite sure why there's such a resistance to this idea that hitler lost because he made a series of mistakes, rather than that he was out-manned or whatever else. maybe it was a jewish conspiracy, who knows...
mainland china was indeed the primary battleground of the asian theatre, but you have to understand how important oil and rubber were to japan. the chinese didn't have an air force, which was the dominant factor in japan picking on them in the first place. the dominant factor that contributed to japan's collapse was cutting off those supplies, which is perhaps the royal navy's last major victory. of course, there was some help from the french and the americans, but...
that doesn't change the fact that the soviets were in position to invade before the bombs came down and the americans weren't.
Keanu Victor
actually it kind of has, the mongols back in the 1200-1300s absolutely demolished the Russians. And the Japanese in the war of 1905 absolutely demolished the Russians. Then in ww1 the Germans absolutely demolished the Russians. The Germans beat them so badly that it caused an entire civil war and Russia to sue for peace on humiliating terms. Russia may have saved Europe in ww2 but it was repaying the favour from when it had been saved by the West 25 years before. The only countries that has never been successfully invaded that are of significance are JAPAN and Ethiopia. Russia has been invaded and conquered.
deathtokoalas
the mongol and japanese invasions are not meaningfully comparable to any invasion of russia from the west. to begin with, russia as we know it did not yet exist at the time, and is actually very much a successor state to the mongols in the first place. that's like suggesting that america is easily conquered by pointing to colonization by europeans. it's just not meaningful.
the entirely unprovoked and western-backed japanese invasion was on the colonial fringes of the empire, in an area that doesn't meaningfully even count as russia. it just has nothing to do with attempts to conquer actual russia.
all of the other examples you're citing (along with napoleon's attempt and sweden's attempt in the great northern war) indicate how impossible invading russia is. this idea that the germans defeated the russians in wwI is just absolute rubbish. what happened is that the army revolted, because it thought the invasion of germany was pointless (and it was) and the czar was a more meaningful target. the terms that russia picked were a function of the empire's repressiveness, not a function of german military strength. and, the fact that the germans gladly called a truce is indicative of where the balance of power truly was.
the front is certainly wide open and always has been, but the same reasons that make it difficult to defend make it impossible to close, and work in reverse for invading russian armies.
Keanu Victor
actually the Russians were shit in ww1, they lost millions of men, I think that may have actually contributed more to the mutiny. If Russia were winning the war then they wouldn't have complained. Secondly the newly imposed provisional government did actually try and regain territory from the Germans in early 1918 and got massacred. So they had to give even more land. Napoleon and Hitler were both defeated by snow not by Russian soldiers in their initial invasions. Without the weather Russia would be fucked. While it was summer and autumn the Germans and the French steam rolled across Russia, killed millions and captures huge swathes of territory. Both made it all the way to Moscow and then ran out of resources and the winter set in. If Russia wasn't so vast it would be conquered easily. They have always had leadership that is lacking in quality compared to other nations. Their military is large but not invincible. Countries may Gail to invade Russia fully but Russia fails to invade the west fully as well. It's never going to happen.
deathtokoalas
oh, i don't expect russia to invade western europe. this debate is historical, with essentially no relevance to today.
when you're talking about a country that is being conscripted and sent across a continent to fight a war they don't understand (and wouldn't care about if they did), winning or losing isn't really important. it's fighting that is the problem. most people don't know that canada faced massive general strikes and ethnic unrest during the war, as workers revolted and the french refused to serve. that's because most people don't care about canada. there were comparable revolts in france, as well. you need to flip the situation around and derive the loss of life from a lack of national pride. it wasn't an accident that the communists picked russia, it was very carefully targeted.
you're otherwise explaining my point, not defending yours.
i've been saying for years that obama sounds a lot like dave chapelle's white guy impersonation. this sort of cements the comparison.
best thing on youtube.
i'm actually glad that oliver's viewpoint is presented as smugly as it is, because it's a good representation of the so-called academic opposition to wikipedia. the mere idea of trying to separate between "legitimate academic work" and "amateur enthusiasts" (or whatever he said) is a lot of rubbish that wikipedia is doing an excellent job of exposing and unraveling, leaving a lot of upper class snobs to spit in their teacups. we're taught to look at educators as altruists, which is obscuring us to the reality of the backlash which is that the real reason academics react so badly to wikipedia and free information in general is that it threatens their business model. today, it's encyclopedias that are going under. tomorrow, it's textbook companies. eventually, it's publishing companies altogether, in a totally free (as in speech) economy. this doesn't eliminate academic rigour, it merely separates it from a profit motive and gives it back to the community (and away from the individual) where it belongs. this is progress, and the universities should be scolded for resisting it.
it's one thing to point out that this is in direct contradiction to the increasing privatization and corporatization of the "knowledge industry", including skyrocketing tuition prices. they warn of free information dumbing us down, but this is indicative of our existing era of academic sophistry, where students are charged thousands of dollars to sit through lectures where profs summarize books they could get at the library for free. it's another to point out that it's exactly why it's so important - because it breaks that model of education for profit.
once you realize you're dealing with scam artists that are afraid of being called out on it, rather than people working towards the common good as we are so often falsely lead to believe, it is easy to cast aside their criticism as rubbish.
jimmy's making far more sense, here. he's built a great tool that academics should be more excited about adapting to, and would be if they were the altruists so many of us like to pretend they are. now, the challenge is in getting them out of their ivory towers and down on the ground to engage. it may not be in their immediate financial interests, but here's the nice part of it - there's a cusp approaching, where they risk irrelevance if they don't.
and rupert murdoch can fuck off.
scottish independence isn't something i'm following closely or care much about. not my place to care or give advice.
but, i can't imagine how it would be really beneficial to anybody, except the people stepping in at the top of the tax chain. i'm sure there's problems with local governance - there are everywhere - but declaring independence is hardly a solution, and finding a solution doesn't require independence. this is a distraction.
i'd suspect scotland is more independent than quebec, but by how much i don't know. the argument against quebec nationalism is that they'll end up like mexico, a reality that the separatists largely acknowledge. they talk about multiple generations of sacrifice. it's a dumb idea, bluntly. i'd have to think scotland will take at least a small hit.
further, i don't know if part of this is about getting into the eurozone. that doesn't strike me as a good idea.
i think britain is better off outside the european union, and that the islands are better off working together. perhaps that means negotiating the union into an actual union, a confederation of sorts, where britain and scotland (and wales and ireland) are equals in joint government, and yet retain much sovereignty.
trying to disassociate too much is just going to harm everybody.
actually, you have to wonder how much of this goes back to scotland being aligned with the pope and whatnot...
judging from this moment in history, it seems as though the continent might finally have the island where it wants it. that's another empire that is on the cusp of entering the history books....
i mean, it makes sense. pull scotland out, bring them into the eurozone. ireland, too. it's ancient imperial policy.
or maybe britain and russia team up against those fucking germans one last time. i'm not going to like what political incarnation britain would require for this. but i don't get to pick.
crazy? a little poetic, but not crazy...
imperial pain in the ass #3 has always been sweden. i don't think they're much of a military threat right now. but those vikings are sneaky. they've never been conquered. strangely, that might be the centre of real digital resistance (in the guise of neutrality), as britain and russia both finally collapse. is the pirate bay more than it seems to be?
i've had this idea in the back of my mind that the ultimate motive underlying the attacks on libya is eu unification, from north africa through israel to turkey. the saudis won't like that. but it's decades from now.
the romans spent something like a thousand years trying to conquer iran. that ended in the mid 7th century, when the arabs conquered them both after a particularly rough round of fighting that left them both highly vulnerable. know what's funny? the story really does align well with the apocalypse. i think any educated person standing in the region would have seen it coming, this catastrophic conflict between iran and constantinople that would destroy the world - not unlike living through the cold war really. was the biblical apocalypse really something like an ancient kubrick film? probably.
but it was within that collapse of civilization that the arabs colonized the region, meeting minimal resistance 'cause everybody was already dead. there's a few other periods in history where colonization was the result of mass slaughter, not tied directly to it. it was one of the consequences of the invasions of genghis khan, for example. the apocalyptic narrative has real parallels, it's not all fantasy.
but the point is that these historical conflicts have roots that are more deeply rooted than the politics or populations of the regions. they recreate themselves as functions of the land. there's probably no real end to them. whether the eu ever succeeds in reconquering northern africa or not, it will always have a contingency plan in the background. and spain (let alone iran) will always be lost territory to whatever force governs in arabia, regardless of race or religion.
tactics regarding squeezing out the british will always include controlling scotland, whether you're the pope or the emperor or the fuhrer or the european central bank or some future continental entity...
so, things are back to normal for now, meaning i can get back to my daily readings instead of backing up files and scouring the internet looking for desperate ways to try to fix broken hardware.
this is a pointless read, except as background for paine or burke or wollstonecraft, which is what i'm about to get back to, and i have to say that i'm not really getting the relevance there, either. maybe it will present itself. for now, it's just weird and anachronistic...
there's actually a worthwhile point in here somewhere....
this text is a transcription of a speech that price gave to a
revolutionary society. however, it is known to history as being an easy
target that edmund burke keyed in on in his reflections on the revolution in france.
subsequently, both thomas paine and mary wollstonecraft came to price's
defence. while it is unlikely that i will side with burke in the more
general argument (i haven't read that text yet), i am far too removed
from the text to react in a way that is in any way comparable to the
existing defences of it. rather, my initial reaction was actually very
dismissive. not only is there no place for nationalism in my
understanding of liberalism, but my very idea of freedom is defined
practically in direct opposition to the idea of defining one's self in
terms of ethnic identity. if we do not have the freedom to reject the
mental slavery of being defined by a national identity and simply be
human beings, we do not have any freedom at all! yet, a closer reading
has led me to conclude that price is speaking somewhat cryptically to
get around the restrictions that existed on his freedom to speak as he
truly wished to. i would go so far as to argue that this is the only way
to read the speech that makes any sense at all. while such a reading
may gloss over a few particularly egregious aspects of his concept of
nationalism, it doesn't shield him of deeper and more worthwhile
criticism.
- begins by noting that "...like all other passions, it
(nationalism) requires regulation and direction.". getting this across
is the real purpose of the speech.
- price then defines nationalism. it is not a geographic concept,
but a communitarian one. a russian-born person living in england should
consequently identify as english, rather than russian. so, this is a
melting pot concept of identity that sees the individual's identity as
transferable between communities and as an expression of the community
one lives in, rather than existing uniquely within the individual and
carried along with it. sort of fascist; not very liberal.
- "it is proper to observe" that nationalism is not the same thing
as supremacism or xenophobia. collectivists of a certain variety may
assert this on principle, but they have a hard time arguing against it's
cognitive dissonance. nationalism is inherently exclusive. how can it
avoid being xenophobic? and how can the xenophobic avoid being
supremacist? real leftists have no patience for nationalism. price's
attempts to argue for nationalism and against xenophobia are
consequently difficult to take seriously, as they're not really possible
to separate.
- it is also proper to observe that nationalism is not the same
thing as competition. again, this looks nice on paper but is simply
incoherent. as nationalism is exclusive, it categorizes people into
separate groups that can only ever develop hostilities and become
antagonistic, which leads to division and competition. price even seems
to realize this. he runs through a list of historical examples of
cultures that have seen themselves as superior, condemning each in turn.
- so, price's ideal of nationalism is hereby defined for the rest
of the text as an impossible mindset that can never exist anywhere
amongst any people, and never has. his comment? Let us learn by such reflexions to correct and purify this passion, and to make it a just and rational principle of action. yes, let us rationalize the irrational...
as nonsensical as all of this may seem, it is easy to read between
the lines to deduce that price's preferred brand of nationalism is
actually the rejection of nationalism. this has historically been a
difficult thing to articulate in any kind of public forum without
dealing with serious consequences. if we are to recognize the
contradiction in his statements, the next step is to determine which
side of the contradiction is presented as more important, and it is
without a doubt the side that minimizes nationalism in favour of
universalism. that is to say that price has no option but to argue
against nationalism by redefining it as it's antithesis, or face the
king's wrath as well as, perhaps, the wrath of his fellow citizens; if
we reject xenophobia and competition then we also reject nationalism,
regardless of further incoherent rhetoric on the topic, however
necessary it may have been.
- he then moves on by noting that jesus did not mention nationalism. well, of course not. he was created to unify the empire. The
design of this parable was to shew to a Jew, that even a Samaritan, and
consequently all men of all nations and religions, were included in the
precept, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. to price,
nationalism ought to be nothing more than the golden rule applied to
one's immediate surroundings, which is not nationalism at all but the
negation of it.
- in somewhat of a turn towards buddhism, he suggests three
blessings of human nature (truth, virtue, liberty) and relates each of
them to what he proposes as properly nationalist behaviour, largely by
contrasting them against their opposites (barbarism, atheism, slavery).
this is a weird section of the text that presents crude and early
versions of what would today be called liberal imperialism (teach the
savages freedom and they will be free kind of stuff) and that i'm going
to mostly avoid, except to stress the point that the importance of the
separation of church and state cannot be overstated. also: if we show
them that they are men, will they not act like devo....?
if price is coyly speaking out against nationalism, what is his
goal? i can think of two motives. the first is to assert the church as
more powerful than the state, which is consistent with the underlying
message in his 1776 speech.
might he have been turning on those who would assert a separation of
church and state by coyly attacking the widespread feelings of secular
nationalism and replacing them with a manipulated christian
universalism? the second is somewhat contradictory to this, in that he
may have been reacting against british nationalistic rhetoric in the
context of the events that came out of the revolution, perhaps even out
of self-preservation. these are merely speculations; i do not know
enough about the life of richard price to state anything with any kind
of force. yet, i've seen enough in these two short documents to realize
that these are propaganda pieces by somebody with a political agenda and
that they can't be taken entirely at face value.
- he finishes by exploring various examples of what he would
consider proper nationalism (unsurprisingly, these all reduce to being
good, obedient citizens, and contain several warnings against "anarchy")
and discussing some historical aspects of the "glorious" english
"revolution" of 1689. this is again a touchy subject, as the official
position from the english authorities at the time was that england
already had a liberalizing revolution (a point that is now historically
accepted, but that many liberals of the period were not willing to fully
concede or in some cases concede at all, especially in the context of
the revolution in america). whether out of genuine belief or fear of
consequence, price takes the statist line, here. beyond noting that,
this ending section is not particularly interesting to me.
so, the point that is hidden in here beneath the jingoistic
language is actually that nationalism has many pitfalls that should be
avoided. our opinions may part on virtually every other aspect of the
two short tracts i've read by him, but i can agree with dr. price on
that basic point.
a bunch of populist right-wing talking points, pompous rhetoric and targeted demographic-driven empty provinces. this is contributing to the death of the ndp, but isn't likely to rejuvenate the base.
as a basic starting point, where is a promise to *reverse* the privatization of ontario hydro? what's that? taboo? actually, run a poll, andrea. you'd be surprised. oh, you meant taboo on bay street. got it.
the last time ontario elected the ndp, it got the most right-wing government it'd seen in decades as rae jumped all over himself trying to convince the business community that he wasn't a communist plant.
i'd expect the same from horwath, who is a highly opportunistic career politician that is seeking power first and foremost.
so, i'll stick with the liberals for now, until a real alternative presents itself.
see, this is what i was worried about.
it's 10 out, and 5:00 am, and i can feel the air coming down. which must be because the heat is on high two floors up, to fight the air on the main level.
i can't deal with that. i have to get the heat up. there's essentially no tenant that could deal with that. and it's going to squeeze him out, but it's his own fault.
this is really revolting.
do sanctions have environmental benefits, in that they encourage local production?
...well, real sanctions, anyways. not these paper sanctions that reduce to food fights at the country club.
all the major empires support and aid fascist groups to carry out destabilization tactics within competing empires. it's abundantly clear at this point that moscow wants to be sugar daddy to the west's far right "libertarian" movements as they become increasingly militant.
i grasp the value of broadcasting in multiple languages, but the actual effect of this is to cut the video off from 90% of your audience. how about captions in english (or multiple languages, resources willing)?
they really need to take this woman off the air, or at least replace her with an ewok. i applaud wichita fall's efforts to reduce dumping. and i wouldn't even expect a report this absurdly stupid to come out of my ruling conservative party.
those alternate tunings were more of a problem than i realized, as they cut out one of the guitar sections. i thought the guitar seemed quiet, but thought it was just a function of the technology.
the sampler i'm using to convert midi notes to guitar sounds will simply not allow shapes that can't be played on a guitar in standard tuning. it will allow you to lower the bottom string down to c, which opened up enough space in my case to get the chords out, but that won't allow for really impossible chord combinations. strangely, lowering the range fixed it because it also seems to try and automatically invert chords so they fit on the fretboard.....! i suppose that might be useful to a keyboard player that doesn't know guitars so well, but it's actually horrific for a guitarist that fully realizes what they're doing when they're typing up the notes.
so, i got the inversions to stop and all the notes to come out, so that will update via rss. well, hopefully that's the last version.
the one thing i can't get is this chord in the transition from the bass solo to the post-jazz section. i'm talking about this pesky A#. i could always create a new track and resequence it. yeah. i should do that, actually. good thing i didn't upload yet. but the chord is F-A#-C, from low to high. this is impossible to play on a guitar in standard tuning. the solution is to tune the D string down to a C, making an easy chord to fret. simple. but, the computer is instead just dropping the A# altogether...
that's good to know for future reference.
written late 2000 & early 2001. initially rendered mar 7, 2014.
re-rendered due to shift in instrumentation on april 29, 2014.
re-rendered again on may 3, 2014 to allow for audible acoustic guitars,
after a rewrite to allow the computer to play in an alternate tuning.
it was vindication, if unfortunate, walking to the front entrance today and getting a rush of hot air from upstairs. you know when you come in from outside and can feel the heat rushing at you? it was like that. except i was walking from a basement to a main floor, and feeling the heat coming from behind a closed door and *down* a flight of stairs. and it's 13, not -20. and it's electric radiator heat, too. indicating that it was just right cranked. no doubt to fight the air conditioning on the main floor. i've mostly avoided raising it past 21, which has mostly kept it off. i'm not likely to crank it more than 22 more than a few hours at a time. so, somebody else is more irritated than i am by this unseasonable air conditioning...
i slept through most of the afternoon; a hot shower warmed me up nicely and then knocked me out cold. but it does seem as though it was on again a little after 4:00. i'm still feeling it a bit...
that's another possible answer, for the short term, that i can accommodate better than my neighbours. if he's going to turn the air up in the afternoon and leave it off overnight, i can sleep in the afternoon and stay awake overnight.
there's a bunch of reasons i don't really want to crank it. the rent is low here. i'd rather wear a sweater than see a rent increase, but it's within reason - what's a piss off is how unreasonable setting the air to below 20 is. which i think is the real reason i'm concerned, rather than the actual temperature. that, i can deal with. but if we get into this a/c v radiator fight, it's going to fuck the landlord and that's going to fuck us. electric heating is also quite dry. and the truth is that i like it a little cool. it's one of the reasons i like basements.
we might finally get a real warm up next week, but it looks sketchy.
i'd normally go talk to the guy, but it's not a situation where we're legal under the law. tenant law is badly skewed towards family members. if it's intended to intimidate non-family members, it's worked. i have to be careful to not get into conflict with them and more or less resign myself to his right to have the air as he wants it.
see, the flip side is i have the right to get the heat up. and the lease is the lease, regarding rent costs. there was a verbal agreement to keep the rent static. i think that endows me with a responsibility to try to minimize heating costs. the day i get a rent increase, that's out the window. but, for now i'd like to try and stick to it.
it's just...it all revolves around being reasonable. and the actual owner is reasonable. but i don't feel like i'm getting that from his brother upstairs.
i mean, it's hard to compute the idea that he doesn't realize turning the air on in an unseasonably cold early may and late april is unreasonable. this has to be "i don't fucking care". and it can't really be something that an explanation can resolve.
wonder how successful a claim that current tenant law is unconstitutional would be. it's clearly discriminatory; not clearly enumerated, but perhaps analogous. see, it pits s. 15 rights directly against "property rights", which are in quotes because there is actually no legal recognition of property rights in canada, despite the idea being thrown around by various types of liberals. i mean, there's contract law. sure. but it's not at all the same thing. i would *hope* that s. 15 would trump these imaginary "property rights". but that's up to the judge...
i'd be skeptical. but it would be an interesting case that would bring to light a lot of interesting questions. or, at least it would if i was orchestrating it.
this is the east-european superstate (centered in warsaw) that is in the process of being reformed for the purposes of swallowing up western/european russia.
i think this is worth watching for a more subtle analysis from some wiser people. it always makes me laugh when i see some 30-something associate prof think he can use his greater understanding of the modern world to overturn decades of experience. it's the wide-eyed naivete that the older folks have grown beyond; you can call them cynical, but realize it's largely synonymous with being wise when the topic is geopolitics. matlock's statement that (maaaaaaatlooooooock. ok. sorry.) he's talking about reality, not human rights, was really refreshing. so, just shut up and listen...
al jazeera has it's own biases, but i'm finding the analysis (if not the actual coverage) to be coming from enough of a spectator position to only be mildly pro-western. it's more ideological than hierarchical. that objectivity is not universal on the channel, but it's nice in this conflict. while it lasts, anyways.
but even the greater wisdom in understanding here isn't really getting to the mindfuck that we're entering the end stages of this conflict, notwithstanding the russians unveiling some secret weapon or coming clean on their alliance with the intergalactic space empire (i still claim they would have contacted the communists and not the capitalists) or something. the section on russia joining europe is sort of getting it, but only accidentally.
if anything has changed, it's that the go-for-the-jugular strategy of the current administration is just too outlandishly aggressive for them to really get their heads around. they get the context better, but they're having trouble moving from this idea of balancing alliances that was dominant from bismarck to kissinger (the space of their entire professional lives) and getting into the new neo-con reality that clinton bombed into existence...
they don't just want nato bases in kiev. they want nato bases in moscow, too.
Friday, 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.
it took me a while to getting around to watching it, but this is an important speech, historically, that will be cited for decades to come. you have to get through a little bit of propaganda to come to it, but putin is announcing a drastic shift in russian foreign policy: an end to american appeasement. that is provocative language, but in the era of over the top propaganda the truth is indeed often provocative. and, like churchill before him, putin is too late: this is the end of the russian empire. what remains to be seen is whether the new regional power is going to be europe or china, or whether they just split russia down the middle.
see, here's the thing i was worried about and we've seen confirmed in the east of ukraine: russia may have been forced into crimea by threat of losing it's strategic regional bases (if one pushes a spring, it does indeed bounce back at you, as vlad said), but it cannot simply stop with that reaction. it's like setting a string of dominoes in motion. russia now has no choice but to attempt to reassert it's hegemony over all of eastern europe, which will lead to it's imminent collapse..
likewise, once assad has rooted out the rebels he will have no choice but to launch a counter-attack against saudi arabia. there's a major proxy war in the region on the horizon with a less certain outcome attached to it.
now, it's a new century. generally speaking, excluding the middle east, tactics are very different now. nobody wants to set off a war of alliances. i'm not suggesting that russia is planning an invasion of poland, which would start a nuclear war. i'm suggesting that russia is moving into a period where it attempts to control events in eastern europe through economic leverage and covert intelligence operations, like we're seeing in the east of ukraine. goals include taking power in these countries long enough to pull them out of nato, and crucially long enough to prevent the construction of that missile shield, which will reduce russia to a slave of nato. i think annexations like we've seen in crimea will be exceedingly difficult to organize.
it's a race against time, and one russia is destined to lose. especially if it continues to waste time in eastern ukraine, while nato further fortifies the baltics.
none of this is really new. it's in the pnac. supposedly, books have been written about it (i haven't read them). but let's be clear what the theatre is in this war: it's the famous resources triangle of instability. what's changed is that a serious front is opening in eastern europe.
one of the different aspects of this front is that nato and america are on the defensive, which i think is unique in the post cold war world. that's not to assign the russians a position of strength. it's very illusory.
so, this is what has changed: russia has reacted, and now cannot reverse the machinery it has set in motion until every former warsaw pact member has resigned it's membership in nato. which will not happen.
warsaw is the new moscow.
dontlaughtoomuch11
"russia now has no choice but to attempt to reassert it's hegemony over all of eastern europe, which will lead to it's imminent collapse.."
====>Retard bitch, you made the TERRIBLE mistake but TERRIBLE mistake of confusing Sovjet Russia with Modern Russia, seriously??? Has the USA yankee propaganda made your brain that weak that you can't even think straight?!
deathtokoalas
well, no. i'm equating modern russia with soviet russia with czarist russia, actually. all of these things are different stages of a russian empire. none of these stages were communist or capitalist in any meaningful way, they all shared the ideology of empire.
there was no such thing as the cold war. there was a conflict between london's empire and moscow's empire that heated up a little after the french revolution, when they became the two dominant empires vying over global control. london was replaced with washington, but this is an insignificant detail; the american empire is the lineal descendant of the british empire. and, one can maybe extrapolate that back further, by connecting london to rome and moscow to constantinople. there has always been a conflict between the empire to the east and the empire to the west.
such is the nature of a world broken up into states.
that is not a result of propaganda. i don't watch western media, but i doubt there's many western talking heads comparing putin to churchill or voiding the american revolution by reducing it to a civil war within the british empire. it's the result of having a solid understanding of history, and being able to see when an empire is on the brink of collapse.
the reason russia cannot reverse the attack is that, if it does, nato will become more aggressive. every sign of weakness from russia merely strengthens america's kill reflex. if they do not take control of latvia, nato will place missiles there directed directly at moscow that will eliminate all russian sovereignty. if they do not take control of poland, it will be used to retake latvia. and etc. there is no end to this, other than the west changing it's mindset out of this endgame/final-kill/conquer-russia mode and into one that respects their boundaries.
but all of this is completely impossible. putin is fifteen years too late to reverse the collapse of the russian empire - which he is responsible for by not reacting to the expansionism by the american empire. all he can do is watch helplessly as his allies turn against him in a rush to steal the country's resource wealth.
the kill is approaching, and the world will feast on the carcass.
note that there's always the possibility that the russians have some secret weapon, or are covertly aligned with an inter-galactic empire (i think it more likely that an alien species would initiate contact with communists than capitalists) or something. but, by all open and earthly appearances, russia is pretty much mated in five or six.
i mean, putin's gotta pull a heraclius or something, here.
---
Beastinvader
Go Putin! Funny how people will talk about the injustice of the Tartars being forced to leave. Yet they won't mention that those tartars supported the NAZIs.
marcwhatever
Stalin was same criminal as Hitler was. In USRR there was a lot of people who supported Hitler in because they thought he bring them more freedom. I don't know how i'd act if I was a Ukrainian (for example) just after Holodomor and face chance to kill soviets. Btw. half of Tatar population was killed or deported before 1933, repressions after WWII only ended up whole thing.
deathtokoalas
but the history is always stated in a vacuum, as though it's an unprovoked aggression. nobody talks about the brutality of the mongol invasions, or how russia and ukraine were enslaved by mongol hordes for centuries. slave and slav have a common root in the english language, due primarily to the slave trade that existed in the period. millions upon millions of slavic speakers were rounded up by crimean tatars and shipped south to the ottomon empire, where they were sold as slaves within the islamic world. it's actually one of the greatest atrocities in the history of mankind, up there with the extermination of american indigenous populations and the transatlantic slave trade. and, western media has the audacity to suggest that the crimea was the "ancestral homelands" of the tatars? after they invaded from east of the caspian and depopulated and enslaved the indigenous inhabitants? herodotus makes it clear that the indigenous peoples of the crimea were the agricultural ancestors of the modern slavic groups. when you put stalin's deportation orders in context, it's as a process of revenge that is difficult to actively condemn.
Keeper Web
It was political change, what Stalin did I can't even start on something to defend his actions, but compare it to the change in US civil war, how many human rights violations and human tragedies you can find there. You can find it repeating it many times in history, but Stalin had more "recognition" on the subject.
Beastinvader
I didn't realise the problems began before WW2. My mistake. I have to learn more about that period in history. Thanks for letting me know.
deathtokoalas
to get to the root of the history, begin by googling the term "harvesting the steppe". it's hard to condone what stalin did, but when you understand the history it's also hard to condemn it.
we could talk about native american tribes potentially rising up against american settlers, but that's maybe hard to put under any concrete basis. however, if you look at land redistribution in africa, that's maybe a more concrete way to understand it. the anc (under mandela) toyed with the idea of redistributing land from white settlers to indigenous blacks. in the end, they didn't. could anybody have condemned them if they did? this has actually happened in zimbabwe (under mugabe). there's no doubt that rights abuses have occurred. but, it's also very difficult to condemn, given that black africans obviously have a greater right to the land.
what's annoying, to me, is the lack of context in discussing a complicated issue. instead, it's consistently framed in a lingering cold war narrative.
Beastinvader
I agree. I happen to be South African and I'm well aware of what Mugabe did and what the ANC is trying to do.
Two decades of Black Economic Empowerment and they are pushing for more. But in South Africa it's more complex. The Zulus were in the East when the Dutch arrived in the cape. Under Dutch (and later British) rule we expanded to incorporate the whole of West South Africa and the East coast. The only people there were nomadic people who wanders around.
I admit that the wars against the Zulus might have been wrong.
My point is just that the white people here has as great a right in this country than black people.
Also, thanks for the info. I'm at this moment looking at the history of the tartars.
