"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.
Saturday, January 7, 2017
also, i've been clear on this point since high school: all grammar is statist mind control and must be violently resisted. if i had an editor, we would get into fist fights. it' not even apathy. it's active resistance.
at
18:24
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.
at
18:22
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
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.
at
16:33
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.
at
12:56
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.
at
11:05
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
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.
at
10:54
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.
at
10:35
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.
at
09:32
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.)
at
09:00
it seems as though "do it for views" has become a kind of politically correct way to accuse somebody of being a sellout. what you're avoiding is accusing somebody of doing something for money.
just be honest. nobody cares about views. nobody does a damned fucking thing for views.
just be honest. nobody cares about views. nobody does a damned fucking thing for views.
at
06:23
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.
at
03:14
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
at
21:19
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.
at
20:31
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.
at
19:13
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?
at
12:42
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...
at
07:05
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.
at
06:31
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
at
06:06
"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.
at
05:46
it's not news, of course. it's long been obvious that biden is a ham-fisted dunce.
at
04:52
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
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.
at
03:50
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/
at
02:47
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.
at
02:26
this is their story, though. and they're sticking to it. however flimsy it is.
i'll tell you what: i'll believe what you say on russia when you release your dossier proving bin laden took those towers down. you told us that dossier was coming, any day now, over fifteen years ago. you launched multiple wars based on the contents of that dossier. but you never released it.
you just told us it was "clear" who was behind the attacks.
i agree that it's clear, actually.
i just don't agree with your claim of responsibility.
i'll tell you what: i'll believe what you say on russia when you release your dossier proving bin laden took those towers down. you told us that dossier was coming, any day now, over fifteen years ago. you launched multiple wars based on the contents of that dossier. but you never released it.
you just told us it was "clear" who was behind the attacks.
i agree that it's clear, actually.
i just don't agree with your claim of responsibility.
at
02:09
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
“could it be any more clear that Russia was behind what happened in the election?” they asked.
that is a classic gloss-over tactic.
"clearly," says the talking head "this false statement is true."
when pressed for details, there invariably aren't any. that is why the term "clearly" was invoked.
mathematicians are experts at this tactic.
"clearly, the axiom of choice is correct."
(psst. pro-tip. they're blaming the russians for what they did themselves.)
that is a classic gloss-over tactic.
"clearly," says the talking head "this false statement is true."
when pressed for details, there invariably aren't any. that is why the term "clearly" was invoked.
mathematicians are experts at this tactic.
"clearly, the axiom of choice is correct."
(psst. pro-tip. they're blaming the russians for what they did themselves.)
at
02:01
no, i don't want to "collab".
i'm very explicit: the vlog is a journal. there will never be another person in it. it's only about one thing, and that one thing is me.
i'm very explicit: the vlog is a journal. there will never be another person in it. it's only about one thing, and that one thing is me.
at
01:55
Thursday, January 5, 2017
april 28, 2014
ffs....
http://www.cnet.com/news/bitcoin-mining-malware-reportedly-discovered-at-google-play/
now, every cpu is a possible drone to generate currency from. not only do we have people wasting resources on nothing of any value, we have computers doing the same thing.
i'm not really surprised, although i'll say that i looked at this as a harmless ponzi scheme up to this point, rather than anything legitimately threatening to the real economy. this is providing for a different perspective...
could we just get the point that the problem is exchange value itself and abolish currency already?
a: i think there's this huge problem in the world.
b: really? what's that?
a: well, money is just made out of thin air, like it's some kind of meaningless abstraction, or something.
b: isn't it a meaningless abstraction, though?
a: never mind that.
b: well, what's your solution?
a: i think we should make money out of processor cycles.
b: isn't that out of thin air?
a: never mind that.
a: when it's just made out of thin air like this, it lets banks create these imaginary bubbles that they can get rich off of.
b: but aren't they going to do the equivalent thing, regardless?
a: what do you mean? what is equivalent to making pretend money, stealing it and then charging for it?
b: well, isn't that just a function of their unlimited power? if you were to modify the system and leave them with comparative levels of power, wouldn't they figure something else out? isn't the problem the lack of accountability, rather than the (more or less entirely arbitrary) way the money is created?
a: you surely don't suggest that we should regulate bankers, do you? what are you, some kind of commie nazi globalist fascist?
b: do you even realize that you're completely contradicting yourself?
a: never mind that.
b: have you considered just abolishing money?
a: pft. how do you suppose i exploit people without currency? dumb communists...
ffs....
http://www.cnet.com/news/bitcoin-mining-malware-reportedly-discovered-at-google-play/
now, every cpu is a possible drone to generate currency from. not only do we have people wasting resources on nothing of any value, we have computers doing the same thing.
i'm not really surprised, although i'll say that i looked at this as a harmless ponzi scheme up to this point, rather than anything legitimately threatening to the real economy. this is providing for a different perspective...
could we just get the point that the problem is exchange value itself and abolish currency already?
a: i think there's this huge problem in the world.
b: really? what's that?
a: well, money is just made out of thin air, like it's some kind of meaningless abstraction, or something.
b: isn't it a meaningless abstraction, though?
a: never mind that.
b: well, what's your solution?
a: i think we should make money out of processor cycles.
b: isn't that out of thin air?
a: never mind that.
a: when it's just made out of thin air like this, it lets banks create these imaginary bubbles that they can get rich off of.
b: but aren't they going to do the equivalent thing, regardless?
a: what do you mean? what is equivalent to making pretend money, stealing it and then charging for it?
b: well, isn't that just a function of their unlimited power? if you were to modify the system and leave them with comparative levels of power, wouldn't they figure something else out? isn't the problem the lack of accountability, rather than the (more or less entirely arbitrary) way the money is created?
a: you surely don't suggest that we should regulate bankers, do you? what are you, some kind of commie nazi globalist fascist?
b: do you even realize that you're completely contradicting yourself?
a: never mind that.
b: have you considered just abolishing money?
a: pft. how do you suppose i exploit people without currency? dumb communists...
at
18:13
who are they appealing to? the left doesn't want it. the right doesn't want it.
it's a compromise that nobody wants.
they should be focusing on a replacement. it will be an issue in the next cycle. and, they will get annihilated if they campaign on a return to the existing status quo - which nobody wants.
call their bluff. and raise. steeply.
it's a compromise that nobody wants.
they should be focusing on a replacement. it will be an issue in the next cycle. and, they will get annihilated if they campaign on a return to the existing status quo - which nobody wants.
call their bluff. and raise. steeply.
at
17:31
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm just going to say this once, and then i'll be quiet on the topic: a long, protracted fight to save obamacare will do serious long-term damage to the democrats.
i, for one, will not take their side on this. i'm not going to be coerced into defending the heritage institute's free market health care plan. i agree that it's a bad system and that it should be replaced; my point of disagreement is in what they should replace it with.
they should cut their losses and move on as quickly as possible.
every article produced about the democrats defending obamacare is another nail in their coffin.
i, for one, will not take their side on this. i'm not going to be coerced into defending the heritage institute's free market health care plan. i agree that it's a bad system and that it should be replaced; my point of disagreement is in what they should replace it with.
they should cut their losses and move on as quickly as possible.
every article produced about the democrats defending obamacare is another nail in their coffin.
at
17:21
but, let's be clear here: the reason obamacare sucks is not in spite of the market but because of it. that's what obamacare is: a free market healthcare system. and, that's why it sucks: because it's a free market healthcare system. threats from republicans to "create a free market heath care system" are actually incoherent - the whole point of obamacare was to use competition over the market to drive down premiums. but, a competitive market will never drive down premiums. that's a preposterous premise, based on the religion of free markets. and the failure of obamacare is nothing more or less complicated than a classic market failure.
there's only two possible approaches, here. you can acknowledge the market failure and move to a single payer system, or you can rebrand obamacare as donaldcare and pretend it's a different system. what they're going to do is the latter.
and, democrats should get out of the way and let them do it, then fight them over it to get to the right answer.
there's only two possible approaches, here. you can acknowledge the market failure and move to a single payer system, or you can rebrand obamacare as donaldcare and pretend it's a different system. what they're going to do is the latter.
and, democrats should get out of the way and let them do it, then fight them over it to get to the right answer.
at
17:08
there isn't currently an illegal market in fetal body parts, because the system is regulated.
but, if you pull funding for planned parenthood then abortions will go underground and one will develop, because it will no longer be regulated. the price will go up, as well, making the trade more lucrative. and, that's when organized crime gets involved.
can you imagine going to an abortion clinic run by the mafia? that's what's going to happen...
are they actually going to do this, though? sort of.
in canada, we call this process "downloading". the states will step in. or, at least the progressive ones will.
it's at least a real threat. you should take it more seriously.
but, if you pull funding for planned parenthood then abortions will go underground and one will develop, because it will no longer be regulated. the price will go up, as well, making the trade more lucrative. and, that's when organized crime gets involved.
can you imagine going to an abortion clinic run by the mafia? that's what's going to happen...
are they actually going to do this, though? sort of.
in canada, we call this process "downloading". the states will step in. or, at least the progressive ones will.
it's at least a real threat. you should take it more seriously.
at
16:46
after reading the grapes of wrath, and in sorting through my writing, i'm realizing that steinbeck's writing style kind of rubbed off on me a bit.
that's not something i've ever noticed before. well, i guess it was so long ago, right? i'm primarily aware of the overwhelming effect of pynchon on my writing style, and i'm not shy about referencing orwell or kafka. but steinbeck? that's a mirror i wasn't expecting.
that's not something i've ever noticed before. well, i guess it was so long ago, right? i'm primarily aware of the overwhelming effect of pynchon on my writing style, and i'm not shy about referencing orwell or kafka. but steinbeck? that's a mirror i wasn't expecting.
at
14:24
i actually remember explicitly
thinking that he wanted to privatize social security. i think you guys
probably dodged a bullet, there.
at
13:18
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
"the rhetoric of competition just deflates" - me reacting to obama, in 2008.
at
13:16
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm just trying to get across the point that i'm not in the "disappointed by obama" pile. i never supported him. i actively fought against him in the primary, and i never came around to him in the general. i did not see him as a lesser evil in 2008. and i still can't find any policy differences between romney and obama....
i think that what we got from obama is pretty much what i expected we would get from him back in '08. if anything, he was maybe a little less fiscally conservative than i expected.
i think that what we got from obama is pretty much what i expected we would get from him back in '08. if anything, he was maybe a little less fiscally conservative than i expected.
at
13:16
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i've been over this before, but the only democratic candidate in my lifetime that i've ever felt comfortable voting for was john kerry. he's the only candidate that i'd call an actual "liberal". i think i probably would have voted against trump - and i'm not just saying that, i think i would have. for months, i claimed i couldn't vote for her. it took me until the very end of the cycle before i felt the urgency to. and i'm still not 100% certain that i could have, but i think i would have forced myself to. i would not have voted for obama, and i would not have voted for gore, either - they were both too right-wing to be acceptable.
at
12:58
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
also, fwiw: the primary reason that i supported clinton over obama in 2008 [yes. i did.] was that obama campaigned against single-payer, whereas hrc was presumed to be in favour of it. i'll find posts from the period, eventually. i was explicit about this. and, i've been consistent in my opposition to obamacare for the whole 8+ years.
at
12:50
i've been explicit about this in the past: i think the democrats should call them on their bluff and encourage them to repeal. at some point, they're going to have to call obama out on this.
if i was a democratic representative, i would actually vote in favour of the repeal and immediately get to work in building support for single payer to replace it. if enough democrats stand up and call the republicans on their bluff, the republicans will be forced to retreat on it, because the whole point was to avoid single payer.
if i was a democratic representative, i would actually vote in favour of the repeal and immediately get to work in building support for single payer to replace it. if enough democrats stand up and call the republicans on their bluff, the republicans will be forced to retreat on it, because the whole point was to avoid single payer.
at
12:29
obamacare was a great victory for the right, and a terrible defeat for the left.
obama handed the republicans the issue.
he caved on every single point.
the opposition and the media presented the issue the way it did for a reason, and look: it worked. but, the task for the republicans, now, is to squirm out of it, and tweak the system to consolidate their victory.
meanwhile, the task for the left is to understand the situation and continue to agitate for single payer.
repeal makes no sense. it's not happening.
obama handed the republicans the issue.
he caved on every single point.
the opposition and the media presented the issue the way it did for a reason, and look: it worked. but, the task for the republicans, now, is to squirm out of it, and tweak the system to consolidate their victory.
meanwhile, the task for the left is to understand the situation and continue to agitate for single payer.
repeal makes no sense. it's not happening.
at
12:21
just to be clear: i would be in favour of repealing obamacare, too.
.....and replacing it with single payer.
but, the purpose of obamacare was to destroy the movement for single payer.
the repeal makes no sense. not from the republicans. it might make sense for democrats to repeal it, but it's exactly what the republicans want.
put another way: obamacare may very well be the single greatest victory of the american right since the end of communism.
in repealing it, they'd be handing the issue back to the democrats and blowing a hole in their feet. because let me tell you this much: democrats will not fall for the mandate a second time. next time, it's single-payer or bust.
.....and replacing it with single payer.
but, the purpose of obamacare was to destroy the movement for single payer.
the repeal makes no sense. not from the republicans. it might make sense for democrats to repeal it, but it's exactly what the republicans want.
put another way: obamacare may very well be the single greatest victory of the american right since the end of communism.
in repealing it, they'd be handing the issue back to the democrats and blowing a hole in their feet. because let me tell you this much: democrats will not fall for the mandate a second time. next time, it's single-payer or bust.
at
12:02
i'm actually glad that it's rand paul that's voting against the repeal, because it's his constituents that will be hit the worst.
but, listen: i don't think that rand paul is breaking ranks. i think this is orchestrated.
once again, let us all recall that obamacare was the republican party's preferred health care plan. they don't want to get rid of it. they wrote it. it's their baby. they've just trapped themselves in a corner.
they're only going to need a second defector. who's taking bets on this? they got one guy to cite the deficit, now they need to find a "compassionate conservative" worried about people losing insurance. i don't think it will be mccain. orrin hatch, maybe?
but, listen: i don't think that rand paul is breaking ranks. i think this is orchestrated.
once again, let us all recall that obamacare was the republican party's preferred health care plan. they don't want to get rid of it. they wrote it. it's their baby. they've just trapped themselves in a corner.
they're only going to need a second defector. who's taking bets on this? they got one guy to cite the deficit, now they need to find a "compassionate conservative" worried about people losing insurance. i don't think it will be mccain. orrin hatch, maybe?
at
09:06
should i finally get a smart phone?
i've never had one. well, i've never needed one. especially not at the costs they run at...
this is the kind of store i've been waiting for:
http://wirelesswarehouse.ca/specials/
the prices are still too high, though. i decided a long time ago that i would wait until they came down to under $50. that's what i'm willing to pay for a smart phone: $50. canadian. max. well, plus tax.
i'll have to do some research, still, but i know that what i want is an unlocked android phone. and, i'm not planning on buying service with it - no contracts, no pay-as-you-go, nothing. i'm going to rely on public wifi and use voip....
i'll revisit in the spring. next compost run; it's on the way. it could really finally happen, though - i've got some cash put aside. but i'm thinking i'll probably need to wait until next year for the prices to come down that much more.
for me, it's become a matter of principle: i won't pay more than $50 for it.
i've never had one. well, i've never needed one. especially not at the costs they run at...
this is the kind of store i've been waiting for:
http://wirelesswarehouse.ca/specials/
the prices are still too high, though. i decided a long time ago that i would wait until they came down to under $50. that's what i'm willing to pay for a smart phone: $50. canadian. max. well, plus tax.
i'll have to do some research, still, but i know that what i want is an unlocked android phone. and, i'm not planning on buying service with it - no contracts, no pay-as-you-go, nothing. i'm going to rely on public wifi and use voip....
i'll revisit in the spring. next compost run; it's on the way. it could really finally happen, though - i've got some cash put aside. but i'm thinking i'll probably need to wait until next year for the prices to come down that much more.
for me, it's become a matter of principle: i won't pay more than $50 for it.
at
08:12
April 26, 2014
we're entering an era where remarkably fast computers are basically worthless. there's capitalism going and making no sense again. the kind of stuff you could pick up on the curb (awaiting garbage pickup) could run a space station as a screensaver, but it's last year's model so who wants it?
somebody does.
how much is a brand new ibm with a dual core processor, 200 gb of space and 4 gb of ram worth to you? this is pushing the brink of 32-bit technology. couldn't upgrade it further, without jumping to 64.
how about $50? well, it's only 32 bits, after all! that's soooooo 2000s.......
you'll see 'em on the curb if you look for 'em, no doubt. along with perfectly working televisions that have gone out of fashion due to some kind of geometric obsolescence.
what i'm getting at, though, is that there's a real social revolution underlying this, as the technology works it's way out and into the hands of creative people that can do something unusual and perhaps unexpected with it.
wait for it.
we're entering an era where remarkably fast computers are basically worthless. there's capitalism going and making no sense again. the kind of stuff you could pick up on the curb (awaiting garbage pickup) could run a space station as a screensaver, but it's last year's model so who wants it?
somebody does.
how much is a brand new ibm with a dual core processor, 200 gb of space and 4 gb of ram worth to you? this is pushing the brink of 32-bit technology. couldn't upgrade it further, without jumping to 64.
how about $50? well, it's only 32 bits, after all! that's soooooo 2000s.......
you'll see 'em on the curb if you look for 'em, no doubt. along with perfectly working televisions that have gone out of fashion due to some kind of geometric obsolescence.
what i'm getting at, though, is that there's a real social revolution underlying this, as the technology works it's way out and into the hands of creative people that can do something unusual and perhaps unexpected with it.
wait for it.
at
08:00
april 23, 2014
sort of head-scratching. there will always be morons, but the russians can't honestly be so cynical that they think westerners will take their propaganda in uncritically or otherwise entirely ignore western media. conversely, he's actually been doing a good job of softening the western rhetoric. if i was the kremlin, i'd let him be. he's actually giving them quite a bit of credibility.
there's three caveats to this.
1) an escalation is being planned, and they want him out of the region before it happens.
2) there's some thought that they may be able to convince him to change sides, as well.
3) things aren't quite as they seem.
i couldn't imagine his life is in danger.
jessica
specifically, i think it's important for the russians to realize that nobody with critical thinking skills is going to be surprised by any kind of smoking gun regarding russian troops in the region. it is blatantly obvious that there are special forces operating in the region. no amount of propaganda is going to reverse this obvious truth. nor were these images necessary to demonstrate as much. you're not hiding anything. we already know.
jessica
+deathtokoalas nor would confirmation of such an obvious truth change anybody's opinion on the situation, if our opinion is meaningful in the first place. nobody in the west sees russia as an uncorrupted good guy. at best, russia is a lesser evil with a huge array of substantial corruption problems.
jessica
+deathtokoalas westerners that will intellectually argue in favour of russia's position will rarely be taking an actively pro-russian position, and more often taking an actively anti-american position. the propaganda has some value in seeding that resentment. yet, conflating that with legitimately pro-russian opinions is a gigantic error.
jessica
+deathtokoalas there's consequently really nothing to lose by letting the footage out, and much to lose by holding the journalist.
gk
Are you calling Vice a pro-Russian propaganda? That's just..funny.
jessica
+gk no, that's not what i'm suggesting.
jessica
+deathtokoalas i am, however, suggesting that perhaps what vice was looking for was not a proper reflection of what was occurring on the ground, and that the act of merely sending back images of what was actually happening was helping to counteract the narrative from washington. he may have been sent as a pro-american propagandist, but he wasn't able to find evidence to back up that perspective; instead, he often sent back evidence that countered it.
it may not have upheld the russian narrative, either. but that's a non-starter to begin with.
i mean, he was sent to send back images of russian troops invading the region and terrorizing the population. instead, we're getting pictures of ukrainian soldiers being disarmed by civilians. he can try and talk around that, but it's precisely the opposite of what he was sent there to send back.
jessica
+deathtokoalas that being said, i must once again point out that it is blatantly obvious that russian forces are orchestrating the situation, and evidence demonstrating it (if it does exist, and he has captured some of it) would be akin to evidence demonstrating that water is wet. the idea that a substantial number of ukrainians would spontaneously organize to join russia out of fear of ukrainian nazis is itself rather comical.
jessica
+deathtokoalas i point this out in relation to american propaganda all the time: if you want people to believe it, make it credible. these cartoon narratives don't really sway people, they just foster cynicism.
rr0b0
wow finally there's someone with a weighted opinion here
holyteejful
I agree with your opinion that he is actually really unbiased and has just been digging for the truth. Sad that the Russians see him as interfering, clearly not provoking anything, just asking questions-- being a reporter and all; you're right when you say that he has actually been way more lenient towards Russia than, say, FOX news LOL... I sincerely hope he is not in any danger, they are probably just trying to intimidate him and throw some false agendas at him to mislead him.
jessica
+holyteejful i'm not suggesting he showed up without a bias, but his perception does seem to have softened over time as the evidence unraveled in front of him. he may not have been able to confirm his bias. importantly, he doesn't seem to have allowed his bias to prevent him from sending back images that contradicted it. evidence-based reasoning is hard to find in the modern press.
...and that might have actually pissed his boss off.
holyteejful
+deathtokoalas After watching all the "dispatches" evidence does point to heavy "covert" Russian operations and that the surges of violence is propagated by extremists on both sides of the political spectrum ... That makes it so much easier for undercover "Spetznaz" (call them what you will)to do their job; I almost guarantee they pose as regular people, Ukrainian soldiers AND "regular" Russian troops as well. Nothing he has reported has really contradicted the rhetoric being spewed by Washington, although I am not much of an avid listener to the mainstream media myself.. He is probably one of the few reporters from the USA who speaks Slavic, so Vice sent him over there (or he volunteered). I personally think that he has been doing a good job. I have watched several other Vice reports and his boss, Shane Smith, seems like a fairly overall truly liberal guy with a sense of ethics that wouldn't allow strong bias on the part of being Pro-American everything. I mean, most mainstream media has almost nothing negative to say about Israel, but Vice has a report from the Palestinian perspective that is almost anti-Israel. I always love to hear both sides of every story to get the full context; I feel it is very important for making informed decisions in future conversations and possibly for elections.... also not sure if anyone knows, but Simon, the reporter,was released from detention in Slovyansk today after being held for a couple of days.
jessica
i guess you're not aware that the funding for vice's recent delve into news reporting has been coming from no less a source than rupert murdoch, himself.
jessica
nice to hear he's safe.
sort of head-scratching. there will always be morons, but the russians can't honestly be so cynical that they think westerners will take their propaganda in uncritically or otherwise entirely ignore western media. conversely, he's actually been doing a good job of softening the western rhetoric. if i was the kremlin, i'd let him be. he's actually giving them quite a bit of credibility.
there's three caveats to this.
1) an escalation is being planned, and they want him out of the region before it happens.
2) there's some thought that they may be able to convince him to change sides, as well.
3) things aren't quite as they seem.
i couldn't imagine his life is in danger.
jessica
specifically, i think it's important for the russians to realize that nobody with critical thinking skills is going to be surprised by any kind of smoking gun regarding russian troops in the region. it is blatantly obvious that there are special forces operating in the region. no amount of propaganda is going to reverse this obvious truth. nor were these images necessary to demonstrate as much. you're not hiding anything. we already know.
jessica
+deathtokoalas nor would confirmation of such an obvious truth change anybody's opinion on the situation, if our opinion is meaningful in the first place. nobody in the west sees russia as an uncorrupted good guy. at best, russia is a lesser evil with a huge array of substantial corruption problems.
jessica
+deathtokoalas westerners that will intellectually argue in favour of russia's position will rarely be taking an actively pro-russian position, and more often taking an actively anti-american position. the propaganda has some value in seeding that resentment. yet, conflating that with legitimately pro-russian opinions is a gigantic error.
jessica
+deathtokoalas there's consequently really nothing to lose by letting the footage out, and much to lose by holding the journalist.
gk
Are you calling Vice a pro-Russian propaganda? That's just..funny.
jessica
+gk no, that's not what i'm suggesting.
jessica
+deathtokoalas i am, however, suggesting that perhaps what vice was looking for was not a proper reflection of what was occurring on the ground, and that the act of merely sending back images of what was actually happening was helping to counteract the narrative from washington. he may have been sent as a pro-american propagandist, but he wasn't able to find evidence to back up that perspective; instead, he often sent back evidence that countered it.
it may not have upheld the russian narrative, either. but that's a non-starter to begin with.
i mean, he was sent to send back images of russian troops invading the region and terrorizing the population. instead, we're getting pictures of ukrainian soldiers being disarmed by civilians. he can try and talk around that, but it's precisely the opposite of what he was sent there to send back.
jessica
+deathtokoalas that being said, i must once again point out that it is blatantly obvious that russian forces are orchestrating the situation, and evidence demonstrating it (if it does exist, and he has captured some of it) would be akin to evidence demonstrating that water is wet. the idea that a substantial number of ukrainians would spontaneously organize to join russia out of fear of ukrainian nazis is itself rather comical.
jessica
+deathtokoalas i point this out in relation to american propaganda all the time: if you want people to believe it, make it credible. these cartoon narratives don't really sway people, they just foster cynicism.
rr0b0
wow finally there's someone with a weighted opinion here
holyteejful
I agree with your opinion that he is actually really unbiased and has just been digging for the truth. Sad that the Russians see him as interfering, clearly not provoking anything, just asking questions-- being a reporter and all; you're right when you say that he has actually been way more lenient towards Russia than, say, FOX news LOL... I sincerely hope he is not in any danger, they are probably just trying to intimidate him and throw some false agendas at him to mislead him.
jessica
+holyteejful i'm not suggesting he showed up without a bias, but his perception does seem to have softened over time as the evidence unraveled in front of him. he may not have been able to confirm his bias. importantly, he doesn't seem to have allowed his bias to prevent him from sending back images that contradicted it. evidence-based reasoning is hard to find in the modern press.
...and that might have actually pissed his boss off.
holyteejful
+deathtokoalas After watching all the "dispatches" evidence does point to heavy "covert" Russian operations and that the surges of violence is propagated by extremists on both sides of the political spectrum ... That makes it so much easier for undercover "Spetznaz" (call them what you will)to do their job; I almost guarantee they pose as regular people, Ukrainian soldiers AND "regular" Russian troops as well. Nothing he has reported has really contradicted the rhetoric being spewed by Washington, although I am not much of an avid listener to the mainstream media myself.. He is probably one of the few reporters from the USA who speaks Slavic, so Vice sent him over there (or he volunteered). I personally think that he has been doing a good job. I have watched several other Vice reports and his boss, Shane Smith, seems like a fairly overall truly liberal guy with a sense of ethics that wouldn't allow strong bias on the part of being Pro-American everything. I mean, most mainstream media has almost nothing negative to say about Israel, but Vice has a report from the Palestinian perspective that is almost anti-Israel. I always love to hear both sides of every story to get the full context; I feel it is very important for making informed decisions in future conversations and possibly for elections.... also not sure if anyone knows, but Simon, the reporter,was released from detention in Slovyansk today after being held for a couple of days.
jessica
i guess you're not aware that the funding for vice's recent delve into news reporting has been coming from no less a source than rupert murdoch, himself.
jessica
nice to hear he's safe.
at
07:41
April 23, 2014
it's funny.
i've basically arrived where i have in life by convincing myself of the single axiom that existence is meaningless, and this makes conventionally interacting in society entirely worthless. centering your life around anything related to property, status or wealth is just throwing your life away to utilitarian/capitalist excesses. yet, even this is not rational: if the aim is maximizing pleasure in the short amount of time we have to do it, doing loads of drugs makes more sense than working in an office. rejecting hedonistic capitalism within the context of this futility of breathing leaves only the individual's whimsical fancies as remotely meaningful goals (i skipped some steps there). art for art's sake (or knowledge for knowledge's sake) is consequently the only worthwhile pursuit (any other existence would and should rationally end up with a quick suicide, as it would be the fastest way to lessen the amount of existential torture brought on equally by slavery and boredom), and capitalist society is merely an obstacle to avoid.
if mortality could be abolished (and i'm ok with existing in software), the entire calculus would change. this ought to present the individual with a hobson's choice to pursue immortality at all costs, as the worst thing that could happen would be to die trying to abolish death. unless failure is certain, of course, in which case why waste the time? unfortunately, i'm convinced that this isn't feasible in my lifetime. death remains the only concrete reality worth planning around.
so, faced with the certainty of all of this meaninglessness, the only thing that can actually motivate me to get out of bed and pursue these goals is the certainty that i have a finite amount of time to complete them in, bringing me back around again to where i began.
yet, you say...
"yeah, well, i'm 30% of the way into paying off a high interest loan to get a piece of paper to allow me to pay property taxes, and that requires me to spend 75% of my time living for somebody else (and maybe more if i'm married). so, you lose at life."
it's actually not so bad for me if people actually continue to think that. i mean, there's two ways forward from where we are: full communism or state-driven social darwinism (popularly, if somewhat incorrectly, referred to as 'fascism'). we've been leaning towards the latter for decades. and, if that's the unalterable future, i can't benefit from winning the argument.
i can snicker about it on my facebook page, though.
it's funny.
i've basically arrived where i have in life by convincing myself of the single axiom that existence is meaningless, and this makes conventionally interacting in society entirely worthless. centering your life around anything related to property, status or wealth is just throwing your life away to utilitarian/capitalist excesses. yet, even this is not rational: if the aim is maximizing pleasure in the short amount of time we have to do it, doing loads of drugs makes more sense than working in an office. rejecting hedonistic capitalism within the context of this futility of breathing leaves only the individual's whimsical fancies as remotely meaningful goals (i skipped some steps there). art for art's sake (or knowledge for knowledge's sake) is consequently the only worthwhile pursuit (any other existence would and should rationally end up with a quick suicide, as it would be the fastest way to lessen the amount of existential torture brought on equally by slavery and boredom), and capitalist society is merely an obstacle to avoid.
if mortality could be abolished (and i'm ok with existing in software), the entire calculus would change. this ought to present the individual with a hobson's choice to pursue immortality at all costs, as the worst thing that could happen would be to die trying to abolish death. unless failure is certain, of course, in which case why waste the time? unfortunately, i'm convinced that this isn't feasible in my lifetime. death remains the only concrete reality worth planning around.
so, faced with the certainty of all of this meaninglessness, the only thing that can actually motivate me to get out of bed and pursue these goals is the certainty that i have a finite amount of time to complete them in, bringing me back around again to where i began.
yet, you say...
"yeah, well, i'm 30% of the way into paying off a high interest loan to get a piece of paper to allow me to pay property taxes, and that requires me to spend 75% of my time living for somebody else (and maybe more if i'm married). so, you lose at life."
it's actually not so bad for me if people actually continue to think that. i mean, there's two ways forward from where we are: full communism or state-driven social darwinism (popularly, if somewhat incorrectly, referred to as 'fascism'). we've been leaning towards the latter for decades. and, if that's the unalterable future, i can't benefit from winning the argument.
i can snicker about it on my facebook page, though.
at
07:28
April 23, 2014
from western governments, criticisms about "freedom of the press" are almost always veiled attempts to restrict press freedom for sources they do not like, which is often community or government based media.
this idea of calling private media "free" is itself very much a type of newspeak. private media is not freer than community media in any way. it's often the other way around! what private media is is corporate media, and hence driven by profit. that doesn't make it less controlled; again, that can and often does imply greater control and more censorship.
who has a bigger reach in america: pbs or fox news? yet, in canada and britain it's more subtle. it's clearly more complex than whether it's owned by government or by cartels.
in the end, if you're a journalist on the front lines it doesn't matter if the ceo is threatening to fire you or if the government is threatening to silence you. it doesn't matter if you're reading a script by the ministry or the oil/weapons cartel.
so, freedom of the press is and always has meant freedom for corporations to suppress the press.
and it's always been up to people to organize around the press.
from western governments, criticisms about "freedom of the press" are almost always veiled attempts to restrict press freedom for sources they do not like, which is often community or government based media.
this idea of calling private media "free" is itself very much a type of newspeak. private media is not freer than community media in any way. it's often the other way around! what private media is is corporate media, and hence driven by profit. that doesn't make it less controlled; again, that can and often does imply greater control and more censorship.
who has a bigger reach in america: pbs or fox news? yet, in canada and britain it's more subtle. it's clearly more complex than whether it's owned by government or by cartels.
in the end, if you're a journalist on the front lines it doesn't matter if the ceo is threatening to fire you or if the government is threatening to silence you. it doesn't matter if you're reading a script by the ministry or the oil/weapons cartel.
so, freedom of the press is and always has meant freedom for corporations to suppress the press.
and it's always been up to people to organize around the press.
at
07:22
april 18, 2014
it's always startling to me just how badly scientists have a grasp on public policy and economics. i think it's easy to trace it to this self-perception of themselves as bearing this kind of burden of being the world's real thinkers, although people looking in on the outside realize how laughable that perception of themselves really is. yet, if you're operating under this bizarre perception (enforced by a lot of things: plato, asimov, star trek, hollywood) that government's role is to carry out the dreams of the intelligentsia...
maybe a little marx might help? there's so many methodological flaws, i can see the push back. but, it could pull their head out of the clouds.
the united states didn't spend trillions in iraq to build a better society. they spent trillions in iraq because it was profitable. they wouldn't spend a dime on bettering the planet...
....and, so the crux of this debate needs to change drastically. we live in a society where governments are controlled by banks. public policy is collective action that maximizes profits for shareholders and investors. if you want them to listen, you need to speak their language.
that's probably not going to happen. yet, as i've mentioned a few times before, it probably won't be particularly hard to get a construction firm to pick up a trillion dollar project building floodwalls across the eastern seaboard.
yeah, well, join the revolution then. that's how shit works...
in the economic reality we live in, flashing around estimates that suggest a higher financial cost of not acting is actually an argument for not acting.
if it's expensive for the state, somebody in the private sector profits. that's why the private sector controls the state...
austerity is just cutting out state investments that have demonstrated low returns and have poor forecasts.
the function of the state has always been and remains to transfer tax money into private hands.
so, adaptation is big business and we'll see movement on that. prevention doesn't present any revenue streams, so we won't.
it's always startling to me just how badly scientists have a grasp on public policy and economics. i think it's easy to trace it to this self-perception of themselves as bearing this kind of burden of being the world's real thinkers, although people looking in on the outside realize how laughable that perception of themselves really is. yet, if you're operating under this bizarre perception (enforced by a lot of things: plato, asimov, star trek, hollywood) that government's role is to carry out the dreams of the intelligentsia...
maybe a little marx might help? there's so many methodological flaws, i can see the push back. but, it could pull their head out of the clouds.
the united states didn't spend trillions in iraq to build a better society. they spent trillions in iraq because it was profitable. they wouldn't spend a dime on bettering the planet...
....and, so the crux of this debate needs to change drastically. we live in a society where governments are controlled by banks. public policy is collective action that maximizes profits for shareholders and investors. if you want them to listen, you need to speak their language.
that's probably not going to happen. yet, as i've mentioned a few times before, it probably won't be particularly hard to get a construction firm to pick up a trillion dollar project building floodwalls across the eastern seaboard.
yeah, well, join the revolution then. that's how shit works...
in the economic reality we live in, flashing around estimates that suggest a higher financial cost of not acting is actually an argument for not acting.
if it's expensive for the state, somebody in the private sector profits. that's why the private sector controls the state...
austerity is just cutting out state investments that have demonstrated low returns and have poor forecasts.
the function of the state has always been and remains to transfer tax money into private hands.
so, adaptation is big business and we'll see movement on that. prevention doesn't present any revenue streams, so we won't.
at
07:03
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
so, i don't know if my mail dude was trying to do me a favour or trying
to piss me off and i'm consequently torn as to how to react. the package
got here, but through a difficult route - and unsigned, when i was
supposed to sign. that works out to my benefit, but it's more future
packages i'm concerned about.
right now, i'm almost afraid to open it.
i'm going to probably walk down to the post office and ask them if they can automatically hold items to this address. there's no way anybody can contact me down here without prior consent, which is on purpose and not going to change. i'd rather they hold items there to begin with, and just send me an email to get me to pick it up. it removes a set of hands from the chain.
so, here's the story...
first, the crux of this is that i've made myself difficult to contact on purpose for many years - as long as i've lived on my own, basically. people coming to my old apartment would complain i was unlisted and they had to use their cell, but this was no accident. what a lot of them didn't realize was that i wasn't just unlisted; the buzzer actually wasn't set up. there was literally no way for anybody to contact me from the intercom.
and who uses the intercom? jehovah's witnesses. rogers. vacuum cleaner salespeople. mary kay. politicians. kids with fundraisers. people i don't want to talk to...
there's no intercom here. yet, when i moved down here, i took the doorbell out. it's for the same reasons: i do not want random people to be able to bother me.
you can agree with me by emulating me. it might get rid of some of the door-to-door type if more people adopted this method.
pretty much the one casualty of this is the mail dude, who drops off packages from time to time. yet, it's generally far too infrequently for it to justify being annoyed by children and religious idiots. i'm perfectly happy with going down to the post office and getting it myself. as mentioned, that prevents the unnecessary risk stemming from the mail dude handling it.
however, i happened to encounter him on my front step a few weeks ago and he wasn't very happy with my attitude. he asked if there was another bell to ring, because mine didn't work - i had to tell him i don't want it to work. so, he asked me for a phone number. right, like i want to give a random stranger my phone number (and i actually don't have one, anyways). i told him i'd rather he just leave the slip in the box. he was both confused and upset...
see, the mail people in canada are coming up against some possible extreme layoffs. looking at the government's plan, it almost seems like a scheme to make the mailboxes smaller and force more expensive courier options; what they're doing isn't going to eliminate carriers, it's just going to make the process more expensive. private carriers win, everybody else loses. no surprises, here - it's been the trajectory of government for decades.
however, i happen to be the type of ("real") anarchist that is opposed to frivolous work, and i'm not sure how anybody could argue that delivering mail is less frivolous than working a cash register. it's a job i don't think should exist; it squanders resources i think could be better applied elsewhere. if i can walk to the post office, why can't everybody else? so, i wouldn't be particularly upset about layoffs, and am not particularly empathetic to this guy's reaction to my request to leave it in the box.
the key question: did he pick up that i didn't care about his job?
i had a package arrive this morning that required a signature. strangely, it ended up down the street, left without a signature. i only know this because of the kindness of the neighbour who brought it to me, and was able to contact me by knocking on my landlord's door.
on first glance, it seems obvious that the mail dude is being an ass, here.
however, given that he knew i don't answer the door, he may have thought he was saving me a trip.
i actually don't appreciate that. but i'd rather talk it through than write him up. well, unless he's looking for severance, i guess. but i can't reasonably make any of these assumptions.
so, i think the best thing to do is determine if i can get the post office to hold items and email me for pickup when they come in.
the device is apparently undamaged. and, in truth, with the way it was packaged, it would have been hard to damage it.
oddly, the canada post tracking site continues to state that the item is "out for delivery". i'm going to let this run through the system and see what happens. if it works properly, i should get a refund. and maybe i deserve one. i'll give it a few days....
at
19:02
right now, i'm almost afraid to open it.
i'm going to probably walk down to the post office and ask them if they can automatically hold items to this address. there's no way anybody can contact me down here without prior consent, which is on purpose and not going to change. i'd rather they hold items there to begin with, and just send me an email to get me to pick it up. it removes a set of hands from the chain.
so, here's the story...
first, the crux of this is that i've made myself difficult to contact on purpose for many years - as long as i've lived on my own, basically. people coming to my old apartment would complain i was unlisted and they had to use their cell, but this was no accident. what a lot of them didn't realize was that i wasn't just unlisted; the buzzer actually wasn't set up. there was literally no way for anybody to contact me from the intercom.
and who uses the intercom? jehovah's witnesses. rogers. vacuum cleaner salespeople. mary kay. politicians. kids with fundraisers. people i don't want to talk to...
there's no intercom here. yet, when i moved down here, i took the doorbell out. it's for the same reasons: i do not want random people to be able to bother me.
you can agree with me by emulating me. it might get rid of some of the door-to-door type if more people adopted this method.
pretty much the one casualty of this is the mail dude, who drops off packages from time to time. yet, it's generally far too infrequently for it to justify being annoyed by children and religious idiots. i'm perfectly happy with going down to the post office and getting it myself. as mentioned, that prevents the unnecessary risk stemming from the mail dude handling it.
however, i happened to encounter him on my front step a few weeks ago and he wasn't very happy with my attitude. he asked if there was another bell to ring, because mine didn't work - i had to tell him i don't want it to work. so, he asked me for a phone number. right, like i want to give a random stranger my phone number (and i actually don't have one, anyways). i told him i'd rather he just leave the slip in the box. he was both confused and upset...
see, the mail people in canada are coming up against some possible extreme layoffs. looking at the government's plan, it almost seems like a scheme to make the mailboxes smaller and force more expensive courier options; what they're doing isn't going to eliminate carriers, it's just going to make the process more expensive. private carriers win, everybody else loses. no surprises, here - it's been the trajectory of government for decades.
however, i happen to be the type of ("real") anarchist that is opposed to frivolous work, and i'm not sure how anybody could argue that delivering mail is less frivolous than working a cash register. it's a job i don't think should exist; it squanders resources i think could be better applied elsewhere. if i can walk to the post office, why can't everybody else? so, i wouldn't be particularly upset about layoffs, and am not particularly empathetic to this guy's reaction to my request to leave it in the box.
the key question: did he pick up that i didn't care about his job?
i had a package arrive this morning that required a signature. strangely, it ended up down the street, left without a signature. i only know this because of the kindness of the neighbour who brought it to me, and was able to contact me by knocking on my landlord's door.
on first glance, it seems obvious that the mail dude is being an ass, here.
however, given that he knew i don't answer the door, he may have thought he was saving me a trip.
i actually don't appreciate that. but i'd rather talk it through than write him up. well, unless he's looking for severance, i guess. but i can't reasonably make any of these assumptions.
so, i think the best thing to do is determine if i can get the post office to hold items and email me for pickup when they come in.
the device is apparently undamaged. and, in truth, with the way it was packaged, it would have been hard to damage it.
oddly, the canada post tracking site continues to state that the item is "out for delivery". i'm going to let this run through the system and see what happens. if it works properly, i should get a refund. and maybe i deserve one. i'll give it a few days....
at
06:25
i just want to clarify, though, that if this is a psy-op then the
underlying appeal to white racism is a means, rather than an end. what
they want is unity. the point is to provide a disincentive against being
a trump detractor; the groupthink implies that opposition to trump is
equivalent to support for torture. that's meant to keep people in line.
the fact that this is specious is actually an asset, because humans are
broadly specious creatures.
at
02:53
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
if you can provide me with evidence otherwise, i'll adjust. but the first question you need to answer is why they decided to livestream the act of torturing somebody. that's obviously an act meant to have a media response. and, while i won't disagree that criminals are stupid, this doesn't fall into that category. you have to explain why they wanted a media reaction.
the simplest and most obvious explanation is that it's an intelligence operation, and that they want a media reaction in order to construct the narrative that good, white, trump supporters are under threat of being beaten by mobs of no-goodnik immigrants. and, i propose that this is what we need to present for hypothesis testing.
of course, i'm not supposed to think for myself. i'm not supposed to use critical thinking skills. i'm not suppose to present a hypothesis for testing. according to their theories, i shouldn't exist; i'm supposed to just listen and obey.
the simplest and most obvious explanation is that it's an intelligence operation, and that they want a media reaction in order to construct the narrative that good, white, trump supporters are under threat of being beaten by mobs of no-goodnik immigrants. and, i propose that this is what we need to present for hypothesis testing.
of course, i'm not supposed to think for myself. i'm not supposed to use critical thinking skills. i'm not suppose to present a hypothesis for testing. according to their theories, i shouldn't exist; i'm supposed to just listen and obey.
at
02:45
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
the cops do this kind of thing all of the fucking time. it's the null hypothesis, and the most rational explanation. it's occam's razor.
at
02:37
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this is a psy-op. and people will believe it, because it's what they want to believe.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/04/facebook-live-stream-video-man-attacked-chicago-trump
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/04/facebook-live-stream-video-man-attacked-chicago-trump
at
02:30
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
April 16, 2014
the most important thing i learned from....decades....in school is the following:
if you're going to go to school with the purpose of doing something competitive with it (be that in employment or in academia), you have no option but to pick something you love to do. things may have been different in the past when the field was narrower, but nowadays living in north america means you're competing against two thirds of the planet for just about anything, and if you're not loving it then somebody else is going to mop the floor with you.
you might have a greater pure aptitude in the topic and in general. you might have higher test scores. you might be a harder worker, even. yet, if you're doing it for labour then the blunt reality is that you have no chance against the thousands of other people that do it for *fun*.
it's actually sort of an anarchist's ideal: the only kind of vocation any of us have any real chance in any more is what we'd love to be doing, anyways. the problem is that so few of us were raised with that mindset. we were told to do something we don't love because it is marketable (only to be outcompeted by somebody that loves it), or even to do something we loathe because it's profitable (only to run into the same problem). while that's happening, we're wasting developing skills doing things we enjoy, and getting behind those that figured this out.
if there are changes to immigration, or drastic improvements in living standard elsewhere, maybe it will once again make sense to tell your young, operatic nephew they'd be better off as a dentist. but, as it is, there's no deficit of kids that knew they wanted to be dentists when they were three years old and have spent their whole lives preparing, and the reality is that your nephew doesn't stand a fucking chance against them - he's really better off exploring his vocal chords.
i think that's a mass shift in social mindset that we need to have.
the most important thing i learned from....decades....in school is the following:
if you're going to go to school with the purpose of doing something competitive with it (be that in employment or in academia), you have no option but to pick something you love to do. things may have been different in the past when the field was narrower, but nowadays living in north america means you're competing against two thirds of the planet for just about anything, and if you're not loving it then somebody else is going to mop the floor with you.
you might have a greater pure aptitude in the topic and in general. you might have higher test scores. you might be a harder worker, even. yet, if you're doing it for labour then the blunt reality is that you have no chance against the thousands of other people that do it for *fun*.
it's actually sort of an anarchist's ideal: the only kind of vocation any of us have any real chance in any more is what we'd love to be doing, anyways. the problem is that so few of us were raised with that mindset. we were told to do something we don't love because it is marketable (only to be outcompeted by somebody that loves it), or even to do something we loathe because it's profitable (only to run into the same problem). while that's happening, we're wasting developing skills doing things we enjoy, and getting behind those that figured this out.
if there are changes to immigration, or drastic improvements in living standard elsewhere, maybe it will once again make sense to tell your young, operatic nephew they'd be better off as a dentist. but, as it is, there's no deficit of kids that knew they wanted to be dentists when they were three years old and have spent their whole lives preparing, and the reality is that your nephew doesn't stand a fucking chance against them - he's really better off exploring his vocal chords.
i think that's a mass shift in social mindset that we need to have.
at
17:49
april 15, 2014
i have a lot of opposition to your concept of personal freedom. capitalism is a shitty way for people the world over to live because it abolishes personal freedom - both at the worker/slave level and at the consumer/bot level. a replacement order should be one where personal freedom is truly maximized. in fact, that was the whole point of the socialist program - we needed socialism precisely because industrial capitalism made liberalism impossible. but, i get your point. it just applies more to the co-modified capitalist ideal of "personal freedom" than it does to actual freedom.
besides that, i like your analogy. unfortunately, there isn't much to add to the debate. the thinking is long done. it's a question of action.
basically, oscar wilde said everything worth saying here:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/
1) civilization requires slaves. even engels admitted that this whole dictatorship of the proletariat thing was the best compromise available relative to nineteenth century technology. we need slaves, but if we make the slaves and the bosses the same thing then the slaves will hopefully be mistreated the least. that's communism, and it's not surprising that it hasn't worked (for all marx' talk of contradictions in capitalism, his solution was merely another one).
2) it's not the nineteenth century anymore. we can actually start building a lot of this stuff. we don't even have to talk about automating luxuries at this point. how about automating food? might it be the best way to solve the food crises we're facing, anyways?
3) we've consequently functionally eliminated the barrier to liberalism that marx and engels pointed out. if we can replace socialized production with automation, we can get on with building a free society.
but there's two reasons why this is going to require something as drastic as nuclear war or secretly starting a colony on another planet or something:
1) scarcity in food production is a weapon in the hands of the ruling class. they demand that breeding be roughly linearly proportional to productivity and the food be rewarded as compensation for forced labour. so, we get scarcity continually enforced as austerity, instead. they start off with this axiom with all the force they have, and they know they cannot maintain the existing system should the lie be exposed as what it is.
2) hierarchical socialism, which would cease to exist.
solution? eventually, the technology to abolish the contradiction between liberalism and industrialization will be cheap and easy enough to produce that it cannot be suppressed. it's all in the mode of production. it's all driven by technology. that's something marx was right about.
until then, the anti-capitalist (anarchism is the only real anti-capitalism) needs to adopt a strategy of avoidance. this is a highly personal thing. what does the individual despise about capitalism? how would the individual live on the other side of it? is there a way to scheme a path to an approximation of this existence? can small, shifting spaces be claimed temporarily so that it's migratory inhabitants can move from bubble to bubble? there's no way to overturn this, to reform it or to revolt against it. it's not a social choice, but a function of the technology. resistance is truly futile, until the technology is innovated upon. so, innovation is possible, but avoidance is the only real means of breaking free.
mass avoidance could raise awareness and temporarily bring the system down, but it can't change it. so long as the technology remains the same, what we call capitalism will recreate itself - because it is a function of the technology. avoidance as a revolutionary strategy could only bring us back to the dark ages, or further back. there's a primitivist strain of anarchism that understands and promotes this.
but if you're opposed to that, you're stuck waiting for the technology that can truly democratize production.
i have a lot of opposition to your concept of personal freedom. capitalism is a shitty way for people the world over to live because it abolishes personal freedom - both at the worker/slave level and at the consumer/bot level. a replacement order should be one where personal freedom is truly maximized. in fact, that was the whole point of the socialist program - we needed socialism precisely because industrial capitalism made liberalism impossible. but, i get your point. it just applies more to the co-modified capitalist ideal of "personal freedom" than it does to actual freedom.
besides that, i like your analogy. unfortunately, there isn't much to add to the debate. the thinking is long done. it's a question of action.
basically, oscar wilde said everything worth saying here:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/
1) civilization requires slaves. even engels admitted that this whole dictatorship of the proletariat thing was the best compromise available relative to nineteenth century technology. we need slaves, but if we make the slaves and the bosses the same thing then the slaves will hopefully be mistreated the least. that's communism, and it's not surprising that it hasn't worked (for all marx' talk of contradictions in capitalism, his solution was merely another one).
2) it's not the nineteenth century anymore. we can actually start building a lot of this stuff. we don't even have to talk about automating luxuries at this point. how about automating food? might it be the best way to solve the food crises we're facing, anyways?
3) we've consequently functionally eliminated the barrier to liberalism that marx and engels pointed out. if we can replace socialized production with automation, we can get on with building a free society.
but there's two reasons why this is going to require something as drastic as nuclear war or secretly starting a colony on another planet or something:
1) scarcity in food production is a weapon in the hands of the ruling class. they demand that breeding be roughly linearly proportional to productivity and the food be rewarded as compensation for forced labour. so, we get scarcity continually enforced as austerity, instead. they start off with this axiom with all the force they have, and they know they cannot maintain the existing system should the lie be exposed as what it is.
2) hierarchical socialism, which would cease to exist.
solution? eventually, the technology to abolish the contradiction between liberalism and industrialization will be cheap and easy enough to produce that it cannot be suppressed. it's all in the mode of production. it's all driven by technology. that's something marx was right about.
until then, the anti-capitalist (anarchism is the only real anti-capitalism) needs to adopt a strategy of avoidance. this is a highly personal thing. what does the individual despise about capitalism? how would the individual live on the other side of it? is there a way to scheme a path to an approximation of this existence? can small, shifting spaces be claimed temporarily so that it's migratory inhabitants can move from bubble to bubble? there's no way to overturn this, to reform it or to revolt against it. it's not a social choice, but a function of the technology. resistance is truly futile, until the technology is innovated upon. so, innovation is possible, but avoidance is the only real means of breaking free.
mass avoidance could raise awareness and temporarily bring the system down, but it can't change it. so long as the technology remains the same, what we call capitalism will recreate itself - because it is a function of the technology. avoidance as a revolutionary strategy could only bring us back to the dark ages, or further back. there's a primitivist strain of anarchism that understands and promotes this.
but if you're opposed to that, you're stuck waiting for the technology that can truly democratize production.
at
17:40
april 11, 2014
the way you actually ought to think of language is not as something inherent to self-determining peoples, or some other equally silly liberal nonsense, but as a kind of mark of ownership. you'll see states use it like this. it's basically the russian argument in this mess. they're claiming that the russian speakers are their property and they have right to protect it.
there's been a lot of talk of all kinds of nwo silliness, like inserting computer chips in people to take ownership of them. but, it's really largely unnecessary - it's just an evolution of the nation-state. why bother inserting a chip when they can teach a language and religion to children? it can't really be cheaper, and it's probably more likely to spur resistance. the id chip already exists, and it's your so-called "culture" - your language, your religion, your customs. these already turn people obedient and pliable. it's been how the state has used language and religion for centuries...
so, i can't help but snicker when i hear it from christians, especially, who don't seem to have the slightest clue that they're actually opposing what really amounts to a change in technology from one means of state control to another.
the way you actually ought to think of language is not as something inherent to self-determining peoples, or some other equally silly liberal nonsense, but as a kind of mark of ownership. you'll see states use it like this. it's basically the russian argument in this mess. they're claiming that the russian speakers are their property and they have right to protect it.
there's been a lot of talk of all kinds of nwo silliness, like inserting computer chips in people to take ownership of them. but, it's really largely unnecessary - it's just an evolution of the nation-state. why bother inserting a chip when they can teach a language and religion to children? it can't really be cheaper, and it's probably more likely to spur resistance. the id chip already exists, and it's your so-called "culture" - your language, your religion, your customs. these already turn people obedient and pliable. it's been how the state has used language and religion for centuries...
so, i can't help but snicker when i hear it from christians, especially, who don't seem to have the slightest clue that they're actually opposing what really amounts to a change in technology from one means of state control to another.
at
16:56
i'm going to say this one last time: julian assange has been living in an embassy for nearly five years, with essentially no unmonitored contact outside of it. i don't know whether he believes what he says or not. but, i don't think his analysis is very valuable.
what i suspect is that the cia played him as a patsy, and that he probably seriously thinks he had contact with a real whistleblower. let's take that step back and do the thought experiment...
if the cia (or the fsb, even) were going to feed information to assange, how would they do it? would they present themselves as cia (or fsb)? there are certain scenarios where either of them would impersonate the other, but not in this circumstance. if the cia (or fsb....) wanted to feed assange information, they would present it to him as coming from a disgruntled whistleblower. that is consequently what assange would think.
the point is not that assange is lying. the point is that nobody would ever tell him what's happening, and that the chances that he has any idea what's going on are consequently extremely remote.
there is of course also the possibility that he's come to love big brother, after all - no doubt as a consequence of some suggestive prodding. i find his choice of interviewer a little concerning.
but, he doesn't know who fed him the files or what they were trying to accomplish. and, you should not be tricked into thinking that he does.
what i suspect is that the cia played him as a patsy, and that he probably seriously thinks he had contact with a real whistleblower. let's take that step back and do the thought experiment...
if the cia (or the fsb, even) were going to feed information to assange, how would they do it? would they present themselves as cia (or fsb)? there are certain scenarios where either of them would impersonate the other, but not in this circumstance. if the cia (or fsb....) wanted to feed assange information, they would present it to him as coming from a disgruntled whistleblower. that is consequently what assange would think.
the point is not that assange is lying. the point is that nobody would ever tell him what's happening, and that the chances that he has any idea what's going on are consequently extremely remote.
there is of course also the possibility that he's come to love big brother, after all - no doubt as a consequence of some suggestive prodding. i find his choice of interviewer a little concerning.
but, he doesn't know who fed him the files or what they were trying to accomplish. and, you should not be tricked into thinking that he does.
at
16:09
Mar 27, 2014
you want to know why we can't have another cold war? because i can't find any decent recordings of rachmaninov. no, i don't want to listen to some asian child prodigy that can hit the notes but has no emotional investment because she lacks the maturity. i don't want to compete over who can do it better, either.
the best version i've heard of the second piano concerto (by far) is by the soviet orchestra, which i found as an import from france (you can keep your freedom fries) in a second hand store several years ago. it's nowhere to be found online. and, it's not hard to guess why. instead, we have versions by west germans, koreans, jews from chicago...WESTERN VERSIONS....
none of them compare to the soviet version.
what is important in life is not which set of bankers controls which oil rig. what is important is the ability to listen to high quality renditions of universally recognized russian classics. likewise, russians have an inalienable right to access american renditions of american jazz.
we have bitches brew, too. dmitri play trumpet through superior delay system. better quality big muff for vladimir's guitar.
it's not the same, dammit.
we need to put this into perspective before we revert back to that fucking bullshit all over again.
===
i agree with those arguing that she's butchering this. i've always interacted with the piece as a blaring romp, written by an emotionally insecure male that is releasing all of his anger and frustration. she's playing it in a soft and sensuous manner that invites a sultry lounge singer.
the notes are flawless, but there's just no rage or sadness or frustration in it.
i mean, maybe she's trying to sex it up. fine.
...but this really needs to be played by 40 year old virgins (ok, i'm exaggerating) to get the maximum feel out of it.
tl
+deathtokoalas your understanding of the composer's work is clearly limited if you think anything he wrote is devoid of lust or passion. also, wang's artistic conviction and integrity are what make her performance so remarkable. interpreting a piece in a way that deviates from the norm (or, in this case, your personal preference) is not indicative of poor musicianship.
jessica
+tl did i not point out that she played the piece flawlessly? but if you understand where the piece is coming from, and all the self-doubt and insecurity attached to it, you'll realize she's completely missing the point.
i mean, if i want to listen to shmaltzy, upper class nonsense i'll go listen to mozart or shostakovich or something. what makes rachmaninov special is the social anxiety in the writing. you take that away, and it's just another delve into aristocratic masturbation. there's plenty of that for those that want it, without needing to ruin that which stands away from it.
i kind of held back a little bit initially, but does she look to you like somebody that has ever experienced the kind of shit rachmaninov went through? young, beautiful, rich. she'd need a brain transplant to get her mind around this. it would be remarkable if she did understand this emotionally, that is as something more than notes on a page - which she does clearly understand quite well.
vj
eugh...welcome to music, blessed art it is, where each comes with their own interpretation.
jessica
+vj this is scored music, not jazz. personal contributions should be kept to an absolute minimum. the performer is a worthless intermediary between my ears and the composer's mind - a necessary evil. i don't care what she thinks.
vj
Scored music is still subject to interpretation (not talking about improvisation). Any two people will feel to play the same piece differently
jessica
+vj completely wrong liberal bullshit. if i want to listen to yuja wang, i'll listen to one of her compositions. i'm here to listen to rachmaninov. the moment she brings her individuality into the process is the moment she completely fucks up. you need to get your head out of this relativistic gallow before it comes down. there are correct and incorrect ways to play a piece.
i don't want to continue this into perpetuity, so i'm just going to be clear about the non-relativistic reality of things before i close off further comments.
there are two ways to perform a scored piece of music:
1) the way it was written
2) incorrectly
this slutty performance is not capturing the piece the way it was written. it's a "modern interpretation" that replaces the tortured soul of the piece with vapid and gratuitous sexuality. therefore, it's wrong. there's no further worthwhile debate on the point, unless you want to resort to the idiocy of "it's just your opinion".
it's not. and that decadent attitude is destroying our culture and our civilization.
out.
==
this is worse, he sounds bored through half of it. yeesh...
i have a version by the soviet symphony orchestra that owns everything i've seen online so far, but my discs are packed. i can't even find info online. fucking cold war, getting in the way of what really matters...
Concertos n°2 and n°3 (USSR Symphony Orchestra, feat. conductor: Gennady Provatorov, piano: Victor Eresko).
find that one if you want to hear somebody just bash this out.
xs
+deathtokoalas Or simply enjoy one of the best versions ever, by Earl Wild... but then again, we all like things differently.
jessica
+xs earl wild does not sound like a very russian name.
perhaps, you'd like to suggest a wonderful slavic folk version of 'the entertainer' while you're at it? grigorii does gershwin? on balalaika?
fucking hipsters.
==
no grit. and, look at 3:23: he's catching his breath? maybe his suit is too tight, and it's restricting his breathing. then he prances through the rest of it like it's some kind of gentle ballet...
this should be beaten down with every ounce of emotional and physical force that can be gathered, as though the police have shown up to steal your last ounce of vodka at 4:53 am and there's nothing you can do about it....
===
this is better, it seems to get the point better, but the playing is a little blurry (it sounds like he's using the sustain pedal to blur some of the notes he can't hit in the same way that electric guitarists use a distortion pedal), and the mix is pretty piano-heavy.
busted? lol...
====
ok, this sounds like a solid version. it's likely not coincidental that it's russian, but it does look like the whole concerto is up here.
so i was able to find a proper russian version on youtube, after all.
====
the orchestra sounds good, but she's just not hitting the piano hard enough.
eg
Does she need to pound the keys to mke the music? Maybe for you to hear the music.
jessica
+eg. this particular piece needs to be pounded, yes. bourgeois westerners that want to focus on masturbatory techniques have consistently failed to understand that for close to a hundred years. the russians grasp it properly...
go find a russian recording to hear it bashed out the way it's supposed to be, then come back.
russian name
+deathtokoalas amazing comeback statement-- kudos
vh
I hear nothing wrong with it. The notes are clear enough, and she plays with finesse - which is very hard to do on this piece, esp. the last movement.
jessica
+vh see, that's the problem - the finesse. this isn't a technical, subtle piece. it's a banger, meant to be played with all the bourgeois sophistication of "tutti frutti".
===
actually, rachmaninov and angst go well together. under 15, and it's just notes on a screen. but a little older than that is probably the ideal age to get this right.
she's hitting the keys with sufficient force. that's the big thing. and it's a russian thing, consistently. her western counterparts want to over-intellectualize and turn it into some dainty prance, rather than the noisy protopunk classic that it is.
i'm mildly relieved. i suppose that if we end up on the other side of some curtain, we can still rely on the former soviet states (and satellites) to play the russian classics for us properly, without having to endure westerners butchering them.
you want to know why we can't have another cold war? because i can't find any decent recordings of rachmaninov. no, i don't want to listen to some asian child prodigy that can hit the notes but has no emotional investment because she lacks the maturity. i don't want to compete over who can do it better, either.
the best version i've heard of the second piano concerto (by far) is by the soviet orchestra, which i found as an import from france (you can keep your freedom fries) in a second hand store several years ago. it's nowhere to be found online. and, it's not hard to guess why. instead, we have versions by west germans, koreans, jews from chicago...WESTERN VERSIONS....
none of them compare to the soviet version.
what is important in life is not which set of bankers controls which oil rig. what is important is the ability to listen to high quality renditions of universally recognized russian classics. likewise, russians have an inalienable right to access american renditions of american jazz.
we have bitches brew, too. dmitri play trumpet through superior delay system. better quality big muff for vladimir's guitar.
it's not the same, dammit.
we need to put this into perspective before we revert back to that fucking bullshit all over again.
===
i agree with those arguing that she's butchering this. i've always interacted with the piece as a blaring romp, written by an emotionally insecure male that is releasing all of his anger and frustration. she's playing it in a soft and sensuous manner that invites a sultry lounge singer.
the notes are flawless, but there's just no rage or sadness or frustration in it.
i mean, maybe she's trying to sex it up. fine.
...but this really needs to be played by 40 year old virgins (ok, i'm exaggerating) to get the maximum feel out of it.
tl
+deathtokoalas your understanding of the composer's work is clearly limited if you think anything he wrote is devoid of lust or passion. also, wang's artistic conviction and integrity are what make her performance so remarkable. interpreting a piece in a way that deviates from the norm (or, in this case, your personal preference) is not indicative of poor musicianship.
jessica
+tl did i not point out that she played the piece flawlessly? but if you understand where the piece is coming from, and all the self-doubt and insecurity attached to it, you'll realize she's completely missing the point.
i mean, if i want to listen to shmaltzy, upper class nonsense i'll go listen to mozart or shostakovich or something. what makes rachmaninov special is the social anxiety in the writing. you take that away, and it's just another delve into aristocratic masturbation. there's plenty of that for those that want it, without needing to ruin that which stands away from it.
i kind of held back a little bit initially, but does she look to you like somebody that has ever experienced the kind of shit rachmaninov went through? young, beautiful, rich. she'd need a brain transplant to get her mind around this. it would be remarkable if she did understand this emotionally, that is as something more than notes on a page - which she does clearly understand quite well.
vj
eugh...welcome to music, blessed art it is, where each comes with their own interpretation.
jessica
+vj this is scored music, not jazz. personal contributions should be kept to an absolute minimum. the performer is a worthless intermediary between my ears and the composer's mind - a necessary evil. i don't care what she thinks.
vj
Scored music is still subject to interpretation (not talking about improvisation). Any two people will feel to play the same piece differently
jessica
+vj completely wrong liberal bullshit. if i want to listen to yuja wang, i'll listen to one of her compositions. i'm here to listen to rachmaninov. the moment she brings her individuality into the process is the moment she completely fucks up. you need to get your head out of this relativistic gallow before it comes down. there are correct and incorrect ways to play a piece.
i don't want to continue this into perpetuity, so i'm just going to be clear about the non-relativistic reality of things before i close off further comments.
there are two ways to perform a scored piece of music:
1) the way it was written
2) incorrectly
this slutty performance is not capturing the piece the way it was written. it's a "modern interpretation" that replaces the tortured soul of the piece with vapid and gratuitous sexuality. therefore, it's wrong. there's no further worthwhile debate on the point, unless you want to resort to the idiocy of "it's just your opinion".
it's not. and that decadent attitude is destroying our culture and our civilization.
out.
==
this is worse, he sounds bored through half of it. yeesh...
i have a version by the soviet symphony orchestra that owns everything i've seen online so far, but my discs are packed. i can't even find info online. fucking cold war, getting in the way of what really matters...
Concertos n°2 and n°3 (USSR Symphony Orchestra, feat. conductor: Gennady Provatorov, piano: Victor Eresko).
find that one if you want to hear somebody just bash this out.
xs
+deathtokoalas Or simply enjoy one of the best versions ever, by Earl Wild... but then again, we all like things differently.
jessica
+xs earl wild does not sound like a very russian name.
perhaps, you'd like to suggest a wonderful slavic folk version of 'the entertainer' while you're at it? grigorii does gershwin? on balalaika?
fucking hipsters.
==
no grit. and, look at 3:23: he's catching his breath? maybe his suit is too tight, and it's restricting his breathing. then he prances through the rest of it like it's some kind of gentle ballet...
this should be beaten down with every ounce of emotional and physical force that can be gathered, as though the police have shown up to steal your last ounce of vodka at 4:53 am and there's nothing you can do about it....
===
this is better, it seems to get the point better, but the playing is a little blurry (it sounds like he's using the sustain pedal to blur some of the notes he can't hit in the same way that electric guitarists use a distortion pedal), and the mix is pretty piano-heavy.
busted? lol...
====
ok, this sounds like a solid version. it's likely not coincidental that it's russian, but it does look like the whole concerto is up here.
so i was able to find a proper russian version on youtube, after all.
====
the orchestra sounds good, but she's just not hitting the piano hard enough.
eg
Does she need to pound the keys to mke the music? Maybe for you to hear the music.
jessica
+eg. this particular piece needs to be pounded, yes. bourgeois westerners that want to focus on masturbatory techniques have consistently failed to understand that for close to a hundred years. the russians grasp it properly...
go find a russian recording to hear it bashed out the way it's supposed to be, then come back.
russian name
+deathtokoalas amazing comeback statement-- kudos
vh
I hear nothing wrong with it. The notes are clear enough, and she plays with finesse - which is very hard to do on this piece, esp. the last movement.
jessica
+vh see, that's the problem - the finesse. this isn't a technical, subtle piece. it's a banger, meant to be played with all the bourgeois sophistication of "tutti frutti".
===
actually, rachmaninov and angst go well together. under 15, and it's just notes on a screen. but a little older than that is probably the ideal age to get this right.
she's hitting the keys with sufficient force. that's the big thing. and it's a russian thing, consistently. her western counterparts want to over-intellectualize and turn it into some dainty prance, rather than the noisy protopunk classic that it is.
i'm mildly relieved. i suppose that if we end up on the other side of some curtain, we can still rely on the former soviet states (and satellites) to play the russian classics for us properly, without having to endure westerners butchering them.
at
14:18
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)