Everyone should have a nas and everyone should have drm free copies of their stuff because this can happen at any time.
You gotta admit -- it's pretty hilarious watching people who called everyone who disagreed with them a Nazi for the past 10 years now calling for the end of israel and death to all the Jews.
"We should not have published this cartoon depicting a fight between semites and semites because we were worried it might come off as anti-semitic."
The Daily Show became massive by speaking truth in an era where everyone else was lying. Since it looked like this was going to be just another show where some jackass from hollywood tells you about how to doubleplus rightthink the market is already fully saturated.
What Some Call “Anti-Science” Is Just Anti-authoritarianism
https://brownstone.org/articles/what-some-call-anti-science-is-just-anti-authoritarianism/
https://brownstone.org/articles/what-some-call-anti-science-is-just-anti-authoritarianism/
That would interrupt the cultivation, the smacking the shit out of people, and the busloads of people coming to vouch for the MC.
lol
https://video.fbxl.net/w/oFthi6CFmxGvSr15VAJR7W
Is it happening again? Because I wouldn't hate that.
https://video.fbxl.net/w/oFthi6CFmxGvSr15VAJR7W
Is it happening again? Because I wouldn't hate that.
Chinese Manhua are sorta funny for being strangely formulaic and also strangely strange.
1. MC is overpowered.
2. MC acquires whatever to reach the golden rod in arby's sandwich levels of cultivation
3. Someone disrespects MC
At this point, one of two things happen.
Either,
1. MC smacks the shit out of the person who disrespected them
or
2. Every single person the MC has ever met gets bussed to the current location and talks about how great MC is, making the person who disrespected them grovel and beg for forgiveness.
Then return to "MC is overpowered"
I wonder if it's related to the sort of society it is written in? In a shame based society having an MC who has to struggle to succeed may not be considered as acceptable as a main character who is already strong enough to win easily.
OTOH, Japan is a similarly shame based society as far as I know, so why would they be able to produce stories that include struggle?
Man, it's a complicated thing to think about.
1. MC is overpowered.
2. MC acquires whatever to reach the golden rod in arby's sandwich levels of cultivation
3. Someone disrespects MC
At this point, one of two things happen.
Either,
1. MC smacks the shit out of the person who disrespected them
or
2. Every single person the MC has ever met gets bussed to the current location and talks about how great MC is, making the person who disrespected them grovel and beg for forgiveness.
Then return to "MC is overpowered"
I wonder if it's related to the sort of society it is written in? In a shame based society having an MC who has to struggle to succeed may not be considered as acceptable as a main character who is already strong enough to win easily.
OTOH, Japan is a similarly shame based society as far as I know, so why would they be able to produce stories that include struggle?
Man, it's a complicated thing to think about.
Tribal communism is an established anthropological concept spoken of in academic literature for at least a century. In many primitive societies, the community collectively owns and controls the assets of the tribe. It predates modern capitalism for sure, but by some measures it predates private ownership as a concept. It may even predate homo sapiens.
It seems like a form of cultural chauvinism to imagine that a concept like communal ownership and leadership is something that didn't exist until a European decided to grace us with his wisdom. Marxism didn't exist before Marx created it, but the idea that communism didn't exist until Marx or before capitalism is rather ahistorical.
Capitalism has its problems for sure -- I've written a lot about them myself -- but the one thing it's really good at is increasing the size of the pie. That's why the richest countries in earth all implement it, including so-called "communist China" which went from starving millions of people to death to bringing millions of people into the middle class when Deng Xiaoping introduced some free market reforms, introducing a measure of capitalism to a nation that previously fully rejected it.
Inequality doesn't matter nearly as much as people pretend it does. What matters is that people's specific part of the pie grows, and if that happens because they're getting a smaller piece of a much bigger pie, that's just as good as getting a bigger piece of a smaller pie.
There is historical evidence that income and power inequality does have some balancing mechanisms. Secular cycles exist where populations grow and thrive, then are slowly stifled by increasing inequality often to the point that a crisis occurs, then that leads to eras where the population shrinks and the value of individuals increase which forces the powers that be to share the wealth and power more in order to get access to the benefit of individuals. Some examples of this are the post black death period, the postwar period, and even some periods outside of modern capitalism such as the waxing and waning of imperial China.
Inequality generally matters most when the pie isn't growing enough so individual people's share of the pie is shrinking or stagnating. That does happen, and arguably has been happening for quite a while in the west. unfortunately, just as the postwar boom inevitability led to better conditions for the common man, the baby boom inevitability led to deteriorating conditions and so the cycle will likely begin again soon. the population is set to collapse more than it has ever in history, with Japan already being on a demographic cliff where there are many more old people than young people and below replacement birth rates, and almost all rich countries facing a similar trajectory.
It seems like a form of cultural chauvinism to imagine that a concept like communal ownership and leadership is something that didn't exist until a European decided to grace us with his wisdom. Marxism didn't exist before Marx created it, but the idea that communism didn't exist until Marx or before capitalism is rather ahistorical.
Capitalism has its problems for sure -- I've written a lot about them myself -- but the one thing it's really good at is increasing the size of the pie. That's why the richest countries in earth all implement it, including so-called "communist China" which went from starving millions of people to death to bringing millions of people into the middle class when Deng Xiaoping introduced some free market reforms, introducing a measure of capitalism to a nation that previously fully rejected it.
Inequality doesn't matter nearly as much as people pretend it does. What matters is that people's specific part of the pie grows, and if that happens because they're getting a smaller piece of a much bigger pie, that's just as good as getting a bigger piece of a smaller pie.
There is historical evidence that income and power inequality does have some balancing mechanisms. Secular cycles exist where populations grow and thrive, then are slowly stifled by increasing inequality often to the point that a crisis occurs, then that leads to eras where the population shrinks and the value of individuals increase which forces the powers that be to share the wealth and power more in order to get access to the benefit of individuals. Some examples of this are the post black death period, the postwar period, and even some periods outside of modern capitalism such as the waxing and waning of imperial China.
Inequality generally matters most when the pie isn't growing enough so individual people's share of the pie is shrinking or stagnating. That does happen, and arguably has been happening for quite a while in the west. unfortunately, just as the postwar boom inevitability led to better conditions for the common man, the baby boom inevitability led to deteriorating conditions and so the cycle will likely begin again soon. the population is set to collapse more than it has ever in history, with Japan already being on a demographic cliff where there are many more old people than young people and below replacement birth rates, and almost all rich countries facing a similar trajectory.
It's only been a few times in history that a collapse like that has happened. When they do, all bets are off. You can have all kinds of guns, but if the gang coming after you has even more then it probably won't matter. At that moment you're living by the seat of your pants, for all we know you could end up joining them. In the bronze age collapse or the collapse, something like 50% of people died, and it doesn't matter how paid up they were on their homes or not, because the cities were completely abandoned. Even the fall of the Harrapan civilization wasn't quite like that.
We've seen a lot more collapses where people are just trying to keep on doing what they were doing before, but the material wealth just isn't there so the dollars that they're spending become worth less and less and people struggle for basics. There are quite a bit few examples in South america, but also after the fall of the Soviet Union. In that case, the key to survival is quietly having access to the essentials.
The phone with the Roman empire had a little bit of both. Depending on where you were, you could have had it where just a new ruling class to go for such as in Gaul, or you can have a situation where there was more widespread societal collapse and you had issues with bandits, such as in england.
We've seen a lot more collapses where people are just trying to keep on doing what they were doing before, but the material wealth just isn't there so the dollars that they're spending become worth less and less and people struggle for basics. There are quite a bit few examples in South america, but also after the fall of the Soviet Union. In that case, the key to survival is quietly having access to the essentials.
The phone with the Roman empire had a little bit of both. Depending on where you were, you could have had it where just a new ruling class to go for such as in Gaul, or you can have a situation where there was more widespread societal collapse and you had issues with bandits, such as in england.
Thinking that everyone deserves equality is a symptom of capitalism. There's so much wealth flying around that people think you deserve a slice whether you contributed to it or not.
Examples of tribal communism tended to be a lot more brutal. The line between life and death was thin, and decisions about who lives and who dies would have to be made, or everyone would die.
Examples of tribal communism tended to be a lot more brutal. The line between life and death was thin, and decisions about who lives and who dies would have to be made, or everyone would die.
Really depends on how you balance your decisions. Often you can make decisions that'll be ok in either case.
For example, in 2020 I expected massive increases in interest rates so I refinanced my mortgage for as much time as I can get (Most places don't have 30 year mortgages, I locked in for 10 years and that puts me in a tiny minority) and reduced by amortization by 10 years. I turned out to be right, and now even though 1 in 3 Canadian mortgages are in reverse amortization (meaning the people with those mortgages will owe more to the bank when they're done then they did at the beginning), I'm fine until 2030 and I won't owe much when I need to refinance anyway. If I turned out to be wrong, after 5 years a 10-year mortgage closed mortgage reverts to an open mortgage so you can refinance for the cost of 3 months interest so you can choose to refinance anyway.
I expected there would be food and fuel shortages. Well, staple food is cheap, so I was able to get enough rice to last my household 3 months for basically nothing. Cheap insurance. Turns out the shortages did happen but not where I live, so it just means I get to eat rice. No biggie. I picked up some extra fuel with some fuel stabilizer. Turns out the shortages did happen but not where I live, so it means I haven't needed to buy gas for my snowblower or lawnmower. No biggie. I picked up electric heaters and electric generators because I was concerned about natural gas shortages, which did happen, but not where I live. That actually saved my ass because my furnace broke in the middle of winter and we were able to use the heaters I bought to keep the house from freezing while we waited for a new board to come in.
Some other stuff was also pretty cheap because things haven't collapsed but would be important if they did, like grabbing a trauma kit and a first aid manual, making sure we have paper copies of important books in general.
It's all about balancing your decisions. If I spent every penny on food and ammo and built a fallout shelter in my back yard I'd be in some trouble, but you can mitigate an awful lot of risk for not a lot of money and also make sure you're prepared for non-collapse scenarios like your furnace breaking in the middle of winter.
For example, in 2020 I expected massive increases in interest rates so I refinanced my mortgage for as much time as I can get (Most places don't have 30 year mortgages, I locked in for 10 years and that puts me in a tiny minority) and reduced by amortization by 10 years. I turned out to be right, and now even though 1 in 3 Canadian mortgages are in reverse amortization (meaning the people with those mortgages will owe more to the bank when they're done then they did at the beginning), I'm fine until 2030 and I won't owe much when I need to refinance anyway. If I turned out to be wrong, after 5 years a 10-year mortgage closed mortgage reverts to an open mortgage so you can refinance for the cost of 3 months interest so you can choose to refinance anyway.
I expected there would be food and fuel shortages. Well, staple food is cheap, so I was able to get enough rice to last my household 3 months for basically nothing. Cheap insurance. Turns out the shortages did happen but not where I live, so it just means I get to eat rice. No biggie. I picked up some extra fuel with some fuel stabilizer. Turns out the shortages did happen but not where I live, so it means I haven't needed to buy gas for my snowblower or lawnmower. No biggie. I picked up electric heaters and electric generators because I was concerned about natural gas shortages, which did happen, but not where I live. That actually saved my ass because my furnace broke in the middle of winter and we were able to use the heaters I bought to keep the house from freezing while we waited for a new board to come in.
Some other stuff was also pretty cheap because things haven't collapsed but would be important if they did, like grabbing a trauma kit and a first aid manual, making sure we have paper copies of important books in general.
It's all about balancing your decisions. If I spent every penny on food and ammo and built a fallout shelter in my back yard I'd be in some trouble, but you can mitigate an awful lot of risk for not a lot of money and also make sure you're prepared for non-collapse scenarios like your furnace breaking in the middle of winter.
It'll be terrible -- I'll have made decisions that ensure I'm secure against economic, social, and environmental shocks... I'll have been responsible with my finances... I'll have spent time with my son raising him to be a responsible and moral person even when things around him are spiraling out of control -- and for nothing!!!
I only recently started hearing about things being the way they are today where even once you leave they'll harass you with their legal system for years afterwards. I do believe it wasn't like this in the past.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/A8132
Never go to NYC. Not even once. It is as close to a hell on earth as man has ever created.
Never go to NYC. Not even once. It is as close to a hell on earth as man has ever created.
The new emperors in the roman empire came from the military because they had to be somewhat real because if you weren't actually successful in real life in that age you'd die, but I don't think we could pull from the military today since it's so decadent. You can become immensely successful in the military without having won a single battle or perhaps even fought a single battle.
Who are the barbarians who will take over after the collapse? I think that's important to think about.
Who are the barbarians who will take over after the collapse? I think that's important to think about.