I mean, probably not that fascist free. Spain was one of the longest running fascist regimes, only liberalizing once Franco's successor decided running a fascist dictatorship didn't sound like a fun time. There could certainly be a timeline where Spain is still fascist, and I'm sure there's still living people who wouldn't have a problem with a return to 1974.
Trump should declare himself a Muslim so all these Europeans have to jail themselves.
Picked up a dead tree copy of literally, I'll grab the others too.
Nobody is coming to save us, we can only save ourselves.
Nobody is coming to save us, we can only save ourselves.
Is the panel displayed if you don't have an account? I want to support fellow freesiders.
I think the most interesting thing is realizing what the Pharisees are intended to represent. Their greatest sin is mindless adherence to the rules without proper concern for what is just, or what is true.
There's obviously direct parallels with today. A lot of people are so focused on following arbitrary rules that they don't care about the justice or truth of their actions, only that they're following the rules.
And of course some people misread that criticism and assume that it means we never have to follow the rules, but the reality is of course we need to follow rules, but we also need to use our brains to make sure that the application of the rules is both just and true.
There's obviously direct parallels with today. A lot of people are so focused on following arbitrary rules that they don't care about the justice or truth of their actions, only that they're following the rules.
And of course some people misread that criticism and assume that it means we never have to follow the rules, but the reality is of course we need to follow rules, but we also need to use our brains to make sure that the application of the rules is both just and true.
The market this year has made me feel like a genius, which shows it is probably broken.
The opposite.
In the Soviet Union, the stalinists hated nobody more than the trotskyies. Both are retarded commies.
Fascism and national socialism are both modernist revolutionary movements. Mussolini was an important part of Italys socialist movement, and Hitler openly stated he utilized ideas directly from Marx. Marx was heavily informed by the French revolution under the Jacobins which led to the reign of terror and ultimately saw a monarch and aristocracy reinstalled in a couple decades. They're all kissing cousins.
The winning move against the modernists isn't to become another breed of modernist they hate, it's to surpass modernism and embrace all the things it rejects, such as transcendence, irrationality, and the inherent recognition that not only can't all things be centrally controlled, many things shouldn't be.
In the Soviet Union, the stalinists hated nobody more than the trotskyies. Both are retarded commies.
Fascism and national socialism are both modernist revolutionary movements. Mussolini was an important part of Italys socialist movement, and Hitler openly stated he utilized ideas directly from Marx. Marx was heavily informed by the French revolution under the Jacobins which led to the reign of terror and ultimately saw a monarch and aristocracy reinstalled in a couple decades. They're all kissing cousins.
The winning move against the modernists isn't to become another breed of modernist they hate, it's to surpass modernism and embrace all the things it rejects, such as transcendence, irrationality, and the inherent recognition that not only can't all things be centrally controlled, many things shouldn't be.
I've written before about how I realized that the idiocracy in the movie is just one form of idiocracy, and not the most dangerous one.
You can have the populist anti-intellectual idiocracy, but typically that's not that clever and knows it isn't and doesn't want to do much more than live life.
The pseudo-intellectual elitist idiocracy, that's the dangerous one. In such a case, they take on the trappings of intelligence, but without actually being intelligent. And the thing is, such idiocracy does think it deserves to rule the world.
In the end of the movie, they use water instead of energy drink to fix the crops, but can you imagine a parallel universe sequel where they refuse to allow them to water the plants with water instead of energy drink because there's no peer reviewed study saying plants don't crave electrolytes?
In a postmodern sense, the pseudo-intellectual elitist idiocracy becomes a simulacrum of the simulation of what intelligent people once did, but without any of the things that made those actions intelligent. It becomes an epistemic cage from which they cannot escape.
Ironically, the many people lamenting how many stupid people are out there hide these pseudo-intellectual elitists who aren't necessarily any smarter than the people they're attacking, but they wear the clothes of the intelligent so they can pretend they're not "one of those people".
This relates to a post I wrote but didn't send earlier today, about the easiest way to destroy science: Don't paint scientists as the bad guy, just hop in and stop using science to seek truth you don't like and start using it to prove you're right. Once you start using things like p-hacking to get the results you want rather than chasing the results that are true, science isn't meaningful anymore.
Science proved a bunch of stuff the establishment didn't want to prove, such as heliocentrism and evolution, but it even proved a bunch of stuff the scientists themselves didn't want to prove -- Quantum Physics and relativity proving that Newtonian physics are not correct essentially destroyed the image of a clockwork universe the modernist epistemology relied upon, and some very high level scientists left the field shortly after.
You can have the populist anti-intellectual idiocracy, but typically that's not that clever and knows it isn't and doesn't want to do much more than live life.
The pseudo-intellectual elitist idiocracy, that's the dangerous one. In such a case, they take on the trappings of intelligence, but without actually being intelligent. And the thing is, such idiocracy does think it deserves to rule the world.
In the end of the movie, they use water instead of energy drink to fix the crops, but can you imagine a parallel universe sequel where they refuse to allow them to water the plants with water instead of energy drink because there's no peer reviewed study saying plants don't crave electrolytes?
In a postmodern sense, the pseudo-intellectual elitist idiocracy becomes a simulacrum of the simulation of what intelligent people once did, but without any of the things that made those actions intelligent. It becomes an epistemic cage from which they cannot escape.
Ironically, the many people lamenting how many stupid people are out there hide these pseudo-intellectual elitists who aren't necessarily any smarter than the people they're attacking, but they wear the clothes of the intelligent so they can pretend they're not "one of those people".
This relates to a post I wrote but didn't send earlier today, about the easiest way to destroy science: Don't paint scientists as the bad guy, just hop in and stop using science to seek truth you don't like and start using it to prove you're right. Once you start using things like p-hacking to get the results you want rather than chasing the results that are true, science isn't meaningful anymore.
Science proved a bunch of stuff the establishment didn't want to prove, such as heliocentrism and evolution, but it even proved a bunch of stuff the scientists themselves didn't want to prove -- Quantum Physics and relativity proving that Newtonian physics are not correct essentially destroyed the image of a clockwork universe the modernist epistemology relied upon, and some very high level scientists left the field shortly after.
Through a different lens, fascism is closer to what they want than a sort of pre-modern pluralistic liberalism. That doesn't even have a suffocating Omnistate! And they'd get rid of the church with all its pesky rules that aren't set by the suffocating Omnistate, and local cultures, with all their customs that aren't set by a suffocating Omnistate.
To be fair, it *is* January.
But on the other hand, you still need electricity in January.
If there was enough Sun to heat everyone's houses in England in January, it wouldn't be January. It might be August.
But on the other hand, you still need electricity in January.
If there was enough Sun to heat everyone's houses in England in January, it wouldn't be January. It might be August.
In the one ending Charlie is referred to a government program for deradicalization. I think in honor of the true Australian story, in that ending a federal agent convinces Charlie to become a suicide bomber while another federal agent convinces the teacher who refers them that Charlie is making wonderful progress on deradicalization.
All the Europeans calling Trump a pedo should be careful. If he converts to Islam you could go to jail for posts like that.
Honestly, one of the structural advantages that don't go away is the fact that a solid boomer probably has a decent resume and enough inside baseball knowledge to kill an interview.
Eventually, it doesn't matter if they have to apply or not, they're getting different treatment than a zoomer anyway.
Eventually, it doesn't matter if they have to apply or not, they're getting different treatment than a zoomer anyway.
https://vndb.org/v61649
Lol, that was fast.
I have no idea what's actually in it, you could be a gay porn game for all I know. But the fact that it showed up so fast is pretty funny.
Lol, that was fast.
I have no idea what's actually in it, you could be a gay porn game for all I know. But the fact that it showed up so fast is pretty funny.
Always remember: the leftists elected a Goldman Sachs investment banker. It doesn't matter what he does as long as he's wearing the right shirt.
Since the French Revolution, the first violent modernist revolution, there’s a recurring pattern: the people who start the revolution are rarely the people who survive once power finishes consolidating.
The French Revolution itself was arguably a bourgeois or early capitalist revolution. It pitted the rising middle class against a rent-seeking aristocracy and dismantled feudal privilege in favour of legal equality, property rights, and market participation. In that sense, despite being revolutionary and sharing many of the same ideas that would propogate to the Marxists, it wasn’t anti-capitalist at all. It was part of capitalism’s emergence.
What failed, however, wasn’t capitalism so much as modernist political reasoning applied at revolutionary speed. Once legitimacy stopped being inherited and became ideological, loyalty replaced tradition, and deviation became dangerous. Many people outside normal social boundaries were swept up in revolutionary enthusiasm, only to be executed during the Reign of Terror when the new regime needed stability instead of disruption.
The same structural pattern appears in the Russian and Chinese revolutions. Early on, broad coalitions are tolerated because they help destabilize the existing system. Once power is secured, those same differences become liabilities.
The same thing happened under German National Socialism. In its early phase, the movement showed tolerance toward certain fringe groups. Once power was consolidated, that tolerance disappeared very quickly.
Marx later absorbed the unresolved failures of the French Revolution into his theory, but the modernist assumption remained: grand narratives are just, “we” possess objective truth, and those who don’t share it must be corrected in service of an inevitable telos. Once that assumption is in place, the same historical resonances tend to repeat.
There is value in recognizing a structural feature of modernist revolutions, of which communist revolutions are prime examples. They are permissive while tearing something down and restrictive once responsible for maintaining their own system. Focusing only on early phases misses how these systems behave over time.
And so, consider the idiots presently tearing down Minneapolis. Useful idiots, the sort a Stalin or a Hitler or a Mao would make use of in the early days. Once the revolution is over, the new powers that be have no use for revolutionaries, and in fact such revolutionaries are dangerous -- likely to engage in another revolution, you understand. It's been happening for centuries, revolution after revolution, but the useful idiots don't read, so they don't know the historical precedent. Robespierre ultimately experiences his own guillotine blade, assuming they even get that far. Until that moment, useful idiots believe the guillotine is their ally and will never turn on them.
Ironically, unlike the Jacobins and the Marxists and the National Socialists, there is no revolution in America. They're just tools of one part of the establishment butting heads with another part of the establishment. Once election season is over and the midterms are over, there's no place in the palace for them, just a return to ignominy.
The French Revolution itself was arguably a bourgeois or early capitalist revolution. It pitted the rising middle class against a rent-seeking aristocracy and dismantled feudal privilege in favour of legal equality, property rights, and market participation. In that sense, despite being revolutionary and sharing many of the same ideas that would propogate to the Marxists, it wasn’t anti-capitalist at all. It was part of capitalism’s emergence.
What failed, however, wasn’t capitalism so much as modernist political reasoning applied at revolutionary speed. Once legitimacy stopped being inherited and became ideological, loyalty replaced tradition, and deviation became dangerous. Many people outside normal social boundaries were swept up in revolutionary enthusiasm, only to be executed during the Reign of Terror when the new regime needed stability instead of disruption.
The same structural pattern appears in the Russian and Chinese revolutions. Early on, broad coalitions are tolerated because they help destabilize the existing system. Once power is secured, those same differences become liabilities.
The same thing happened under German National Socialism. In its early phase, the movement showed tolerance toward certain fringe groups. Once power was consolidated, that tolerance disappeared very quickly.
Marx later absorbed the unresolved failures of the French Revolution into his theory, but the modernist assumption remained: grand narratives are just, “we” possess objective truth, and those who don’t share it must be corrected in service of an inevitable telos. Once that assumption is in place, the same historical resonances tend to repeat.
There is value in recognizing a structural feature of modernist revolutions, of which communist revolutions are prime examples. They are permissive while tearing something down and restrictive once responsible for maintaining their own system. Focusing only on early phases misses how these systems behave over time.
And so, consider the idiots presently tearing down Minneapolis. Useful idiots, the sort a Stalin or a Hitler or a Mao would make use of in the early days. Once the revolution is over, the new powers that be have no use for revolutionaries, and in fact such revolutionaries are dangerous -- likely to engage in another revolution, you understand. It's been happening for centuries, revolution after revolution, but the useful idiots don't read, so they don't know the historical precedent. Robespierre ultimately experiences his own guillotine blade, assuming they even get that far. Until that moment, useful idiots believe the guillotine is their ally and will never turn on them.
Ironically, unlike the Jacobins and the Marxists and the National Socialists, there is no revolution in America. They're just tools of one part of the establishment butting heads with another part of the establishment. Once election season is over and the midterms are over, there's no place in the palace for them, just a return to ignominy.
You're not up there calling for the police to fight the federal government.
I mean, maybe you are. But even if you were, you're not the damn mayor.
I mean, maybe you are. But even if you were, you're not the damn mayor.
People who have to make stuff on their own and convince someone else to buy it know that you really have to think about your audience, or at least try to make something you think people would want to buy.
Most of these idiots grew up thinking that wet roads cause rain, so the only reason big companies had stuff that was so popular is that they have lots of money for advertising, so if they get into the big companies they can make whatever they want and the big companies can advertise it and everyone will have to watch whatever dreck they puke up.
Most of these idiots grew up thinking that wet roads cause rain, so the only reason big companies had stuff that was so popular is that they have lots of money for advertising, so if they get into the big companies they can make whatever they want and the big companies can advertise it and everyone will have to watch whatever dreck they puke up.