WAR ROOM LOUNGE V25: MJ vs Prince

which be

  • Total voters
    67
Status
Not open for further replies.
Watching a let's play of Crusader Kings 2 and it's a great reminder of just how hopelessly frigging complicated politics were under (and across) the various kinds of Feudalism.
 
the best people....
fuckin hilarious.. what next, tomi lahren for secretary of state?
 
Fawlty said:
Watching a let's play of Crusader Kings 2 and it's a great reminder of just how hopelessly frigging complicated politics were under (and across) the various kinds of Feudalism.
Click to expand...
Not my area of expertise by any stretch of the imagination, but I will say that imo the overwhelming personal entanglement aspect made it ridiculous
 
Another project done. This one is for my mom for Christmas. She really loves hummingbirds. Thought I'd share with you guys

AHOBZZT.jpg
 
oleDirtyBast4rd said:
The entire world figured out that you can just make the rich pay for everything? A bunch of freeloaders you guys are. All while championing the cause of equality. What a joke
Click to expand...

KONG-D'SNT-TAP said:
You say some of the dumbest shit I’ve ever seen. It’s actually embarrassing
Click to expand...

I noticed you were off topic and addressed nothing I said. It seems as if you have no retort to what I posted other then insults. "If you can't keep up with the conversation, it's better if you dont try to join in at all" Hanibal Lecter
 
oleDirtyBast4rd said:
I noticed you were off topic and addressed nothing I said. It seems as if you have no retort to what I posted other then insults. "If you can't keep up with the conversation, it's better if you dont try to join in at all" Hanibal Lecter
Click to expand...


Okay night now
 
I see more and more articles by women rebelling against the feminist script

https://thefederalist.com/2018/12/1...-many-women-miserable-dont-let-it-sucker-you/


Our culture is so saturated with feminism that even conservatives and devoutly religious people like me think inside its wheel ruts. This wouldn’t be a problem, except that feminism is antithetical to human flourishing, both individually and corporately, because it has a false view of human nature.

No matter how the evidence piles up in heartbreak after heartbreak, many women continue to give themselves cognitive dissonance. We all want to believe that we’re exceptional, that patterns of human behavior don’t apply to us. That while bad things happened to other people who did the same things we are or want to, those bad things won’t happen to us, too. We’re special. We’re different.


Refusing to learn from history and experience only hardens people against the feedback from reality they need to make their lives better through smarter decisions. Thinking that the experience and wisdom of humans across time has a claim on our present behavior allows a form of troubleshooting and decisionmaking using billions of accumulated datapoints. Yes, it requires humility to consider whether your presuppositions and behavior are wrong, but what you may lose in feminist scorekeeping you reap a hundredfold in a richly happy life. How do I know? It’s happened to me.

The Day I Started Losing Feminism, I Saw a Positive Pregnancy Test
I got lucky, with an unintended and unwanted pregnancy. We were married, but I was devastated, because I had wanted to do what everyone says you should, and focus on my career right out of college. My husband and I called the baby our “fruitcake”: that present you get that nobody knows exactly what to do with. A finicky baby, he kept that nickname deservedly for his first two years. Now, it no longer fits him.

Over time I learned that I was distressed about this miracle when I should have been, and slowly became, deeply grateful. That little boy saved me, in ways that unfolded themselves slowly in my life, like a rare and precious flower. Another petal unfurled this week as I read two recent accounts from women I would be far more like if I had figured out faster how to keep my womb sterile, as I had planned.

A 35-year-old woman wrote The Cut’s advice columnist last month in great distress, and became one of its most-viewed stories of late. She embarked on life as a “creative,” cycling through West Coast cities and boyfriends in ways that may sound glamorous, but now she sees in retrospect has wasted her potential for creating a family.

I have no family nearby, no long-term relationship built on years of mutual growth and shared experiences, no children. While I make friends easily, I’ve left most of my friends behind in each city I’ve moved from while they’ve continued to grow deep roots: marriages, homeownership, career growth, community, families, children. I have a few close girlfriends, for which I am grateful, but life keeps getting busier and our conversations are now months apart. Most of my nights are spent alone with my cat (cue the cliché)…

My apathy is coming out in weird ways. I’m drinking too much, and when I do see my friends on occasion, I end up getting drunk and angry or sad or both and pushing them away. And with men I date, I feel pressure to make something of the relationship too soon (move in, get married, ‘I have to have kids in a couple of years’; fun times!). All the while still trying to be the sexpot 25-year-old I thought I was until what seemed like a moment ago.

I used to think I was the one who had it all figured out. Adventurous life in the city! Traveling the world! Making memories! Now I feel incredibly hollow. And foolish.


The advice columnist offered empathy and self-esteem talk, but did not recognize and validate this woman’s genuine loss. At 35, women’s fertility starts a freefall towards menopause. That’s the age at which doctors consider a woman in a high-risk pregnancy, which means she’s at an increased likelihood of complications that only increases as she continues to age, as well as increased medical interventions during pregnancy and birth that endanger mother and child.

So this woman has in all likelihood lost her ability to have more than one child, if she is even lucky enough to get one despite no potential for that currently on the horizon. That’s because it takes at least two years each to have and recover from a baby. So if you want two kids, you need at least five years of fertility to get them. If you want three kids, you need at least seven or so years of fertility.

Subtract that from 35, and you get 28. That is now the median age of first marriage for women, but they’re not typically getting married thinking they should quickly have a baby if they want one at all. That means millions of couples are needlessly setting themselves up for difficulties in having children, simply by timing them suboptimally.

Keeping Women from Our American Dream
Now, 86 percent of Americans want at least two children. But delaying marriage and putting higher education and careers first causes them to not live up to their family dreams. The New York Times reported in February that “the gap between the number of children that women say they want to have (2.7) and the number of children they will probably actually have (1.8) has risen to the highest level in 40 years.” This is setting up increasing numbers of women for deep, unrepairable disappointment, as not only the Cut writer but another woman this week illustrated.


A 50-year-old career woman with four college degrees recently called into Dennis Prager’s radio show with advice for young women that amounted to: Don’t do what I did. “I was programmed to get into the workforce, compete with men and make money,” she said. “Supposedly, that would be a fulfilling life. But I was told that by a feminist mother who was divorced, who hated her husband — my father.”

it’s lonely when you see your friends having children, going on vacations, planning the lives of their children, and you don’t do anything at night but come home to your cats and dogs…

You have other concerns when you get older and you live alone. Who’s going to take you to your medical appointments? If something should happen to you, there’s no other income there to help you. These are things you don’t understand when you’re in your 20s because you don’t think you’ll ever get old and have health problems…

I want to tell women: Find someone in your 20s. That’s when you’re still very cute. That’s when you’re still amiable to working out problems with someone. It’s harder in your 50s, when you’ve lived alone, to compromise with someone, to have someone in your home and every little thing about them annoys you because you’re so used to being alone.

The famous (or infamous) psychologist and advice guru Jordan Peterson hears this all the time from highly intelligent, driven female clients. In their 20s, they think they want the career. But in their 30s, they start to realize that they also really want a family, and that it’s in fact more important to them than abstract notches on some career totem pole. At that point, however, given the vagaries of finding someone and getting across the marriage and then pregnancy finish line, it’s far more difficult for them to make the life they wanted.

One of Peterson’s viral videos is called “Women at 30,” and it repeats similar comments he’s offered elsewhere.



“It isn’t really obvious to me that young women in our society are told the truth about what their lives are likely to be like,” he says. “They’re taught, both explicitly and implicitly that their primary interest will be in the pursuit of a dynamic career, and there are some real problems with that…My experience has been overwhelmingly that high-caliber women decide in their 30s that relationship and family is the most important thing in their life.”

Peterson argues our society has “lied to women,” and he’s right. We’re told to “find ourselves” and seek happiness just about everywhere but where human history has shown that we’ll reap it most bountifully. What he doesn’t mention here (or much elsewhere, that I’ve seen) is the conjunction of these lies with fertility problems that set up so much unhappiness for women.

It’s often not easy to find someone to marry, and more than one in ten couples experiences infertility. Infertility problems also increase and are harder to address the older you are. That boyfriend you passed on at age 25 because you “weren’t ready to get married yet” won’t be around when you’re 30, or 35, and the replacements for him are also slimming out at that age.

Women’s attractiveness peaks around age 20, not surprisingly (from a biological standpoint) in tandem with their fertility. Here’s a graph of OKCupid data about what age men think is most attractive on a woman:

youngwomenrule.jpg


Aaron Renn, who posted this graph in his Masculinist email, draws together a lot of related information about romance and the sexes this way: “For the average woman, her overall attractiveness will likely peak by her mid-20s, then start to fall for pretty much the rest of her life. For men, their looks similarly decline. But their power, status, and money start low and go up over time, which can offset or even more than offset declining looks for a while…When young, women are at the top of their game while men are still underdeveloped. So the average woman has much more attraction power than the average man. By the time we hit our 30s, this situation starts to reverse itself.”

This means women have the most marital bargaining power in their 20s. The smartest female strategy, then, is to marry young, and lock in a husband before they have to compete against younger, hotter women. This is the exact opposite of what our society tells women to do. It tells women to do the same thing that men do. But women are not men. Our bodies are different, our fertility is different, our priorities are different. So while men can recover, and even may benefit from, later marriage, women are extremely ill-served by it overall.

Women need and deserve their own life script, one that suits us. In order to develop one, we need to know and be told the truth about what makes women happy, what women overwhelmingly want in life, and the biological constraints of achieving our dreams. Then, we need to act on that knowledge, to make our dreams come to life.

You could get lucky, like I did, and have a surprisingly early baby who changes your whole life plans for the better. But if I were you, I wouldn’t wait around for a miracle. I’d go out there and get one on purpose
Click to expand...
 
Trotsky said:
@Jack V Savage @PolishHeadlock @Kafir-kun
You've probably heard me express a few times how I felt that Christopher Hitchens' politics were often pedantic and at times almost defeatist. I stand by that impression. But this excerpt from his debate with Dinesh D'Souza (lol) in 1989 is one of the most brilliant speeches on political economy that I have ever heard. It is really disappointing (to me) that he didn't focus more on these sorts of questions and topics in his public appearances.

I would love to get a transcript for it, but apparently it only exists in audio. Even video of the event is unavailable.

Click to expand...


Google '''download YouTube subtitles".

You will have to do some cleaning up, but it is quite good.

(Please share when done :))
 
Mika was talking about Mike Pompeo he went on Fox an Friends an got asked about Washington Post journalist. He said they have paid enough for their actions.

Mika then goes off an said is that a Patriot speaking or a want to be dictator butt boy ha ha.

I cannot wait for the YouTube for this thing.
 
JDragon said:
Google '''download YouTube subtitles".

You will have to do some cleaning up, but it is quite good.

(Please share when done :))
Click to expand...

Yikes @ "some cleaning up"

when Thomas Moore wrote his book utopia he wrote it in Latin because this is any relatively short trying would go in bourgeois time in that century the very idea of a just or equal or let alone an ideal Society was quite literally not for the profane not even for those of the profane or vulgar who could read and that's been the situation with schemes for the ideal or the fair or just society for the greater part of human history and that's why I can say this now in Esther Susan and I have paradoxically bonded together by at least one thing in in common in that we are respectively defenders of capitalism and socialism these two systems are the only claimants that human genius is so far evolved to a modernist and universalizing ethic and practice we both made our claims for ourselves and for our favorite systems and systems of ideas and as the National think might be the first term it may be the last admit but would have to admit any event Karl Marx was the first writer on society and on political economy to get capitalism's point to see what distinguished yet from pre-existing forms of accumulation and modes of production and so forth and to heap really almost embarrassing praised upon it especially when he was writing in concert with Engels in the manifesto but later and the blunder sir and in the ghost of programming in all three volumes of capital he praised it as an unprecedented system for dissolving the bonds of slavery and contract and indenture a system of wealth and of science and innovation above all of course he pointed out that it could coexist with and could even at times necessitate forms of slavery of its own forms of imperialism and forms obviously of war perhaps war above all and coercion nonetheless he did pay this tremendous dialectic or paradoxical compliment which no one since in has sought to rescind certainly wouldn't be me but he did not think it was history's last word to coin-op car of barbarism and barely paid it more elephant compliments in northern Friedman was ever able to nail I'll stress this because it's it will be the last bit of common ground between between Sousa myself I didn't come here as a healer and didn't regard myself as one but if we look at what the mother critique the original search as critique of capitalism actually was and think of what the keywords were they had contributed to the vernacular and II and the idiom of political economy ways of thinking about society and humanity I think you might give me more impressed then reported to be think of think of how you could carry on a modern discussion without saying and meaning to say the word exploitation the word class the word alienation the word contradiction or without having some idea of what the difference was between use-value and exchange-value or without knowing somewhere in you and in in your brain that there was a difference between the forces and the relations of production that's to say that to refer to the economy is pure oil but it's simply to aggregate and to lump together very carefully categories that deserve to be distinguished imagine in other words the discourse that didn't possess that the terminology and people would the Stephen Hawking is only the most recent not as amateurish conception of history the materialist conception of nature itself and of the University of the cosmos something of which Marx had an appointment to meet Darwin which Darwin did not keep which I can't be responsible I wasn't able to do any more than guess that but nonetheless at all points of indication of the materialist conception upon which the study of capital is based and is based by those who wish to defend an opponent just as much as by those who to transcend and replace and improve upon it say nothing of business which could be referred now admittedly the inertia I don't want to misrepresent it doesn't come before us essentially as a modernist his faction of the conservative movement in fact is charming and repairs study because it still retains when it's of various pre-capitalist almost the feudal formations certainly pre-modern ones that have been as it were transmitted on through the transportation of these systems such as the idea of the strong nation state a nation state that can be an individual actor that can actually be masculine and stand forth into the fire each with its own surplus incidentally there has never been satisfactorily established by the partisans of capitalism how each free enterprise nation-state can come out ahead of the game in the terms of trade and everyone has a stroke there's none of them the idea exists such as the idea of which your spouse's the God created man rather than the other way around judges such as the idea of morality and society and in the individual derived from religion and from the supernatural and such of the idea that a ruling class can embody an idea such as Liberty in crusade against evil another idea these are all ideas that as he knows were stale when Galileo was young but still are important to the defenders of a system that should really be advancing itself as the culmination of modernism and yet doesn't quite have that self-confidence and I find that water self-confidence intriguing and once you want to pursue it I'll give him credit for throw for one confusion the could enemy have emerged in our own time or confusion would only get in the twentieth century which is the capitalism and free enterprise are in some sense the same thing how they must wish it was so now I've kept being told all this week that I'll be on the defensive this evening because after all you only have to open a daily newspaper with friends this thing of the past but I don't really see why I should be on the defensive in disease or mr. de souza to carry his point the proposition is contained in the matter for debate season anything he has to argue the capitalism has put itself beyond the reach of the surface to feed the simply no point any longer gave the words I mentioned earlier any of the terminology I emphasized before any of the historic that Hulett system has been so painfully evolved have to show that capitalism doesn't need that any longer is proof against this critique I would rather be in my position that in his which is why I'm not going to be defensive the combination of human endeavor in my opinion has not yet occurred the future has not yet taking place everything is still to play for what researchers have said about the way we live now and murdered like for quiz plus by by the capitalist system has not lost its relevance of course we on the Left had been here before we've been told before that we have nothing new to contribute that our ideas are obsolete and redundant we feared our own funerals more often than Tom Sawyer and when capital was first published with von Mises and bomba Berk and others of the early pianist school published along being as potions 1890s called Karl Marx and the close of his system saying there's no need to read this book I saw what I think that premature we've said just before the first world war by card seeing others attacking Luxenberg and we've met in France mirroring that there was no further relevance in the socialist critique of empire and war that was said in 1930 in the late nineteen thirty and that the whole idea of monopoly capitalism imperialism some was was a redundant propagandistic concept who ate their words or navigation throughout the nineteen thirties it was said that fascism had done for capitalism what socialism had claimed to do instead that it had solved the problem of distribution of unemployment and so on national socialism in combination with capitalism was the regnant system in in eastern and central Europe at that time tried to extend itself in both directions with consequences which are still I think quite well remembered my comment on that would be non National Socialism and in its darkest torment nobody tries to counterfeit a bankrupt can see that there are some compliments that we've been paid by our enemies even as they try to say there is no further need for our Socialist Party any longer and it was just after they finished murdering the Spanish Republic with the British Foreign Office announcing the between Munich and the Hitler Stalin apparently the smirk of complacency not I think since duplicated till mr. Fujiyama story suggesting that point announced with all the repulsions to the Foreign Office 24 the modern world is that all the isms are now worldly and that was said in 1939 so if I seem a little world weary ladies and gentlemen comrades and friends you understand why that have to be I mean this leaves I mean it makes it pretty oh she used to mention the 1950s in Daniel Bell saying that ideology would end and that encounter magazine would replace it as much used to say a substituting the government of men for the administration of things just before the three great movements on with many us there are teeth warned against an unjust and criminal war neither China one for the allotment of human status to black Americans and one for the admission of women as a social category the three great movements that have changed our world in all of which socialists played the leading part and still do that was what happened immediately after the end of ideology had been profaned by mr. Bell in his opinion is I don't need to be treated by saying that I didn't see mr. de souza of his friends involved in any of these three great movements but without being fresh about it I think I can say that having us having survived all the things I've just described we will also survive the Reagan Bush years and reducer almost as a widow with a vacation in spirit now if I can be vulgar in the empirical for a second law and this is distinct it's all gone in purple but I don't think it's avoidable what about ladies and gentlemen what about the evidence of your senses because after all the theories conception applies to the to the cosmos as well as to lead to the argument vision or the economy I don't honestly believe that if you look around you at the empty and manipulated politics and the huckster and phony religion and the daily insult of your mass media or television or newspapers and your fellow citizens eating pet food and sleeping in the doorways of banks dreading the hard winter as people haven't had to do in a developed country since before the Industrial Revolution actually having to live by the rhythms of nature and pre capitalistic sense and care about the climate as a matter of political economy before your eyes and did you read the report how many children in the most prosperous country in the world live below the poverty line and did you read how generously the poverty line is defined before that was that forgiving I don't believe if you look at the evidence of your senses and I'm not asking you to trust the evidence of your emotion so I'd like made that distinction the evidence of your senses and your reasoning and the contrast between what is happening on what you know humanity with its resources and innovation is capable of delivering you look at that which is the central and I borrow another word from myself and my predecessors contradiction of the system and its potential I don't believe you're going to say this is the best we can do and yet you're all encouraged to think ourselves are you not as proud individual autonomous heroic consumers with rights and controversy as an author as they as they think of you they've got you more less taste I think you've all been in fact collectivized lilandra systems exhibit some of the worst features of what your warning would happen if there was socialism the collectivization of the psyche and the human effort will be electrolyzed mr. it's not gonna judge just need by the spin doctors and by the market researchers and the professional politicians but for example there was that too and it isn't to be despised but by the planners doing appeared economy and while you sleep and while you play and why do you correctly can see in the wife congratulate yourself on being heroic autonomous individuals and consumers design your constitution is being torn by thugs whose name is you're not allowed to know your foreign policy franchise to private entrepreneurs whose names you're not allowed to know either and mercenaries and fat cats and crooks you get up to things in El Salvador and in South Africa in the Arab world and elsewhere in your name that according the opinion polls at any rate you don't even want to know about and perhaps dirt now for shame we're already anyone going to say that that's the best this is the end of history that this is the summer of human endeavor I don't believe it I don't think that's the way you would wish if this was an emotion for debate the council vote and then you will be collectivized I think in another way of very sinister way socialist to against statism and collectivism as you know the bourgeois revolution which was a tremendous revolution the 200th anniversary wish was celebration this year set out to abolish of power of life and death as exerted arbitrarily by the state and the monarch and the divine right of the ruling class it was the signal achievement of the portal revolution which led to the Industrial carpet of revolutions to challenge that and say no you don't have the right of life and death over the citizen you don't have what poodle isn't called that couldn't call itself feudalism they didn't have enough self-consciousness the justice of the pie the middle and below where these powers are irrigated just to the to the Dodson power spiritual and temporal now we've actually relapsed from that as history has progressed everyone in this room today is in effect in a uniform and also has been placed in a frontline trench the nuclear state the firm only fiste the plutonium state under which we actually live but for which we cannot version in who's consuming and producing affairs we have no say in their role has arrogated to itself the power of life and death over all of us all day and all night and now for many years it also denied us the right to make inquiry about it and we really never any of us more than quite a few minutes away but uh some fine-tuning done recently by the arms control professional never very far from the moment when it could well be that as the great philosopher of the subject said the living might envy the dead of business who were among the living might find ourselves praying in many cases for the first time to die now who is gonna take the system I've just sketched I have only time to sketch it in and boast contradictions in contrast that are permanent and deeply inspired to knit who's gonna say that that system has put itself beyond to reach beyond the need for the humanists rationalist so just achieve I didn't believe any honest person thinks that it put us off anywhere near the point where it explains of the immune I think it's Meera complacency and solecism but it's defended to say so I think in doing so they deceive themselves an attempt to achieve you still the system has its defenders this is no state monopoly capitalism coupled with the war economy which is the main engine of its prosperity in there in the posted slump period has its defenders and they deserve their honor in my opinion because it may be asking too much of capital so hoards contradictions but if it isn't the same as free enterprise because you can have free enterprise under any system because of the not being human tendency to and if you can't have three empires under capitalism because of capitalism when our and energy to monopoly and to dependents the opponent the state that's to say the identity of it was very enterprising entrepreneurship is propaganda and then whose capital is monopoly capital in his partnership with statism and collectivism as in Japan as in Taiwan hasn't Singapore resident as in Hong Kong as in all the instances given by mr. de souza the success stories of what are in fact programmed economies grown up under the American war economy umbrella parasitic upon it entirely dependent on the collusion of state and monopolies now nor is is Espinosa catabolism isn't that where with defendant it is not free enterprise in entrepreneurship in the Unleashed human will nor is it the correspondence in political economy to human nature which is what people like Friedman and some extent of von Hayek have argued for it because if that was so white has it only evolved in a very few societies in the last century and a half more has it simply failed to establish itself as a system any time anywhere before the nineteenth century and since the 19th century only in a few countries and in most of those countries in a maimed and calamitous and catastrophic form such as in pre-revolution Russia and China where the only form of capital accumulation available after complete collapse of the accountable system was forced accumulation by means of socialism during his planning these are questions that mr. Sousa doesn't even seem to think are interesting because if capitalism is human nature there's nothing what did you argue about it that we would there would be really almost nothing Christmas done I think we can however we can proof by indirection magician whatever it is it isn't it isn't simply the transformative of human nature to political economy so what is it it's a system really that emerges from the coincidence between the Industrial Revolution and modern imperialism now I just want to ask the time that don't overrun my time whether that system born out of the Industrial Revolution is coincidence with Empire which is what we talk about in real historic time whether it has outlived any of the rival 60 word right-sided at the start and obvious obvious cryptic as I can without without I hope being a builder exploitation for example exploitation is not a moral term that it's quite useful in moral discourse it simply means the rate at which people are deprived of the do that is theirs for their labor for the investment of the only thing they've got in the case of most human beings their ability to work and work for us now I'll give just one example it was cited by the third by the World Bank this year that the total of all foreign aid given to just the National American continent in the last five years was approximately 120th the total water on it was one twentieth of whether they're saying that the renter's had had to repay to Western banks in the form not have a jet when we paid but of these servicing of the interest on this debt that is a good working definition I'd be willing to be challenged the point of what is meant by the process of exploitation is not a moral point the point about how you're prepared to live with your fellow citizens in other countries instead of excuse me fellow humans but of creatures and other countries certainly as moral to that extent but also an index of the rate at which people are deprived of what is usually from that for their ability to work for others class another key word I mentioned whatever one everyone in America appears to know what class they're not in and some say that it's by denying that they have a class system that the thing hits limping on a tour but everyone usually has some idea of what the class above and immediately below them is and certainly recently this FINA an idea that the might be such a thing as an underclass which you can't have it food under any other kind of thoughts it seems but anyway to me and which has a certain marginal utility for politics in that if you create an underclass as Reagan and Bush did and make it larger you can then run against it because what you created is quite frightening and having as well invented mr. Porter you can also recycle him and this is the thing condemnation of the politics as well as the economics of class system and also bring 23 a second word which is often misused to which is that of alienation how do you how you actually want to live with your fellow humans and in what sort of relationship with them do you want to have do you simply want to say well you take your chances and I'll take mine and we'll all meet at infinity which is roughly the mandate that's being proposed to you I don't think so market isn't actually going to take care of that to infinity though you'll meet these people again down the road and wish you thought about them the first time that's our point about the sixties that's the price of giving up the war on poverty the last time around we're paying that price now because people were prepared to think as socialist about their fares and think of what proportion of a social product might be used in which where's everyone instead in their own cave atomized anomic pretending to be individual autonomous and at liberty and being really nothing of the kind and when we think of all the literature on this and the lonely crowd and the rest of it realized within collectivized anatomized at the same time and in the same way i don't think we can say that the word alienation is a word that Calvinism has managed to either live either as for use-value and exchange-value anyone who's looked at that distinction as made in the original critique and there's then looked at what's been happening to the American economy in the last few years with in with an enormous and enormous process of making money and producing nothing an enormous redressed redistribution of paper resources from from portraiture gigantic accumulation of non well from non production for for falsely concede those will not treat with contempt I did at use-value and exchange-value are nonsense categories or categories that capitalism had learned to do without always transcend it these are these are important to understanding the way we live now the conflict between the forces and relations of production which is the center of the prejudice could be actually is best applied at the moment I think to the to estate stratified economies in Eastern Europe on which to sue to spend some time because there it's become self-evident the materialist critique is correct that there is a conflict between the relations of production the the party state and the nationalization of the contradictions the state if I'm of the contradiction and the possible development of the actual production resources in concert with others and it is that conflict between the forces in relations of production that has led to the greatest political change in the post-war period is that not the mercenaries or the CIA blowing our bridges nor the pointing of plutonium weapons that Warsaw and Budapest of Moscow and Belarus though it is that process the working out of the coffee would enforce it in relation to production that has borne in upon those states themselves that one of them has got a care and that is you might think of being the paradoxical right but that is a vindication of amateurism conception of history I can see I'm about to get past a note and a word I won't so I won't detain you any longer than to say that no cup of ism's have a longer lease of life that if some of us would have predicted or than many of our ancestors in the Socialist Movement did predict or allow it still and it still produces the fax machine and the microchip and is still able to lower its cost and still able to flatten its distribution curve very well it's central contradiction remains the same it produces publicly it produces socially a conscription of mobilizers and educates whole new workforces of people it has an enormous transforming Liberty effect in that respect but it appropriates privately the resources and the natural abilities are held in common the earth belongs to us all you can't buy your child's place at a school with better ozone you can't you can't pretend that the world is other than what it is which is one and human and natural and in common where capitalism must do that because it must make us all work until the point when the social product is to be shared when suddenly the appropriation is private and suddenly Donald Trump out go to any congressman you can name and anyone with average because of the ownership of capital and it's that effect that annexation of what we all do and must do the influence of labor and intelligence and creativity or the nature the same air the same water that we must breathe and drink that that means that we may not have long in which to make this critique of a system and sing again and relevant the game and incisive the game I mean during that I'm afraid I'll have to follow with Jeanette de Sousa that we already live in more or less the best of all possible worlds tagging of the victory

I am impressed with how many of the obscure words were correctly detected. They used to be horrible in that regard.
 
Skimmed all that thinking "Well it's bad but maybe not that bad...just add some punctuation here and there and...wait, look at the end...does it say "Jeanette de Sousa?" Oh, God.
 
Fawlty said:
Skimmed all that thinking "Well it's bad but maybe not that bad...just add some punctuation here and there and...wait, look at the end...does it say "Jeanette de Sousa?" Oh, God.
Click to expand...


Still way better than doing the transcript yourself imo
 
Fawlty said:
Skimmed all that thinking "Well it's bad but maybe not that bad...just add some punctuation here and there and...wait, look at the end...does it say "Jeanette de Sousa?" Oh, God.
Click to expand...

AHHHHH, he was speaking to Jeanette de Sousa.

Well that explains him saying he respected them at the beginning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SakurabasEar
  • Locked
Social War Room Lounge 318: Propaganda Extravaganza
49 50 51
Replies
1K
Views
30K
LMP
LMP

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,062
Messages
55,464,326
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top