Atlas667

Pfffff, you're basically saying "you're not saying anything relevant", but never actually contributing anything to the conversation.

Alright lets do an exercise...

Please look at any of the widely accepted tenets of liberalism. Okay? Got em? Keep them in mind for this next part...

Now I will distill my argument into one sentence for you:

I claim this article is a critique of the widespread notion that it is possible to figuratively "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", I claim that this notion is founded on the assumption that liberalism has attained its goals or that it is in progress of that.

And I promise you that if you put an ounce of effort you can see what I'm saying. In fact I'll help you more.

"Pull yourself up by your bootstrap" people are either in a financially stable position or support the status quo. They use this phrase to signify that, through a liberal lens of liberty, you are wholly responsible for your condition, and not only that, but that you should be capable of such feat BY VIRTUE OF the benefits bestowed upon you by a liberal economy/country. These benefits that they claim ARE the tenets of liberalism, such as: the right to private property, political equality, rule of law, freedom of assembly, economic freedom, etc.

Do you see? This is, fundamentally, a critique of liberalism.

Please don't reply if you don't have anything to contribute.

Wait, I'm talking about liberalism and classical/social liberalism as extensions of that. Im referring to the overarching philosophy and parts of its derivatives.

>I'm referring to your analysis, so the article is irrelevant.

You didnt read it. I said that the group of ideas that are talked about in the article belong to liberalism, the philosophy. That they are derived from philosophical liberalism, the overarching philosophy of capitalist countries.

> None of these things are myths. They are, again, ideals. You commit the is-ought fallacy, blatantly and repeatedly.

I am specifically saying that these ideals cannot be attained. The philosophy is in negation of itself. That they are unworkable and cannot be practiced while there are classes within society. Moreso that they are how the rich defend their own rule, knowing that they are unworkable ideals. Its a philosophy analogous to "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

You are right, I just repeated it wrong, see my original comment. I do claim they established abstract expressionist art, but that is also beside the point. This art would have existed either way.

The wider claim is that they controlled the dissemination and narrative around art and the humanities in the US and around the world in order to inflate the opinion of the United States while promoting narratives about the Soviet Union that even the CIA knew were false, as stated by them in released memos.

This is the claim: that large sections of the art and humanities were funded and controlled by the CIA for propaganda purposes.

> This is a goal, not a claim.

Whose goal? Seriously. My claim is that liberalism is contradictory because it does not contain a class analysis. It uses the language of true equality but it cannot guarantee it.

>This is a complete non sequitur, and is nothing like classical liberal thought.

Did you read the article? The vein here is that liberalism, the official ideology of capital, is what is used to engage with analyzing other peoples lives. They use the tennets of liberalism to judge what others make of themselves. They use the myth of free markets, they use the myth of equality under law, they use the myth of economic freedom, they use the myth of liberty and justice for all. People who thrive or support the status quo idealize the material conditions in the world. That reasoning gets passed onto the poor. It is essentially an ideology of the rich.

This is a false dichotomy.

The problem isn't that there is equality in the eyes of the law. The problem is what that means in practice.

A poor citizen has the right to use their money as they see fit. <spoiler>A poor citizen has the right to: lobby, to fund think tanks, to advertise their interests, to sway research through funding, to fund the careers of politicians, to gift resources to local police departments, to fund ballot initiatives and referendums, to acquire media outlets, to fund documentary films, to buy bots online, to fund lawsuits against the corporations, to host fundraisers with high net-worth individuals.</spoiler>

How many poor people are able to do this? Very very very tiny amounts. These rights are nearly exclusively actionable by a certain class of people.

And you may argue about the philosophical implications of 'equality of opportunity' vs 'equality of outcome'. But the thing is this so called "neutral legal framework" leads to a monopoly of power by the rich, because the law pretends both of these kinds of people are the same.

The very framework is in negation of itself because it leads power in the hands of a few.

That is the true problem of this framework. And to suggest that the alternative must be "equality of outcome" is a false dichotomy. The "neutrality of the government" is more like "a broken clock is right twice a day" kind of thing.

The founding fathers were already aware of this, in fact I think they made the state in their own interests seeing as during the founding of the US the vast majority of Americans at the time were illiterate farmers/workers and/or slaves. In a very real sense the state was made for the rich by the rich, but with lingo that pretended it was for everyone.

This is why class politics is the most important aspect of politics in our lives. We live in class society where there are fundamental differences between classes of people. This difference is not strictly and categorically based on the amount of money they have, but on HOW they fund their lives which allows them to have extra rights. Effectively we can't afford all the rights. This is the classic "All animals are equals, but some animals are more equal than others".

This is talking about philosophical liberalism.

It's the official ideology of capitalist countries, to think that were all equal in the eyes of the govt and if youre not on the same economic level it must be cause you're fundamentally different/flawed.

It's a type of thinking that does not take into consideration peoples material reality (even their own) and manifests as narcissism and egotism in those who employ this thought.

It seeks to detach material reality from peoples life and simply judge based on merit, or a sort of spiritual value or other attributes. It is an idealist ideology.

To counter this idealist thought: I assure you, if you were me you'd be doing exactly what I'm doing. The real explanation for life is to look at the material basis of said life. Poverty is a hole full of material and psychological ills. Stress, coping mechanisms and just straight up lack of knowledge, lack of opportunities, lack of someone to teach you, lack of a proper learning environment, the psychological effects alone could kill a rich kid, let a lone the material ones.

Yes, they literally "established" it. Thats what that word means.

They drove the perspective for the sake of propaganda. They promoted american movies and art everywhere.

And it worked. This is how they got young kids in Europe, Asia and S.America to side with them.

Through a vague notion of coolness, individual liberty, sophistication, and tying that to progress and to America.

If you look at anti-colonial documentaries you can see it very evidently. One that comes to mind is "The hour of the furnaces" about the argentinian US backed dictatorship. There is a chapter in there where all the yuppie city dwellers are very counter culture oriented and welcome the external influence in their country.

The way they infiltrate the youth is through this very cultural operation.

The world wide phenomenon of counter culture was a CIA fabrication.

PS: Communist bloc art is not bland and conformist, it's just about daily life or about collective life. Some of the best western art is also about daily life and society. But thats just my opinion.

Well in my comment I said they established modern art. Keyword: established.

And the CIA definitely creates some things/narratives.

But on the note of natural development, I do agree. You can call it conspiracies or incentives, its the same, really. If its not democratic its conspiratorial by definition.

They use tax money (and drug money, possibly) to do this, so they have a lot of funds. If you watch the video I link he talks about HOW they actually do this.

He doesnt claim they sit down and brief professors, he says they built an apparatus that simply filters through them and fund the right ones.

He talks about how its hard to find jobs if you dont peddle the right narratives and topics.

Interesting. Another mole for the monopolies to wack in a few weeks, months or years? lol, I dont want to sound bleak.

The capitalist internet is the issue. Capitalist internet is enshittification.

I would like to see this in action cause in my crap-blocking attempts it never really lasts pasts a few weeks/months because sited can change labels and tags so often.

Especially if its something related to revenue

Well its not a secret world government. A lot of it is done out in the open.

Do you really think you control the government? That it is democratic?

They didn't just establish abstract expressionist art, they crafted a whole culture around art and the humanities. They won over the western bias. Aesthetics, depth, reason and humanity in the west was defined through the lens of the CIA. It was done so well it still resonates.

Dr. Gabriel Rockhill does excellent work expounding on this in his discussion "The Intellectual World War: Class Struggle in Theory". He studied in France under Derrida, Iragray, Badiou, Foucaultians, and other prominent thinkers and came to discover the connections himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q521mBZ7ThU

It's kind of a long lecture, but absolutely mind blowing.

I'm not talking about a small capitalist with a nice house and a nice car.

I'm talking about the super rich.

Thr super rich have to be the government to be super rich and the little capitalists just ride the wakes made by the big guys.

These ideologies you mention are just political stances made by the rich in order to promote their measures amongst the poor.

Objectivism was made by Ayn Rand and it was promoted so much because it defended capitalism. They disseminate these ideas in order to promote their stances.

Libertarianism and ancapism are inconsistent because it pretends that large capitalists wouldnt immediately organize themselves into another large state power. A state is necessary to not have all out war between the powerful.

Ask any political science major and they dont take these ideas at face value because these ideologies cant exist as such.

They are more like life style politics than real political frameworks.

I suspect the reason they are even espoused is because they represent an immediate weakening of government regulation that can increase profits. The capitalists want people to think it can exist so they can have more power.

But a true libertarian or ancap reality is a pipe dream. Its true purpose is to create less oversight and thus more profits. Your average Joe, like you or me, has about 0 benefit from this.

The only difference is that the government cant cater totally to Bill Gates, they got a couple thousand other capitalists to take care of in order to keep the country afloat.

The government is the ORGANIZED rich. It's not "everything Bill says goes".

You and me tho, the rest of us millions? We trust strangers that market themselves well, vote and then, just hope they do good by us.

I'd say my visual imagination is pretty strong.

I bet we're just good at scanning. Eyes are made for looking and we can use a semi-subconscious level of looking that attracts our eyes to what we want to find.

Though I'm sure most everyone is, really.

I bet I just wanted to find 4 leaf clovers more than my peers and would focus more.

Maybe I'm too sleepy for rhetoric.

But a country needs material resources to exist, right? Some of these are food, shelter, energy, health, entertainment and security.

These are all private enterprises in a capitalist state. For example, the energy sector is a group of capitalist enterprises. The energy sector is also at the same time something the population needs.

Therefore it is also crucial to the nation, its a national security.

They country would go to war in order to secure resources for the energy industry because it is a part of national security.

Another: walmart is americas veins and its a group of peoples property. Walmart is national security.

The fact that some of these are publicly traded does not change their relationship to ownership.

They ARE the authoritarian regime.

This myth that capitalist perpetuate that the rich are not the government is the best lie out there.

The rich are the government. They are the national interests, countries' industries' is their property.

Yes, I am also inclined to believe this is just natural human psyche phenomenon.

This very specific topic about clovers is one that I relate to, I've always found 4 leaf clovers faster. But I wouldnt say I have synesthesia.

This has developed/manifested itself into looking for things on a computer screen, which I essentially do for a living. I can hold a piece of text in my head and scroll by quickly to search for it much faster than many of my peers.

And as a child colors would also have numbers related to them in my mind, and vice versa. Which I attributed to number-coded coloring books.

Oops, didnt realize it was the same poster. Thought it was someone else saying these things dont happen.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Not really. Squid games is loosely based on for-profit concentration camps run by US backed dictators in South Korea. The true story is actually worse than the fictional show.

All US colonies have had terrible dictatorships, the news of which purposefully does not reach the western core. Saying "they've moved on" is ignoring what actually happened, and I'm not bringing this up in a "lets focus on the past" sort of way, but on how it actually got there.

Is a murderous dictatorship that forcefully bashes the economy into the shape it wants the same as "getting over it"?

And blaming how North Korea is on one guy is a cop out. And, like I said, I'm not even defending the guy, but you can't simplify history too much either, else it starts to look like cartoons. There are 4 other guys who lead North Korea, Kim Jong Un just has a family legacy involved in its founding and is the general secretary of state, the real President, coincidentally, died yesterday, Nov 3th.

It's the era of consulting and corporate gurus.

How else would you sell something?

Just capitalism and its flaws.

They have also had the longest on going embargo on earth right after they were nearly wiped out by a genocidal war on behalf of the US.

I don't doubt their history explains the shape of their economy.

This may seem like I am defending North Korea, but in reality I am putting in perspective who/why they are. Facts which nearly amount propaganda to western nations.

Rich people justifying liberalism through shitty wotdsmithing will never end.

This is the next feature i want to implement in my own nfc player, which is essentially the same idea as OPs but only through vlc for now.

I run it on a raspi and uses nfcpy and python-vlc.

Its on github under nfc_player.

Nice! I did this as well, but with python. Wanted to detach a bit more from the machine.

Made a python script that uses nfcpy to connect to an nfc reader and triggers vlc player through python-vlc. I think its nfc_player on github.

Exactly. We are designed so that those with more power can play their games in DC and through out all the public offices in these states.

There is a reason why labor movements have been nearly completely wiped out from collective history.

Those who don't take this govts anti-socialist stance seriously must realize that the history of modern warfare and the history of anti-socialism share way too much space.

Mass democracy is a threat to the status quo.

This applies to either.

The democracy we need threatens those in power.

What say does the average poor person in your town have? To endorse someone they cant control? To choose from amongst the few candidates that the big interests have developed and then cross their fingers??

Letting individuals control production creates a divided society, one of workers and one of owners.

Where one has unequal leverage over the other but are supposed to (on paper) exist on the same democratic level.

Mom and pop shops may come your mind, or someone who owns a franchise or small business, the truth is that even small business owners are nearly wholly beholden to large capital and huge finance capital.

What say does a walmart employee have compared to the owners of walmart?

While you were learning about what the hell the electoral college is, some others were being trained on how to lobby effectively.

Mass democracy threatens the status quo almost entirely.

There does not exist a party for the people. And if it were to exist it would be outlawed and threatened like they have been in the past.

Would you suppress a peoples party if you had billions on the line?

Low pay and high effort.

This has been going on for 500+ years since the very dawn of capitalism.

Yep.

They talk about free market but they dont let your computer do one of the most basic things it can do: copying.