/32/ - Psychopolitics★

I read the comic before I completely read your entire post. I must say, while reading it, I went back and forth wondering who the "victor" would be.

Germanball speaks in platitudes and cliches like "peace, progress und prosperity" with the EU flag behind it then about "love and compassion." Then the Naziball only spoke in truths, like the faceless immigrants, degeneracy, and the EU draining the money from German coffers. But in the end, I don't know, it sort of reads like some sort of modern novel, a dramatic irony in which the reader knows something that the characters do not. In this case, that the Naziball was right. Especially given Polandball's rather lackluster support at the end, which only reinforces the "you only care about being liked" point. It's almost like a subversion of the cartoon cliche in which the hero only speaks of "love" and wins in the end.

But then, I am unsure how to feel about the comic as a whole, especially given the ending panel. The ending is what makes me wonder the intention of the artist, it ends in a positive note, which, either highlights the delusion or sides with the Germanball's ideals. Regardless, people who just read the surface level will fall into the "Yay Germany defeating the evil Nazis, hooray for multiculturalism," though looking deeper, I wonder if others will pick up on the "Nazis were right" aspect. Either that or the artist genuinely believes what is espoused by the Naziball is evil, similar to the Black Captain America attacking people who defend the border.

I do wonder about the picture hanging on the wall though, I recognize the flag of the German Empire, but I do not know what the scene depicted actually is.

I must say, the quality of the actual comic made me suspicious.

The other comic posted by the user is about how Switzerland is stricter than Germany. Really can't glean anything meaningful from this.

>>2381

>Do you play on it and make similar/succeeding comics that paint your argument in the riPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2381

>Or do you present an intellectual analysis of people abusing memes, eventually tracing it back?

This is pointless, time and time again its being demonstrated that people who hold beliefs based on emotions (mostly liberals which not necessarily means the entire left) using facts and evidence only reinforces their beliefs, sometimes to dogmatic levels only comparable with religious nuts.

>Do you play on it and make similar/succeeding comics

I would do that, one of the biggest mistakes GG did was creating those awful collages of data instead of going to the point with simple comics like the antigamers did. The best way to counter this idiocy is by making fun of it, trying to deconstruct it with "boring" facts is what they want you to do

>>2395

>A way to prove everything the Naziball said was true, without directly saying it

You don't need to use naziball, in fact the author used naziball because he knew that it would be easier for germanyball to counter a widely hated symbol than having to argue against other previous versions of germany

For example, what if germanball had to argue with a west-germanyball heavily impoverished and divided by the postwar? or an east-germanyball living in third-world conditions perhaps worse than those of the refugees due to communism? or a weimarball thats struggling to pay the debts from versailles? or to german immigrants who went to usa and other countries and faced discrimination?

Even a germanempireball would have been tough to 'disprove' since while you can hate it now back then it was just one empire of many having to face stiff competition from other players in europe that did even nastier things.

BPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2374

>>2370

my sentiments exactly

As an aspiring no-fapper, the way I see it:

1) Stop watching porn

- 1.1: Stop masturbating in general.

When you masturbate, your brain triggers the same memory stations that have been socio-engineered into making you feel all the bad stuff, shame, inferiority, homosexuality, or whatever it is depending on the fetishes you developed. This is how memory works, it always works by association, when you see the coka cola logo, all memory stations relating to that can be triggered, and you may become thirsty. If you masturbate with porn(this effect will be present without porn since the subversion lingers for some time) your conditioning is always triggered, this conditioning includes watching other men fucking women, watching women be degraded by other men, watching images of black men degrading white women, watching dicks, watching homosexuals, watching dominant women degrade men, watching other men fuck would evolutionary wise mean you are the lowest of low, and all of these actions in some way contribute that you are a submissive, conquered, beta male who does not hold dominion over women or other men. This is the psychological aspect of masturbation.

2) Again, stop watching porn and only masturbate about once a week or so, when you refrain from masturbating, your sexual drive starts to build up, presenting itself in assertiveness and masculinity. This is the biological aspect of masturbation. There is a difference too, not masturbating alerts your brain that you are without a mate, this will make you more willing to combat other men, this will make you more willing to go find a girlfriend or talk to the girl at school, this will make you more revolved around gender roles. Masturbating daily to porn only creates a desire for the feeling of sex itself, not the meaning behind it(social/gender).

If you masturbate, you lose this buildup. If you masturbate to porn, you will be also(as described in 1) be subjected to years of subversion and this will trigger multiple psychological issues.

I figured this out by myself, may not be true for others, but this is certainly true for me, when I masturbate I will always become aggressive and timid liPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>This is a quick translation by shitty translation engine.

Psychology of homosexuality

Homosexuality is linked to social situations where a person sees himself to be lower in masculinity. Social submissiveness is a normal social reaction within the group hierarchy, where a group's inner peace and hierachy needs all males to be emasculated to acceptable social standard. Basically the need to operate in a pack forces each male to cooperate and to accept the "otherness" inside the group, in order to keep the peace within the herd. Each member of the flock will needs to socialize if it choose to belong to a group, and thus accept other herd members and take their social status into account when implementing themselves and their needs within the group. Each male needs to cencors his individuality and animalistic urges and emasculate themselves accordingly. We humans are forced to limit our impulsiveness according to social norms, or suffer social stigma and isolation by others. Only by accepting commonly accepted social norms and forms and working within accepted social competition can we get to show to others and to ourselves our own superiority, and to climb the social hierarchy.

Social norms and associations have a strong link to sexuality. Sexuality is strongly associated to personality and therefore to social dynamics. Sexual roles are based on submissive- and oppressive-roles; the piercer and the pierceable, ie the so-called subject and object. Gender roles represent binary repressive and submissive sexual roles. Sexual roles are always social roles, but linked to a strong competitive urge. Man's sexual experience is to dominate, to pierce, while the female is a sexual objective, to surrender to a male.

Gender roles's further evolution

Gender and sexual identity's modification occurs when a person experiences sexual frustration, that is, the sexual energy of a person can not be discharged inside the individual, a sexual object. Behind the sexual frustration is usually social isolation from the opposite sex, which is due to sexual stagnation. This stagnation leads to depression, and depression via dysphoria, which weakens and emasculates person's identity (self-image). Sexual satisfaction happens when a person is released by someone else of his/her sexual energy. it will never be enough to satisfy oneself, when the social and sexual fixation is to interact sexually with someone else. Although the physical sexual gratification (orgasm) can happen through masturbation, it's not enough, because it lacks the social interaction. The discharge of the sexual energy/pressure will not happen fully if sex is not experienced.

When sexual pressure is increasing (not able to experience sex), it means an individual's gender role, and therefore also individual's identity is getting weaker. Person is projecting, and trying to compare where he fits in the social and sexual market. When sexual pressure increases it means uncertainty is increasing of their own sexuality. When sexual pressure is increasing, it means that there is uncertainty of a persons own masculinity, or in the case of women thier femininity. In men this means emasculation, where your selfimage and your masculinity is degrading. While in women the degrading sexual identity manifest itself into weaker appearance and behavioral selfimage, and her questioning her own sexual market value.

In men emasculation, ie feminization creates uncertainty about their own sexuality, which in turn makes their sexual energy go in a direction that gives the least resistance. If the social environment does not change in relation to sexuality, sexuality will change instead. So if the social enviroment doesn't give away and satisfy sexual needs of an individual, the sexual energy goes where it can release itself, and which is the weakest link. Sexual pressure starts to modify the individual's own identity, and sexual role so person would fit in sexually.

Sexual EPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2404

This was not the answer I was looking for.

I'm looking for away to modify sexuality, which would give us away to fight back in terms of porn, and way people view sexuality. I'm trying to create white sexual fetishation. That white women and white men would find each other sexually appealing.

>>2407

You misunderstand "fetishization".

A fetish means something unnatural, non biologically compatible.

A white person driven to another white person is perfectly natural and nothing like a fetish.

I don't see what your point is, to light the spark between white men and women again?

Well, both are pretty shit today, I think we'd have to do a lot of clean up in our culture and diet for that.

Though texts provided some useful information of the historical change of war and interesting observation, we've hit a point where 4GW has well and truly been birthed- We saw the first victims in the Arab Spring, and subsequently, Egypt, Ukraine and Syria. We saw the first Parallel use of military force and technocratic warfare in Ukraine, however much of the (sparse) technocratic warfare the US employed within Ukraine was unnecessary. The U.N/U.S already had a large cultural foot in Ukraine via the Left and managed to secure the majority of Ukraine's political spectrum. Russia had equal support in ethnic communities, that were consequently put under enormous pressure by UN based Ukrainian forces.

We saw the second instance of that same parallel warfare in syria, with large differences, namely the U.S. using a proxy (ISIS and the succeeding organizations armed by the US/UN) as the bulk of their troops, in an attritionative fashion. The technocratic warfare employed in Syria followed that same fashion.

What's interesting is that the observation Echevarria made that the people currently propelling 4GW are using an "unperfected art", so to speak, and consistently leaving holes within their strategy. The more intelligent or well educated a target culture is, the harder they are to subvert through tech. warfare. However, that's just one of many flaws.

>>1009

Sadly i can't recommend any books by knowledge, though there is always knowledge and learning to be found by tracing actions whose means serve the globalists.

>>1009

>the guerrilla is much more a political agent than a warrior. Highly efficient in his use of force, he achieves maximum political impact with minimal violence

>minimal violence

You couldn't be more wrong anon

Countries like germany which faced full bombardment during WWII were running again merely 10 years later

Other countries like colombia which looked promising in the early 20 century have been bleeded dry by guerrilla movements.

Its the frog in warming water effect: it starts slow with small attacks to police and military outposts, and before you know it the middle class (where most engineers, entrepreneurs and scientists come from) is leaving the country because of the violence while the upper classes become an enclave guarded by paramilitary death squads which only adds fuel to the violence and creates more recruits for the guerrilla among the poorer parts of the population that got caught in the crossfire because they can't afford to leave the country.

Countries where the guerrillas won, from vietnam to angola to nicaragua are complete shitholes. After the guerrilla destroyed the government their inherited a country thats was broken and bankrupt as the result of their actions, and because of the way guerrillas work internal power struggles develop within them so a lot of them either become a new regime thats far worse than anything the country had before or a new civil war erupts between the now divided guerrillas

China is one particularly bad case since the whole cultural revolution which killed millions was nothing more than an internal power struggle caused by mao's many fuckups during the great leap forward which also killed millions

>>2399

Anon, while what you say has merit, I believe there has been a misunderstanding. Before we go any further, I should clarify the definition of guerrilla I subscribe to, so as to ensure we are indeed talking about the same thing. Guerrilla warfare is that which is waged by a group that has access to less physical resources than its opponent, resorting mainly to tactics that involve high mobility and indirect confrontation (such as ambushes, sabotage, hit-and-run tactics and strategic assassinations), and who makes use of political tactics to win the favor of the civilian population and use them as a support structure.

The state of the countries you mentioned has, in my opinion, less to do with the use of guerrilla tactics than with the revolutionary nature of the conflicts. It is not only understandable but expected that the conflicts you mentioned have resorted in significantly different political and social scenarios than before them, as that was the goal of the fighters. What I mean is: the cases of China, Vietnam, Nicaragua and so on resulted in significant political changes not because of the use of guerrilla tactics, but because this was the goal of the people who resorted to the guerrilla tactics. Look at the case of resistance movements in WWII. They were formed not by individuals who hoped to enact significant change, but individuals who wanted to prevent change (I am referring, of course, to the Nazi occupation of these countries), and to do so resorted to guerrilla tactics. These countries are examples of places where the guerrillas have won (in conjunction with conventional military forces), and which are not, as you put it, "shitholes". We can also look at the mujahideen, who used this kind of warfare to expel the smore powerful soviets from their country. Their goal was to cease international intervention in domestic policy, and their goal was achieved. True, the result was a country that arguably regressed economically and culturally, but to a previous point at which the fighters were aiming. The clearest example is probably the American Revolutionary war. There we see the use of guerrilla tactics combined with conventional conflicts resulting in the victory of the side supported by the guerrillas. Individuals involved in the fighting were lPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2400

>Look at the case of resistance movements in WWII

Your original example literally mentioned and I quote

>Mao, Guevara, Taber and Sun Tzu

You don't get to change it half-way because I just demonstrated how those cases resulted in a disaster far worse than any regime those countries these people were involved in had before.

Also WWII its a lousy example since those resistance movements were heavily supported by the allies while facing a widely hated invader in their own territory which had its own resourced stretched to the breaking point (nazi germany).

Guerrilla might have less force but the consequences of their actions tend to have a much higher human cost than the use of modern weapons. Put simply guerrillas are not above attacking civilians and most of the time they don't even have an actual target and just bomb a place which is why most guerrillas are actually considered terrorists unless the political climate demands they be called a more PR-term like "freedom fighters"

>the only way to do so is by treating the non-combatants as the enemy. This generates popular discontent, which fuels the guerrillas

Its actually the other way around as I mentioned, guerrillas actually use this strategy to create a spiral of violence. Because the regime can't use guerrilla tactics as well they become unable to operate against them so eventually the guerrilla becomes the new regime which is worse than the old one and suppresses any stories about its own wrong doings, which is basically what happened in china, cuba and many others

Guerrillas are far more likely to become extremists, fascists and overall totalitarian regimes because they have a very black&white view of the world else they would be unable to carry most of the operations they do. At the same time and unlike the regimes they fight they feel no obligation toPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>603 (OP)

Covert? Not all all.

Domhoff's work on Interlocking Directorates might interest you

https://books.google.com/books?id=Qs0DAQAAIAAJ&hl=en

>>608

>muh gummint

jesus, you're fucking stupid. gb2/pol/ fucktard.

>>2316

I wonder... The Redshields seem very high up. If they were to go, would Jews cease to be a major nuisance? I mean, nobody has much cared about Austria since the Habsburgs fell into irrelevance...

>>603 (OP)

Satire on this topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4nSjPdT788

>>889

why does the third pic look like some deviantart bullshit

>>1968 (OP)

I just saw a post the other day: rumor has it that its a Canadian Jew who infiltrated and became a mod on 4chon or some shit like that. They blamed them for taking down 4chon and ruining wizardchan, although its not clear to me what there was to ruin in the first place.

>>1968 (OP)

I'm not a fan of false-flag conspiracy theories but given the sheer amount of absurdities coming out from europe regarding the current crisis I'm honestly starting to believe they are trying to trigger people into doing something so they can pass even more draconian speech and information laws.

>>1978

This is very relevant, though it would be better without the overused 'goyim' memes

The christianity vs. atheism case its particularly glaring specially since it happened right after they done the exact same thing on the left-wing

The biggest threat to both feminism and encroaching islam wasn't the far-right but the increasingly popular atheist and skeptical groups in the west. Its no wonder then that these two decided to go against leftwing atheists first, using anything for memes that undermined atheist as "fedora neckbeards" and even the old moralizing guilt trip, ironically a remnant from old feminists which were an offshot from protestant christianity, and no wonder islamists did the same since they are practically like christians from 200+ years ago.

What's really pathetic is how they managed to implement the same in the right-wing getting conservative atheists and christians to fight each other, again with the same memes and overall thread-derailing-stupidity.

And nobody seems to notice.

>>2351

Do you give any credence to Alexander Litvnenko who claimed FSB funded Al Queda? If you accept that as fact, as well as claims that the CIA funded Al Queda, doesn't that suggest a possible conspiracy between the three organisations?

>>2222 (checked)

Nice quads, thanks for taking the time to respond.

I remember prozac begin in the news constantly in the 90s. It still seemed taboo to be on it though, everyone called the crazy pills. I still feel like it eventually became normalized around the late 90s/early 2000s. The stigma of begin on a pill kinda faded away and lots of people were begin put on a number of things. If it wasn't antidepressants it was speed or benzos. Everyone was encouraged to "talk about their problems" then given something to help them cope with whatever was deemed to be wrong with them.

Selling the problem off to the lowest bidder does make good sense, I just worry about the implications of it all. The fact that they advertise drugs directly to the public on TV is a huge red flag that there is some shady shit going on.

>Barely and I'm saying this with scientific information that probes it. Most of these pills are released with the least possible amount of testing mandated by regulations and even then some results might be "buried" to prevent any delays that would cost the pharma company.

Where can I read the information you are reading?

>Most of this stuff can't be "grow" at all and if you mean drugs like marijuana and opium that's a whole different deal.

I do mean cannbis and opium, but other things too. One can manufacturer lots of common drugs given the know how and resources, if someone wanted to set-up shop and start producing morphine they could given enough land. They could even take it a step further and make heroin, or cocaine, or any number of things.

I wouldn't advocate for begin allowed to produce a large amount of the substance to sell directly to the public. But I do own a bit of land, and I feel like I should be able to grow whatever I want on it. If I were to end up in a position where I needed pain medication I would much rather grow my own opium than deal with all thePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

I certainly think that the population in general is more prone to consume substances that alter their mental states, not necessarily (or exclusively) because of some encouragement by the government. If we consider why a population could be encouraged to do so, we can arrive at three different possibilities, which might also apply simultaneously.

The first would be the “soma” possibility. Despite not agreeing with most of what he says, I agree with Kaczynski when he talks about the power process. Here is a simple explanation if you are not familiar with the concept: a few generations ago people spent their lives performing activities which had immediate and visible effects on their lives and on the environment as a whole; currently, people spend most of their times engaged in activities which produce results that have no visible or significant effect on their lives or environments. That is to say, the fractioning of the productive/value aggregation process according to Taylor’s preaching for specialization, added with the development of technology and automation, resulted in groups of people who no longer have jobs they see as relevant, e.g. people whose job is to sit in an office all day and write reports on things other people did. In short, our lives seem much less meaningful. In order to cope with this perceived meaninglessness the individual seeks substances like alcohol or antidepressants. If we accept this premise, there is no need for actual encouragement for the consumption of such substances, as the circumstances of our social and economic systems already push people towards it. A possible encouragement could then signify an intention to intensify the aspects of the system which are unpleasant towards us, namely the mechanization of human labor: treating people like machines.

As such, we arrive at the issue of wireheading. The term refers to artificial stimuli to the brain that generates feelings of pleasure and/or happiness. Consider the possibility that you could be programmed to feel pleasure while performing a task that you now find unpleasant or even abhorrent. Less extreme would be the thought of drugging people in order to allow them to not mind exhaustive work hours or psychological abuse. In this scenario, a company could be legally allowed to disperse stimulants and antidepressants in the office air in order to prePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

[continued]

The third possibility would be the creation of a barely conscious and easily controllable population of drug addicts. Some people report that antidepressants and other drugs don’t actually make them happy, they only make them “numb”. Now picture an entire population that is merely “going with the flow” without any feelings, consuming what is pushed on them without actually enjoying the products, accepting whatever the government says, not making their will heard because they simply have no will. Such a demographic would be perfect for the expansion of government/company powers, and eventually for culling.

I am not informed enough to have an opinion on the safety of these “research chemicals”.

The matter of medicine patenting is a complex one, but I am generally contrary to it. I am not sure that this one matter is board-related. As for “allowing people to grow their own medicine”, we go into the field of alternative medicine and home remedies. Yes, for generations people have used herbs and roots to treat illnesses and health issues in general, but the ones whose effectiveness has been proven through double-blind control tests have mostly been turned into the commercial medicines we now see. One must be careful not the assume that alternative medicine can fill all of the roles of regular medicine. This is especially true for people with an anti-establishment stance, which tend to associate everything that is endorsed or produced by companies as bad and everything that is “alternative”, “underground” and “natural” as good. This is not to say that people shouldn’t be allowed to grow their own medicinal herbs and medicines, I agree with you when you say that the government has no say in what I grow on my own land reminding you that the government owns all of the land, but I know what you mean. As an interesting factoid, there was a while ago news of a small village in Brazil where the people had had found a new herb and discovered that tea from that herb helped them with headaches, upset digestive tracts and other such problems. As it happens, the herb was marijuana that someone had planted in the woods and that had spread to other areas. The people were just simple folk who didn’t even know what it was, and made Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2321

>>2322

We can't avoid the social factor, basically the almost complete acceptance of taking pills for "problems" in our society

It wasn't long ago when going to a therapist was something you couldn't mention to anyone without being judged. And have to take behavioral altering drugs was an even bigger deal, but now its not anymore.

Of course I wont deny that a lot of this "acceptance" was the work of pharma's paid PR, since if they can pay for relatively long ads during prime-time they can certainly also get the MSM to indirectly endorse the use of their pills.

And as I said before you can't deny that for the average borderline-ADHD western person taking a pill its far more preferable than dealing with their issues, be it by themselves or with a professional. They rather numb the "pain" which is the symptom with pills than to solve the "disease" which are their mental issues.

>>2211 (OP)

Drugs, specifically opiates, induce docility in the masses.

I would not control drugs. I would educate the people on the importance of health and the effect it has on consciousness. If I was hitler everybody would be lifting and eating seasonally.

Despite the somewhat annoying beginning, this doesn't seem like a waste of time.

The idea that humans are generally more depressed now than ever before in history could be simply attributed to the non-existence of psychology for most of human history. The same might apply to the growth of the fraction of the population diagnosed with autism, to a certain extent. In this sense, this thread might tie in nicely with >>2211.

The mentions of narrative theory seem a little displaced at first, but later tie in nicely into what is discussed.

It's a shame that their analysis of the current individualist tendencies is somewhat short and superficial. I definitely agree with then when they mention how good it is that they did not have the social media tools available now on their adolescence. How hard must it be to evolve and change as an individual when your world views at age 13 are still available for all to see twenty years later. A relation arises between this and internet anonymity, as people associate changing one's opinion with indecisiveness and thus reject the opinions of those that change position often or dramatically, even if they do so after careful consideration. This means people are forced to either stick to ideas they might no longer subscribe to in order to be taken seriously or that they must change their world views and accept that some will see that negatively (especially those that maintain the position abandoned by the individual).

this is interesting. bump

>>2273

Would you be so kind as to excerpt some of the interesting releases on this board? Perhaps in the #thinkserious thread?

Here is a better article on the topic, that doesn't go off into crazy right-wing "men are genetically designed not to wear dresses" land.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

>>2244

How the fuck did he ever act Right wing?

You are basically what he was trying to say, claiming that a man wearing a dress is unflattering has triggered you into calling him a Crazy right wing-ist. He never said they werent genetically designed for it, you read that because you are insane and indoctrinated.

>>316

It is possible to counteract this. The reason the situation arises is because racist is used in many different contexts, and so takes on a vagueness or ambiguity.

I think it will be clearer if I invent a new word without any loadings. "Tumoka"

A tumoka is sometimes used to mean guy who eats soup. Sometimes a guy listening to drum and base. And sometimes it refers to a guy who rapes children in his spare time.

>Be eating soup

>'So you're a tumoka!'

>'And what if I am?'

You now basically admitted that you like to rape children. Let's consider another response

>Be eating soup

>'So you're a tumoka!'

>'I'm not a tumoka! >_<'

>'But you are clearly eating soup you liar!'

One way forward is to deny the implicit accusation, while acknowledging the observation. Explaining who you are as if the word tumoka didn't exist

>Be eating soup

>'So you're a tumoka!'

>'I would never rape a child. I do like soup though'

>'Oh I see ^_^'

>>2257

Applying this to another word could look like this

>'So you are a socialist?'

>'I want healthcare for the poor, but gulags are horrible'

>>2234

How can you call conspiracies invoking Tavistock nonsense and quote HG Wells in the same breath? Wells himself was a Fabian.

http://mindcontrolfordummies.50megs.com/whats_new_20.html

You are a little hostile anon. Tone it down.

>>2234

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4

1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg

3. "Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144

4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2250

I've never seen the term "Cultural Capitalism" be discussed before. I think an exploration of the meanings and uses of that expression could be a good topic for a new thread, and could also allow you to express your views on the topic, about which you seem to hold strong opinions.

I deleted your image because it added little, if anything at all, to the discussion. Perhaps you should try to express the meaning you were trying to convey with it in words. This board is also SFW.

Your post regarding the deletion of the picture was deleted because it should have been posted to the meta thread, it added nothing to the discussion, and contained needless profanity.

It is clear that you are passionate about the topics, but I ask that you contribute in maintaining a high level of debate while on this board. Try to refrain from pointless insults and unnecessary profanity.

If you would like to ask me something, criticize me or make suggestions, please use the meta thread.

>>2234

I'm getting tired of this troll and his constant pathetic indirect defense of cultural marxist and overused insults in every thread

ITT Austrians and Thirdpositionists (rightly) accuse each other of being vapid ideologues.

Economic policy ranges across a spectrum with #Fullcommunism (no freedom.) on one end and pure austrian capitalism (Maximum freedom.) on the other and mixed-economies (Social democracy, fascism whatever.) in-between. Realistically, all economies are going to fall somewhere between those two extremes, and optimal positions along that spectrum are going to vary over time and from country to country. Debating economic policy in the purely abstract isn't a useful exercise.

>>1463

Lol no

A heavy regulatory environment favors the elites far more than a free market

It enables them to by laws that favor their companies and stife competition - it also enables them to get massive subsidies from the government

A true free market would wipe out the stagnant ruling class because they are not innovators

>>1684

Presumably none of those optimal positions involve doing away with Usury? Or implementing revolutionary energy technology? Or public debate not being within the boundaries of present scarcity?

The entire range is different depending upon the presence or absence of those factors. That aside, of course a society's system will be best adapted to context.

That's not abstract. That's structural, tangible and specific. Your range and its middle ground are the true abstract, as every position on it is transformed by the presence or absence of particular and tangible factors. Paying attention to the range rather than those is precisely the Austrian-Keynesian dialectic, and the black box present discourse operates within.

You're basically just saying 'muh pragmatic middle ground'. Sure, be pragmatic. But so what? You haven't analysed anything or identified the optimal pragmatic course given present fairly universal economic structures/conditions.

>>1693

Hence the pre-fed move to Gold? Or hence how much they loved NS Germany? Or hence major money backing and creating Austrianism. You ignored history and parroted the party line.

'Freedom' as a generalised concept is a distraction. Civic and personal liberty aren't what's happening when powerful entities are liberated from any constraining influence to run roughshod over a society.

Societies are power-balances, and complex systems. If you loose one element like you want, it just goes wild and then assumes all the characteristics of totalitarianism as soon as it is able to do so.

Besides, elites are innovators. Rockefellers were immensely creative in what they did to American society and in their power politics. Roths were courageous and ingenious in their ascendancy. And think-tanks plan ahead and strategise a lot more creatively than your average person.

In a 'free market' present wealth structures will succeed in just hoarding wealth and underlying resources and controlling the economy by the power this gives them to set market conditions, and control loans to everybody else who's struggling to get enough credits to survive.

And if a true free market did wipe out this ruling class, most of humanity would go with it. It would likely be by a robotic (or etc.) revolution. And those profiting by this would have a motive to keep relative scarcity in place to safeguard their victory.

>>1460

>. It is mathematically impossible.

stopped reading there. you're confusing a stock with a flow. It is absolutely possible to pay off money created through debt without incurring more debt. [sigh]

>>1463

American libertarianism was a Cold War psyop. But, not without some good reason, though, as the Soviets were pretty shitty.

>>1464

>Damon Vrabel

>the IRS transfers money from people to the Fed

>the State is in debt to the banks

WRONG! Stopped watching there. Don't fill your head with this retarded shit. This guy is either stupid or a liar (psyop) or both.

The system is fucked up, and does somewhat act like a pyramid, but not at all in the way he says.

>Money Masters

This is actually pretty good. Would recommend.

>>1465

>So the market itself has been turned into a rigged casino, where outsiders can't hope to compete with insiders

BINGO! They've been caught rigging LIBOR twice in the last year, and the issuance of T-bills at least once.

>>1473

>butt hurt you specifically called out Neo-reaction

Neoreaction is one of the most ass-hat pants-on-head-retarded pseudo-intellectual propaganda act that has come out in the last 40 years. It deserves everything it gets.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Inverted Totalitarianism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

>>2198

>Ellen Pao prohibited Reddit employees for negotiating for higher salaries by appealing to feminist claims that the wage gap is due in part to women being less capable of aggressively negotiating for more money.

This sounds like a slightly bad idea implemented for an absurd reason. It reminds me of the story "Harrison Bergeron", in which individuals are handicapped by the state in order to ensure total equality: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

>>2198

I have no doubt that the current 'diversity' campaign has a purely economic origin with the PR side being just an extension of it meant to act as a front

The case of reddit however its an example of a poor implementation of this method since it was very obvious pao did it to save the company some money and not because of equality.

The H1B case on the other hand its far better implemented, you have fwd.us which is a huge NGO that gets little if any bad press from the MSM and yet its nothing but a corporate arm pushing for what boils down to indentured servitude. A H1B holder is not a citizen and most likely will never be, its not even a legal resident, its literally a worker who must leave the country the moment they are fired, and so most H1Bs work for way less and accept bad working conditions, and somehow this is passed as "progressive"

>>2122

>It really makes you think

No. No, it doesn't. Not at all. Not in the least.

And, its clear from your comment that you lack the capacity to think.

In a free country, there are always multiple, overlapping associations, and groups that tend toward a particular political party tend to group together more closely. You need to take off the tin foil and start thinking social-scientifically, you dingbat.

>>2232

Tunney is a google employee singularian who advocates for some kind of transgender techno god and other alarming ideas on his website. Meanwhile transhumaist futurist types like Tunney but with more influence are trying to redefine video gaming to make it more palateable for the masses for the purposes of datamining and behavior changing- which GG diggers pinpointed. Tunney has a history of leading or attempting to lead movements of dissent; OWS stank from the get-go.

Please see yourself out.

>>2232

Just because a piece of information is irrelevant to you, that doesn't mean that it is irrelevant to others. Sometimes a very simple reference or analogy may spark an epiphany on a reader, or simply be remembered later when one's ideas are being formed. What I mean is that the anon who said "it really makes you think" probably meant that it made them think, and they assumed that it would also make others think. If it didn't make you think, then you could have simply said so, or even stated why it is that you do not believe that it would make anyone think.

If you do not see things from the perspective of the other (either by choice or by some limitation) that does not mean that you should say that said other "lacks the capacity to think". To assume that anyone who holds a different opinion than you does so because they are intellectually limited is a sure way to grow comfortable on your positions and never subject your own beliefs to analysis, which in turn can lead to negative consequences both for you and for those with whom you interact. The person shared information and hinted at the presence of deeper connections without making grandiose claims about conspiracies, while you said they needed to "take off the tin foil hat". Finally, you called them a "dingbat". That was uncalled for and rude.

Your post could have been worded in a much better way, so as that other anons would see it as an opportunity to discuss the points you made.

Instead, you made that.

>>2007 (OP)

>On the other hand they can seem very reasonable when contrasted with the extremists (overton window).

The opposite is true. Actions inside the window (but towards the borders) are what moves the area of acceptability outwards. Actions beyond the window will actually have the reverse effect, pushing society away from your intended target.

For example, let's say you're working for an Islamic group pushing the notion that Muslims are peaceful and will integrate into American society. You're well within the window, moving society towards your goal, when 9/11 happens. What was acceptable yesterday would now be seen as 'inflammatory', 'controversial', 'insulting', et cetera. You'll certainly attract police presence and possibly an angry mob. Good luck getting your message across.

Your picture is showing a different scenario, because one side has an overwhelming violence advantage (a gun), meaning social concepts such as the Overton window or guilt-by-association are meaningless. That's a needlessly complicated mugging. All they need is the guy with the gun demanding your money.

>>2082

I think the comic is more of a criticism of statism and/or taxing.

Extremist movements are good so far as they are controlled by the same people that control the moderates.

In that way you are able to sympathise with the opposition moderates. "Even they think like us" is a strong enabling force. It is only important that moderates do intellectual damage to extremists in a way that makes the opposition think in your way.

For example, beating the extreme right rhetoric with a moderate right rhetoric makes an average (non-expert) leftist adopt the functional right-wing response eventually infecting him with another stream of thoughts.

In real life practice you can see right-wingers siding with "moderate" feminists and turning them into idols because they provide them with sound rationalization of their stance. They do not see it as a seed for ideological neutralization over time.

>>2007 (OP)

"Extremist" I feel is an abused word. It seems like it should be relegated only to those willing to use violence, as their political actions will not wok within the current political framework but the media labels people whose opinions and views don't work within the existing political framework as "extremists".

>>2209

>the media labels people whose opinions and views don't work within the existing political framework as "extremists".

They do that because the overall idea is that extremists are those willing to use violence

Ergo by categorizing a non-violent political group as extremists you're destroying its public image by saying that they will in fact become violent and thus should be dismantled/destroyed as soon as possible

Of course this is done by certain interests which perceive said group as a future threat, regardless of the welfare of society at large

>>1816

>4 hours

can you give a quick synopsis?

>>1839

I support this fellow. Specially for the ones that doesn't have English as a main language,

This is a psychopolitics board and you are posting a video from someone who is a charlatan, at best, and probably a CIA asset. Son, I am disappoint.

If you really want to understand how M-L work, Yuri is not the place to go, man.

>>2215

Considering the nature of this board you should actually give an explanation rather than use loaded words like 'charlatan'

>>2215

>If you really want to understand how M-L work, Yuri is not the place to go, man.

Could you direct us to better sources that touch on similar topics?