Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7:
.m3u file. Music via
Now that this is a real board, it's time to lay down some rules:
1. Don't be a faggot
Thank you, and enjoy
Slavoj Zizek doesn't know why communism failed, what are your thoughts?
Particularly i'm interested in leftist views of why communist efforts have so far been completely catastrophic. I don't really have any idea but I realise that the soviet union, maoist china or most other places which had successful revolutions installed systems that look nothing like actual what was proposed in actual communist theories.
Pls don't fill up this thread with arguing about whether or not the SU was 'true communism' - it was a catastrophe for humanity regardless of theory. Pls keep to the question, ok?
You seem to not understand, that nobody in China (or Russia) runs a business without paying bribes to multiple corrupt officials. That's not the case in the first world. That's one important difference between living in the first world and the third world. Which is why the southern US is such a bizarre place, they're trying as hard as possible to backslide into the third world.
China's current rise to power has everything to do with the Walton heirs being greedy fuckholes who don't mind bankrupting their country so long as they can sell goods they bribed a cadre of Chinese officials into producing for them at $.01 each for $10 to obese American rednecks who can't grasp that fact that they're being ripped off.
However, China has become so expensive to produce goods in that production is moving to other countries. This is why Vietnam and other SE Asian nations are experiencing massive construction booms. China may continue rising but they'll need to transition to another path to success. The Waltons have to pay $.02 unit now and that's just not enough profit for them to not pay taxes on.
>You seem to not understand, that nobody in China (or Russia) runs a business without paying bribes to multiple corrupt officials. That's not the case in the first world. etc etc
We do understand that. You, however, do not seem to understand a lot of things about how business and government work in the first world. All governments corrupt in time. The US gov is as corrupt as any 200 year old government. It's just better armed than all others put together x10 to keep it that way.
Speaking as someone who runs a business in the first world... no. Just, no.
The only people who get shaken down for cash in the first world are the ones running patently illegal businesses, and frankly, I don't give two shits about them. If they don't like it they can start a legitimate business like the rest of us.
Ugh, Germans got screwed out of history, we should be living in a German America and a German Europe, but no... those filthy UK used them to keep the entirety of central and eastern Europe occupied
Someone should do something about that...
They're listed as American Indian.
It's probably just stereotypical southern rednecks, who say they're Mericun because they live in perpetual ignorance (and fear).
Actually, Spain was the first modern European state, and it was the pressure it made over the rest of Europe what forced the others to unify themselves as well. Then everything went to shit because two good rulers in several centuries.
Germans actually did pretty well overall.
yeh, they're doing pretty well again, too. For the last couple years, they've been having to take increasingly extreme measures to avoid such a massive imbalance of power in their favor that they destabilize the rest of Europe.
Their economists are trying to avoid the extreme conditions that led to political activism and uprising a century ago, but much of it seems to be inherent and unavoidable in the people and culture.
Once their swinging social and economic pendulums both happen to align on one far end of their spectrums, shit will get interesting.
Imagine, that the Cold War ended with the victory of the Soviet Union. What would they do? Of course, tried to weaken their enemy. For example, to split the country. Encourage separatist sentiment, especially where they are. For example, in Texas. They have organized a "democratic" from the U.S. department of Texas and texans have announced a special, non-US people, unlike the yankees and dixie. However, everything turned out the opposite. And Ukraine for Russia - as Texas for USA. Which is taken from russians and now explain to them that their ukrainian "texans" - a special nation that has nothing to do with their russian "yankees" and "dixie." Of course, they will make an attempt to include Ukraine back into their state. Why would they need to think otherwise?
Both sides lost the cold war. As long as it was running, both US and Russia considered themselves as winning. They both got the runaway military spending they wanted by providing each other with a boogeyman to point their fingers at.
When soviet union collapsed (which it was already doing culturally, even without the added effect of cold war spending bankrupting it), both sides lost their objectives.
But, ever since, our own neoconservative thinktanks have been openly about calling for another cold war. While they're quick to call everyone paying taxes and getting access to medicine or education "socialism", they see everyone in the country paying taxes for blank cheque spending on the private military & defense companies they represent a "good investment". For a while, they were hoping to spark the next cold war up with China, but China already has short-term and long-term plans on how to deal with USA, and we're both happily going down that road as it is. Ter'ism was the next stand-in, but it's been unpopular and unprofitable, because they're just shitty fucking poor people with nothing impressive to take destroy. India's the next big economically viable contender down the road (& brazil after them), but they're easily 50 years out and no one wants to wait that long. John McCain, who could have been our current president, hasn't been bashful about longing for a return to the Cold War with Russia, and Putin openly shared his desire for the same in front of the entire UN. ...and Russia really doesn't have the $ to do it yet. ...this is why their continual cozying up to China economically has everyone paying attention. China minces no words about considering us a convenient economic ally of the moment, and their #1 military enemy long-term. A couple more big deals like the last one between Russia and China go well, and we may have our able and willing boogeyman back.
So, the cold war never really ended, it's just been on hold while we await round 2. When it's seen among the wealthy elite of both our countries as being this profitable, it shouldn't be long til it's up and running again.
, the goat.jpg
Are animals less than people? This video answers that question.
I thought /be/ answered that question.
less what than people?
Accomplished? Self-destructive? Worthy of life? Irrational?
Your question is incomplete, OP.
Also for hours of entertainment, google "Catholic answers do animals have souls?" and enjoy the mindblowing stupidity of people trying to simultaneously rationalize their attitudes toward the animals they love keeping around the house and the ones they eat and bulldoze into extinction.
...without a shred of animal behavior research or study cited, as usual.
I was thinking... we could revive human diversity with modern technologies by sequencing genomes and identifying which haplotypes originated where and choose the best breeding pairs for subsequent generations that collect the non-lethal race-specific haplotypes...
Imagine it, REAL native americans, REAL germans, real whatever the chinese and indians and ottomans and such have hybridized to a bunch of dirty pool of chaos
Just kidding of course, but morally/ethically, is this a bad idea?
It'd be much more interesting to recreate the common ancestor group that originally left Africa and evolved into the "races."
And it'd be far more interesting yet to bring back the Neanderthals who increasingly look like they didn't deserve the unfortunate doom they suffered after all. Their genome contains some very interesting things. DARPA has been known to be working on deriving possible gene treatments for humans (soldiers) for about a decade, but we'll never see anything useful from that. There needs to be a concerted effort to just quietly create a population of them and let them roam about northern Canada where no one will notice. Rewild those fuckers.
There are no morals of any stories from the past that can claim authority on this future. The relevant bioethic discussions are only about a few decades old, and haven't kept up with technological capabilities either. Every country needs to play it safe and officially outlaw everything, while quietly supporting secret laboratories on ships in international waters. Have your cake, eat it too.
is there any decent pseudo-historyfic of what would have happened if the Confederacy won the civil war to the point of WW1?
Pick 1. You can't have 2.
>Not that the agricultural south would have ever won against the industrialized north,
What are you talking about? The civil war was very close up until the end, when Lincoln decided to throw in the emancipation proclamation to make the war about slavery (when it was originally about states' rights). If he hadn't won Antietam and made the proclamation, European powers could have very easily gotten involved on the side of the South (because that was where the product was coming from). On paper, the North had many advantages, but IRL it was different.
Think of it in terms of the American revolution. Britain is to the North as the American colonies are to the South. On paper, America had a completely inferior army to Britain, worse tech, unstable manufacturing, and the fight was on home soil. The difference between Britain and America was larger than that of the North and the South. The reason America won the revolution was because they cared more than the British, who were ambivalent. This was similar to the civil war because Lincoln knew that the United States could not split, because it was forbidden in the constitution and because "united we stand, divided we fall". No one but him really cared about this though. So he pulled the smartest move in history and made the civil war about slavery, which finally convinced the North to start caring. Without that and the brutal war tactics of Sherman (and the Anaconda plan) the South was very dangerous competition.
>about states rights
The right of states to declare that their citizens can own slaves?
Yes, that's so much different than saying the civil war was about slavery.
Hello everyone. I've been wondering, how did the German and Western Allied troops treat one another? More importantly, how did they treat the civilians during their respective occupations of Western Europe? Of course there were crimes committed in relatively small numbers, but on the whole. Where there any major events that showed camaraderie between the troops or civilians?
Manstein was correct; he just happened to be on the losing side, and the winners get to write the history books. Besides, everybody in the OKW had to pay lip-service to the loopy ethos of the Nazis...just like all those American generals and admirals had to smile and pretend to worship a president they absolutely loathed. Politics trumps reason and honesty every time.
>Manstein was correct; he just happened to be on the losing side, and the winners get to write the history books.
I guess that's why Stalin's purges ended up cutting down on the number of Jews in the Soviet government to the point of shit of firing most of the Jews in the foreign service so that Hitler won't have an excuse to not negotiate Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Western Allies were treated fairly well by the Nazi's and vice versa. Food was in short supply in Nazi camps towards the end of the war, but not through malice of the Nazi's. Both sides took a dim view of escapee's, with the Nazi's being more unpleasant to those they caught again.
An exception were British Commando's, who trolled Hitler to the point he ordered them not to be taken prisoner. Though this was ignored by a fair chunk of the Wehrmacht.
You were fucked if you were captured on the Eastern Front though.
If you're island government was insolvent and dependent on another country for regular multi-million dollar bailours, and you were a politician interested in fixing everything...what would you do? Country has no exceptional resources - just farm land but subject to the other countries law as an 'external territory'. I'm thinking it could declare independence and become a tax haven. I don't know if that works anymore given money laundering laws or whatever. Other options?
You mean hypothesis. But ok...
When zombie Stalin & Mao rise from the dead and take over Canada, and my neighbors just up and decide to go from nice people living decent lives to shoot me between my eyes one day because I DIDN'T secede from their country and DIDN'T post armed guards and razor wire around my property, and buy a fleet of F22s to (pre-emtively "defend" it...
You're a paranoid delusional quack.
>paranoid delusional quack
Yeah, we have a lot of those down here. They've even taken control of one of our political parties.
Will post-WW2 Germans and and post-9/11 Americans be viewed similarly by history?
Already are, by just about anyone familiar with both.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to compare them to post Great War Germans? I feel like there's an argument either way.
Indeed. I remember replying to this as "post WW1" Germans, but it clearly says WW2 Germans. What can I say, I must have had cocks in my eyes. Post WW1 Germans reacted to the hit they took with rabid nationalism and authoritarianism, political extremism etc. WW2 Krauts wanted to put as much distance as possible between themselves and that totalitarian militant shit, and live simpler, constructive, decent lives again.
USA is definitely Germany between WWI & WWII.