KulakRevolt
Writes at https://anarchonomicon.substack.com/
Writes weird Twitter Threads @FromKulak
Rides motorcycles... poorly.
.
Winner of Motte Post of the Year 2019
User ID: 905
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
Birthrates are down, cardiac incidents are up.
If you expect random High-school graduate citizens taking a side in a political debate to quantitatively accurate instead of merely directionally correct, then you're holding them to a higher standard that the government, media, and the academic-medical-industrial complex have held themselves for the past 3 years.
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
Then a week later they conceded all the policies the truckers were demanding and by summer Canada had fewer restrictions than the US.
.
Jan 6th turning into a Russian style bloody Sunday would have been the end of the republic. Every single faction would have embraced armed struggle after something like 100 protestors killed
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
Dude the banking maneuver didn't even work in Canada... It lasted 3 days effected 10 people and became a scandal large enough it almost brought down the government (in the Westminster parliamentary sense, not the total system collapse sense)
If the US military tried to deploy as a security force within the US it'd immediately be drowned in the vast scale of the country, whilst simultaneously setting off a powder keg of reaction.
There's a reason the Military was so adamant it not be used during the George Floyd protests... Given the scale of the protests it wasn't obvious they'd win, and even a temporary retreat would have probably gotten out of hand
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
Violence isn't futile. the opposite.
The us government simply cannot control America if violence peaks above a certain level. Their military assets aren't sufficient for a country of 330 million with 400 million gund, their recruit pool would collapse and their ability to raise taxes and thus finance the debt would evapourate.
The American government would simply not remain stable if levels of violence reached even a dull roar. Whether it'd result in regime change or dissolution is anyone's guess
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
Well that's the thing. Verifying who's who isn't actually the issue. The internet is full of gags and impersonations. The Verified account that posed as GWB and said he missed killing Iraqis wasn't a pr problem because anyone actually mistook him for Bush... It was a PR problem because it was embarrassing and hurt the prestige of the former president.
Brands aren't buying identity verification they're buying prestige verification. The Value of Wendy's maintaining their verification and not letting them lapse to Wendy the porn actress, isn't that people will think "Oh guess they swtiched from hamburgers to adult entertainment"... Its that it will hurt the restige and brand value, that it will shift the cultural meaning of what "Wendy's" means to people and hurt their brands going forward.
This is why the argument governments should regulate it under trademark law would be so laughable. If it was just impersonated products it wouldn't matter, the real threat is its true parody and satire, and is exactly the kind of culturally relevant speech that should be protected, and thus is exactly the kind of speech that is corrosive to brands.
Brands get around the corrosive power of culture by pouring billions of dollars into shoring up those brands. Sure every sexual, political, moral, racial, and cultural norm might have changed since the 50s... but Coke is still coke, because the cocaCola Corporation spent billions each year shoring it up... and brute forcing something permanent in the impermanent world of culture...
Take some of those support sturctures, or start facilitating cultural shift by actively selling those support structures to the new interpretation and a major brand can die as fast as disco.
Like the hypothetical porn actress wendy could theoretically become more famous than the resturaunt itself if she played her cards right... in 10-15 years there could be people who didn't know the Restaurants preceded the porn icon and think it weird there's a burger joint named for her. Mothers would avoid the restaurant to keep their boys from interacting with such a degenerate brand ...
It sound absurd now... but such cultural shifts have happened before and very very fast.
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
Well that's the Beauty... you'd probably set off legal alarm bells directly selling "Coca Cola"... but most brands are neither that specific nor specialized.
Even taking Coca-cola if Twitter felt it couldn't resell that verification it still is under no obligation to enforce the verification. So you'd get millions of CocaCola impersonator accounts all fucking with the brand.
Meanwhile every Coca-Cola related term and brand that can plausibly be sold would be "Coke" "Sprite", etc. The company has hundreds of brands, most of which twitter could sell off the verification for with enough plausible deniability that it wouldn't set off trademark law.
Sprite for instance has dozens of possible meanings, digital, fantastical... the only reason Twitter would ever enforce one meaning or verification against all the others that even might be brands in their own right is CocaCola paying them to do so...
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
Yes thats what the big brands and personalities would like, but they're not nearly coordinated enough to actually pull of or prevent the switch if Elon starts divide and conquering them and slowly changing the norm.
I said it would be a battle and that I have a part 2 coming that deals with exactly how to implement it in a way that will be very hard to prevent.
Be patient its a 3-4000 word plan of attack
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
the conspiracy theory taint of primary sources
The fact that these words can fit together as a given seems the vastly more concerning trend.
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
Ya except this was a decision actually made by the private owner of the company, not the FBI sending threatening communiques and making demands.
This might be the only instance in the past 3+ years where the "private company" argument actually has any weight since at least in this instance we're pretty damn sure it wasn't the fascist security-media-intelligence complex state.
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
Jones Alleged the document demand of him had never existed because no such document had ever be made.
But because a single judge made 1 determination about 1 document that may or may not have even been a document, he was denied all due process, and appeals.
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
Yes exacly... thus you'd either look faded or show obvious visible wear and aging of your clothes.... or you'd wear dark colors.
Filmmakers struggle to age clothes appropriately... so they put them in dark colors
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
I never claimed Germany suffered a holocaust.
Boys suffered a holocaust.
Boys 14-25 are the most discriminated against group in human history. Full stop.
No group has suffered such violence so Deeply in the moment, vastly across nations, and consistently across time.
The bloodiest day of the holocaust it was calculated 15,000 people were killed.
Bloodiest day of WW1 20,000 British! boys were killed (not counting all the other powers)
.
And notably this is a holocaust that never ended
The world screamed never again after the holocaust... but even our "humane" "modern" "progressive" welfare states reserve the right to drag teenagers from their home and massacre them by the million.
Indeed both Ukraine and Russia are doing this now without a fucking mummer of protest
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
No but their clothes didn't look new, and they certainly weren't able to get all the residue out... think of the stains that stay in ordinary bright clothes, the impossibility of getting fruit or vegetable stains out of brightly colored clothes even today.
That's what your eye will expect to see when they see clothes that are supposed to have been exposed to hard use... and if it doesn't it will break the reality of the film.
Even though people put incredible effort into cleanliness in the past it couldn't keep things looking new, and before the era if machine washing and chemical cleaners "not new" looked very distinctively different form lawrence olivier
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
Intentionally.
I try to write like I speak, and maintain a conversational tone.
Well your tone of voice changes when you speak, you can't just throw in a coma... because you're not just throwing in a comma.
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
That's an excellent snapshot. of the early 1800s. Thankyou so much for sharing!
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
The fabrication of the film was moving events that happened in various armies around to make a statement about the war... the filmmakers have said the commander who ordered the 11th of Nov attack was explicitly based on a British General known for being a butcher
Its not Germans, its all conscripts across all nations.
Their were mutinies in the French, British, and German armies including the german navy... I think that's a pretty dramatic statement that they didn't want to be there
In addition to the fact the conscription was neccessary to begin with. There wasn't an all volunteer army on any side of WW1
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
I've given you 3 types of evidence:
Contemporary accounts from 400 years of history 1500-1900 (Dickens, Tolstoy, Hardy, and many others wrote extensively on this in the 19th).
Historical records of the Lancet Medical journal from the 19th century ...
And the Historical records of the catholic church from the 12th century.
and the historical GDP which shows this is very much in line with what we find in modern poor societies at these GDP levels like El Salvador, Haiti, and Somalia...
There is no scarcity of women, lower gdp figures don't limit how much is available like iron or timber. or food ...GDP just determines the price of their labour and the poverty that will push them to trade that labour.
and your response amounts to: "Nuh Ugh"
Seriously every single piece of evidence we have says that 1100-1900 a single digit percentage of women were employed in prostitution and maybe a very low double digit percentage had engaged in it at some point in their lives. (And yes how people manage to feed themselves and keep themselves alive absolutely seems like the kind of matter of material necessity than can be extrapolated backwards)
We have bawdy authors from the 16th century painting this picture, senitmental authors from the 17th, moral reformer authors form the 19th, quite impressive records from all these eras including very early records from the 11th century...
and what I consistently find is people just deny it because they don't want to believe it.
3% of the victorian population, 6% of the female population, were employed as prostitutes in 1887... in London. One of the most industrialized cities of the day and one that actually had factory work for women.
This was when GDP of the Uk was close to 3000-4000 per person, or poorer than modern Ukraine... this was post industrial revolution after London had entered what we'd now say is middle income status...
In the Medieval period when real GDP was $300-600 per person per year it would have been vastly worse and the poverty vastly more pressing.
Hell the Catholic church owned the brothels in many areas because it was just seen as a fact of life and they were trusted to morally absolve and oversee the "sinner"
Seriously. the catholic church was running brothels with ~1000 prostitutes in London in the 1100s... when London's total population was 18,000-40,000... and that was just the one Burough where they owned the brothels... there were plenty of private brothels, speak-easy brothels, and women not affiliated with a brothel working as prostitutes as well.
.
Edit: sorry to pick on you but there's this revisionism I got everywhere I've posted this essay that somehow prostitution wasn't common, people weren't poor in the past, and everything that was expansively written about by contemporaries in early modern novels was just fiction and obviously Feilding, Defoe, Richardson, John Ford, Thomas Middleton, and every other writer about the lower classes from 1500-1900 ever wrote about was just sensationalist fiction to be completely ignored.
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
The blow was light, but I fear it has struck true... and like the red vitae fatal flowing forth...I fear I shall not recover.
(But like actually, I can't see my total yet (too soon) you may have sent me negative)
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
They couldn't shoot back at the commanding officers and military police forcing them to the front.
Indeed All's Quiet on the Western Front depicts what happened to soldiers who refused to go into battle on nov 11th after the armistice had been signed but before 11am when it went into effect.
The filmmakers make a very dramatic case...
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
So the analogy I used elsewhere was to just adjust it for purchasing power.
A skilled worker made 6-8d a day according to a redditor... which I analogized to 60-75k a year. A linen shirt required 3 els of linen at 12d each, and 2d worth of labour from a tailor... so it'd take a week or week and a half's labour from the skilled worker to buy a linen shirt... if he deadicated 100% of his income to it.
So it comes out to 1000-2000 dollars for a linen shirt, which admittedly is high end, kings would wear linen.
But you multiply that out and a full outfit pants, boots, socks, sweater, jacket, hat ( and you need all these you're walking everywhere in all weather) comes to 10-30 thousand dollars depending on quality.... and user you can buy used or skip and get it down to 5k or maybe even 2k at the bare minimum... maybe cloth a child for 1k with used babyclothes...
But a full outfit for an adult to actually go out and do things in the world is looking like the investment we make for a car or vehicle.
I bought a motorcycle for 5k a few years back, believe me I wanted it to last 5-10 years. I consider its loss a personal tragedy.
And you example likewise points to this: A team of mother and daughters working year round in a more leisurely cottage industry, with other responsibilities, we'd expect to kick out 15-30k a year... maybe 40-60 if they were in the top 5-10% ... so divide that out and those low end homemade outfits destined for women and children are 2k to 5k each.
.
Then you get into MILITARY outfits that have to survive a ton, do all the work you might possibly do on campaign, have armour, maybe have heraldry...
that's like a 40-60k investment for a low end footsoldier, and getting up into the hundreds of thousands for knights and a king's custom armour and everything might be into the millions ppp.
You just really aren't going to have multiples or if you do you aren't going to take your spare set on campaign with you and leave it with some squire-boy who could easily be beaten up and have it stolen from him
I will repeat my take that the only ethical response to conscription is desertion, terrorism, the murder of draft boards, and volunteering for the enemy.
I wrote just as stridently on this matter back when The Motte was on reddit, and I'm not going to pull punches now.
Here's my old piece: Liberty and Violence: Kill your local Draftboards
.
People enter into peace and agree to abide by laws so as to protect their liberty. The second their liberty is taken and they are being threatened with enslavement and being used as cannon fodder, there is no reason to abide by any of the rules of that society, indeed one should break every faith with it in revenge for the attempted enslavement.
There is no reason whatsoever for a young man to sacrifice his freedom, youth, and life for those who will not respect his liberty and who aim to make him pay everything for the wealth and security of others.
"But how will a nation defend itself? What about all the old ladies who can't defend themselves from the foreign hordes!?"
What are those old ladies sacrificing for this apparently vital defense they need? Have they sold off their homes and taken to living on the street that they might pay for said defense? Have they taken to prostitution that they might pay for their protection? Or have they merely voted that the cost be born entirely by young men who like as not are 18 and have not even had the opportunity to vote on the government that seeks to enslave them.
Taxation without representation? How about everything and your life before you can even drink.
.
I grew up in a small village. I actually knew the old ladies and sense of community that governments appeal to make people sacrifice everything. I've actually felt the tribal sense of community that's exploited to make young men sacrifice their lives.
And if my village thought they could enslave me and take my life from me, instead of doing the natural thing and selling off all they could (their houses, their heirlooms their businesses, their bodies) to pay for someone who will willingly defend them...
Then I would feel no compunction at deserting them, I'd drink to their massacre, I'd join the invading force they feared.
Because anyone who'd betray me so totally and try to enslave me to suffer and die at my moment of greatest vulnerability, as a youth who's had no opportunity to gain anything or even leave the polity, but has just lost parental protection... anyone who'd do that is my mortal enemy be they my closest kin or my own mother. And it is vastly more urgent that I see such a traitor dead at my feet, than some German or Russian who has done me no harm.
The social contract is like any other contract. If it never benefits one of the parties, if it is unilateral, then it cannot bind the party that gains nothing.
.
I am not joking. If my own mother tried to do to me what the governments of the world did to 18, 17, 16, and 14 year old on the western front... I'd kill her. Not a single question. I'd murder her. And not quickly.
And young men are supposed to acquiesce to politicians doing this to them?
.
(Fortunately for me my mother would never do such a thing, we love each other and get along perfectly well.)
KulakRevolt
1yr ago
Slavery, forced labour under threat of violence.
Conscription is 100% slavery. Indeed it is the very worst form of slavery.
Ask a conscript at the Somme or on the eastern front if they'd rather be Picking cotton. Ask some poor bastard on a Uboat waiting for the depth charges.
IQ is corelated with socio-economic status, which is heavily correlated with ideological compliance since they intellgently intuit what's good for their careers and social advancement (though such a motive is disproportionately the subject of self-delusion).
The high-IQ in the Soviet Union disproportionately became Party Members.
The High-IQ in Medieval europe disproportionately held non-heretical beliefs.
The High-IQ in Imperial japan disproportionately worshipped the emperor.
The High-IQ in Nazi Germany disproportionately supported the Fuher.
The High-IQ in Saudi Arabia disproportionately support Wahhabi Islam.
The High-IQ in China disproportionately support "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics".
And the High-IQ in the US disproportionately support "Liberal Democracy"...and will endorse whatever economic and political system the US has as "liberal democracy" until someone in authority tells them those aren't the words they're using for the regime anymore.
They'll support "Our democracy" and the "liberal international order" no matter if a majority of the people oppose it, and no matter if it tramples every single liberty and free market norm ever referred to as "liberal"
More options
Context Copy link