I have considered about doing this and when the thought occurred to me i checked my fw version and saw that it was the recommended one. I turned my wifi off in the event that I would want to jailbreak but then hesitated last minute when i read some comments about the ko reader interface being almost too feature rich as to make navigation and other changes text and menu heavy. This post has me reconsidering
It’s not feature length, but 12 Monkeys is based on a short film by Chris Marker called Le Jetée which I highly recommend, along with all of Marker’s work, really. Marker deals a lot in documentary with a surrealist touch, and thoughtful narration. He’s a good old leftist too.
All the movies you mentioned are not just psychological, but are messed up temporally, so you might appreciate a newer movie called Time Addicts. Watched a bit of it and it was funny, dark, and wild, as a time traveling movie about meth should be.
The Manchurian Candidate is great (both versions are really, though I prefer the one from ‘62) as it deals with a character piecing together an experimentation plot involving hypnotism and proto mk ultra mind control. If I think of more when I’m rested i’ll jump back and comment again.
It’s not even radical, but there should not be any vehicles allowed near schools, particularly elementary schools, without special permission based on need. It should be a safe area for people to walk and play. I can’t tell you how many people barrel through the parking lot of my kid’s elementary school just to avoid being tardy (another concept which should be reformulated). I work at a university, and a 19 yo with a 2 ton truck struck a pedeststrian yesterday afternoon, sending them on an airlift to a not close by hospital.
The extended substance to Descartes is broadly the material, whereas the thinking or res cogitans is the thinking substance. How to bridge the immaterial mentality of thinking as a causal force in the material presented a problem for him and was difficult to bridge in this conceptualization of the full human: the mind body problem. The split subject in Lacanian psychoanalysis refers to in part the “mirror stage” of psychological development, where the undeveloped infant first sees it’s own image in a mirror and begins to recognize it’s own incomplete self image (only seeing of itself without the mirror its legs, arms, perceiving its clumsy motor skills, etc) compared to the ideal subject reflected in the perceived-to-be complete “other” in the mirror, which is not first recognized as itself but an ideal form which seems to be superior and complete in comparison. This is furthered by the imposition of language or in Lacanian terms “castration” which is essentially the imposition of a defining, limiting, prohibitive symbolic structure by way of language which creates a separating or splitting of the self independent of the flesh and blood, now extant in the symbolic and signified sense. There can be no unification of the split self, which is the underlying source of the neurotic or psychotic, with the former responding to castration with repression and the latter responding with a complete rejection of the prohibitions circumscribed therein. This is a vulgar understanding but how I interpret it.
I have experimented with sugar, cream (dairy, soy, almond, coconut, oatmilk), and both combined, but I return to black and have stayed this way for years now. Sugar hurts my teeth, and I am not realy interested in adding calorie dense stuff to my happy juice. And I love the taste of black coffee. It can be shit sometimes, but at it’s best it surpasses anything sweeteners or cream can add.
I will read this article as soon as I get a chance, but as with all of these intelligence operations, it can take to the form of a motley crue of fascists coming from different places and with different priorities and collapsing certain ambitions together for mutual aim, in this case, the killing of Palme. Stig Larsson, the novelist, was in a unique position in his job at a Stockholm newspaper at the time, to track leads and try an assemble a cohesive story in the aftermath of the assassination. He became obsessed, and continued personal research on the subject up to his own death. He amassed a personal archive of information on the case, uncovering new evidence, following leads that the media and police failed to take interest in. After his death, the person who acquired his personal storage unit acquired this archive, and set to the task of trying to make sense of the work, and follow up on the leads where they had been left off. The BBC made a documentary about this investigator and his conclusions after years of pouring over the documents and furthering the investigation, and he is pretty convinced it was elements of apartheid South Africa that oversaw the ground operation, of course in consort with the CIA and other actors within Sweden with connections to police, militias, and intelligence. So calling the US nazis for what they did in Vietnam and calling out the racist apartheid project for what it is, even as a moderate social democrat, is enough to get you offed if you do it in earnest on the world stage.
As much as I love Ghost Stories for the End of the World, I felt there was not sufficient exploration of this well-documented line of inquiry, and barely a passing mention of Stig’s work on the matter. After listening to that, I was left with the impression that the Stig Engstrom (lotta stigs) lone gunman theory was seemingly as alluring or viable an explanation as anything else. Even if this is not the case that others were left with this impression, I was a little confused as to why such a (typically) rigorously researched show failed to explore this further. I suspect that Matt, the host, was taking a little of a well-earned break after doing the Octopus series, and handing over the reigns of research to others, taking more the role of interviewer for this series. Anyhow, thank you for linking the article.
Also apologies for where my communication fell short.
Can we dial this back a little, because I respect the posting I’ve seen from you over the years and internet debating stresses me out. I think I may have used a couple loaded phrases to poke a little, and I would like to clarify where I have contributed to a misunderstanding.
I appreciated the first part of your response where you linked to information about the things that were found at crash sites. I found this as cogent reasoning and respectful practice, as I am not swayed by the passports, not to mention jet fuel etc.
I shouldn’t have said “dismiss everything” and I should have made clear that I took umbrage with what I interpreted as equivocation between legitimate paths of inquiry and irresponsible and wild conspiratorial speculation (UFO shit, as I put it). To me, you were saying all 9/11 questioning contra the official narrative is conspiracy theory. This irked me ngl.
When I said dismiss everythin in the fillowing response, I was alluding to you presenting a cohesive narrative with facts which didn’t really address some if the points my first response, in particular the point about insider trading. None of the facts I pointed out and none of the facts you pointed out are immiscible, and could be explained away under the paradigm of “the official narrative”. Like who knows what networks could’ve tipped off investors. I can accept that.
But I thank you for pointing out long standing relationships between Saudi’s and the Bush family, both in official state operations and myriad business ventures. Poppy and a select group of his closest pals in US intelligence and otherwise were absolutely instrumental and intimately involved in modernizing Saudi intelligence, and he was personally involved in seeing Saudi funds reintegrated into US investments. All of the networks that surround these people and their activities are characterized by subterfuge, lies, in dealing, fucking holes in the ground for energy, fraudulent investment schemes, and pursuing war for profit. Even if all evidence pointed to the straight forward narrative, one should be chilled with how much these folks directly benefitted from the expansion of the military budget and intensification of secrecy and surveillance at scale in the aftermath. We saw a 2 trillion dollar transfer of public wealth to the defense industry in as many decades, to give a sense of the incentive structure their cohort had to pursue such an open ended war in such a geopolitically important region. This does not include the private wealth pursued by like, every single general and JCoS asshole after their “service” to use soviet maps to strip mine the regions that had decimated and conquered for empire.
We could go on trading details toward this or that end, but to me the previous paragraph is sorta my reasoning as to why the official narrative should be critically evaluated, and where it is weak or points to troubling and unanswered lines of inquiry, well all the more reason to press. It is strange that these calculating and conspiring fucks were able to use their networks and conspiring to personally enrich themselves and pals over decades in adjacent and directly related industries, but this 2 trillion dollar gift from god required none of that. Maybe I am naive or somehow uncritical for this still being unsettling to me, and enough for me to keep an open mind to counter narratives.
It is pretty uncontroversial to say that people in a position to take advantage of this event for personal, political, and imperial aims did so the umpth degree. I think where we might disagree is whether it is necessary to pursue the question of “were these actors, who may have been in a position to tip the scales in favor of this event, act to or fail to act so as to contribute to this eventuality” as a legitimate line of inquiry, or if the facts as presented obviate the need to do so.
You’re cool and funny and I respect your posting. I don’t post much, and I lack the wherewithal to engage most the time. I hope this made any sense and that my good faith and lack of malice come through in the tone of this message.
*edited for clarity (i hope)
Word. That’s fair. I was just put off by what I interpreted as an unfair equivocation between attempting to apply material analysis to major historical events and undisciplined conspiratorial waxing. Having spent ungodly hours attempting to form a cohesive thought on the matter, even the most conservative interpretation of evidence leaves me with nothing like the confidence on display in advocating on behalf of “the official narrative”. “I think it’s bullshit but there is merit in pursuing questions with a critical disposition” seems way more honest and comradely a response than “even if there is a ton of contravening evidence problemetizing the official narrative, it is all bullshit and I am correct”. So thank you for your generosity.
Ok, dismiss everything. My point is that there is a ton of data points which should raise eyebrows of researchers, and to dismiss with such certitude in the face of unanswered/unanswerable questions is just as unreasonable as being credulous with every conspiracy theory posited. Your conflation of people troubled by these data points and questions with the fringest of conspiracy theorists reeks of unmerited condescension. A more reasonable position would be to state your personal feeling on the matter but acknowledge that there are unknowns and unknowables and certain evidence that make any sort of confidence one way or another impossible at this point in time. Instead it’s “this is just UFO shit” and I was surprised this is your take.
This is your take? I mean, the insider trading stuff is pretty heavy evidence that people knew ahead of time. People with money and resources to act on this foreknowledge. And the case that we are presented with by the commission is, well, a story of people close to important state actors conspiring to commit the crime. The state dept story is a conspiracy theory, even if truncated, obfuscated, covered-up, that is still what they presented us with. Oh yeah, and that many in the intelligence community knew of the attackers presence in the US, others knowing of an impending attack, and the attackers being closely related to Saudi intelligence, ya know, the intelligence service buttresses with US technology and training in close partnership. But yeah, just like “UFO’s”.
Some folks are presented with facts which should cause alarm and suspicion but instead reel and dismiss, and I can only point to a lack of intellectual curiosity, ideology, or a motivated viewpoint based on a perceived in-group’s general opinion which steers then into taking the state department position, and that of the Atlantic Monthly. “Actually it’s all chaos and accident, and our pattern seeking brains project meaning onto events which are random.” I’m nit saying that’s your position, but it is a common refrain to dismiss real conspiracies, and reminds me of Parenti’s take on historians who talk about “the reluctant US empire who rose to the occasion at a critical juncture to bumble its way into global dominance”. Like, no calculation or conspiring required.
As if these shit hole leaders are braying at every opportunity to make money dropping bombs. Just god smiling on them I guess. Nothing to see here.
https://twitter.com/yugopnik/status/1773315647411261827
If i must know then so must you
All my blue reps voted for this. Oh yeah, they also voted for unconditional military aid to Israel and to not support UNWRA right after. Loser party.
LogSec for students, project organization, and the aspiring corkboard conspiracy theorist in your life wanting to be the next Mark Lombardi. Use markdown in a free flow style notes app that has powerful tools to connect ideas, so you can focus on the information as opposed the organization. Semantics instead of syntax, as it were.
DECIDE, v.i. To succumb to the preponderance of one set of influences over another set.
A leaf was riven from a tree,
“I mean to fall to earth,” said he.
The west wind, rising, made him veer.
“Eastward,” said he, “I now shall steer.”
The east wind rose with greater force.
Said he: “'Twere wise to change my course.”
With equal power they contend.
He said: "My judgment I suspend. "
Down died the winds; the leaf, elate,
Cried: “I’ve decided to fall straight.”
“First thoughts are best?” That’s not the moral;
Just choose your own and we’ll not quarrel.
Howe’er your choice may chance to fall,
You’ll have no hand in it at all. —G.J.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary
For a video about recognizing the ways in which unrealistic or misinformed cultural ideas of attractiveness and masculinity are a huge component in the rise of the incel, black and otherwise, this presenter sure likes to hammer that balding is unattractive. He says “it’s fine to be bald” like one time but all of the context clues and intended humor suggest that he is entirely aware that this is widely viewed negatively in the domain of attractiveness and is using it in the demeaning sense. And then just does the same intended-to-demean joke like three times. Big dicks, giga chads, bald shaming, these are all things I see embraced in left spaces which then hand wring about the negative and toxic forms of masculinity and the ways in which they are reified in culture. I am not singling out this mostly decent and well-intended video as the sole or worst offender, but just another example of doing the thing you say you are against.
Love this song, love the original brains version. First one i heard was this one by high standard. Cyndi’s version is great for karaoke