• Donate and support Agora Road's Macintosh Cafe to keep the forum alive and make any necessary upgrades to have a more pleasant experience! Update: I configured the site with Brave Browser, so you can send tips to the site with BAT.

    - Upgrade now for supporter only awards! In Three Tiers

    -- Agora Gold

    -- Agora Silver

    -- Agora Bronze

    Upgrades like "moods" username customization, profile customization, custom backgrounds, banners and much more!

    It will be under Account Upgrades

    Submissions for Tales of Agora Road Issue #4 is OPEN! MAKE AGORA CHAN ART BY CLICKING HERE

The Normalization of SJWs and its Effects on Western Culture

Sidewinder91

Active Traveler
Joined
Apr 11, 2022
Messages
169
Reaction score
276
Awards
53
but then MCU fails, and disney too, doc who s14 too
people got tired from moralizing and preaching
Haven't watched an MCU movie since Age of Ultron, and I've never seen a modern episode of Doctor Who.

I've seen Star Wars though, and I think I can comfortably say that 'Star Wars has gone woke' is really just a meme.
 
I've seen Star Wars though, and I think I can comfortably say that 'Star Wars has gone woke' is really just a meme.
could be (never saw a minute of star wars)
might be just salty old men who want world to never change?
many problems what i saw told around was just that The girl was very "Mary Sue" with no mistakes,
and that "there is no longer good vs evil", similar to "there is no longer straight-evil disney villain" cry...
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Antoine

Traveler
Joined
Oct 2, 2023
Messages
63
Reaction score
158
Awards
31
Haven't watched an MCU movie since Age of Ultron, and I've never seen a modern episode of Doctor Who.

I've seen Star Wars though, and I think I can comfortably say that 'Star Wars has gone woke' is really just a meme.
What did go wrong with Star Wars then? How is it not the posterchild for "woke" insanity in the arts?

Straight white man creates a highly personal, extraordinarily bold and ingenious work that lights the world on fire. Then gets torn down by armies of anklebiting Ayn Rand villains who know better than him because they understand "TONE" and "BEAT BASED STORYTELLING" and other things idiots make up. To try to keep his loyal underlings employed he sells his work to a gaggle of jews and women (who have infinite money because of the other great white man whose livelihood they managed to secure as a rent-source) and they then turn the thing into a leaderless, visionless madhouse that just seems to alternate between spewing venomous neurosis in all directions and pathetic obsequious attempts at imitating what people actually like to keep the money running.

It's the same thing every time no matter what we're looking at. They keep doing this.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Sidewinder91

Active Traveler
Joined
Apr 11, 2022
Messages
169
Reaction score
276
Awards
53
Straight white man creates a highly personal, extraordinarily bold and ingenious work that lights the world on fire. Then gets torn down by armies of anklebiting Ayn Rand villains who know better than him because they understand "TONE" and "BEAT BASED STORYTELLING" and other things idiots make up.
Yeah, so uh...

There's actually a lot wrong with that. I don't have a lot of time right now, so if there's something you want me to elaborate on later, just ask and I'll tell you.

1. You're ignoring everything after Episode IV, which is... weird. Empire Strikes Back was (I think? Not 100% certain on who did what) written by Leigh Beckett and Laurence Kasdan. Splinter of a Mind's Eye, which was intended to be a low budget follow up in case A New Hope failed was written by Alan Dean Foster. You'd also have to take into account things like the EU. There are interviews where George Lucas said that he didn't care about the expanded universe and to an extent this is true, only to an extent. He was willing to add in the Outrider from Shadows of the Empire into the Special Edition of ANH, and the reason Coruscant isn't named Had Abaddon or something is because of the Thrawn Trilogy. Treating Star Wars like Lucas was the sole creative force is inaccurate.

2. The prequels sucked. I know there are fans who claim that they're actually secretly brilliant, and fine, whatever. Art is subjective, and if Attack of the Clones is your passion then, cool. But, I don't think it's a very controversial statement to say that the 'prequel trilogy didn't exactly set the world on fire.'

they then turn the thing into a leaderless, visionless madhouse that just seems to alternate between spewing venomous neurosis in all directions and pathetic obsequious attempts at imitating what people actually like to keep the money running.
This is actually one of the reasons why I'm pretty comfortable saying Disney Star Wars wasn't woke.

There was some criticism about Rey after The Force Awakens came out, and from what I remember the general left-wing fan reaction was 'Oh, do you really think Disney cares about what you think? They made a billion dollars, lol.'

But, looking back I absolutely think they did. One of the things I noticed about The Last Jedi is that it seems like they actually overcorrected on the Mary Sue criticisms. Fans complained that everyone liked Rey? Well, now Luke Skywalker spends most of the runtime verbally abusing her. Fans complained that Rey was too perfect? Now she's constantly doing dumb shit and embarrassing herself in front of the caretakers.

I'm also pretty certain that the reason we got the Space Chase was because some execs didn't want Finn and Poe together onscreen too much. Rian said the reason he split them up was because the characters were too similar, but I don't really buy it. People were shipping them together, I think Oscar Issac did an interview where he said Poe could be gay, and I dunno, maybe they were worried about toy sales and merchandising? The romance scenes with Rose definitely feel tacked on, like, the original Canto Bight plot didn't have a romantic subplot, and one got hastily added in at the last minute.

I remember after TLJ came out, a lot of the left-wing Star Wars fans really loved Rose? Like, the general consensus on >redditcostanzayeahrightsmirk or whatever was that she was above criticism, and that even if you said "I don't like Rose but I have nothing against the actress" you were part of the problem. It's kind of telling that Rose barely appears in Rise of Skywalker and that Finn gets a new girlfriend.

I mean, you also have other stuff like Leia ending up in a coma, Holdo committing suicide, and Rose kamikazeing Finn all for the sake of a male character's plot, but I'm probably not the guy you want to write up a feminist critic of Star Wars, so yeah.

could be (never saw a minute of star wars)
You missed nothing.

Battlestar Galactica 1978 is where the good shit is at.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzyHxYxc-Mo
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Antoine

Traveler
Joined
Oct 2, 2023
Messages
63
Reaction score
158
Awards
31
I am right, everyone else is wrong.

Yeah, so uh...

There's actually a lot wrong with that. I don't have a lot of time right now, so if there's something you want me to elaborate on later, just ask and I'll tell you.

1. You're ignoring everything after Episode IV, which is... weird. Empire Strikes Back was (I think? Not 100% certain on who did what) written by Leigh Beckett and Laurence Kasdan. Splinter of a Mind's Eye, which was intended to be a low budget follow up in case A New Hope failed was written by Alan Dean Foster. You'd also have to take into account things like the EU. There are interviews where George Lucas said that he didn't care about the expanded universe and to an extent this is true, only to an extent. He was willing to add in the Outrider from Shadows of the Empire into the Special Edition of ANH, and the reason Coruscant isn't named Had Abaddon or something is because of the Thrawn Trilogy. Treating Star Wars like Lucas was the sole creative force is inaccurate.
George Lucas was a filmmaker, not a star wars content guy. He's The Emperor. The source of all of this and the engine that drives it. The rest of these people are the shovel-helmet guys and officers inside the death star. He would let people do their own thing with the ideas of Star Wars. But it's not really 'Star Wars'. Which I consider to be the work of Lucas. You can call that 'George Lucas' Star Wars' if you think the other stuff matters.

For all this other work there's an understanding on all sides that these are subordinate works that Lucas allows to exist. A lot of it went quite well. Nothing against that. More to my point, nobody with ulterior motives was fucking with or trying to exploit the relationship in any way. So it all worked. And even when it didn't nobody minded.

2. The prequels sucked. I know there are fans who claim that they're actually secretly brilliant, and fine, whatever. Art is subjective, and if Attack of the Clones is your passion then, cool. But, I don't think it's a very controversial statement to say that the 'prequel trilogy didn't exactly set the world on fire.'
The prequel trilogy printed money, it and its auxiliary works were absurdly influential upon craft and culture. Fat idiots on the internet with names like 'Stoklasa' took issue, but now who looks stupid? Nothing was wrong at this point.

This is actually one of the reasons why I'm pretty comfortable saying Disney Star Wars wasn't woke.

There was some criticism about Rey after The Force Awakens came out, and from what I remember the general left-wing fan reaction was 'Oh, do you really think Disney cares about what you think? They made a billion dollars, lol.'

But, looking back I absolutely think they did. One of the things I noticed about The Last Jedi is that it seems like they actually overcorrected on the Mary Sue criticisms. Fans complained that everyone liked Rey? Well, now Luke Skywalker spends most of the runtime verbally abusing her. Fans complained that Rey was too perfect? Now she's constantly doing dumb shit and embarrassing herself in front of the caretakers.
Why, if Star Wars 7 was such a cynical and calculated to please product, was there anything to walk back? Again, I said they were alternating between spewing neurotic venom and trying to scrape back audience favour with obsequious gestures. That's exactly what you're describing. You can't explain the latter without the former. And you haven't explained the former. What are you going to tell me? It was an accident? They didn't know better? They thought they made the best Star Wars 7 possible that would please the maximal number of people and do the best work for their new brand?

Two explanations The Jew-Woman Star Wars team was the dumbest and most incompetent operation in the history of popular culture. Or, they were saboteurs happy to burn other peoples' money. I find both answers funny so take your pick. We can also go with "both" if you like.

I'm also pretty certain that the reason we got the Space Chase was because some execs didn't want Finn and Poe together onscreen too much. Rian said the reason he split them up was because the characters were too similar, but I don't really buy it. People were shipping them together, I think Oscar Issac did an interview where he said Poe could be gay, and I dunno, maybe they were worried about toy sales and merchandising? The romance scenes with Rose definitely feel tacked on, like, the original Canto Bight plot didn't have a romantic subplot, and one got hastily added in at the last minute.

I remember after TLJ came out, a lot of the left-wing Star Wars fans really loved Rose? Like, the general consensus on >redditcostanzayeahrightsmirk or whatever was that she was above criticism, and that even if you said "I don't like Rose but I have nothing against the actress" you were part of the problem. It's kind of telling that Rose barely appears in Rise of Skywalker and that Finn gets a new girlfriend.

I mean, you also have other stuff like Leia ending up in a coma, Holdo committing suicide, and Rose kamikazeing Finn all for the sake of a male character's plot, but I'm probably not the guy you want to write up a feminist critic of Star Wars, so yeah.
Again, is this your idea of a cynical and calculated attempt at pleasing audiences? Imagine if the autist who made The Mandalorian was in charge of these movies. Can you imagine that timeline? Why didn't we get that? For the record I don't watch these stupid shows because I don't find 'Star Wars' divorced from Lucas particularly interesting. But The People really want to like Star Wars and you barely even have to meet them halfway. You just have to not shit yourself while spitting in their faces. Which is apparently too much to ask from Disney at their most ruthless.

You missed nothing.

Battlestar Galactica 1978 is where the good shit is at.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzyHxYxc-Mo

Well, that's certainly an opinion.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards
Again, is this your idea of a cynical and calculated attempt at pleasing audiences? Imagine if the autist who made The Mandalorian was in charge of these movies. Can you imagine that timeline? Why didn't we get that? For the record I don't watch these stupid shows because I don't find 'Star Wars' divorced from Lucas particularly interesting. But The People really want to like Star Wars and you barely even have to meet them halfway. You just have to not shit yourself while spitting in their faces. Which is apparently too much to ask from Disney at their most ruthless.
then why they missed?
if people got tired of *these* feeders, then, what it means? that people still have some decency and modesty left? that star wars is not full of internet doomers cavemen redditor 4chan predators?
or only that they cant write, and that people know when situation is written and the chars are there for its own selfish blatant ways to push "look! nostalgia bait" and "look! obvious twist of twist of twist!" or "we are more saint than pope!!!" ways of writing, on nose.
1/ complicated story
2/ each char has its hidden motives
3/ motives DO excuse shit morale
4/ there IS NO MORE black-and-white morals characters
5/ villains are HURT not BAD....
etc. problems with writing at Disney et al. When story is product, then you can tell. as i heard in video of nerd critic about Marvels [sic], "women liked MCU because it was about them, people, not women as for sake of women in comics world..." - or so...
they liked i because they, women, were more than just "look! woman!", (both from male, and barbie-fication POV), if you get me...
 
Virtual Cafe Awards
<3 [click on user to get to the originl post] "the underground is a lie"
This impressive hate-fueled rant was written originally in 1992 by Jim Goad for the Answer Me! magazine. But it could pretty much be written today.

View attachment 13238

-THE UNDERGROUND IS A LIE-


You don't shock me. 1 shudder with boredom at everything you do, from tattooing your dick to chewing on your own poop. Not only have I seen all of your weak gestures before, I've seen them done better.

You remind me of someone I knew in college. His name was Mark. Pale, unshaven, and wearing his dishwater-colored hair in a Mohawk, Mark was an anarchist. He railed against the corporate elite and cheered for the collective. Projecting himself as his own mascot, he defaced hundreds of buildings with a goofy cartoon drawing of a Mohawk-wearing anarchist. The back of his leather jacket had an anarchy 'A' crudely daubed in white paint. Mark could be seen around town clustered with similarly disaffected youth, drinking out of paper bags, committing petty acts of vandalism, and plotting America's overthrow.

Unfortunately, Mark's parents were publishing magnates who had tucked away forty thousand dollars in stock for their baby anarchist. I once watched Mark transform into a sobbing bitch when he lost a bootleg cassette of his favorite hardcore band. Despite his lowlife appearance, he was a rich boy with the time and money to act poor. So were all of his friends. So are all of the people who consider themselves "alternative." Mark-you remind me of him.

Like Mark, your underground is strictly an upper-class phenom. You're a body-pierced, hair-dyeing, chain-smoking, whip-carrying FAKE, a little bitchy snitch who hasn't been hit enough. Your black eyeliner, rubber pants, and asymmetrical hairdo are a post-pubescent way of playing costume. You can't handle the guilt of your comfortable background, so you commit the heinous crime of slumming. No one worships trash in the slums, where they have to eat and breathe it daily. In poor neighborhoods, weirdness invites violence. Yet a blue-blooded nabob like you acts triflingly eccentric and considers it radical.

The "creative community" doesn't consist of the most creative people; you're the ones with the most spare time to create, those whose parents tolerate-and often finance-your flighty pursuits. What usually passes for art is just the idle noodling of the leisure class.

Your gizzard ululates with, "You sellout!" Well, the wealthy are the only ones who can afford NOT to sell out. Yes, there are a holy few who have refused cash when it's been dangled in front of them-they're called 'masochists.' If you're still reading this, you're a masochist, too. By the time I'm done with you, you'll reconsider your opposition to law enforcement.

In your typically egocentric way, you pretend you're the vanguard, freeing the oppressed from the shackles of ignorance. You conduct a sorry crusade to recast the world in your image. You're dumb enough to think you'll make a difference. You feel that if everyone was like you, society would be wonderful. Yet you walk away scratching your head when the truly oppressed don't want anything to do with you. You've never fought for anything but the right to be infantile.

If patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, political rhetoric is a cubbyhole for dullards. The political is merely the personal in a cheap, quivering act of sublimation. You oppose power, which is like protesting the sun-scream all you want, but it'll still scorch you. As you cry about global warming, global corporations, and global revolution, I stare into the vacant globes of your eyes. The only anarchy going on is the mutinous misfiring of your brain cells. The 'A' stands for "asshole."

You whine about your "sexuality," how your body is a political combat zone. You're a simple rodent with boring bodily functions which you seek to ennoble. With your flagrant vanity and dishonesty in personal interactions, you reveal yourself to be equally as rotten as the leaders you despise. You invariably wind up imitating the oppressor. Unfortunately, you weren't oppressed to begin with.

For not only are you a liar, you're a hypocrite. You're fascinated by violence until you're confronted with it. You romanticize trauma but have never been traumatized. You demand grant money from a government you seek to destroy. You idolize primitive cultures but would slash your wrists if your CD player broke. You condemn religion but consider yourself enlightened. You're as self-righteous as the moralists upon which you spit. You hate hatred, won't tolerate intolerance, and conspire with others against conformity.

All your cohorts are hypocrites, too. Feminists don't degrade, objectify, and stereotype men? Socialists aren't elitists? Environmentalists don't drive cars? A pox upon all your houses. I'd wish for a rat to bite your ass and give you the Black Plague, but you'd probably consider it a fashion statement.

While you slurp the dick of political correctness, your amber asshole is being torn asunder by aesthetic correctness. You flush your self-respect down the toilet while scrambling to obey the edicts of boho taste. You're frightened senseless that others will think you're uncool. You'd rather swallow whale sperm than admit you like disco, Chicken McNuggets, or Love Connection. You're frozen with fear that someone will realize what little you have to say. You squirm in the face of your own dullness. You are a prisoner of the underground, a hostage of your own creative retardation. Ideas emerge from your head stillborn.

Your rebelliousness is laid out for you like the portions of a TV dinner. You ape the powers that be with every clove-scented breath you take. You are nothing more than socioeconomic ectoplasm, a target market, a file folder at Central Casting. You exist as a parasite, because without an Establishment for you to oppose, you'd shrivel into cellular waste. Try as you may to avoid being absorbed by the mainstream, you remain trapped under its microscope, an amoeba with a nose ring.

This isn't an apologia for the mainstream, not by any stretch. Those who seek to defend it might as well believe in the Easter Bunny, too. The mainstream's models of reality are chunky and obsolete, just like yours. To attack it is too easy, like stealing crutches from a cripple. I'll leave those tactics to cowards such as you.

True psychos stand alone. The only pioneers are those who give voice to the ugliest corridors of their unconscious without fear of censure from any quarter. The acts that ordinary people commit behind closed doors are beyond the ken of any performance artist. Humans' innate weirdness is far more threatening and entertaining than anything the professional shock mavens could conjure.

I boggle your conception of a world split between cognoscenti and squares. I subvert the subversives and bury the underground under six feet of its own hypocritical manure. I perform unsolicited tattooing, body-piercing, and ritual scarification upon you.

Give vent to your sickest fantasies, but don't call it art. Cornhole Barbara Bush, but only if you want to. Sketch your astrological chart with your own feces, but only if it feels good. If you want to do something truly radical, kill yourself. We'll have one less reader, but the world will be a better place.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This is the most Gen-X thing I've read in quite a while. Reminds of an edgier David Foster Wallace - my god think how much better the world would be if we still had him. Rereading Infinite Jest a year or two ago, all I could think was "what he think of the actual modern times."
Click to expand...


plus i bumped into
, mild-rel https://forum.agoraroad.com/index.p...tate-of-capitalism-is-ruining-everything.5117
sorry, again https://forum.agoraroad.com/index.p...lines-and-ego-traps-of-gen-echo-chambers.6203
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

LSTR-S27916

Rogue Replika
Joined
Dec 16, 2023
Messages
70
Reaction score
153
Awards
30
I've been trying to find a microcosm about some of my personal issues with left wing movements and why I choose to not associate with them. Recently I found an hour long video from a historian who goes by 'veritas et caritas' about The Woman King that after watching I realized it was the microcosm I was looking for. Please watch the video first because it's a great and informative video and it gives some context to what I'm going to talk about. veritas et caritas' thorough debunking highlights an issue I've noticed with several left wing associated movements. A disturbingly large amount of people who associates themselves with these movements are willing to make and or promote historical revisions for a variety of reasons.



The video goes into extensive detail about the movie The Woman King and how the director and crew behind it deliberately make various historical revisions about the history they were telling. Mainly that they rewrote the history of Dahomey's involvement in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade to water down that they were a major seller of slaves, and depicting European powers as a negative influence that wanted more slave despite at the time of the film's setting most European powers were working on abolishing the slave trade. veritas et caritas already talked about why from a historical and academic view the film is problematic. I want to focus on how the film is a microcosm of how some make and or promote historical revisionism, such as the film's director Gina Prince-Bythewood why she and others should not be doing this.

If you wanna try and be progressive, that's good for you, but you should at least have a basic understanding what you're talking about and why it's the best option. If you intend on making a progressive message known to the general public through something like a movie, you have to know what you're preaching and be able to back it up with reliable sources when questioned. Failure to do so can result in disastrous outcomes that I'll mention later on. The Woman King's message that it's trying to send as far as I can tell is one of female empowerment and fighting against oppressing. The messages would be great ones, if it wasn't for some issues that veritas et caritas pointed out. While the female warriors were a thing, the fighting against oppressing wasn't as they frequently participated in slave raids which would make them the oppressors. I should note the video has a whole section of the video dedicated to pointing that out. The film also pushed the idea that Pan-Africanism was a thing at the time and that king Ghezo, who ruled Dahomey at the time, was against slavery. veritas et caritas showed that neither of these were true but were still depicted in a film that was advertised as being "historical". In The Los Angeles Times article cited in the video, Prince-Bythewood said:
When we started doing the deep dive into the research, we realized the history of these women and Dahomey was being written from the oppressor's point of view
Source: https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...-story-explained-revisionist-history-debunked
veritas et caritas brought this up somewhat. There are sources about these women that originate from Africa, but somehow these didn't get noticed. Some of the sources made by the "oppressors" were better and more accurate than what's in the film. Any meaningful messages the film could of had is thrown out the window because of these historical revisions.

I don't know Prince-Bythewood's exact reasons for the choices she made with The Woman King, but going through that Los Angeles Times article and a few other cited interviews from the video the Polygon interview with Prince-Bythewood stood out to me. At the end of this interview these lines stood out to me:
You've evolved into a bit of a journeyman director who can't be defined by one type of movie, which is less and less common today. So this question is even more exciting: What's next for you? Where do you see the next challenge?


It's been four years nonstop, because The Old Guard went right into The Woman King. But I have two projects, and I have to decide between the two. There's one really big one that's set up... I'll just say it's in space.


We love space.


My goal is to put us in every genre. Disrupt genre. It's an incredible story based on an incredible short story. And then the other is, after these two big movies, I've been wanting to write a story that's been in my head for four years now, a more personal story going back to where it started.
Source: https://www.polygon.com/23355931/the-woman-king-true-story-gina-prince-bythewood-interview Note: Bold text is from the interviewer, the rest is Prince-Bythewood's answers.
To me this reads as someone who wanted to make a statement. It's her right to do so, but how she made that statement is problematic.There are several reasons she and others shouldn't be doing this:

  1. Telling a psudeohistory of a people is disrespectful in general, and makes people question how much you really care about the people and story you're wanting to tell.
  2. In general giving people a psudeohistory makes what you're trying to say look more like propaganda.
  3. Doing something like this effects not just your own reputation, but the reputation of others who associate with you in one form or another.
  4. You're giving your enemies ammunition they can use against you. It's even worse in cases like this where academia can prove that story you told is false, because now you've made your enemy's case against you stronger and removes any good leg you could of have to stand on to defend it.
This isn't the only time I've seen left wing people and groups doing something like this. Another piece of pseudohistory I sometimes see spread was the idea that slavery was America's original sin aka The American Revolutionary War was for slavery. The Cynical Historian talked about that myth, and several others about America's founding in this video.
 
Last edited:
Virtual Cafe Awards
i got similar comment in profile but "the wipe" deleted it i think
In true Pygmalion fashion, the oligarchy was able to "scientifically justify" their misanthropic view of global governance by first breaking humanity's kneecaps and then arguing that we were never meant to run.



hates too, when people like RTD try to push things - while i "can" understand he means it good (or, i hope),

reactionaries like him make LGBT+ movement portrayed as bunch of "little nazis", not so disimilar to those on opposite side (horse-shoe theory) - "do [x] - or!" (punishment)

3rd-way femminists and others too...



also, nothing verifiable, but interesting still - https://canadianpatriot.org/2022/11...d-the-rise-of-the-predictive-modelling-mafia/, mainly:

[...]

The Club of Rome and World Problematique
The age of "predictive doomsday models" was given its most powerful appearance of "scientific respectability" through the efforts of an innocuous sounding organization called The Club of Rome.



Historian F. William Engdahl wrote of the Club's origins:



"In 1968 David Rockefeller founded a neo-Malthusian think tank, The Club of Rome, along with Aurelio Pecceiand Alexander King. Aurelio Peccei, was a senior manager of the Fiat car company, owned by the powerful Italian Agnelli family. Fiat's Gianni Agnelli was an intimate friend of David Rockefeller and a member of the International Advisory Committee of Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank. Agnelli and David Rockefeller had been close friends since 1957. Agnelli became a founding member of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission in 1973. Alexander King, head of the OECD Science Program was also a consultant to NATO."



The think tank was founded by two self-professed Malthusians named Aurelio Peccei and OECD Director General for Scientific Affairs Sir Alexander King who promulgated a new gospel to the world: The age of scientific progress and industrial growth must stop in order for the world to reset its values under a new paradigm of zero-technological growth.



Both Peccei and King were also advocates of a new pseudoscience dubbed "World Problematique," which was developed in the early 1960s and can simply described as "the science of global problems." Unlike other branches of science, solving problems facing humanity was not the concern for followers of Problematique. Its adherents asserted that the future could be known by first analyzing the infinite array of "problems" which humanity creates in modifying the environment.



To illustrate an example: Thinking people desire to mitigate flood damage in a given area, so they build a dam. But then damage is done to the biodiversity of that region. Problem.



Another example: Thinking people wish to have better forms of energy and discover the structure of the atom, leading to nuclear power. Then, new problems arise like atomic bombs and nuclear waste. Problem.



A final example: A cure for malaria is discovered for a poor nation. Mortality rates drop but now population levels rise, putting stress on the environment.



This list can go on literally forever.

[...] (+ unproven scary boogeymen theories)



&

The Chaining of Prometheus
A long time, London-trained asset and close collaborator of Canada's Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was Maurice Lamontagne, a Club of Rome member and former President of Canada's Privy Council from 1964-65.



Of all of the Club of Rome's members, Lamontagne was the most candid in identifying the Earth's greatest enemy to be human creativity itself. Writing in his Senate Committee Reports of 1968-1972 which reformed science policy funding and planning, Lamontagne wrote:



"Nature imposes definite constraints on technology itself and if man persists in ignoring them the net effect of his action in the long run can be to reduce rather than to increase nature's potential as a provider of resources and habitable space... But then, an obvious question arises: How can we stop man's creativeness?"



Correctly recognizing that the yearning to discover the unknown is built into the human condition, Lamontagne answers his own question, writing:



"How can we proclaim a moratorium on technology? It is impossible to destroy existing knowledge; impossible to paralyze man's inborn desire to learn, to invent and to innovate... In the final analysis we find that technology is merely a tool created by man in pursuit of his infinite aspirations and is not the significant element invading the natural environment. It is material growth itself that is the source of conflict between man and nature."

(doubts)




Thus, creativity and its fruits of technological progress are acceptable only IF they reduce the assumed conflict between man and nature posited by Lamontagne. "Bad" technology in Lamontagne's formulation, has the effect of increasing humanity's material growth (i.e.: powers of productivity). If, on the other hand, we promote technologies of a low energy flux density form, such as windmills, solar panels and biofuels, which reduce the energy available and thus the amount of economic activity in which man can engage, then technology can be defined as a "good" thing" according to this twisted logic.



This concept was echoed by another Club of Rome member and collaborator with Lamontagne on his Senate Report named Omond Solandt. Solandt made his career as the science advisor to Lord Louis Mountbatten (Prince Philip's pedophile mentor) during WWII and headed Canada's Defense Research Board until 1957, where he collaborated on MK Ultra alongside the infamous Ewan Cameron at McGill University. Testifying to the Lamontagne Senate Commission in 1970 Solandt said: "There is no longer any need to advance science. The need is rather to understand, guide and use science effectively for the welfare of mankind."

(meh)




What defines "the welfare of mankind" in the mind of an MK Ultra proponent should give one chills.



In preparation for the "post-industrial order" that was unleashed with the 1971 floating of the US dollar and the destruction of the Bretton Woods monetary system, Lamontagne prescribed that the "new wisdom" should no longer aim at discoveries in atomic, medical and space sciences, in order to focus on more "practical" engineering endeavors. He also proposed that funding to advanced science be diminished by widening the definition of "science" itself to embrace the humanities, monetary economics and social sciences. Those programs then began absorbing the funding that had formerly been directed to research on pure science. Lamontagne stated this in volume one of his report:



"The new wisdom prescribes that the additional R&D effort be devoted to the life sciences and social sciences rather than the physical sciences... to economic and social objectives rather than curiosity and discovery."


[boogeymen statements] and clasique -
In true Pygmalion fashion, the oligarchy was able to "scientifically justify" their misanthropic view of global governance by first breaking humanity's kneecaps and then arguing that we were never meant to run.
]


lol, this Club of Rome... (i dont care, if we were rich now, nothing gonna stop us!)
"Economics is the science of choice in a world of limited resources.... We have gone around the world spreading the 'gospel of plenty' raising the level of expectations ... [but] in the nature of things, these rising expectations can never be satisfied.... We must in our strategic policy return to the days before the Industrial Revolution ... [and] prepare to fight limited wars."
 
Virtual Cafe Awards
#2
In this new system, being a good citizen meant only being a good consumer where the worship of short-term gains blinded corrupt fools to the reality that a hive of oligarchs were taking control of mainstream media, science, academia, corporate governance and the civil service of governments across the Trans Atlantic. Under this post 1971 paradigm, concepts like "growth" were increasingly defined by purely quantitative-monetaristic parameters and premised upon increased rates of debt and speculative activities.

...

As it turns out, when compared to the real data, not only does one quickly find that the post 1977 warming trend ended in 1999, but the actual temperature falls well below all computer projections produced by the IPCC (which is to environmental policy what the WHO is to health policy).
- idk but if, then yuck
PLUS, shabby


(all texts are findable by CTrl+F)

src: https://canadianpatriot.org/2022/11...d-the-rise-of-the-predictive-modelling-mafia/
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

InternetGeist

Industrial Revolution Enjoyer
Joined
Jul 1, 2023
Messages
50
Reaction score
192
Awards
25
Modern SJWs have definitely popularized the victimization mindset through adopting the ideas of cultural hegemony and intermingling power structure. Social justice can be appealing to young people because it gives people an easy target (the damn system, institution, society, or whatever abstract constructions with a long history of dominion by those who are considered "culturally superior") to blame, glorifies the individual by marketing expression of personal identity (whatever the /pol/tards are trolling daily) as a war against systematic oppression, and fulfills the need to be a hero against the evils by accepting the SJW worldview of the continuous and omnipresent struggle between oppressors and victims.

Meanwhile we lack a functioning mainstream right that appeals to the young generation. You either get the MAGA boomers, the edgy pepe avatar netizens, or the social conservatives who kind of...just keep to themselves and devote to the local community. The rising problem of polarization and the rhetoric of neutrality as siding with the enemy also forced the centrists to go extinct. SJWs are basically ruling the mainstream media nowadays.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards
Virtual Cafe Awards

InternetGeist

Industrial Revolution Enjoyer
Joined
Jul 1, 2023
Messages
50
Reaction score
192
Awards
25
how did that happen?
It is just a phenomenon I have observed. To some of the progressives, remaining silent and not actively expressing opinions on social issues indicates approval of the norms. One has to constantly fight against the system by advocating social justice and refusal of participating is just contributing to the growing power of the dominant social group.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards
One has to constantly fight against the system by advocating social justice and refusal of participating is just contributing to the growing power of the dominant social group.
dont those two things cancel out, or you forgot comma somewhere?
i see two movements there

- eternal revolution SJW "socialists"
and
- naysayer normies who dont care unless shit hits the fan, accepting things they can and rising up only when it is discomfort, or when they are counted into someone they hate (could be nazis, could be SJWs as well) - there are as many movements as there are sides accepting to fight for themselves, and yet to not lose face - you know, when that happens; - that leftists unwillingly "support" each other, even when they hate each other (see whole stalinism leninism, "green", "yellow" fights...)
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

InternetGeist

Industrial Revolution Enjoyer
Joined
Jul 1, 2023
Messages
50
Reaction score
192
Awards
25
dont those two things cancel out, or you forgot comma somewhere?
i see two movements there

- eternal revolution SJW "socialists"
and
- naysayer normies who dont care unless shit hits the fan, accepting things they can and rising up only when it is discomfort, or when they are counted into someone they hate (could be nazis, could be SJWs as well) - there are as many movements as there are sides accepting to fight for themselves, and yet to not lose face - you know, when that happens; - that leftists unwillingly "support" each other, even when they hate each other (see whole stalinism leninism, "green", "yellow" fights...)
*refusal to participate in the fight
yeah forgive my ESL brain

The normies are gonna have a hard time after the SJWs are now pushing the view that people should feel discomfort all the time to realize their privilege. The only way towards truth is eternal revolution. You will preach with them or you will be overthrown.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards
Virtual Cafe Awards

Alixie

The Tourist
Joined
Oct 14, 2023
Messages
169
Reaction score
1,269
Awards
96
Website
alixx.ichi.city
Virtual Cafe Awards