We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Samizdata quote of the day – Ouch!

Disney used to touch our hearts, now they touch us inappropriately

– “Just a turtle

8 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – Ouch!

  • Paul Marks

    Disney is a vast Corporation and BlackRock (an organisation that controls some ten TRILLION Dollars worth of investments), Vanguard and State Street (the magic three of what passes for “capitalism” in the United States – and is not capitalism in any sense that the free market economists accepted) stand behind it – and the Federal Reserve (with its endless Credit Money) stands behind BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street (as well as the vast Credit Bubble banks and other Corporate entities) – so Disney should be secure, but the deep hatred (yes hatred) that the Disney Corporation has for ordinary people, and its fanatical devotion to “Critical Theory” Marxist “Diversity” and “Third Wave Feminism” is taking a toll on the company.

    Dare we hope that the “House of Mouse” will fall? That would be a good omen for the struggle against the other “Woke” Corporations of the international Corporate State.

  • Kirk

    The problem here is that the basic alignment of the people running these entities does not run anywhere close to the average American’s alignment and cultural values. They’re truly alien to Joe Average, and have no idea at all how they live.

    You can see similar alignment failures with the French aristocracy before the French Revolution, and between the British government before the American Revolution. The people in charge simply did not know or understand the people they were governing.

    This current situation will end similarly, if they don’t wise up.

    It’s an outgrowth of the whole Gramscian takeover effort: The Gramscians imagined that by taking over and reworking the institutions of a society that they would be able to fundamentally change that society. What they missed was that the reworking has to be in alignment with reality and the basic nature of that society. You don’t have that, here in the US: They’re all entirely unaware, these masters of the world, that their values and their goals don’t happen to match the values and goals of the people they’re seeking to govern.

    This won’t end well.

    The thing that Gramsci apparently missed is that while you can take over an institution, if it doesn’t actually work afterwards, then that institution will be utterly irrelevant, and your capture of it is meaningless because irrelevancies are ignored. See “US Media” for examples. Wherein you once had Walter Cronkite seen as a god-like purveyor of “truth”, today nobody believes a damn thing the newsreaders say or opine. What good did it do to capture the media, again…? Long-term, that is.

  • Paul Marks

    Kirk – Gramsci was half correct and half wrong.

    I agree with Gramsci, and respectfully disagree with you Sir, about capturing the institutions and creating what he called “ideological hegemony” – I think that is an effective way of subverting civilisation, which Marxists call “capitalism” and pretend is something recent.

    However, Gramsci and all Marxists just ASSUME that Marxism will work – Dr Karl Marx himself actually forbad describing HOW his system would work as it was supposedly “unscientific” to explain anything, the new society would work wonderfully because…. well because it would.

    Socialism will not work – it always fails, whether it is the Pine Ridge Reservation (Democratic Socialism since 1934) or North Korea. For example, the buying and selling of land “as a commodity” is not, contrary to Wikipedia (which “anyone can edit” – as long as they are a leftist), some recent thing associated with the “rise of capitalism” – it was done in the Middle Ages, it was done in Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece, and on and on.

    It is amusing, in an incredibly dark way, that our opponents have murdered over 100 million people (and will murder many millions more people in the future) for a socialist system they will not even explain – a system that will work, because it is “historically inevitable” it will work, without any of these clever people saying how it will work, indeed forbidding discussion of the subject as “unscientific”.

  • Dr Karl Marx himself actually forbad describing HOW his system would work

    A rare example of a typo that is somehow more appropriate than the correct spelling.

  • Paul Marks

    Is there really no such word in English as “forbad” meaning “to forbid or has forbidden”?

    I apologise for my error.

  • David Bishop

    No need to apologise, Paul. But then I think you knew that.

    forbid: present participle forbidding | past tense forbade or old use forbad | past participle forbidden

    From the Cambridge Dictionary

  • Bloke in California

    @ Paul Marks

    It’s forbade with an e on the end.

  • Paul Marks

    Thank you David Bishop and Bloke in California.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>