Maybe (anonymously?) contact their union to warn about it?
woodenghost
The Germans teach about the genocide they committed, because they get a sick sense of moral superiority out of pretending to have denazified.
All the while it does nothing to prevent their complicity in the ongoing genocide in Palestine.
Got it, thanks.
Why did the rain impact the crossbows more? Was it because the longbowmen were better trained in rain or something?
Nice! I wish, I had had more. I'm basically self taught with podcasts and stuff.
Cool! I hope to befriend some crows someday.
Yes, I know, it's great! Just thought wikipedia might be enough in this case.
Yes I totally agree, it's almost opposite. That's partly why I said I don't agree with the content, just the sentiment. Even as I wrote it, I wondered if someone would pick up on it. I'll put more care into it before posting random associations next time ;)
Nietzsche might not have liked those chuds though.
The idea of making the position of landlord into a minor deity is much more similar to the divine right of kings, in that ownership of land is divinely ordained, or antebellum pro-slavery Christianity, being a slaver is a necessary and holy thing.
Well said!
That's cool, that he comes towards you. Does he already know you? Because last time I tried to feed unknown crows and they noticed me looking at them for two seconds, they got scared, even though I was like 10 meters away and other people had been passing closer than me. You could almost see a small exclamation mark above their head before they flew off. I still left some food and they came back to it, once I was further away.
By saying humility is voluntary, slave morality avoids admitting that their humility was in the beginning forced upon them by a master.
I don't agree with Nietzsche on morality, as it's not a materialist analysis, but still... Seeing people elevate bootlicking to a religion always makes one want to overturn all of ethics. (Not unique to these cases of course, christians did it on large scales.)
Maybe there will be some difference. Last administration he seemed to focus on representing a slightly different section of US capitalists then Obama/Biden (however with large overlap). Different parts of capital have different and partly conflicting interests, which might result in slightly different foreign policy.
Basically it's less about which person is in office and more about what this means for how power is distributed among capitalist factions. For example capitalists with a lot of profit depending on fixed capital inside the US might gain power, as well as the industrial military complex with profit coming from accumulation by dispossession, while highly mobile international capital might lose a bit. This is just an example. In this case it might lead to slightly less hot wars, while the war machine continues to grow. There are more factions like landlords and finance and resource extraction.
It's hard to tell now though, because these factions are probably now still fighting about power behind the scenes with very little transparency.
Also it depends not just on the interests of these factions, but also on what their respective strategies will be in dealing with the decline of the empire and inevitable crisis.
I'm happy to hear that! If you want to look into Federici, the book I mentioned is online here: archive.org
I'm not organized enough.
I'm technically in three local groups, but I don't have time to really contribute to even one of them as much as I'd like.