[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

brah, kant may have written sitting down but he took the same walk at the same time in the same place every single day of his life.

i know this. i was just exemplifying. let me be less subtle then and address you: if you look at the world only from your own bedroom terminal you're going to miss a lot of nuance. sense-data and face-to-face human interaction cannot be replaced by theory written by a handful of male, white, european tenured professors and the hand-picked minority colleagues they endorse.

Originally Posted by dead_battery

brahbrah, haven't you read baudrillards take on native american reservations in simulation and simulacra?


read page 7, Rameses, or the rosy coloured resurrection. it makes it look like your protectionism of cultural diversity may in fact just be a more potent form of destruction.

like this, for example. i haven't read that, not yet anyway, but reservations have a long and complex chapter in the history of native extermination and apartheid by anglo invaders (the iberian invaders interfucked and created complex caste systems instead). and yes these places are potent forms of destruction but that doesn't mean they can't be appropriated by their occupants in different ways-- and i'm writing you from an actual native american reservation right now. but you can't summarize all this in one line though. come over and smell it for yourself.

but regardless, reservations were not created by self-determination, they were imposed by a foreign/ central (federal) government upon the people they intended to control. even today, indian reservations are under the supervision of the federal government, and the struggle for self-determination is ongoing.

Originally Posted by dead_battery

also bizarre that you would equate one world government with loss of cultural diversity, because if anything a one world government would be more interested in preserving specific cultural heritages in order to prove its inclusiveness.

a single government wouldn't necessarily have to prove anything to anyone because they could theoretically afford to do their bidding unchallenged. again, we go back to the problem of remote control vs. local decision making-- just like free markets aren't perfect but are more efficient than planned economies, free societies tend to thrive vs. those ordained by supreme soviets & the u.s. department of the interior and the like.

now, i wouldn't be opposed to some sort of federated pact of non-aggression based around something like the universal declarationof human rights, but coming from a long line of nomadic peoples i'll always want a place to run away from my problems (some fights aren't worth fighting as you know). the perpetuation of social and cultural diversity ensures that one can always "get the fuck out of the country".

Originally Posted by dead_battery

and a sub saharan farmer is gonna sell whatever crops he can sell, which means his decision will be based on what will be consumed by people in other countries. that isn't tyranny, thats an integrated global system were he has the option to sell abroad thanks to transport technology. aint nothing wrong with that.

that's not what i'm saying. i created a hypothetical example of central planning ("we'll need 100,000 new pairs of shoes next year").

Originally Posted by dead_battery

and ameribrah, please will you and all the other ameribros stop flattering yourselves that you're in any position to form a one world government. please. this isn't 1998. ni hao motherfucker. stop shooting pistols in the air and dancing on the spot for a second, then you might hear the sound of a hundred doors closing and foreign diplomats whispering 'yes... china... new reserve currency... yes... i agree... the dollars day is over... yes..."

im not saying the u.s. will create a world government, but i am fucking terrified of china creating one precisely because of their centralized, top-down, authoritarian approach to government. however, china isn't quite a superpower just yet. they have a lot of challenges ahead.

Originally Posted by dead_battery

can also confirm that, in fact, the rest of the world FUCKING APED america due to its own wish to be like it. the height of this was the 90's when everyone was baffled that your free market fundamentalism seemed to be working so well and we all started making malls and copying your mannerisms cos it seemed like you had the secret. it wasn't cultural imperialism (except for the countries you invaded/staged coups in to steal resources from) it was a enthusiastic imitation. we sold our centuries of proud heritage for a greasy big mac, and it was so worth it, as we die in the gutter from diabesity we raise our pudgy fists in the air and gurgle 'FREEDUMB!'. our sagging, cholesterol clogged eyelids close for the last time a bald eagle flies past, waiting to consume our rancid flesh as our heart beats its last beat and we take our final breath.

yeah that was a sad spectacle, ha ha ha.

anyway, the imitation of 'merica isn't america itself though. again, you don't get everything from books/tv/the internet. and i know i sound tiresome with this but for someone so preoccupied with ameribrahland you should come and visit, see for yourself, meet different kinds of people (a la borat), and you'll realize that while there is a large and obnoxious mainstream of american culture (ever watched the "today" show for breakfast? vomit...) there are also a myriad subcultures and a large underground at work, and part of the reason they exist is because the federal vs. state vs. local power struggles that remain at the core of american politics allow them to exist (there are a lot of "in-between" spaces to inhabit). this is a lot more complex in real experience than what reductionist approaches will show you through your bedroom window though, dr. faust.