a random kc banner

/kc/ - Krautchan

Highest Serious Discussion Per Post on Endchan


New Thread
X
Max 20 files0 B total
[New Thread]

Page: Prev [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Next | View | Catalog | Banners | Logs


thumbnail of Palácio.jpeg
thumbnail of Palácio.jpeg
Palácio jpeg
(1.74 MB, 1654x1102)
thumbnail of congress.JPG
thumbnail of congress.JPG
congress JPG
(351.17 KB, 1200x800)
thumbnail of la legge e uguale per tutti.jpg
thumbnail of la legge e uguale per tutti.jpg
la legge e uguale per... jpg
(2.08 MB, 1995x1673)
The past years of witnessing an... "active" Supreme Court have gotten me pondering a lot about constitutions, powers and interpretation.

First question is: can a constitutional court be wrong about the Constitution? Does it have an absolute final say on the meaning of its words?
The obvious common sense answers are no and yes. Only the court's opinion has authority. A layman's opinion is just his opinion, and even a learned scholar's opinion is just an opinion. Even the lowliest judge has more authority than the highest scholar, and the only limit on his interpretation is an overruling by a higher authority (an appelate court). The Supreme Court has no higher authority.
This is obviously necessary because laymen and especially civil servants need legal stability and predictability. There are thousands of civil servants and they must all apply the law equally. If each of them has his own take on what is legal and what is not, the State collapses into anarchy. Hence they must all follow a single entity's interpretation. And there's also a citizen's gneeral duty to obey authority and channel his disagreement into legal methods to question and overturn authority.

But what if the Court says something outrageous? What if it rules the Earth is flat according to the Constitution? What if it revises the law on impeachment of Supreme Court justices to make them harder to impeach? (This one actually happened.)
Cheapest answer is that they wouldn't do it because the text's inherent meaning constrains their rulings. But this is just a speedbump. Philosophers demonstrate there's no such thing as an "un-interpreted" meaning of a text. With enough sophistry, any text can be made to mean anything. And the legal profession selects for the most devious sophists.

One can reply that only a limited set of interpretations can be reasonable, interpretation is never completely free. This is true. But who gets to say what is and is not reasonable? Only the Court has authority. If everyone finds their rulings unreasonable, that's just everyone's opinion.
A practical answer is that the Legislative and Executive will use their legal methods to restrain, impeach or change the composition of the Court. All of this still presumes that their flat-eartherist interpretation of the Constitution is right until overturned; their authority is still sacred.
And if it is sacred, what are you supposed to do if all such reactive measures by Congress or the President are ruled unconstitucional? What if the President names a new justice and the sitting justices nullify the appointment because the Constitution says justices must be qualified and they find him unqualified? What if Congress impeaches a justice and the Court strikes down the impeachment because the Constitution dictates a neverending march to  utopia and Congress was merely disagreeing with the justice's utopian ideals?

Now those are silly made up examples, but if the Court's word is unquestionable, there's nothing you can do. The Constitution is whatever the Court says it is. And since everything from the tiniest private contract or local ordinance derives its legitimacy from the constitution, the Court has the unlimited power to bestow and withdraw legitimacy as it sees fit.
This is obviously false if you understand separation of powers and checks and balances. The courts ought to have their power checked by the Executive, Legislative and the original Constituent Power, which is above all three.
But what does it mean to check a power's decision? It is overriding it because it's illegal i.e. it is found to be incompatible when compared to the law. Those are two objects for comparison. The latter (the law) is not an independent standard but it is whatever the courts say it is. If the courts determine the two objects of comparison, they determine the result and there is no way to check them. What does it even mean to say the courts derive their power from the Constitution when they define what the Constitution is?
thumbnail of Napoleonic code.jpg
thumbnail of Napoleonic code.jpg
Napoleonic code jpg
(45.15 KB, 559x482)
After all this back-and-forth, nobody disputes the ultimate practical limit to judicial overreach is noncompliance by the other powers, the civil service and even the population. It is sometimes legitimate to refuse to comply to the courts, as is the case for any other part of the State.
But there are different ways to model this in legal theory. The conventional answer would have it that the noncomplied ruling was legal until the very moment the court rolls back its decision. Legality comes from authority, any other interpretation of a law is just an opinion.
Lawyers have their reasons for believing this but there's a radically different proposal if you think of laws in their political context.

Here's a thesis: the point of laws is to call out authorities for not following them. Lawyers will say power comes from laws, but experience shows power has an independent existence and laws as civil law societies understand them didn't really exist in the Ancién Régime. French revolutionaries were the ones who came up with the idea of forcing judges to abide by a single, coherent code, applied equally to all citizens. Judges always had authority. What the law does is force them to justify their rulings to society by demonstrating they comply with a previous written commitment by the State. And if the audience is society, then it is society that interprets what the law means and whether the State is abiding to it. The law is a citizen's shield against the State.
Which answers my first questions: yes, a constitutional court can be wrong about the constitution.



thumbnail of what-do-eu-right-win-parties-want-2019.jpg
thumbnail of what-do-eu-right-win-parties-want-2019.jpg
what-do-eu-right-w... jpg
(299.58 KB, 1200x1358)
thumbnail of UvdL.jpg
thumbnail of UvdL.jpg
UvdL jpg
(147.74 KB, 1167x777)
Previous thread:  >>/36217/

Found fun informational. It's dated, I think from 2019 but things seems to be the same. Not sure about that Paris Climate Agreement tho.

As in last post in prev thread stated today EU Parliament voted back Ursula von der Leyen as the president of the EU Commission (EU govt. basically).
719 deputy
707 votes
401 yes
284 no
15 abstained
7 invalid votes
She's so dumb, and the dumbest statements she makes. She's also a bit dated, she was first elected in 2019. But it shows how strong the leftlib is, they stay in power as expected, despite all the bleeting in the leftlib press about far-right danger.
304 replies omitted. Click to expand viewer
 >>/55607/
BolsoJr. outperformed the polls, widened his power in Congress and can expect to absorb most of the 7+% of the vote given to minor center-right or right-wing candidates. I'd say he has at least 60% odds.

The lineup is an ironic reversal of 2018, when a jailed Lula had to run a placeholder candidate. Flávio would be a nobody if not for his surname.

Whoever wins gets an institutional crisis at the Supreme Court and a fiscal collapse on his lap. In theory this would make for a strong leftist comeback in 2030, but by then Lula will be 84 years old and he has no successor.
Flávio is implicated on this year's corruption scandal, but so are multiple Supreme Court justices. Lula has chained himself to his allies in the Court and this evens out vote losses, even though he's nowhere as directly involved as Flávio.

The scandal itself is hilarious, a rogue banker and serial womanizer bribing and partying his way into friendship with scores of men of power, then suddenly falling from grace. His digital communications, even with his lovers, have been made public.
His friends include the Prosecutor-General and multiple Supreme Court justices. Two of them, hardliner Alexandre de Moraes and Bolsonaro-picked André Mendonça, have accused each other of crimes. Procedural rules no longer exist, justices are now overruling each others' decisions and any political party can pick their favorite justice to decide anything they want by filing a motion in an unrelated case. Judges are then very creative in pretending the motion is connected to the case. The Supreme Court has also found creative excuses to usurp the jurisdiction of local courts.

 >>/55608/
Thanks for the context.
I see parallel with the Hungarian situation. We also face economical setback the minimum with the realistic chance of a fiscal collapse - mainly due to the current energy crisis in Europe, with other local elements. The Fidesz couldn't have been able to handle it either, but this way they can preserve a modicum of appearance that they were the "last good year" before the shit hit the fan. The Tisza govt. propaganda will work hard to tell everyone the Fidesz is to blamed for all hardships, but if the govt. breaks, it won't matter much, only the Fidesz will remain and get in power next.
The age difference of the prominent figure might not be a key issue (Orbán is 63), for the Tisza govt amended the Constitution to prevent previous politicians (all well known names) from running for office. So while the Fidesz can rely on Orbán (he is the leader of the party) they have to rebuild their front row of cadres so they can provide a reliable candidate for the role of the Prime Minister too.
This will be the task of Brazilian left as well.


 >>/55633/
Apparently the Lula swing came from the first round abstentions. His party's second round campaign went all or nothing, posters warning Flávio would do austerity were plastered on every street. Instant win button.

There's still going to be austerity next year. Maybe half-hearted, as that's what everybody wants. Four more years of the same clique running the country since the turn of the millenium. Gerontocrats leaning into moral panic, managed decline, stagnant productivity, high interest rates, legally mandated spending nearing 100% of the budget, the poor living on handouts, herded into debt and promised more cheap credit so they can pay earlier debts, unproductive industries propped up forever, resentment-fueled politics. Consumption over production, rents over investment. Nobody wants a vision of national development, only short-term gain.

Not that Flávio would solve this but Lula ran on sacrificing more of the future to keep this zombie system on life support.

Any lasting solution would probably require freezing consumption, reining  in rentiers, letting incompetent magnates go bankrupt and sending a lot of the political class to the firing squad. But the electorate doesn't have the heart to move an inch on this direction.

 >>/55634/
> first round abstentions
Sounds kinda fishy.
But whatever.
I don't see any good future for Latin America.
We had the Soviet Union and things sucked. Latin America had the US and things sucked worse and still suck. The US is a bane of your region, she is your Soviet Union.
They make disadvantageous agreements for all these countries, and if they try to seek other ties, or protect their own assets then the US comes down with sanctions and chokes these countries by ordering their clients to strangle them too.
There is no real choice.



thumbnail of ZZC 0296.jpg
thumbnail of ZZC 0296.jpg
ZZC 0296 jpg
(763.21 KB, 1000x1414)







thumbnail of 2025-10-16-19-22-Syria.png
thumbnail of 2025-10-16-19-22-Syria.png
2025-10-16-19-22-Syria png
(604.73 KB, 1213x914)
thumbnail of 2025-10-16-19-22-Syria-news3.png
thumbnail of 2025-10-16-19-22-Syria-news3.png
2025-10-16... png
(386.24 KB, 381x1267)
thumbnail of al-Sharaa-and-Putin-20251015.mp4
thumbnail of al-Sharaa-and-Putin-20251015.mp4
al-Sharaa-and-Putin-2... mp4
(1.34 MB, 848x464 h264)
thumbnail of al-Sharaa-Trump-Macron-by-Clement-Molin.png
thumbnail of al-Sharaa-Trump-Macron-by-Clement-Molin.png
al-Sharaa-Trump-M... png
(526.73 KB, 715x829)
Previous:  >>/51681/

Around 2024 December 8 (I think the real date was the 7th) Assad was overthrown in Syria and left for Russia, went into exile with some of his family. Since then the Turkish backed and Turkish proxy Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) took over most of the country, led by Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa aka. Abu Mohammad al-Julani who risen through the ranks of al-Qaeda to found al-Nusra Front which he turned into the HTS, and now he is the President of Syria and changed his kaftan to a suit. And Syria turned from the enemy of the US into a client or a client of a client (Turkey's client).

Syria is weak and divided. Her leaders really has to bow to their masters, I don't think they like this, but they can't do anything else since Syria can't defend herself.
To the very north the other Turkish backed faction Syrian National Army (SNA) has a small enclave still I think. In the North East in the Kurdish populated areas the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) continue to rule, while Turkey has a buffer zone protruding into their territory. New formation emerged in the south where the Druze minority lives, I believe they are now essentially autonomous.
During the chaos of Assad's fall Israel invaded from the occupied Golan Heights and occupied more of Syria, calling it a security zone, similar to the Turkish one in the north.
I think the event that really showed Syria's vulnerability and that it is just a toy for all the stronger states around was the Israel-Iran war, when the IDF jets used Syrian airspace to refuel, blatantly disregarding any appearance of sovereignty.

But Syria left the isolation, the US stopped with the containment policy, sanctions were lifted. Now the leaders of Syria try to establish international relations. Just yesterday al-Sharaa met with Putin in Moscow. He also met Trump and Macron too not in Moscow - which our lad Clement Molin found distasteful, if the translation is correct. I also heard they established relations with India as well. So they are reaching out to everyone they can.
308 replies omitted. Click to expand viewer


There was an EU summit at the end of the week, Zelensky was there. Three points he presented:
- more patriots
- confiscate Russian frozen assets
- more money. Lots:
> the war will cost 155 billion euros ($174.5 billion) next year. And we need at least 70 billion euros ($78.8 billion) more from you
Not clear, on top of that 155 billion? So it's liek 225 now? That's a lot of golden toilet.
https://kyivindependent.com/zelenskys-ask-300-patriots-70-billion-euros-and-russian-assets/

One thing we have to note about the money issue.
The money largely don't go to Ukraine. They go into a fund. Then EU member states send equipment to Ukraine, and they are recompensated from this fund. This is how the EU helps out member states in this recession, economical decline, energy crisis. I assume they overcharge the fund without any hesitation too.
So Zelensky isn't requesting money, but they are used as a mouthpiece to justify the spending to these countries.

The EU accepted the 22nd "The Last Dagger Thrust Into the Bleeding Bear" sanction package against Russia.
https://eu-sanctions-compliance-helpdesk.europa.eu/eu-agrees-largest-ever-package-listings-targeting-almost-1600-individuals-and-entities_en
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-approves-biggest-russia-sanctions-package-since-invasion-began/




thumbnail of magyarszentkorona.jpg
thumbnail of magyarszentkorona.jpg
magyarszentkorona jpg
(189.65 KB, 1142x856)
thumbnail of estates_of_Saint_Stephen.jpg
thumbnail of estates_of_Saint_Stephen.jpg
estates_of_Saint_Step... jpg
(976.44 KB, 2334x1682)
thumbnail of King_saint_stephen_signature.png
thumbnail of King_saint_stephen_signature.png
King_saint_stephen_si... png
(22.56 KB, 519x382)
thumbnail of szentjobb.jpg
thumbnail of szentjobb.jpg
szentjobb jpg
(185.4 KB, 1050x853)
A year passed and again this day commemorates the foundation of Hungary, this is 1018th birthday. We celebrate this national holiday with listening to politicians mixing irrelevant daily politics into historical events in the morning and watching fireworks in the evening. Budapesterners can witness the procession of state founder Saint Stephen's Holy Dexter. Also all the local communities have their own little celebrations.
This is the third time I make this thread, and I won't post much, maybe I'll post something about what happened today - if anything interesting - later.
398 replies omitted. Click to expand viewer
thumbnail of 19561025-véres-zászlós-tüntetés.jpg
thumbnail of 19561025-véres-zászlós-tüntetés.jpg
19561025-véres-zász... jpg
(969.53 KB, 1600x1030)
National holiday, long weekend. Let's just avoid daily politics as usual.
Today's topic: Nagy Imre and his New Course program.

As I browsed what to write about I found a note on the English Wikipee page of Nagy Imre (iconic PM of the revolution) about a work of his: On Communism: In Defense of the New Course which is missing form the Hungarian page which is supposed to be a more detailed one. It isn't listed among his works either. Tried to search it, but I wasn't sure of the Hungarian title. I know the Hungarian term of the New Course but I got no results about the publication itself, everything was just detailing his work as the Prime Minister.
Surprisingly it's on Annas Archive (thanks for them running it and whoever who uploaded it), so I can tell it exists. It's 360 pages so I won't read it today. But I still can write about something related.

Here's 156 photos from the Revolution:
https://fortepan.hu/hu/photos/?q=1956%20okt%C3%B3ber

thumbnail of The-Face.jpg
thumbnail of The-Face.jpg
The-Face jpg
(1.1 MB, 1920x1002)
So in 1945 Hungary lost the war and we got into the Soviet influenced block, the country was occupied by the Red Army. There was no question that communists had to got roles in whatever government was formed, so in the interim government featured Nagy Imre as an agricultural minister. He gained popularity for they enacted land reform, provided land ownership for masses of peasants. Then in the first coalition government that formed after the first election, he got the role of the Minister of Interior - because who else could get the position that could help to recon with political opposition, but the commies.
Aaanyway. He served in various visible roles, as the communists took over the country, like the Chairman of the Parliament, or Vice Prime Minister. So when Rákosi Mátyás, the face of the Stalinist regime on the Hungary, was pressured out of the position of PM by the Kremlin in 1953 after Stalin's death, they picked Nagy for the role.
Those times it wasn't actually clear who will lead the Soviet Union, or what direction it will take, but one thing was sure that Rákosi and Co. had to practice "self-criticism" and step back, allowing more popular faces into power, who dialed down the terror (the tovarishes in Moscow actually found it problematic that they launched investigation against 1,5 million people on the Hungary with its 9,5 mil population). And Nagy was prepared to do that too. He put forward a program - in a radio speech - they called the New Course which changed some of the policies.

thumbnail of Nagy-Imre-rádió.jpg
thumbnail of Nagy-Imre-rádió.jpg
Nagy-Imre-rádió jpg
(492.67 KB, 1920x1371)
The New Course
This program addressed urgent problems that meant quite discomfort to the society as a whole.
They gave amnesty to political prisoners and abolished the Hungarian gulag, they stopped show trials, and largely halted the prosecution of those whom the Rákosi regime perceived as enemy. So basically everyone. They aimed to stop administrative abuse, the constant arrests, the listing of enemies. Nagy said they wanted to give greater role to the Parliament and the adherence to Constitutionalism.
But beyond the political measures that halted the terror and oppression they had to change the course of the mismanaged economy. As previously I stated (surely I did) in previous posts ITT, Hungary was largely a traditionally agricultural country where the agricultural based secondary industry could shine, but Rákosi govt. followed the Stalinist forced development of the heavy industry, they pursued The Country of Iron and Steel. So they stopped forcing heavy industry, cut military budget, and moved to producing consumer goods. With this they could lower prices and raise wages. They also stopped collectivization - which took private property, such as the land of the peasants they just got recently.

thumbnail of Hegedus-Andras.jpg
thumbnail of Hegedus-Andras.jpg
Hegedus-An... jpg
(11.66 KB, 279x424)
However this "thaw" was short lived. Khrushchev got into power and had to beat the Eastern Block into shape, they formed the Warsaw Pact in '55, which signaled a serious military opposition of the West. Not that Nagy's goverment headed there, but Moscow felt serious doubts towards them. One of the reason was that the Rákosi and Co - with their wounded ego - were whispering into their ears, trying to taint Nagy. And because they considered producing food as a dangerous imperialist deviation.
So in 1955 Nagy was called to Moscow and it was his turn to practice self-criticism. He refused. He tried to justify the New Course. He was 
replaced as PM by Hegedűs András, who was a faithful Rákosist, and previously directed the collectivization of the land and the misguided agriculture policy. His trustworthiness is demonstrated by the fact that he was called to Moscow as well, to promote him, and he was the PM who signed our accession into the Warsaw Pact. He remained the PM until the revolution removed him, and reinstated Nagy.

thumbnail of Nagy-ToC1.png
thumbnail of Nagy-ToC1.png
Nagy-ToC1 png
(224.33 KB, 703x699)
thumbnail of Nagy-ToC2.png
thumbnail of Nagy-ToC2.png
Nagy-ToC2 png
(184.55 KB, 706x592)
The dissertation of On Communism: In Defense of the New Course was written by Nagy originally in Hungarian in his forced "retirement" in 1955-56. He meant as a reply to public accusations, and explanation, justification of his New Course for fellow communists, his colleagues in the party and the bosses in the Kremlin to some extent too. This copy I found was published first in the UK in 1957, and this was printed in the US, but they state it was also distributed on the Hungary in Hungarian clandestinely.
I think I'll just present the table of contents here in picrels, to show the topics he wrote about. There are a couple that might worth a read, I'm specifically interested in the foreign relations, indebtedness to foreign countries, and the nationalism chapters. We'll see.



thumbnail of bassist.jpg
thumbnail of bassist.jpg
bassist jpg
(1.87 MB, 2400x1350)
thumbnail of 12 - Woke Up This Morning (Sopranos theme).mp3
thumbnail of 12 - Woke Up This Morning (Sopranos theme).mp3
12 - Woke... mp3
(4.77 MB, 0x0)
Previous  >>/39873/ hit 500

I'm fairly sure I posted Alabama 3 (A3 in the US) before. But here you go, The Telly Show Theme Song of all time.

I watched/listened this video:
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=8EnkhQeTgiY
https://youtube.com/watch?v=8EnkhQeTgiY
Some grille listenes the full Reign in Blood album, for the first time, in one sitting.
Sometimes I watch music reaction videos. As always most are trash (not thrash like this one), couple of good ones, I really enjoyed this I have to say.
She really has an upbeat attitude as if she wasn't listening to songs about death, murder, suffering, and torture. And the music wouldn't be like a barrel half full of nails shaken by an epileptic mong. I like the album, it's a classic
She's right, one can hear the punk influence in it.
At 00:28:20:
> DO YOU WANNA DIE????
< No, I don't!
Cutest moment. This is the correct way of listening Slayer.
66 replies omitted. Click to expand viewer



 >>/55536/
More songs

MF Doom - Vomitspit but with GIFs used in the entire video
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zjM_7pjTsEQ

Radiohead - Ok Computer
https://youtube.com/watch?v=TneMW2fd0dc

Death Grips - Up My Sleeves
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2kDinXI0bxM

Death Grips - Billy Not Really
https://youtube.com/watch?v=QWR0-s30WsY

Death Grips - Exmilitary [Full Mixtape] 
https://youtube.com/watch?v=iPtPo8Sa3NE




thumbnail of spidr.png
thumbnail of spidr.png
spidr png
(227.54 KB, 1065x560)







thumbnail of act-of-killing-the-2012-011-demo-torture.jpg
thumbnail of act-of-killing-the-2012-011-demo-torture.jpg
act-of-killing-the-20... jpg
(147.42 KB, 1000x563)
thumbnail of strange-young-woman-killing-her-teddy-bear-silhouette-one-caucasian-white-background-31121254.jpg
thumbnail of strange-young-woman-killing-her-teddy-bear-silhouette-one-caucasian-white-background-31121254.jpg
strange-young-woman-k... jpg
(162.69 KB, 1300x1019)
thumbnail of 800px-mary_read_killing_her_antagonist_cph.3a00980.jpg
thumbnail of 800px-mary_read_killing_her_antagonist_cph.3a00980.jpg
800px-mary_read_killi... jpg
(67.17 KB, 620x438)
thumbnail of vallen_making_a_killing.jpg
thumbnail of vallen_making_a_killing.jpg
vallen_making_a_killi... jpg
(182.35 KB, 1008x653)
I've  already mentioned the book titled On Killing - The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman (Lt. Col. of US Army). It gave some food for thought and I'm planning to write some of my speculation.

But what did the author write? Let's summarize.
He starts with the observation that most men has a natural resistance to kill (only 2% of men - those who have "predisposition toward aggressive psychopathic personality" - can go on killing without becoming a nervous wreck). This resistance is so high that even at times that our life is directly threatened (like others shoot at us) still difficult to overcome it. This resistance is the reason why infantry fire was so embarrassingly ineffective in the past 300 years - with the exception of machine guns - despite the fact that infantry weaponry (rifles) are reliable and accurate enough to cause massive losses among the enemy.
The author gives examples and sources, such as a Prussian experiment in the late 18th century, several reports and notices from several authors during 19-20th centuries (American, French, Israeli etc.), and an interesting work by a US Army historian who (and his coworkers) made mass interviews with fighting GIs during and after WWII. Also he cites his own conversation with veterans of WWII and Vietnam.
He gives new ideas on what's really happening on the battlefield. He compliments the widely known fight-or-flight model with two other options: in reality the soldiers can fight, posture, submit or flight. And most soldiers choose the second option.
Then he ponders on what enables killing (I'm gonna write more about this later) and how modern (post-WWII) armies achieve this. Then he compares these methods with the ways of contemporary mass media. His conlcusion is (after pointing out the exponential rise of violent crimes) that mass media has an undesirable effect on society.

What interesting for me is this resistance, and the enabling part. These things are actually give an entirely new way of looking warfare, and how and why battles were won.
For example the part officers (the demanding authority to kill) play in the enabling. When people (professional historians, history pros and other armchair generals) comparing the Hellenic phalanx with Roman manipulus and why the latter was more successful they compare everything but the officers. In the phalanx he's only one among those who stand in line and do the poking with pikes, but a Roman officer is one outside the formation and pressuring the soldiers to kill. It makes a huge difference if someone shouting in your ears "stab! stab! stab!" and generally pressuring you to kill. Especially if this one person is an exemplary one, a veteran whose skill in killing surpasses all the others in that particular unit. However noone talks about this because noone thinks about it.

I'll continue this sometimes, maybe only next weekend, we'll see. If you wish to read the book you can probably find it on libgen.
304 replies omitted. Click to expand viewer
 >>/50179/
I don't remember the full details of it, I just know it was banned for soldiers in either 1940 or 1941 by the army not the government I think.

However, it's a commercial product and as I said I think it was banned by the army, so civilians and the Luftwaffe(and maybe SS and Navy) might still have been able to get it.
I know that the allies gave pilots amphetamines to keep them awake, maybe something similar was continued in the Luftwaffe.

A Deutshe Welle article says it was made illegal in 1941. I can't find the page that I was thinking of that mentioned the German army banning it because of the effect it had on soldiers though.

Pretty much everything that comes up are news tabloids and pop-history such.



Listened this Tucker Carlson monologue:
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=WGGP&#95;ypeibM
https://youtube.com/watch?v=WGGP_ypeibM
The center of focus is the planned execution (by bullet) of the "Fort Hood shooter", specifically the plan of the DoW to livestream the act. (Msm says Trump cancelled it, so no public execution.)
I think it's worth a listen, he approaches the question and violence in general from a Christian perspective, I won't get into it deeper. But he talks about how watching violence, killings, desensitize people (same as porn just different area), which directly ties into this discussion here, and one of the points of LtCol. Grossman.
Grossman says that violence, specifically killing can be drilled into people. The revulsion and resistance can be broken down with conditioning and desensitization. All the violence we watch in movies, all the killings we do in video games normalizes violence and murder for us. And he says that the US doesn't have a gun problem, but a violence problem.



thumbnail of the-wages-of-destruction-adam-tooze-9780713995664.jpg
thumbnail of the-wages-of-destruction-adam-tooze-9780713995664.jpg
the-wages-o... jpg
(80.78 KB, 581x878)
thumbnail of Tooze, Adam - The Wages of Destruction The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy.pdf
thumbnail of Tooze, Adam - The Wages of Destruction The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy.pdf
Tooze,... pdf
(7.68 MB, 0x0)
As I promised I'll write about this book.
It's quite lengthy but you'll reach the end if you read at your own pace. Most of the book isn't dense for me, an economic layman, with the exception of the parts about trade, which left me confused. I'll write what I manage to understand.
The author wrote it to argue in historiographical debates and make some points, but I read it just to add to my historical knowledge.

I'll write in sections, at most one a day so Bernd doesn't get overwhelmed, and will try to make the sections more thematic rather than just a sythesis of each chapter, as Hitler himself suggests in Mein Kampf for how one should mentally organize knowledge. I want to write about:

-Trade and controls of foreign currency and raw materials
-Budgets and revenue
-Agrarianism
-Businessmen and workers
-Consumer goods
-The fate of different industries
-Rearmament
-General progression from 1933 to 1939

If I give up on writing I hope at least to cover the prewar period. I also hope to write on:
-Armaments priorities until 1940
-Historiography of the battle of France
-Occupied economies and pre-1941 America
-Wartime budgets
-Food
-Foreign labor
-Leadup and economic reasoning for Barbarossa
-The Speer miracle
-General progression from 1939 to 1945

But first I must make some notes on the Weimar era.
400 replies omitted. Click to expand viewer
 >>/43990/
 >>/43990/
> . Nowadays it's easy to claim
It was always easy to claim such things, I mean for example champange socialism is not a new term. Comformism always existed but it has never been such an overwhelming norm before. You go to twitter you wave your ideological flag, release your anger, relax and live like everyone else. This new way of life prevents any meaningful change as it comforts pretty much everyone. The illusion of change is worse than normal stagnation.



thumbnail of War and Economy in the Third Reich.pdf
thumbnail of War and Economy in the Third Reich.pdf
War and... pdf
(22.49 MB, 0x0)
Found a book very much related to this topic: War and Economy in the Third Reich by Richard Owery
In the preface he notes some caveats:
THE present work is the fruit of twenty years of research and writing on the German economy under Hitler. [...] The rest of the chapters reproduce journal articles. [...] Naturally enough over the course of twenty years I have changed my mind about a lot of things, and learned a great deal. I blush at the infelicities of expression and uncritical assumptions of the early pieces. I hope there remains sufficient consistency here to avoid the danger that the conclusions of one chapter cancel out the evidence supplied in another. I have tried in the Introduction to link the different pieces together, and to suggest ways in which the subject has developed during the time the essays were written.

I intend to read this. Not sure if I'll report anything from it here. The pace I'm writing this /kc/ blog these days is very slow. But maybe it worth doing so. However I should re-acquaint myself with Tooze's research.




thumbnail of Always bet on Duke Nukem.jpeg
thumbnail of Always bet on Duke Nukem.jpeg
Always bet... jpeg
(314.2 KB, 1200x1689)

 >>/55549/
> I'm not even sure what to play. I
Play one thing to try it out. Then another

> When I look it up the image search show weird weapons.
Weapons in the game have 2 forms that you can change on command. Really interesting gameplay mechanics. Too bad the game will never be out on PC or Linux cuz of Sony fuggerings


thumbnail of rebuild3.png
thumbnail of rebuild3.png
rebuild3 png
(819.18 KB, 900x506)
Found this. Back in the day I played Rebuild 1 and 2, they were flash games. Now this one is for desktop since flash went away.
A bit repetitive. But they added new features, they tried to make the characters unique, not just numbers, some customization, story elements, and even factions apparently.
Not sure how much I'm gonna play this, but it's good to have, and can just play some minutes when one wants to wind down.

Found a very interesting game: Cyber Knights: Flashpoint. It's a very solid cyberpunk themed turn based tactics game. Kinda like Shadowrun minus the magic and the elves.
You run the shadows doing heists with your team of mercs. You have a Fixer Face who gets you the jobs, and you have a selected group of specialists you can to plan with. You have cyberware, matrix hacking (this part is more similar to classic hacking games than the one in Sharun Returns), guns, contacts, stuff to loot and sell, enemy assassins that hunt you on behalf of various groups and corpos.
I try to avoid reading the wiki, and learning/discover by meself. Except I lack the time.




Post(s) action:


Moderation Help
Scope:
Duration: Days

Ban Type:


0 replies | 0 file
Refresh
New Thread
Max 20 files0 B total