krishna bound

4y

this account is going tf off

kiddash3r

4y

@krishna_bound another memory hole

kiddash3r

4y

@krishna_bound another memory hole

krishna bound

4y

the entirety of 2020 is just one of those things no one is gonna ever talk about again outside of questioning in fringe political circles and then down the line it'll be whitewashed into a minor mention in a textbook like much of the 60s. reverse-reification

Lein

4y

Even on the left the way it gets talked about is weird. The fact that people were burning police precincts to the approval of half the country is glossed over to talk about how protesters kneeled with the police. The long n intense campaign of repression and deradicalization which produced that coopted state is only just beginning to be talked about imo.

Lein

4y

Even on the left the way it gets talked about is weird. The fact that people were burning police precincts to the approval of half the country is glossed over to talk about how protesters kneeled with the police. The long n intense campaign of repression and deradicalization which produced that coopted state is only just beginning to be talked about imo.

Womanpuncher69

4y

Move heaven and earth to defend the life of @bopman

krishna bound

4y

imo i think this is a big mis-characterization of the events of 2020 and framing it in a full revolutionary protest sense instead is kinda misguided. there was meaningful and appropriate sentiment by many people in the country, especially among early protesters, and while the anti-authority/anti-police specific actions were commendable, the overall span of the year definitely isn't being memory-holed because it was reminiscent of some foundational threat to institutional power or something.

deadacc

4y

krishna saw this tumblr rant and was wondering what ur thoughts were i really dont know anything about this stuff

i'm so sick of talking about this, but it's absolutely misguided to think you can tank twitter by giving them more pageviews. i think i've said it before but (despite one of my jokes suggesting otherwise) we didn't make tumblr lose value by posting worse. we didn't make it lose value, the fiction became obvious following a more stringent accounting after the acquisition. all corporate valuation is fiction. pick at those threads. elsewhere. in print. get it published. offsite. you have to show that it was never valuable to begin with. find the lie. he doesn't fear you, he fears regulatory oversight

break

as an example, start with the bitcoin holdings on the tesla ledger. look at the powerwall and solar panel subscription prices and the liabilities they're associated with. look at the cost of all tesla warranties if they somehow suddenly came due. these are not the twitter details but i've already spelled this out: every one of elon musk's companies has liabilities that outnumber projected profits and this is a matter of public record via SEC reporting. how do you think azealia banks hurt him? she had the details. log out and dig. how do you think harry markopolos finally broke bernie madoff? how do you think enron fell? they had hard data phrased incontrovertibly in accounting terms

break

spacex's megaconstellation will never be finished, the only reason it's profitable is mike pence's space force subsidy. they are going to fail to replace the GPS network, that was always the goal. now, understand that each of these problems are networked -- the twitter loans are backed by the tesla ledger whose value is based on its bitcoin holdings, its subscription services, and gambling on whether they'll have to pay out more warranties than income. teslas couldn't work without the spacex megaconstellation. the powerwall is flammable, just like the megapacks. the solar panels cannot scale because the batteries are flawed. the reason to control a town square is to redirect this dialogue. everything he does is a foil. stop playing foil with him, dig up his receipts, and take them elsewhere. do you understand how much he would hate it if this story broke on wordpress or medium? if he doesn't meet production goals at the tesla factory in china he has to relinquish the factory, its assets, and the land it sits on to the CCP. come on. it's laid out right there in the SEC filings and he's got all of you eating out of his hand to distract from it

krishna bound

4y

imo i think this is a big mis-characterization of the events of 2020 and framing it in a full revolutionary protest sense instead is kinda misguided. there was meaningful and appropriate sentiment by many people in the country, especially among early protesters, and while the anti-authority/anti-police specific actions were commendable, the overall span of the year definitely isn't being memory-holed because it was reminiscent of some foundational threat to institutional power or something.

Lein

4y

Never said it was gonna carry out a revolution, but it was absolutely an institutional threat to the American police. I also didn't say that it was memoryholed because it was so radical, I think that's mostly a product of it ultimately not accomplishing anything but boosting Biden's margin. But to arrive at that point they flattened and reshaped the narrative so the summer could be remembered as an episode of peaceful demonstrators demanding a vague notion of "racial justice".

krishna bound

4y

the post is right about some things but its very all over the place topically.

firstly, it's right that much of corporate valuation is essentially fake. in fact most of silicon valley/tech is fake. the post-90s "exit" strategy which drives most modern companies is basically just financial fabrication on a mass level. but it's not like, illegal. it's just very stupid. him fearing regulatory over-sight is partially true, but idk, he does as much as any other business monger; it's not intrinsically specific to him or his business.

the 2nd part I just don't buy. the thing is that billionaires don't really exist as singular entities. while yes the individual has the wealth assigned to their name, billionaires are conglomerates of many people working for them at any given time. they're a collection of many firms, advisors, managers, etc. of which often include government oversight to begin with. the fact he rakes in so many govt subsidies to begin with is proof he likely already has significant clearances on a govt level, it's not like or comparable to madoff or like elizabeth holmes theranos. financial dilutions or complexity of wealth doesnt immediatedly signal financial crime. this is a myth people think of due to media and movies. it is completely true that tesla lives on subsidies. no one thinks otherwise, this isn't spreading fake/illegal falsehoods, this is just how big businesses work. oil companies are virtually all subsidized also. you can't do what madoff did on a legitimate global multinational scale.

the third part just isn't true and thinking he's buying up twitter to hide people from spreading news about him is delusional. refer to my post in response to @999Wrld from the twitter thread on his reasoning for buying it;

Well, there's a lot of layers to it. It's important to understand the kind of underbelly paradigm of silicon valley to really understand why he's doing this. It's unfortunately not as simple as like "he did this to further a political agenda" or "he bought twitter to own the libs" or "he bit more than he can chew because of his ego" something. First off, you have to look at who co-financed the buyout; other co-purchasers include the Saudis Foreign Wealth Fund/Public Investment Fund and Larry Ellison from Oracle.

Since the early 00s, SIlicon Valley has gone in many different directions. It's not really a secret that the Tech Industry is largely a front for the FIRE industry; behind Big Tech is Big Finance, particularly Banks & VCs. The same is not particularly true of every industry - FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) does play a role elsewhere inherently, particularly in Media & Entertainment, but it's not the basis of those industries like it is with Big Tech. The thing is that there's a big power struggle within Tech, and in order to understand this you have to understand that most of the real higher ups in tech are hardcore idealogues who truly believe in very distinct political diatribes. People like Marc Andreesen, Peter Thiel, etc. This isn't to say they have the "same" politics, but they're aligned in one general belief - the general public is bad, public interest is bad, society is broken, and western institutions since the 90s have been fundamentally flawed and are increasingly destroying the fabric of society. This is, to a degree, a literal representation of the tug of war between Tech & FIRE. Most higher ups in Tech desperately want to separate their industry from FIRE because they believe their ideological cohorts can change social paradigms if they control institutions, which otherwise are leading society toward destruction.

When you see people like Jack saying he supports the buyout, it's because he has the same belief - he's said many times he regrets twitter going public. This isn't just as simple as them being against liberalism/democrats or something - it's more that they see his modern liberalism as a mask for exploitative interests from FIRE (whether or not this is true is a different discussion, but they certainly aren't approaching it from the right angle lol). The "new Tech" belief is that the other way to conspire against institutional interests is to essentially own institutions yourself, since there is no such thing as "neutrality" - even the ideas of "democratized platforms" always are underscored by a certain idea of wanting certain ideologies or content to thrive. It's a quasi-libertarian belief which really only has existed since the 80s. People like MBS from Saudi have placed bets on anti-FIRE institutions because they believe the future of industry is in taking advantage of the mercantile state structure of the US; i.e. the more diversity in institutions in a multi-polar world, the more money there is as opposed to singular homogeneity. There is an overtly political aspect to it, it's the same reason Saudi is now investing in stuff like NEOM - it's not just about pure economics.

Musk is friends with people like Thiel, etc. - hell he literally founded Paypal with them. The so-called "Paypal Mafia" in Silicon Valley is powerful, and the inner circle share a lot of ideological beliefs, but it wasn't until 2016 when they started really recognizing institutions and began meeting to work out the best means of waging financial wars on institutions. A large part of this was Thiel's discussions with Bannon liaised through the Trump Administration & RNC, but also Marc Andresseen's involvement in solvent wealth funds for the Paypal Mafia, which is partially linked back to people like Curtis Yarvin & Nick Land (unironically), who. I know a lot of people who work in these circles - this move for privatization of twitter to swap wider public investor financial interest with privatized ideological motive is only the beginning of a much wider move from these types of tech inner circles. Andresseen tried doing it w/ Clubhouse but the same thing happened where he saw other VCs get involved and then Clubhouse was no longer a secret club for ideologically similar people; he regrets getting other investors involved, but they're planning moves next by further media buyouts and involvements.

btw Zuck & Meta have nothing to do w any of this, Zuck is straight up a lone wolf in all of this and has no connection to this conspiracy lol.

eye contact

4y

What lessons could be learned from 2020 imo the four largest points were

• The power of media should not be understated. There should be disengagement from things like social media and journalistic corporations amongst the revolutionary base

• the American dual power structure is nonexistent and should be the primary overarching working objective in our current stage of development. Not even a revolutionary dual power structure. That’s something that will inevitably arise as the proletariat base works to protect itself.

• American police forces were only marginally effective against an unorganized, unarmed, and reactive group of opposition

• an increase of rural populaces need to somehow be made sympathetic to causes at hand

krishna bound

4y

the post is right about some things but its very all over the place topically.

firstly, it's right that much of corporate valuation is essentially fake. in fact most of silicon valley/tech is fake. the post-90s "exit" strategy which drives most modern companies is basically just financial fabrication on a mass level. but it's not like, illegal. it's just very stupid. him fearing regulatory over-sight is partially true, but idk, he does as much as any other business monger; it's not intrinsically specific to him or his business.

the 2nd part I just don't buy. the thing is that billionaires don't really exist as singular entities. while yes the individual has the wealth assigned to their name, billionaires are conglomerates of many people working for them at any given time. they're a collection of many firms, advisors, managers, etc. of which often include government oversight to begin with. the fact he rakes in so many govt subsidies to begin with is proof he likely already has significant clearances on a govt level, it's not like or comparable to madoff or like elizabeth holmes theranos. financial dilutions or complexity of wealth doesnt immediatedly signal financial crime. this is a myth people think of due to media and movies. it is completely true that tesla lives on subsidies. no one thinks otherwise, this isn't spreading fake/illegal falsehoods, this is just how big businesses work. oil companies are virtually all subsidized also. you can't do what madoff did on a legitimate global multinational scale.

the third part just isn't true and thinking he's buying up twitter to hide people from spreading news about him is delusional. refer to my post in response to @999Wrld from the twitter thread on his reasoning for buying it;

Well, there's a lot of layers to it. It's important to understand the kind of underbelly paradigm of silicon valley to really understand why he's doing this. It's unfortunately not as simple as like "he did this to further a political agenda" or "he bought twitter to own the libs" or "he bit more than he can chew because of his ego" something. First off, you have to look at who co-financed the buyout; other co-purchasers include the Saudis Foreign Wealth Fund/Public Investment Fund and Larry Ellison from Oracle.

Since the early 00s, SIlicon Valley has gone in many different directions. It's not really a secret that the Tech Industry is largely a front for the FIRE industry; behind Big Tech is Big Finance, particularly Banks & VCs. The same is not particularly true of every industry - FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) does play a role elsewhere inherently, particularly in Media & Entertainment, but it's not the basis of those industries like it is with Big Tech. The thing is that there's a big power struggle within Tech, and in order to understand this you have to understand that most of the real higher ups in tech are hardcore idealogues who truly believe in very distinct political diatribes. People like Marc Andreesen, Peter Thiel, etc. This isn't to say they have the "same" politics, but they're aligned in one general belief - the general public is bad, public interest is bad, society is broken, and western institutions since the 90s have been fundamentally flawed and are increasingly destroying the fabric of society. This is, to a degree, a literal representation of the tug of war between Tech & FIRE. Most higher ups in Tech desperately want to separate their industry from FIRE because they believe their ideological cohorts can change social paradigms if they control institutions, which otherwise are leading society toward destruction.

When you see people like Jack saying he supports the buyout, it's because he has the same belief - he's said many times he regrets twitter going public. This isn't just as simple as them being against liberalism/democrats or something - it's more that they see his modern liberalism as a mask for exploitative interests from FIRE (whether or not this is true is a different discussion, but they certainly aren't approaching it from the right angle lol). The "new Tech" belief is that the other way to conspire against institutional interests is to essentially own institutions yourself, since there is no such thing as "neutrality" - even the ideas of "democratized platforms" always are underscored by a certain idea of wanting certain ideologies or content to thrive. It's a quasi-libertarian belief which really only has existed since the 80s. People like MBS from Saudi have placed bets on anti-FIRE institutions because they believe the future of industry is in taking advantage of the mercantile state structure of the US; i.e. the more diversity in institutions in a multi-polar world, the more money there is as opposed to singular homogeneity. There is an overtly political aspect to it, it's the same reason Saudi is now investing in stuff like NEOM - it's not just about pure economics.

Musk is friends with people like Thiel, etc. - hell he literally founded Paypal with them. The so-called "Paypal Mafia" in Silicon Valley is powerful, and the inner circle share a lot of ideological beliefs, but it wasn't until 2016 when they started really recognizing institutions and began meeting to work out the best means of waging financial wars on institutions. A large part of this was Thiel's discussions with Bannon liaised through the Trump Administration & RNC, but also Marc Andresseen's involvement in solvent wealth funds for the Paypal Mafia, which is partially linked back to people like Curtis Yarvin & Nick Land (unironically), who. I know a lot of people who work in these circles - this move for privatization of twitter to swap wider public investor financial interest with privatized ideological motive is only the beginning of a much wider move from these types of tech inner circles. Andresseen tried doing it w/ Clubhouse but the same thing happened where he saw other VCs get involved and then Clubhouse was no longer a secret club for ideologically similar people; he regrets getting other investors involved, but they're planning moves next by further media buyouts and involvements.

btw Zuck & Meta have nothing to do w any of this, Zuck is straight up a lone wolf in all of this and has no connection to this conspiracy lol.

krishna bound

4y

i think #3 isnt really true, police forces were actively ordered not to engage and in most cases up until the very end of the summer/mid-fall, were straight up ordered to do nothing. if this wasn't the case and it was the 60s again like Kent State, all of those protestors would legitimately be dead.

big lessons imo are:
-western institutions are so powerful that they legitimately will actively hijack anything on any scale, to the extent that even well meaning and justified mass protests can be reduced to institutional social grifts, message hijacking, and corporate opportunism
-active leadership matters a lot and state intervention happens way before anything like this can ever materialize. all the BLM leaders from Ferguson were murdered years before 2020 brought "BLM" to front doorsteps. awareness of this matters.
-mass protests that target other people (right wing proles, general petty bourgeois etc.), regardless of theoretical justifiably, is a losing battle. people want to see political institutions and corporations whacked not the owner of a local 7/11. targeting general property just doesn't work and sends bad messaging due to social conditioning. targeting the property of big businesses is a winning battle.
-white radlib "leftists" (see: anarkiddies) damage and demean political & social movements more than any other group literally ever. s*** like CHAZ or white women in portland thinking running around naked during a protest to be "empowering" did is just unacceptable.
-one issue with fixations on racial justice is that while we live under a capitalist system, capitalists of other races use what should be meaningful messaging to actively manipulate their own personal gain, which keeps capitalism going in a wider crabs in a bucket mentality. i remember during 2020 there were black executives on twitter saying s*** like they'd be okay with Amazon starting a world government so long as they had DEI programs in other words, the jay-z effect

Womanpuncher69

4y

so ur telling me that the third worldist are right

krishna bound

4y

i think #3 isnt really true, police forces were actively ordered not to engage and in most cases up until the very end of the summer/mid-fall, were straight up ordered to do nothing. if this wasn't the case and it was the 60s again like Kent State, all of those protestors would legitimately be dead.

big lessons imo are:
-western institutions are so powerful that they legitimately will actively hijack anything on any scale, to the extent that even well meaning and justified mass protests can be reduced to institutional social grifts, message hijacking, and corporate opportunism
-active leadership matters a lot and state intervention happens way before anything like this can ever materialize. all the BLM leaders from Ferguson were murdered years before 2020 brought "BLM" to front doorsteps. awareness of this matters.
-mass protests that target other people (right wing proles, general petty bourgeois etc.), regardless of theoretical justifiably, is a losing battle. people want to see political institutions and corporations whacked not the owner of a local 7/11. targeting general property just doesn't work and sends bad messaging due to social conditioning. targeting the property of big businesses is a winning battle.
-white radlib "leftists" (see: anarkiddies) damage and demean political & social movements more than any other group literally ever. s*** like CHAZ or white women in portland thinking running around naked during a protest to be "empowering" did is just unacceptable.
-one issue with fixations on racial justice is that while we live under a capitalist system, capitalists of other races use what should be meaningful messaging to actively manipulate their own personal gain, which keeps capitalism going in a wider crabs in a bucket mentality. i remember during 2020 there were black executives on twitter saying s*** like they'd be okay with Amazon starting a world government so long as they had DEI programs in other words, the jay-z effect

krishna bound

4y

the post is right about some things but its very all over the place topically.

firstly, it's right that much of corporate valuation is essentially fake. in fact most of silicon valley/tech is fake. the post-90s "exit" strategy which drives most modern companies is basically just financial fabrication on a mass level. but it's not like, illegal. it's just very stupid. him fearing regulatory over-sight is partially true, but idk, he does as much as any other business monger; it's not intrinsically specific to him or his business.

the 2nd part I just don't buy. the thing is that billionaires don't really exist as singular entities. while yes the individual has the wealth assigned to their name, billionaires are conglomerates of many people working for them at any given time. they're a collection of many firms, advisors, managers, etc. of which often include government oversight to begin with. the fact he rakes in so many govt subsidies to begin with is proof he likely already has significant clearances on a govt level, it's not like or comparable to madoff or like elizabeth holmes theranos. financial dilutions or complexity of wealth doesnt immediatedly signal financial crime. this is a myth people think of due to media and movies. it is completely true that tesla lives on subsidies. no one thinks otherwise, this isn't spreading fake/illegal falsehoods, this is just how big businesses work. oil companies are virtually all subsidized also. you can't do what madoff did on a legitimate global multinational scale.

the third part just isn't true and thinking he's buying up twitter to hide people from spreading news about him is delusional. refer to my post in response to @999Wrld from the twitter thread on his reasoning for buying it;

Well, there's a lot of layers to it. It's important to understand the kind of underbelly paradigm of silicon valley to really understand why he's doing this. It's unfortunately not as simple as like "he did this to further a political agenda" or "he bought twitter to own the libs" or "he bit more than he can chew because of his ego" something. First off, you have to look at who co-financed the buyout; other co-purchasers include the Saudis Foreign Wealth Fund/Public Investment Fund and Larry Ellison from Oracle.

Since the early 00s, SIlicon Valley has gone in many different directions. It's not really a secret that the Tech Industry is largely a front for the FIRE industry; behind Big Tech is Big Finance, particularly Banks & VCs. The same is not particularly true of every industry - FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) does play a role elsewhere inherently, particularly in Media & Entertainment, but it's not the basis of those industries like it is with Big Tech. The thing is that there's a big power struggle within Tech, and in order to understand this you have to understand that most of the real higher ups in tech are hardcore idealogues who truly believe in very distinct political diatribes. People like Marc Andreesen, Peter Thiel, etc. This isn't to say they have the "same" politics, but they're aligned in one general belief - the general public is bad, public interest is bad, society is broken, and western institutions since the 90s have been fundamentally flawed and are increasingly destroying the fabric of society. This is, to a degree, a literal representation of the tug of war between Tech & FIRE. Most higher ups in Tech desperately want to separate their industry from FIRE because they believe their ideological cohorts can change social paradigms if they control institutions, which otherwise are leading society toward destruction.

When you see people like Jack saying he supports the buyout, it's because he has the same belief - he's said many times he regrets twitter going public. This isn't just as simple as them being against liberalism/democrats or something - it's more that they see his modern liberalism as a mask for exploitative interests from FIRE (whether or not this is true is a different discussion, but they certainly aren't approaching it from the right angle lol). The "new Tech" belief is that the other way to conspire against institutional interests is to essentially own institutions yourself, since there is no such thing as "neutrality" - even the ideas of "democratized platforms" always are underscored by a certain idea of wanting certain ideologies or content to thrive. It's a quasi-libertarian belief which really only has existed since the 80s. People like MBS from Saudi have placed bets on anti-FIRE institutions because they believe the future of industry is in taking advantage of the mercantile state structure of the US; i.e. the more diversity in institutions in a multi-polar world, the more money there is as opposed to singular homogeneity. There is an overtly political aspect to it, it's the same reason Saudi is now investing in stuff like NEOM - it's not just about pure economics.

Musk is friends with people like Thiel, etc. - hell he literally founded Paypal with them. The so-called "Paypal Mafia" in Silicon Valley is powerful, and the inner circle share a lot of ideological beliefs, but it wasn't until 2016 when they started really recognizing institutions and began meeting to work out the best means of waging financial wars on institutions. A large part of this was Thiel's discussions with Bannon liaised through the Trump Administration & RNC, but also Marc Andresseen's involvement in solvent wealth funds for the Paypal Mafia, which is partially linked back to people like Curtis Yarvin & Nick Land (unironically), who. I know a lot of people who work in these circles - this move for privatization of twitter to swap wider public investor financial interest with privatized ideological motive is only the beginning of a much wider move from these types of tech inner circles. Andresseen tried doing it w/ Clubhouse but the same thing happened where he saw other VCs get involved and then Clubhouse was no longer a secret club for ideologically similar people; he regrets getting other investors involved, but they're planning moves next by further media buyouts and involvements.

btw Zuck & Meta have nothing to do w any of this, Zuck is straight up a lone wolf in all of this and has no connection to this conspiracy lol.

krishna bound

4y

i think #3 isnt really true, police forces were actively ordered not to engage and in most cases up until the very end of the summer/mid-fall, were straight up ordered to do nothing. if this wasn't the case and it was the 60s again like Kent State, all of those protestors would legitimately be dead.

big lessons imo are:
-western institutions are so powerful that they legitimately will actively hijack anything on any scale, to the extent that even well meaning and justified mass protests can be reduced to institutional social grifts, message hijacking, and corporate opportunism
-active leadership matters a lot and state intervention happens way before anything like this can ever materialize. all the BLM leaders from Ferguson were murdered years before 2020 brought "BLM" to front doorsteps. awareness of this matters.
-mass protests that target other people (right wing proles, general petty bourgeois etc.), regardless of theoretical justifiably, is a losing battle. people want to see political institutions and corporations whacked not the owner of a local 7/11. targeting general property just doesn't work and sends bad messaging due to social conditioning. targeting the property of big businesses is a winning battle.
-white radlib "leftists" (see: anarkiddies) damage and demean political & social movements more than any other group literally ever. s*** like CHAZ or white women in portland thinking running around naked during a protest to be "empowering" did is just unacceptable.
-one issue with fixations on racial justice is that while we live under a capitalist system, capitalists of other races use what should be meaningful messaging to actively manipulate their own personal gain, which keeps capitalism going in a wider crabs in a bucket mentality. i remember during 2020 there were black executives on twitter saying s*** like they'd be okay with Amazon starting a world government so long as they had DEI programs in other words, the jay-z effect