Preporuke za čitanje i gledanje

Kakvo je samo osveženje slušati ovakve emisije sa prof. Živanom Lazovićem dok govori o romanu "Ka svetioniku" Virdžinije Vulf.

fikret selimbašić wrote:Trideset pet godina star serijal ali ja sam ga u zadnjih dvadesetak dana gledao prvi put. End of Empire 1985. Kvalitetom uporediv sa The World at War. Četrnaest epizoda, od Indije do Rodezije. Dosta aktera i svjedoka tih zbivanja je još uvijek bilo živo i jako zanimljivih svjedočenja ima. Svako malo iskrsne nešto za topickć istorijski fragmenti. Završna epizoda je Rodezija i iz nje bih za istorijske fragmente izdvojio raspravu Lorda Karingtona i Džulijana Emerija na Conservative Conference '79. od 22:00 do 25:00. Za taj topic je i kratki dijalog generala Pitera Volsa i Mugabea. Njim završava i epzoda i serijal, dešava se nakon pobjede Mugabea. O isusu i Marksu od 50:00  

Odlična serija, sad se ne sećam na koju mislim, da li na World at War ili ili End of Empire, ali gledao sam je pre otprilike godinu-godinu i po dana, pre nego što je riknuo TV, imao sam samo bazični kablovski izbor i onda osim kuhinjskog kanala ostali su istorijski, Viasat History je bio odličan. Dodaš biografske serije na Fox-u o Simpsonu, Versaćiju i Getiju, i Marsovac b ise skroz informisao o Zapadu. 
E sad, ova serija je bila odlična iz nekoliko razloga. Izgleda da je napravljena pre konačne pobede bilderberških korporativista, pa je delila onu naivnu, libertijansku sliku sveta, obaška predhladnoratovsku: Hića je bio zajednički neprijatelj i tačka. Futidž je bio kolorisan bez ostatka, i kao što si rekao, još živi svedoci, vojnici i oficiri su onako kao biološke ruševine uz svoje fotke sa fronta govorili i to je bilo dirljivo i uzbidljivo. Kako je to nek osve snimao tada...! Dok sam gledao tu seriju u besanim noćima mnogo mi se dopao narator s onim britiš naglaskom, teatralnim kao na njuz ril filmskim novostima i glas me je dposećao na ovog lika iz "Frejžera". Zanimljivo je da nigde u opsi kaseta i dividija te serije ne piše ko je narator, a ni na Viasat kanalu, kao da je to neka tajna. Ali sam saznao - a to je i men ismetalo - da su se mnogi žalili na to: naime, kada su radili dodavanje šumova (kada su već kolorisali tolike kilometre trake, red je da daju i ton, i to je već uobičajeno, niko i ne orbaća pažnju na to, ali šumovi sve imitiraju i šušanj trave i pljeskanje i uzvike idetonacije), znači, ti šumovi su često nadjačavali naratora, koji se jedva čuo. A govorio je kao da ima kamenčiće u ustima. 
Znači, ta serija je bila dobra i zato što nije imala vidljivu nameru da s naknadnom pameću na primer umanjuje ulogu SSSR-a.
Sećam se da su 1992. mesec dana posle uvođenaj sankcija Jugoslaviji i izbacivanja fudbalske ekipe sa EŠ u fudbalu na jednom od EURO kanala prikazivali istoriju fuzbala i kao kod Orvela su izbrisali sve jugoslovenske pobede!
Ovde toga nije bilo.
Ali pad imperije se odnosio na Veliku Britaniju.
Naime... SAD i Ruzvelt su Čerčilu za skupe pare prodali polovne krševe u viodu ratnih brodova, krstarica i oružja.
To prvo, a kao drugo, tokom rata je onaj Ruzvelt inisistirao na samoporedeljenju kolonija pod Britanijom.
Već posle 1942. Čerčil je na sastanke sa Ruzveltrom odlazio u nekoj crnoj uniformi i sa kapom, koja je više ličila na železničarski kačket, ličio je na odžačara i bio je depresivan. 
Ruzvelt je samo nekoliko dana pred smrt obećao Amerikancima besplatnu zdravstrvenu zaštitu. Onda je obrisao znoj.
I umro posle dan-dva.
Amerika je tada bila u raljama libertarijanaca i još je Ajk pio viski s Titom i naredio Entoniju Idnu da ne jede govna i da se povuče sa Sueca.
Sada čitam autobiografiju Moše Dajana "truth Of My Life", koj ije to genije bio, kako je preveslao Idna i francuze, izjebao ih je kao galeb matore Engleskinje u zadru 1961. 
Znači odlična serija.

Sad vidim da sam pomešao: nijedna od ove dve serije nije u pitanju, već
World Walr II - The Price Of Empire.
Ovde se čuje i glas tog naratora sa kamenčićima u ustima.

kakav obit lebe  

Norman Stone obituary

On the occasions when he did appear in Oxford to do some teaching, Stone became notorious for groping his female students (one of whom is said to have responded with a slap across the face), and annoyed Worcester College by sub-letting his rooms to make a bit of extra money.

He did some speechwriting for Thatcher and advised her on foreign policy, though she did not listen to his assurances that the reunification of Germany in 1990 was not a danger to European peace. On one occasion he collapsed in front of her, drunk; but she was well known for her indulgence towards alcoholics so long as they supported her politically.

The former prime minister, Heath, was wrong about many things, but he was surely right when he said of Stone during his time in Oxford: “Many parents of Oxford students must be both horrified and disgusted that the higher education of our children should rest in the hands of such a man.”

ima još!

tekst nije baš od prekjuče, ali ne sećam se da sam ga video na forumu

Populism and the People
Jan-Werner Müller

Marx and Manatheism - Eric L. Santner
Problemi International, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2019

In this essay, I argue that Claude Lévi-Strauss’ critical engagement with the concept of mana in the writings of Marcel Mauss and Émile Durkheim offers a new perspective on the nature of work in capitalist societies. Supplementing Marx’s notion of the fetishism of the commodity, I argue that the so-called labor theory of value comes down to the claim that what is really at stake in the manufacture of commodities is mana-facture, the production of a spectral substance that “enchants” the social relations of secular modernity. I follow Lévi-Strauss in reading mana as an enigmatic signifier that holds the place of a void of knowledge that can never be made whole but only elaborated by historically specific modes of “mana-ical” enjoyment.

The Most Gullible Man in Cambridge

kakva priča jbt 

brat Kornel kod Džoa Rogana

Weird suggestions ahead...

Kakva jeza kad ti dete da ovakav pogled...

The Future of Political Philosophy

But if modern political philosophy is bound up with modern liberalism, and liberalism is failing, it may well be time to ask whether these apparently timeless ideas outlived their usefulness. Rawls’s ideas were developed during a very distinctive period of U.S. history, and his theory bears an intimate connection to postwar liberal democracy. Is liberal political philosophy complicit in its failures? Is political philosophy, like liberalism itself, in crisis, and in need of reinvention? And if so, what does its future look like?

The girl in the box: the mysterious crime that shocked Germany

pročitala sam ga u dahu pre nekoliko dana
jezivo skroz

Aktuelnost kritičke teorije:

dva teksta koja dobro idu zajedno

Is This the Future Liberals Want?

Above all, it is hard to see how Warren can address the dealignment of class voting, or the ongoing evolution of the Democratic Party into the party of Fairfax County, USA. More than likely, Warren’s nomination would only accelerate the trend. It is not a coincidence that by far her strongest support comes from Democrats with six-figure incomes and postgraduate degrees: in style and in substance alike, she offers a version of progressive politics as professional politics.

Professional-Managerial Chasm

Pursued to its conclusion, this reorientation implies a more thorough break with the social institutions that have sustained the PMC and neoliberalism at large. It prompts us to imagine not the greening and rationalization of the military-industrial and imperialist apparatuses, but their dismantling; not just free college, but the end of the age of human capital. These are not visions that can be achieved within and through electoral politics, but to the extent that electoral politics may sustain them at all, it will do so only as a device for widening social conflict—not containing it. If this points toward support for Sanders (and beyond that, toward support for social struggles across the board), it simultaneously also shrinks the visible gap between Sanders and Warren, and dictates a different approach toward her PMC backers: not rage and rebuke, but critical solidarity. An unpersuaded, still-secure rump of the PMC, after all, still retains the ability to control the Democratic Party—what was 2016 if not a lesson in this?

a nije loše ni paralelno uzeti u obzir ovo

But the most striking correlate of the Trump swing is growth in deaths due to drug overdose. The fixed-effect of this variable is a remarkable +3.4%. That’s higher than the fixed-effect of college graduation rate, population growth rate, and net migration rate.

These results should disabuse us of the notion that Trump’s election had little to do with people getting left behind—I drop the quotation marks on purpose. Trump is in the White House because large parts of the country are in serious trouble. People can see the decline of their communities with their own eyes. What is pissing them off is that coastal elites keep ignoring their trauma and focus their attention on creating a more inclusive country.

What I have argued here is that Democrats, including elite political scientists, have misdiagnosed the catastrophe of 2016. If I am right, unless Democrats wake up to reality fairly soon, Trump is going to win again.

Večeras @RadioBeograd3 - 1. epizoda - pričaćemo o Šindlerovoj listi, Adornu i Ransijeru i čućete možda jedinu teoretičarku dovoljno ludu da putem mimova objašnjava proces političke subjektivacije i to na radiju.

22:15 Dijalozi – Marija Ratković: Preispitivanje holokausta pic.twitter.com/HfGwkYdBvG

— Die Patriotin (@MarijaRatkovic) October 16, 2019

Adorno & Ransijer? Pa nznm baš...  

haha sve vrca kolko je luda. not.

Djamolidine Abdoujaparov wrote:The Future of Political Philosophy

But if modern political philosophy is bound up with modern liberalism, and liberalism is failing, it may well be time to ask whether these apparently timeless ideas outlived their usefulness. Rawls’s ideas were developed during a very distinctive period of U.S. history, and his theory bears an intimate connection to postwar liberal democracy. Is liberal political philosophy complicit in its failures? Is political philosophy, like liberalism itself, in crisis, and in need of reinvention? And if so, what does its future look like?

Iziso i Dzededajin prikaz.

https://newrepublic.com/article/155294/john-rawls-missed-create-just-society

How Mengzi came up with something better than the Golden Rule

There’s something I don’t like about the ‘Golden Rule’, the admonition to do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Consider this passage from the ancient Chinese philosopher Mengzi (Mencius):
   

That which people are capable of without learning is their genuine capability. That which they know without pondering is their genuine knowledge. Among babes in arms there are none that do not know to love their parents. When they grow older, there are none that do not know to revere their elder brothers. Treating one’s parents as parents is benevolence. Revering one’s elders is righteousness. There is nothing else to do but extend these to the world.

One thing I like about the passage is that it assumes love and reverence for one’s family as a given, rather than as a special achievement. It portrays moral development simply as a matter of extending that natural love and reverence more widely.

In another passage, Mengzi notes the kindness that the vicious tyrant King Xuan exhibits in saving a frightened ox from slaughter, and he urges the king to extend similar kindness to the people of his kingdom. Such extension, Mengzi says, is a matter of ‘weighing’ things correctly – a matter of treating similar things similarly, and not overvaluing what merely happens to be nearby. If you have pity for an innocent ox being led to slaughter, you ought to have similar pity for the innocent people dying in your streets and on your battlefields, despite their invisibility beyond your beautiful palace walls.

Mengzian extension starts from the assumption that you are already concerned about nearby others, and takes the challenge to be extending that concern beyond a narrow circle. The Golden Rule works differently – and so too the common advice to imagine yourself in someone else’s shoes. In contrast with Mengzian extension, Golden Rule/others’ shoes advice assumes self-interest as the starting point, and implicitly treats overcoming egoistic selfishness as the main cognitive and moral challenge.

Čekajući kišu u: