Conquer Club

tkr4lf wrote:I Hope they Serve Beer In Hell by Tucker Max

saxitoxin wrote:1984 was the hyper-dramatic answer by an English pulp writer to Jack London's underappreciated - almost unknown - dystopian novel "The Iron Heel."

Anyone who wants a real treat would be well-served to read that which, I think, is now in the public domain and can be read online for free.

It was written in 1907 and chronicles the history of the U.S. from 1900 to 2300 from the perspective of Ernest Everhard, a member of the outlawed U.S. Socialist Party. Though fiction it was also London's prediction of what was about to happen in the U.S. in the next hundred years. In the story the following things happen:

- a fascist-commercial alliance attempts a military coup (foreshadowing the 1933 coup attempt in the U.S.)
- the U.S. federal government gives favored status to select trade unions of their own employees while using special legislation to diminish organizing capabilities of non-government worker unions (foreshadowing the rise in political influence of SEIU and the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act)
- the Democrat and Republican parties become only cosmetically different, gradually fusing in everything but name to present the outward appearance of a democracy with the efficiency of a dictatorship (foreshadowing the current status quo)
- when an organized, third party opposition of anti-government activists from both the left and right develops (represented by the U.S. Socialist Party and the National Grange) a false flag attack on the U.S. capital is used to justify emergency security legislation (foreshadowing 9/11 and the Patriot Act happening months after Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan's early successes in coordination of legal challenges to the U.S. duopoly during the '00 election)

there are those predictions of the brilliant London, too, that have yet to come to pass --

Commander62890 wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:I Hope they Serve Beer In Hell by Tucker Max

I know quite a few people who have read that book. Personally, I read all of his online stuff.

He's such a fucking asshole, but his stories are hilarious.




My top 3:

1) Foundation Series (Asimov): A science fiction series which covers a span of about 550 years. It consists of seven volumes that are closely linked to each other, although they can be read separately. The premise of the series is that mathematician Hari Seldon spent his life developing a branch of mathematics known as psychohistory, a concept of mathematical sociology. Using these techniques, Seldon foresees the imminent fall of the Galactic Empire, which encompasses the entire Milky Way, and a dark age lasting thirty thousand years before a second great empire arises. To shorten the period of barbarism, he creates two Foundations, small, secluded havens of all human knowledge, at "opposite ends of the galaxy."

2) Stranger in a Strange Land (Heinlein): The story of a human raised on Mars (by aliens) and his adaptation to, and understanding of, humans and their culture, which is portrayed as an amplified version of consumerist and media-driven 20th-century America.

3) Red Storm Rising (Clancy): A 1986 techno-thriller novel by Tom Clancy and Larry Bond about a Third World War in Europe between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces, set around the mid-1980s. Though there are other novels dealing with a fictional World War III, this one is notable for the way in which numerous settings for the action — from Atlantic convoy duty to shooting down reconnaissance satellites to tank battles in Germany — all have an integral part to play on the outcome.




Thoughts:

1. I'll be reading The Iron Heel now, and 1984 next.

2. Goodnight Moon is amazing

3. Fircoal/AoG, I have that exact same book that you mentioned on page 1...

saxitoxin wrote:1984 was the hyper-dramatic answer by an English pulp writer to Jack London's underappreciated - almost unknown - dystopian novel "The Iron Heel."

Anyone who wants a real treat would be well-served to read that which, I think, is now in the public domain and can be read online for free.

It was written in 1907 and chronicles the history of the U.S. from 1900 to 2300 from the perspective of Ernest Everhard, a member of the outlawed U.S. Socialist Party. Though fiction it was also London's prediction of what was about to happen in the U.S. in the next hundred years. In the story the following things happen:

- a fascist-commercial alliance attempts a military coup (foreshadowing the 1933 coup attempt in the U.S.)
- the U.S. federal government gives favored status to select trade unions of their own employees while using special legislation to diminish organizing capabilities of non-government worker unions (foreshadowing the rise in political influence of SEIU and the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act)
- the Democrat and Republican parties become only cosmetically different, gradually fusing in everything but name to present the outward appearance of a democracy with the efficiency of a dictatorship (foreshadowing the current status quo)
- when an organized, third party opposition of anti-government activists from both the left and right develops (represented by the U.S. Socialist Party and the National Grange) a false flag attack on the U.S. capital is used to justify emergency security legislation (foreshadowing 9/11 and the Patriot Act happening months after Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan's early successes in coordination of legal challenges to the U.S. duopoly during the '00 election)

there are those predictions of the brilliant London, too, that have yet to come to pass --

Commander62890 wrote:3. Fircoal/AoG, I have that exact same book that you mentioned on page 1...

ViperOverLord wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

rockfist wrote:1984 - It tells the story of how soul crushingly awful socialism can be.

I tend to think that 1984 could also be applicable to capitalism. It's just a matter of perspective.

I think it's more a matter of reality (something you clearly can't conceptualize). 1984 is much more applicable to socialism than capitalism. Big Brother was the government and not a corporation.

That's like saying it's more applicable to dogs than cats. It doesn't mean it has anything to do with it and it had nothing to do with why it was written.

1984 is about totalitarianism. It's what happens when you put all of your hope and faith into one guy, then that one guy gains too much power and forces you to live the way he wants you to live because his life is so much more enjoyable when you do what he says.

It's like Soviet Russia. It isn't socialism/communism...it's a dictatorship with a mask. If you think it has anything to do with socialism/communism then you don't know socialism/communism.

Totalitarianism is the main theme of 1984, but socialism was the manipulative tool they used just like in Soviet Russia. I think the book speaks to Obama's rule very much. They set up 'ministries' and sought to control dialogue. Also although people were supposed to believe in the concept of democracy, they were manipulated into believing that only the ruling party had the power to keep order. It was very much the subversive socialistic democracy that Obama runs.

This book is NOT a book based in capitalism or the dangers thereof. The Party operates under the guise of socialistic values to in order to accomplish their designs and not to create a utopia that many people want. That is a warning about the dangers of socialism.

Jack London wrote:The trouble arose first with the Grangers in the various states they had captured at the last election. There were a dozen of these states, but the Grangers who had been elected were not permitted to take office. The incumbents refused to get out. It was very simple. They merely charged illegality in the elections and wrapped up the whole situation in the interminable red tape of the law. The Grangers were powerless. The courts were in the hands of their enemies.

This was the moment of danger. If the cheated Grangers became violent, all was lost. How we socialists worked to hold them back! There were days and nights when Ernest never closed his eyes in sleep. The big leaders of the Grangers saw the peril and were with us to a man. But it was all of no avail. The Oligarchy wanted violence, and it set its agents-provocateurs to work. Without discussion, it was the agents-provocateurs who caused the Peasant Revolt.

In a dozen states the revolt flared up. The expropriated farmers took forcible possession of the state governments. Of course this was unconstitutional, and of course the United States put its soldiers into the field. Everywhere the agents-provocateurs urged the people on. These emissaries of the Iron Heel disguised themselves as artisans, farmers, and farm laborers. In Sacramento, the capital of California, the Grangers had succeeded in maintaining order. Thousands of secret agents were rushed to the devoted city. In mobs composed wholly of themselves, they fired and looted buildings and factories. They worked the people up until they joined them in the pillage. Liquor in large quantities was distributed among the slum classes further to inflame their minds. And then, when all was ready, appeared upon the scene the soldiers of the United States, who were, in reality, the soldiers of the Iron Heel. Eleven thousand men, women, and children were shot down on the streets of Sacramento or murdered in their houses. The national government took possession of the state government, and all was over for California.

And as with California, so elsewhere. Every Granger state was ravaged with violence and washed in blood. First, disorder was precipitated by the secret agents and the Black Hundreds, then the troops were called out.

Joe McCarthy wrote:Hey thanks for asking what I would like. I formed my opinion of you based on your first two posts in my directions and told you what it was, which is that you are a twerp, a bully, and above all, a bore. So what I would like is for you to stop trying to be pals. This isnt going to ever be two fellas that disagree and about something and argue it out, its a fella that thinks the other fella should die in a fire. So go play with somebody else you twerp.

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

rockfist wrote:1984 - It tells the story of how soul crushingly awful socialism can be.

I tend to think that 1984 could also be applicable to capitalism. It's just a matter of perspective.

I think it's more a matter of reality (something you clearly can't conceptualize). 1984 is much more applicable to socialism than capitalism. Big Brother was the government and not a corporation.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

rockfist wrote:1984 - It tells the story of how soul crushingly awful socialism can be.

I tend to think that 1984 could also be applicable to capitalism. It's just a matter of perspective.

rockfist wrote:The Jungle - It tells the story of how callous and uncaring capitalism can be and Yes I've read it.

I read this as "The Jungle Book" and I was thinking...what the hell?

No way is that on capitalism. I am only saying capitalism did not apply in 1984.

Phatscotty wrote:You can use your imagination to change your perspective if you like, but if you do that, why even read the book?

saxitoxin wrote:Thanks for finding the online link to TIH, M! I may give you a complimentary tickle later on for that.

I was reminded, in perusing it, of this most salient chapter that foreshadows the globalization protests of Seattle and Toronto by 103 years (was Jack London psychic?) where 'the Black Hundreds' are 'the Black Block' (I think Scott has posted videos before showing Canadian secret police dressed in black and engaging in provocation rioting.):

Jack London wrote:The trouble arose first with the Grangers in the various states they had captured at the last election. There were a dozen of these states, but the Grangers who had been elected were not permitted to take office. The incumbents refused to get out. It was very simple. They merely charged illegality in the elections and wrapped up the whole situation in the interminable red tape of the law. The Grangers were powerless. The courts were in the hands of their enemies.

This was the moment of danger. If the cheated Grangers became violent, all was lost. How we socialists worked to hold them back! There were days and nights when Ernest never closed his eyes in sleep. The big leaders of the Grangers saw the peril and were with us to a man. But it was all of no avail. The Oligarchy wanted violence, and it set its agents-provocateurs to work. Without discussion, it was the agents-provocateurs who caused the Peasant Revolt.

In a dozen states the revolt flared up. The expropriated farmers took forcible possession of the state governments. Of course this was unconstitutional, and of course the United States put its soldiers into the field. Everywhere the agents-provocateurs urged the people on. These emissaries of the Iron Heel disguised themselves as artisans, farmers, and farm laborers. In Sacramento, the capital of California, the Grangers had succeeded in maintaining order. Thousands of secret agents were rushed to the devoted city. In mobs composed wholly of themselves, they fired and looted buildings and factories. They worked the people up until they joined them in the pillage. Liquor in large quantities was distributed among the slum classes further to inflame their minds. And then, when all was ready, appeared upon the scene the soldiers of the United States, who were, in reality, the soldiers of the Iron Heel. Eleven thousand men, women, and children were shot down on the streets of Sacramento or murdered in their houses. The national government took possession of the state government, and all was over for California.

And as with California, so elsewhere. Every Granger state was ravaged with violence and washed in blood. First, disorder was precipitated by the secret agents and the Black Hundreds, then the troops were called out.

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

rockfist wrote:1984 - It tells the story of how soul crushingly awful socialism can be.

I tend to think that 1984 could also be applicable to capitalism. It's just a matter of perspective.

I think it's more a matter of reality (something you clearly can't conceptualize). 1984 is much more applicable to socialism than capitalism. Big Brother was the government and not a corporation.

Yes, it was. I realize that, since I have read the book. However, if one thinks outside of the box for a moment (something you clearly cannot do), you would see that does not mean that a corporation could not fill the role of Big Brother in that book. It certainly could. As I quite clearly said, it is simply a matter of perspective.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

rockfist wrote:1984 - It tells the story of how soul crushingly awful socialism can be.

I tend to think that 1984 could also be applicable to capitalism. It's just a matter of perspective.

rockfist wrote:The Jungle - It tells the story of how callous and uncaring capitalism can be and Yes I've read it.

I read this as "The Jungle Book" and I was thinking...what the hell?

No way is that on capitalism. I am only saying capitalism did not apply in 1984.

Good Lord, are you people really unable to read the written word? I didn't say the damn book was about capitalism. Jesus, I'm amazed you people were even ABLE to read 1984, given your reading comprehension skills here.

Phatscotty wrote:You can use your imagination to change your perspective if you like, but if you do that, why even read the book?

It's called thinking for myself and applying concepts to different situations. I'm sorry you don't see the value in that.

Woodruff wrote:

rockfist wrote:The Jungle - It tells the story of how callous and uncaring capitalism can be and Yes I've read it.

I read this as "The Jungle Book" and I was thinking...what the hell?

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

rockfist wrote:1984 - It tells the story of how soul crushingly awful socialism can be.

I tend to think that 1984 could also be applicable to capitalism. It's just a matter of perspective.

I think it's more a matter of reality (something you clearly can't conceptualize). 1984 is much more applicable to socialism than capitalism. Big Brother was the government and not a corporation.

Yes, it was. I realize that, since I have read the book. However, if one thinks outside of the box for a moment (something you clearly cannot do), you would see that does not mean that a corporation could not fill the role of Big Brother in that book. It certainly could. As I quite clearly said, it is simply a matter of perspective.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

rockfist wrote:1984 - It tells the story of how soul crushingly awful socialism can be.

I tend to think that 1984 could also be applicable to capitalism. It's just a matter of perspective.

rockfist wrote:The Jungle - It tells the story of how callous and uncaring capitalism can be and Yes I've read it.

I read this as "The Jungle Book" and I was thinking...what the hell?

No way is that on capitalism. I am only saying capitalism did not apply in 1984.

Good Lord, are you people really unable to read the written word? I didn't say the damn book was about capitalism. Jesus, I'm amazed you people were even ABLE to read 1984, given your reading comprehension skills here.

Phatscotty wrote:You can use your imagination to change your perspective if you like, but if you do that, why even read the book?

It's called thinking for myself and applying concepts to different situations. I'm sorry you don't see the value in that.

tkr4lf wrote:

Woodruff wrote:...

Yeah, Woodruff, I agree with you here. I could see a corporation fulfilling the same role as a totalitarian government. It's called a corporatocracy. Rule by corporations. In which case, they could easily become big brother. In fact, I could quicker believe a corporation would do this, than some governments. Not to say that governments aren't like that, but we all know that corporations LOVE to keep an eye on people.

tkr4lf wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Thanks for finding the online link to TIH, M! I may give you a complimentary tickle later on for that.

I was reminded, in perusing it, of this most salient chapter that foreshadows the globalization protests of Seattle and Toronto by 103 years (was Jack London psychic?) where 'the Black Hundreds' are 'the Black Block' (I think Scott has posted videos before showing Canadian secret police dressed in black and engaging in provocation rioting.):

Jack London wrote:The trouble arose first with the Grangers in the various states they had captured at the last election. There were a dozen of these states, but the Grangers who had been elected were not permitted to take office. The incumbents refused to get out. It was very simple. They merely charged illegality in the elections and wrapped up the whole situation in the interminable red tape of the law. The Grangers were powerless. The courts were in the hands of their enemies.

This was the moment of danger. If the cheated Grangers became violent, all was lost. How we socialists worked to hold them back! There were days and nights when Ernest never closed his eyes in sleep. The big leaders of the Grangers saw the peril and were with us to a man. But it was all of no avail. The Oligarchy wanted violence, and it set its agents-provocateurs to work. Without discussion, it was the agents-provocateurs who caused the Peasant Revolt.

In a dozen states the revolt flared up. The expropriated farmers took forcible possession of the state governments. Of course this was unconstitutional, and of course the United States put its soldiers into the field. Everywhere the agents-provocateurs urged the people on. These emissaries of the Iron Heel disguised themselves as artisans, farmers, and farm laborers. In Sacramento, the capital of California, the Grangers had succeeded in maintaining order. Thousands of secret agents were rushed to the devoted city. In mobs composed wholly of themselves, they fired and looted buildings and factories. They worked the people up until they joined them in the pillage. Liquor in large quantities was distributed among the slum classes further to inflame their minds. And then, when all was ready, appeared upon the scene the soldiers of the United States, who were, in reality, the soldiers of the Iron Heel. Eleven thousand men, women, and children were shot down on the streets of Sacramento or murdered in their houses. The national government took possession of the state government, and all was over for California.

And as with California, so elsewhere. Every Granger state was ravaged with violence and washed in blood. First, disorder was precipitated by the secret agents and the Black Hundreds, then the troops were called out.

Who the hell is M? Are you referring to my first name? If so, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM???? Oh, wait, I posted it in a thread, didn't I? Hmmmm, damn selective memory. And, about that complimentary tickle....I'll be waiting for it. You know where to find me.

BigBallinStalin wrote:@above_shenanigans: He turned the table a full 360 degrees on that one.
___________________________________________

tkr4lf wrote:

Woodruff wrote:...

Yeah, Woodruff, I agree with you here. I could see a corporation fulfilling the same role as a totalitarian government. It's called a corporatocracy. Rule by corporations. In which case, they could easily become big brother. In fact, I could quicker believe a corporation would do this, than some governments. Not to say that governments aren't like that, but we all know that corporations LOVE to keep an eye on people.

Which reminds me! Confessions of an Economic Hit Man was a very interesting book.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man

saxitoxin wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Thanks for finding the online link to TIH, M! I may give you a complimentary tickle later on for that.

I was reminded, in perusing it, of this most salient chapter that foreshadows the globalization protests of Seattle and Toronto by 103 years (was Jack London psychic?) where 'the Black Hundreds' are 'the Black Block' (I think Scott has posted videos before showing Canadian secret police dressed in black and engaging in provocation rioting.):

Jack London wrote:The trouble arose first with the Grangers in the various states they had captured at the last election. There were a dozen of these states, but the Grangers who had been elected were not permitted to take office. The incumbents refused to get out. It was very simple. They merely charged illegality in the elections and wrapped up the whole situation in the interminable red tape of the law. The Grangers were powerless. The courts were in the hands of their enemies.

This was the moment of danger. If the cheated Grangers became violent, all was lost. How we socialists worked to hold them back! There were days and nights when Ernest never closed his eyes in sleep. The big leaders of the Grangers saw the peril and were with us to a man. But it was all of no avail. The Oligarchy wanted violence, and it set its agents-provocateurs to work. Without discussion, it was the agents-provocateurs who caused the Peasant Revolt.

In a dozen states the revolt flared up. The expropriated farmers took forcible possession of the state governments. Of course this was unconstitutional, and of course the United States put its soldiers into the field. Everywhere the agents-provocateurs urged the people on. These emissaries of the Iron Heel disguised themselves as artisans, farmers, and farm laborers. In Sacramento, the capital of California, the Grangers had succeeded in maintaining order. Thousands of secret agents were rushed to the devoted city. In mobs composed wholly of themselves, they fired and looted buildings and factories. They worked the people up until they joined them in the pillage. Liquor in large quantities was distributed among the slum classes further to inflame their minds. And then, when all was ready, appeared upon the scene the soldiers of the United States, who were, in reality, the soldiers of the Iron Heel. Eleven thousand men, women, and children were shot down on the streets of Sacramento or murdered in their houses. The national government took possession of the state government, and all was over for California.

And as with California, so elsewhere. Every Granger state was ravaged with violence and washed in blood. First, disorder was precipitated by the secret agents and the Black Hundreds, then the troops were called out.

Who the hell is M? Are you referring to my first name? If so, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM???? Oh, wait, I posted it in a thread, didn't I? Hmmmm, damn selective memory. And, about that complimentary tickle....I'll be waiting for it. You know where to find me.

Hmmm ... I meant "M" as in "Man" ...

tkr4lf wrote:Ah, well, either way, I'm waiting for my tickle.

saxitoxin wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:Ah, well, either way, I'm waiting for my tickle.

come over to the house this weekend; I'm BBQ'ing brauts and AOG is gonna come over and we're gonna watch my bootleg DVD of Dragon Ball: Evolution (the one that includes deleted scenes from Y tu mamá también), look at the new litter of puppies I have and play Tickle Monster

afterwards I'm gonna take you all out for an ice cream ... I'll race you kids to the ice cream store, last one there has to spend the night in Serbia's Fun Zone

LOL - naturally I'm just kidding about all that, tkr4lf, this is just a big silly from ol' Uncle Saxi. Though ...