Posts by James Anderson5

Matthew Young35 said:People are drawn to these films because of their metaphysical weight. There’s something transcendental and timeless about them. Let’s be honest: the Avengers are timeless. They represent a pursuit of sublime perfection that resonates with all of us, regardless of whether we’re living in the present, tomorrow, or some post-apocalyptic wasteland envisioned by a visionary director.
They serve as a timeless equivalent—or perhaps a substitute, if you prefer—for that asymptotic approach toward the inevitable triumph of justice.

I think part of the answer is that people are constantly bombarded by a million different news bites and info streams. We've already Googled all the standard stories about wars, moral dilemmas, and tragedies. To actually grab someone's attention, you have to invent something they don't see in the headlines every day, which is where superheroes come in (and they conveniently frame the U.S. as the global gold standard for justice, democracy, and fighting the good fight)

Matthew Young35 said:The "deranged genius" is nothing more than an urban legend.
In reality, geniuses are typically just geniuses, perfectly sane.

There are plenty of "geniuses" who were once brilliant, only to lose their grip later and cease being brilliant altogether.
Frankly, using the term "genius" is a bit foolish when viewed from a mainstream perspective. For instance, I am fairly certain that someone who proved Fermat's Last Theorem possessed far deeper knowledge, methodology, and imagination than someone like Tesla. The tragedy of that mathematician is simply that his field of expertise—at least for now, and likely forever—hasn't impacted human life as profoundly as Tesla's work did.
It's a simple question: how many people label Steve Jobs or Bill Gates as geniuses? In truth, they were exceptional businessmen who pushed the right products at exactly the right moment.

There is something vaguely unsettling about this habit of crowning geniuses.

I have no intention of diminishing the legacy of Tesla, Da Vinci, Einstein, or even Newton.
It is merely that I am convinced there were, and still are, individuals far more intelligent and specialized in their respective fields than they were. They simply weren't lucky enough to work on something that fundamentally altered the course of human history.

The "mad scientist" is a convenient cliché. What would Einstein be without that iconic photo of him staring into the camera with that wild hair? Unthinkable.
I highly doubt he was writing his papers or presenting his findings looking like that.
Tesla serves as perhaps the best example. There is no dispute that he arrived at revolutionary ideas, or at least proved them to be viable. But it is equally true that he didn't produce those breakthroughs during his later years when his mental health declined.
In his final chapter, Tesla wasn't a "deranged genius." He was simply deranged. There wasn't a trace of brilliance left.

No matter how you spin it, these "deranged geniuses" simply do not exist in the real world.

For me, the best scenes are always when those "disturbed geniuses" listen to classical music while plotting world domination or carrying out some massacre. It’s such a cliché, honestly. Of course, the only "normal" people—the ones who eventually take these geniuses down—just listen to rock and roll. It’s proof that the average American can still triumph over a genius they might not fully understand, but can definitely handle...🤣 clearly, the regular folks are the ones who end up winning against those eccentric types in the end 😁

Martin Mystery was such a blast; he had some really clever and creative storylines... 👍

Jessica Gonzalez said:I wanted to pick your brains on something since there are plenty of smart people here. I was reading that some "Avengers" movie pulled in $600 million in just two days, and honestly, I wouldn't go see it even if someone offered to pay for my ticket ten times over. I happened to catch Iron Man 3 a few years back when it was breaking records, and I just couldn't wrap my head around it. To me, it felt like two hours of nothing happening without any real logic—kind of like watching a mediocre soccer player try to dribble through a defense. Afterwards, I saw reviews where grown men with full beards were giving it perfect scores. It’s hard to even call it a movie; it felt like two endless, boring hours that left me with zero lasting impressions. I've seen hundreds of films, from absolute masterpieces to total garbage, but I just don't get this.

They seem more like cartoons for kids, so why do adults follow them so fanatically into theaters? What is actually interesting about them? I'm asking because I genuinely don't understand, almost as if I'm living on a different planet than the people who write about these things as if they are cinematic achievements.

I was chatting with the owner of a major news site a while back, and he mentioned he’d much rather focus on deep investigative journalism, but he can't help but follow whatever gets the most clicks and views. It’s the exact same thing with movies. It feels like the whole culture is just losing its edge...

William Gomez5 said:Are we talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Company?

I remember reading "1,000 Catastrophes," and honestly, John Law is the only name that sticks in my brain from that whole thing. Man, what an absolute epic meltdown. 🙏

Some historians argue that the real triggers for the French Revolution were actually economic collapses caused by terrible harvests during the Little Ice Age—like how nearly 10% of the population died from famine back in 1693—combined with a massive stock market crash about twenty years prior. The nobility's extravagance was really just the icing on the cake... people weren't necessarily mad at the wealthy lifestyle itself, they were just upset because the slice of the pie they were fighting over kept getting smaller and smaller...

You could pretty much apply that same logic to explaining the economic triggers behind something like Shays' Rebellion...

Justin James10 said:Regarding James Anderson5's take on German colonies:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...FhPl8j3YVlZ6a7

As for the telecom industry? Honestly, shouldn't the priority have been breaking up that monopoly to foster real competition, rather than just selling off the whole thing along with the infrastructure in one giant piece?

We’re talking about colonialism, and you're bringing up German colonies as an argument... I see what you're doing there, using specific examples to drive your point home... 🤣Germany probably ranks pretty low on the list when you look at the actual economic benefits of colonialism. Since they didn't even unify until 1871, the whole colonial era was mostly over before they really got started...

Even if we agree that we should have maintained the infrastructure—and let's be honest, typical American corruption is likely why we didn't—why on earth would you privatize the telecom sector? Even with the power grid being in government hands, despite the usual inefficiencies and bureaucracy, at least all those profits stay right here in the States... It’s better than seeing that money bleed out to foreign owners like we see with the big banks and international telecom giants. We really should have just let foreign competitors step in to drive up the quality through actual competition. But I guess that's just the standard political mantra: privatize everything because people assume Americans don't know how to manage anything... 🤦

shadowmarlin22 said:American news outlets covering global affairs are basically just glorified copy-paste machines for foreign agencies.

It’s the same story with our political scene—there isn't any real left versus right divide. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats actually represent those ideologies. They're essentially two sides of the same coin, except one side just happens to talk about faith and prayer a bit more often. Our parties don't have any real backbone or ideology driving them—they just do whatever it takes to stay in power and get their hands on the federal budget so they can play around with it.

And honestly, it’s even worse here—nobody really understands what’s going on in the European Union, let alone the rest of the world. You'll see more headlines about a new photo of Lidija Bačić in every single newspaper and website without exception than you'll see about China starting to trade oil in its own currency...

Justin James10 said:We constantly complain about a lack of foreign investment, yet we keep repeating this tired mantra about "evil exploiters."🙏

Our telecom sector was essentially a bloated, quasi-socialist behemoth that desperately needed privatization—but only after breaking up its monopoly. Instead, what did we do? We clung to our precious family heirlooms.🙏

Historically, colonies were mostly a drain on resources, especially those remote outposts in Africa. There's really just a pervasive myth surrounding the idea of colonial prosperity.

So, what exactly did we actually gain from the privatization of the telecom industry... 🤣 There are some really iconic pieces of infrastructure that the government could still be collecting rent on today...

Those points about the colonies aren't really arguments... they're just observations...

Paul Sanders5 said:I mean, back in the day, India was probably the richest prize any European nation ever laid eyes on, but the British played it smart. They didn't try to micromanage everything with a massive standing army or shove their own people into every single job from the top down. Instead, they just picked a handful of local maharajas, decked them out in gear, and bought off the elite 😁 Let’s be real, India is way too massive for any single European power to actually keep under control—the population there has always been bigger than all of Europe combined.

If you want a deep dive, look up the Dutch East India Company. Seriously, they were basically the world's first true multinational corporation, complete with their own private military, and they were richer than most actual countries 😁 Think of them as if Apple, Microsoft, and ExxonMobil had a baby 😁

It wasn't like the English were geniuses or anything; they just didn't have enough depth to cover all the positions... 🤣A good chunk of those early settlers actually died from various illnesses... When you look at how the East India Company really grew, it was mostly just luck and a lucky streak of events. Most of the guys living out there were either drunk or busy chasing local women, but they didn't bother anyone, so the locals didn't mind—it actually helped their trade business...

Of course I know about the Dutch version, but if you're interested, I’d definitely suggest looking into the French one... hint: it's an even bigger bubble than Bitcoin... 😁

Paul Sanders5 said:They were definitely unprofitable. To get any kind of ROI, you had to dump insane amounts of capital upfront—building out settlements, laying down roads, then railroads later, paying for standing armies or whatever muscle you needed to hold ground. In the end, it was just way easier to just buy the resources😁 for a fraction of the cost.

The most valuable American colony would have been something like the territories managed by the East India Company—I actually just watched a documentary on them. For them, maintaining an army and building forts really paid off, but what eventually jeopardized everything was the aggressive push for religious conversion. That triggered rebellions and wars, which is terrible for the bottom line. The Company blamed religious organizations for the chaos, while those groups blamed the Company for blocking their mission 😁 After all those conflicts, the US government ended up taking direct control...

The profits for shareholders and company officials were absolutely staggering; apparently, they even held over 10% of the votes in Congress at one point and amassed incredible wealth.

The American economy was roughly 12.5% of the global total back in 1700, but by the 1870s, it hit 74%. That was the era when the East India Company controlled huge swaths of territory and transitioned from being just a trading firm to a major political power. Part of that can be attributed to the start of the Industrial Revolution, though that was heavily fueled by capital coming out of those colonies. They basically controlled the tax systems, meaning they used local money to fund their own militaries and infrastructure projects.

Let's be honest, a huge portion of Western wealth was built on exploiting colonies and stripping resources, much like how many major museums are filled with looted artifacts that will likely never be returned to their countries of origin...

Modern colonialism is pretty much what you mentioned; at some point, it became cheaper to avoid the overhead of armies and physical infrastructure and instead just extract profit through shell companies, bribed politicians, and intelligence agencies...

Sandra Johnson58 said:Actually, their healthcare isn't even that bad—like, it's not bad at all, really. They probably have the most cutting-edge treatments and do way more medical research than anyone else, and honestly, it's pretty convincing how much work goes into it here in the States. If you actually take a second to look into it, it’s not even that crazy expensive because you can find decent insurance plans for totally reasonable prices. A lot of people over here don't have coverage just because, well, if you aren't working, you can't pay for it, but also a bunch of people just choose not to have it since they have that option. But unlike back home where people might help you out even if you're uninsured, it's a bit more of a headache here. You basically have to hit up a free clinic or somewhere that has a budget for those pro bono treatments or surgeries. And honestly, almost every major hospital in a big city has a massive amount of money set aside for stuff like that from donations. When I say massive, I mean like, astronomical numbers, especially in huge cities like New York or Los Angeles. I think I read somewhere that Cedars-Sinai had like 300 million in donations specifically for pro bono care and surgeries. The biggest issues with the system are just how insanely complicated everything is, the way insurance companies treat people like they're nothing—which is a regulation issue—and the fact that your insurance might not cover you if you're out of state, which is a legal mess. People back in my old country often don't even realize how much they're paying for health coverage. For me, they used to take $667 out of my check every single month, and I still ended up having to pay for heart checkups privately because I couldn't wait as long as they wanted me to—it was like, over four months of waiting. When I look back at the kind of service I got from the American system for the money I handed over... man, it honestly makes me want to cry.

It's true they have some of the best clinics and doctors in the world, no doubt about that. But man, that industry moves a massive amount of money. That's also why their average healthcare spending per person is the highest globally, and prices for services are through the roof. Compared to someone in Switzerland, they're spending nearly a third more. America is a pretty skewed place when it comes to social standards; while we tend to worry about neoliberalism, everything over there seems driven by a fear of communism. Everyone has their own little bogeyman to worry about...

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...-amount-health

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...are-per-person

If it were up to me, I'd pick any Western European country over the US for healthcare any day...

Justin James10 said:Let me let you in on a little secret: most colonies weren't actually profitable. 😉

That's why they eventually let them go. It wasn't some sudden burst of humanitarianism; it was simply that maintaining colonies became far too expensive.

Take Germany, for example. Out of all their overseas territories, only places like Togo or those small Pacific islands really made financial sense.

Germany was never really a major player in the colonial game. Honestly, even the British were probably losing money on North America. I'm curious though, what data are you using to claim that most colonies were unprofitable?

The reality is that being a modern economic powerhouse is incredibly lucrative if you look at the margins foreign banks and telecom giants pull in compared to their initial investments...

Sandra Johnson58 said:Maybe I phrased that a little weirdly. I mean, I agree that in places with a crappy economy—and usually a super inefficient government too—those issues are probably a lot more pressing than in rich, developed countries. In those spots, minority groups barely have any rights or protection, so they're usually the first ones getting screwed over when things go south because, well, they're minorities. What I was trying to say is... I guess people only really start worrying about marginalized rights once they're comfortable. Once people are doing okay, then having the freedom to be themselves and do whatever becomes a massive topic in society. That’s usually when those big social movements start popping up to fight for them. But on the flip side, in countries where you're just worried about surviving until tomorrow? Man, you don't care about those rights. You might even just join the mob and stone those people because they feel fake or just... I don't know, they just annoy you.😁.

It reminds me of that old saying: "Nationalism is a topic for when you're making under $3,000 a month. That's the story they feed people. Once your paycheck hits $5,000, the conversation shifts to fashion and dining out. When it climbs past $10,000, suddenly everyone's talking about organic food, summer vacations, and ski trips. But once you clear $40,000, all that nonsense stops. People just want to talk about the weather and love"

He also pointed out 😁 "Anyway, why are you even bothering me with this? Did we have democratic, multi-party elections back in the nineties? Didn't we all pretty much vote for capitalism? We voted for nationalism and for letting churches dictate our lives while capitalists took everything right from under our noses. So, what is it you want now?"

Jessica Gonzalez said:Nowadays, shifts in worldview happen incredibly fast, and I don't think our society is particularly backward or primitive. In fact, in some respects, we are quite civilized and advanced. For example, here, even after the war when everyone had weapons, we have very little gun crime today, and people voluntarily handed over rifles to the police whenever they could. Despite the horrific bloodshed in the North America during the 90s, there is almost no terrorism between the warring factions here now, which is nearly a phenomenon. Terrorism has occurred in the UK, Spain, Russia, and Germany, even though they had far fewer political problems and conflicts compared to the former America. But here, there is none after the war. Americans are actually a very peaceful people, perhaps too laid back and overly self-critical, maybe too afraid to clear out things that aren't working. Even demonstrations like the ones in Greece aren't really possible here because the people aren't violent. On the other hand, in America, where most modern fads start, the right to carry a weapon is as much a right as going to a bakery is for us. Slavery was abolished here back in the 12th century.

I won't even mention the riots with gas canisters on main streets or the clashes with police, nor the intense protests down by the waterfront. It's not that Americans aren't peaceful; it's just that this more aggressive segment of the population finds these chaotic situations useful for their own interests...

Justin James10 said:But let’s be honest, we weren't exactly special when it came to abolishing feudalism; almost every country across the West was moving in that same direction during that era.

To top it off, if you look at places like the coastal regions of the South, classic feudalism never even truly took root there.

So, really, that just isn't a valid excuse.

From what I recall, mountainous regions weren't considered part of those feudal estates, so plenty of people chose to live out in the Rockies or similar areas just to escape that whole peasant lifestyle...

Jessica Gonzalez said:I feel like everything should be privatized. I guess there isn't a single part of the economy that wouldn't benefit from it, including things like healthcare. Maybe even the education system would see some improvements if we had more private alternatives available.

We have to be extremely careful with healthcare, though, so we don't end up with an American model where those with money get treated while everyone else suffers in silence at home😁. We shouldn't change things that work; healthcare should maintain its social foundation, but we need to purge the corruption and politics and implement smart management instead...

I haven't really noticed education getting better just because of private business schools; it feels like it just resulted in more useless degrees being handed out...

The thing is, Bujati barely got a word in because this guy was just on another level; I think he managed maybe five sentences in an entire hour🤣

As for Malnar, yeah, he’s definitely missed👍

When it comes to political options, I don't recall any of them having someone who actually understands business or offers even remotely sensible ideas... It's all just extremes, from trying to maintain the mess we have now to talking about nationalizing banks and everything else. There's nothing halfway reasonable in the whole situation

Of course there are, but this one right here is the most recent 😁

If you haven't seen it yet, enjoy ☕

We can always choose the right wing, led by Bujancc and his crew of elite scientists who truly understand how to help America best...

Anthony Jackson2 said:That whole thing about salaries is largely a myth. A girl I know works for the government on minimum wage and she can't wait to get out. A friend of mine too—and even a buddy of mine in an IT department within the public sector makes less than average.

There are always exceptions, but the trend is pretty obvious. I've seen plenty of this firsthand—for a lot of people, even minimum wage is too much considering how little they actually do during the day. What's even sadder is that once you climb up the ladder, things often get worse. Usually, there's one person working their tail off while five others just stare out the window all day

It's the exact same story whether you're looking at city hall or a massive corporation. There's always one skilled professional carrying the weight while five or six others just sit around gossiping and doing nothing. That said, salaries in some federal agencies are actually decent, but in local government or state-run companies and agencies, they really aren't...

Peter Thompson4 said:Honestly, those guys aren't even the main issue anymore; they're just "living dead" relics from some tiny backwater town, so what can you really expect besides outdated opinions? The massive, glaring problem is actually the youth and the fact that most of them don't want to actually work—they just want to land some cushy government job and sit around doing absolutely nothing. Instead of being ashamed of themselves, or better yet, instead of steering clear of those lazy options, they should actually want to work hard, gain some real skills, and try to actually build something meaningful with their lives.

And what happens? Well, let me quote this one young guy for you:

I’ve got a bigger head than Mojo Jojo, but I’m not looking for handouts because I know if I tried to pull any strings, it would blow up in my face since someone always has more influence, or someone always has a connection to a guy who has an even bigger connection to the biggest guy of all, the one everyone calls Todo because he pretty much runs the whole damn country.

Last year, I came across some public opinion poll in Cleveland, and the most desirable employer was the government 😁 Well, obviously. The average salaries are way higher than in the private sector, job security is basically absolute, and you usually don't have to work hard at all. But if you try to start your own business, it feels like walking through a minefield because you're constantly exposed to fines for every little thing. So, what's there to think about? 🤣

Justin James10 said:I've already gone through that. Let's be honest: Americans are stuck in a massive rut, we all know it. Wouldn't enlightened absolutism actually 🤦

Whether you like it or not, that’s basically been the reality here for about the last 28 years, with maybe a few tiny exceptions. With a crew like this running things, there's no way we're ever going to see the kind of democratic processes or even a halfway normal government that you or I would actually want

https://www.nytimes.com/news/usa/...---450351.html

Justin James10 said:Well, speaking from experience, they always end up jumping through hoops at the last minute. Heaven forbid you even question their sacred doctrines! Of course, there are plenty of people on the other side who act just as stubbornly.

James Anderson5, you have completely lost the plot! What kind of "enlightened absolutism" are you even talking about? What on earth 😁

I don't usually enjoy quoting this guy, but give this a read

This is what the American people love—not everyone, but definitely the majority who keeps picking the same old thing...

Look, capitalism was an absolute nightmare back in the late 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries—kids were working in factories, people were pulling 18-hour shifts, and workers had zero rights. Neither Karl Marx nor communism just popped out of nowhere; they were direct responses to the extreme injustices of that era. You really just need to pick up a few books to get a sense of what that time was actually like...

We could also talk about how communism struggled economically, much like how capitalism has its own failures in the West. In China, being the most populous nation on Earth, communism evolved and transformed them into a powerhouse that will likely be the world's top economic force by 2050. Capitalism actually adopted some more humane elements from communist and socialist ideas, while communism in China integrated market components while keeping its essential one-party system. They don't really need Western democracy at all, just like Libya didn't need it either...

Plus, the whole idea of democracy in most Western countries basically boils down to an oligarchy. Americans are often cited as an example of democracy, yet they really only have two parties rotating in power, similar to the situation here. Corporations legally buy politicians through lobbyists, and if you don't have massive amounts of cash for campaigns and party machinery, you can't even compete with political platforms, just like it works here. So, what else would you call it if not an oligarchy?

In America, we might not even need a true democracy; instead, maybe an enlightened quasi-democratic absolutism would work better (which is kind of what we experienced under Marshall and Tuki, and even Sanders). People seem to respond well to that, and they actually enjoy it... 😁

ruggedjackal46 said:Look, the UK and the US didn't have fascists running the show, so you can't even begin to compare that to the situation we dealt with back home. There’s a massive difference between being an anti-fascist holding office and being an anti-fascist hiding out in the woods of an occupied country. In our neck of the woods, we didn't just have a huge, organized resistance against the fascists during World War II; we had to fight the Soviets afterward, too. We used to actually have some backbone. 😁

So apparently, there were hardly any partisans at first because people weren't really feeling the whole communism vibe. But once the Italian occupation hit, tons of folks from California joined up, and the narrative shifted toward being more anti-fascist just to bring people on board, pushing the communist side to the background.

Then again, there was forced mobilization—which happens on all sides in every war—and plenty of people switching sides once they saw Hitler was losing...

But if we're talking about having real guts, that's definitely true...

Justin James10 said:If you had just submitted...

The real tragedy is that we never had access to true, Western-style anti-fascism. But then again, nothing from the West ever seems to actually take root in these parts, does it? 🕺

It's debatable whether the West even had its own specific brand of anti-fascism anyway. Fascist movements were pretty powerful in the United Kingdom, and Hitler was actually quite the celebrity back in the day until his Drang nach Osten kicked in. Plus, communism wasn't exactly anti-fascist either; the Russians were actually fine with splitting the spoils with Hitler at first. Problems only popped up once they started fighting over territory, but before that, they worked together quite smoothly while partitioning Poland. Even our local resistance movement didn't start out as pure anti-fascism; it began as coordinated actions aligned with the Russians to draw German forces away so they wouldn't all be sent to the Eastern Front. And let's not forget how few resistance fighters there actually were in those early years...

The West moved against Hitler for strategic interests rather than ideological ones. It makes you wonder if Americans would have even been motivated by seeing Hitler view Gypsies and Slavs as inferior when they were doing the exact same thing to Black Americans. To me, "anti-fascism" feels more like a motivational tool used to get the average person to join the war effort...

The NDH actually had a shot, and there was a genuine attempt to switch sides to the Allies, but it just fell through...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_...%87-Voki%C4%87

No regime here has ever been perfect. The communist era was brutal for the first decade, though it settled down quite a bit during the 60s and especially the 70s. The real window of opportunity for the country was right after 1990, but everything went sideways. I was just reading an interview with the late Stipetić, where he talked about how ridiculous it was to hand out general ranks to people who only had two years of combat experience. We saw that pattern then, and honestly, we still see it today at every level. Even Kolinda acts that way with her wild statements—one day she's bragging about her partisan roots, the next she's acting out in Argentina, and the third day Maminjo is throwing her birthday parties... 😁