ApolloCrude

@ihyjvs3ph I assume Bill Russell is taking this picture

Who at this table getting up for Wemby??

@MartinKnight_ Cameron, unintentionally.

Who was the last British PM to leave the country a better place than it was on the day they took office?

@DannyDrinksWine I agree with the idea he should have been given a crack at Gravity’s Rainbow, if Pynchon let him. He’s got the sensibility, and he grew up watching V2s being launched from streets in occupied Holland.

Paul Verhoeven on how the failure of 'Showgirls' (1995) affected his career & why he thinks a movie like 'Showgirls' can't be made anymore in Hollywood: "One of the most interesting, or the most terrible, and the most fascinating things to happen with 'Showgirls' (1995) was the reaction to it. I had not at all expected that I would be brutalized by the critics. Critics would say, “I had to leave the theater” because they had to throw up, it was so dirty, decadent — whatever description they gave it. That was astonishing to me. The feeling of total amazement that the film was received with an absolute full spectrum of animosity will never disappear. When my movie 'Spetters' (1980) was released in Holland in 1980, there was a similar reaction. But the big difference was that that movie had a very big audience. Here, all the reviews were terrible, but people didn’t want to see it either. The backlash, and the consequences for me in the Hollywood industry, are certainly not something I will forget. After 'Showgirls', nobody trusted me anymore, other than with the movies that had been working very well, which was the science-fiction stuff. I started with 'RoboCop' (1987) and 'Total Recall' (1990), but I tried to get away from science fiction. Then all the doors that were opened for me were all closed by 'Showgirls'. It made life more one-dimensional as to what I was able to do. That’s why I decided to go back to myself again with something like [WWII movie] 'Black Book' in 2006. I don’t think that it’s a movie that could ever be made anymore. Ever. Because n*d!ty is more taboo than ever in the United States. You see these movies and the s€x scenes are reduced to a couple of dissolves where you see a hand on a back, but there are really no s€x scenes in American movies anymore. There are exceptions, of course. But not many. Yet, 20 years later we’re still talking about the movie. You never see anything like it anymore, something so outrageous but very well filmed: the lighting, the sound effects, everything. There’s a lot of n*d!ty; but it’s not exploitative. It’s not a p0rn0 movie. I think the n*d!ty in 'Showgirls' is not done in what you would call a “dirty” way. For me, the female body is extremely inspiring and beautiful. When I was in high school in Holland, my art teacher said: "The breast of a woman is the most beautiful thing in the world." I never forgot that, and I’ve always felt that way. When I think of the movie, I see all these brilliant colors and of these beautiful movements — of the body and of the camera — and what stands out for me is the elegance. That sounds strange to people when I say this is a very elegant movie, but I think it is. It’s probably the most elegant movie I’ve ever done." ("‘Showgirls’: Paul Verhoeven on the Greatest Stripper Movie Ever Made", Jennifer Wood, Rolling Stone, 2015)

@AntigoneJournal Doesn’t it still sort of technically legally exist in the form of Russia? Albeit that was in abeyance between 1917-1991.

When did the Roman Empire actually fall? In AD 476? Or in 410? Or a millennium later in 1453? Or, if you apply stricter criteria, did the (Western) Roman Empire actually fall on a completely different date in the 5th century? On why 468 *really* matters: antigonejournal.com/2024/09/when-d…

@DastDn The Austrians and French both had their shots in 1866 and 1870, it’s a shame for the future of Europe that they couldn’t take them.

France is a society that never recovered from leaving it all on the field to stop Germany in WW1. Britain is a society that never recovered from holding the line (single-handedly, for a year) against Nazis in WW2. Germany murder-suicided the European branch of the West.

@DanielJHannan Both the English and Scottish were colonised, by the Normans. James I and the “Scots” who came south with him in 1603 weren’t Scottish at all, they were Norman-Flemish.

I’m a Whig not a Tory; and I’m English by neither birth nor ancestry. Some of my forebears were Irish, most were Scots. I can’t help noticing that Scottish separatists also play the anti-colonial card which, if anything, is even more ludicrous than Irish nationalists doing so. For Scots were the greatest empire-builders of all, governing colonies, managing estates and mission schools, planting tea, founding banks, dealing in jute, rubber and opium. Above all, Scots served as soldiers. In the 1750s, the new Highland regiments drove the French from Canada. During the American Revolution, plaid-draped troops were so fierce that Thomas Jefferson had to be made to take a specific attack on Scotland out of the Declaration of Independence. The image of the kilted Highlander became the icon of empire. The SNP notion that Scotland was somehow annexed by England is beyond idiotic. Contemporaries saw it the other way around. When James VI rode south to claim his second throne in 1603, many Englishmen moaned that they were being invaded by swarms of lairds, come in search of new titles and sinecures. There were similar objections to the Act of Union in 1707, blamed for making England responsible for Scotland’s debts. Indeed, the notion of a union between the two kingdoms was first put forward in 1520 by a Lowlands theologian, the unfortunately named John Major, as a way to ensure that Scotland would not be dominated by her larger neighbour. Of course, facts these days give precedence to feelings – and no feeling is stronger than the indignation of imagined victimhood. Hence the bizarre sight of the boldest, most inventive and most influential nation on Earth reimagining itself as someone else’s vassal.

@phl43 @lastfullmeasure “Much higher burden” is doing a lot of work there. Brehzhev’s defence spending was totally unsustainable by the time the revenues from the new Siberian oilfields plateaued, and Gorby had to do something to address that.

That's not what I mean though, it worked in a much less trivial sense. It had substantial growth for decades, was still growing even toward the end (though at a much slower rate) and led to significant improvements in the standard of living, even if not as much as a market system would have. This is an economy that sent people to space, supported a military that could rival the US even though it was a much higher burden, provided basic health care and education to hundreds of millions, etc. Again, it was less efficient than a market system, but I think it makes people lose sight of its achievements, which were significant and kind of surprising.

Hot take but he was right about the first part, if not about the second. The Soviet economy did work for decades and, had it not been for Gorbachev's ill-conceived attempt to reform it (not that it was easy), it may have continued to work for several more. It worked poorly and didn't fit the theoretical ideal of a centrally planned economy, because it only worked due to the existence of alternative supply networks to supplement the central planning mechanism and required constant political interference in its day-to-day operations, but it worked. I think it's worth pointing that out, because it's kind of amazing that it worked at all, even very poorly. It certainly didn't thrive and was clearly inferior to a market system, for reasons that Hayek had identified from the beginning, but many people think that the Soviet Union collapsed because the command economy stopped working and I think it's more the other way around.

@theoldworldshow There’s a reason Lincoln idolised Jackson, for all his faults. He truly believed in popular rule.

One of the interesting aspects of the Founding is that the men who led it were aristocrats and gentlemen, not democrats, and so grew increasingly disappointed with the much more democratic direction America headed in the early 19th century This was even true of Jefferson, the most notably pro-democracy of the group. As Wood notes in Revolutionary Characters: "Although [Jefferson] continued in his public letters, especially to foreigners, to affirm that progress and civilization were still on the march, in private he became more and more apprehensive of the future. "He sensed that American society, including Virginia, might not be getting better after all but actually going backward. The people were not becoming more refined, more polite, and more sociable; if anything, they were more barbaric and more factional than they had been. Jefferson was frightened by the divisions in the country and by the popularity of Andrew Jackson, whom he regarded as a man of violent passions and unfit for the presidency. "He felt overwhelmed by the new paper money business culture sweeping the country, and he never appreciated how much his democratic and egalitarian principles had contributed to its rise."

@BulwarkOnline One of these two handled difficult questions like a professional politician. The other is President of the United States.

Trump: "Do you think that men should play in women's sports?" Doordash driver: "I really don't have an opinion on that." Trump: "You don't? I bet you do." Doordash driver: "No, I'm here about…" Trump: "Pizza." Doordash driver: "No tax on tips."

@ClarkeMicah Yes - this is basically the entire point of why Iran can’t be allowed to have them.

Is anyone else struck by the way in which Israel's nuclear weapons, which we all know to exist, are implictly deemed not to be capable of deterring Iran, should Iran obtain nuclear weapons of its own? So, er.......

@UpdatingOnRome 1) Kill Commodus 2) Travel forward in time to obtain plague and smallpox vaccines for the entire Empire and return to 180AD with them.

You have become Roman Emperor in 180 AD. This is your empire. What do you do differently to avoid the upcoming crisis?

@Will_Tanner_1 They have held onto it because no Government has implemented fairly straightforward policies (like a land tax) to specifically target their wealth and privileges, and instead focus their taxation efforts on the plutocratic rich.

Meanwhile, the British landed elite from centuries ago has managed to survive over a century of extortionate death and income taxes while holding onto more of its wealth than any other group, namely the plutocratic rich Similarly, the wealthiest families in Florence six centuries ago are still the highest earners today Genetics are real, and must be taken into account. Civilizational success comes from cultivating the right traits over time and putting those men in charge, so they can steward and lead the nation as they do the same with their families The relevant studies are Trajectories of Aristocratic Wealth and "The Wealthy in Florence Today Are the Same Families as 600 Years Ago"

@interbellica Prussia

If you had to blame one nation for WWI, who would it be and why?

@hovah76 I think we have to cut MJ some slack on his drinking. His father’s murder badly messed him up and he had (and has) to drink to blot out the memory. Anyone who watched the Last Dance could see he still had a massive drinking problem and that that’s the reason.

I watched Michael Jordan at the age of 38. He was with the Wizards. Years of being a degenerate alcoholic had caught up to him. He had very little lift. He was missing basic fast-break dunks. Younger players were feeling sorry for him. He looked like a charity case. The little engine that once could. This 👇🏾👇🏾👇🏾👇🏾👇🏾👇🏾 is Lebron James at the age of 41. The most disciplined athlete in the HISTORY of the NBA. If younger players wish to see HIM, they have to look up at the top of the BOX on the backboards! Man is still so dominant and flies so high, haters out here talking about PED’s. I got news for you: The NBA did not even start testing for PED’s until 1999……after Michael Jordan retired from the league. The ENTIRE LEAGUE was on PED’s when MJ played, including MJ. What…….you thought that a dude who came into the league skin and bones, and transformed to cock diesel after getting punk’d by the Detroit Pistons multiple times was all natural? 😂😂 Lebron was one of the strongest SF’s in the league upon ARRIVAL, and gets tested regularly, just like every other player POST the MJ steroid era. You can hate it……but PLEASE respect it!!

@Pango987 @admcollingwood It’s the height of naivety to believe they were ever going to give up pursuing nukes

@ApolloCrude @admcollingwood Then scuppering the pre-war negotiations with the Iranians via assassination has ruined the chance of avoiding that. No one has contradicted that the Iranians were prepared to end military grade enrichment, but they aren’t going to accept any terms of the sort now.

Neocons love the Iran War. They're foresquare behind Israel, who do not want it to end. A deal that favours Iran (as any deal at this stage would) is going to be massively difficult to force through the US political system.

@Pango987 @admcollingwood No it would not be worse - nukes in the hands of the mullahs (if not these ones then future crazy ones) risks global destruction in the future. Paris is worth a Mass.

@ApolloCrude @admcollingwood I think a global famine that could kill millions would be worse, and there’s zero chance that the US can solve this by force, they have failed.

@Pango987 @admcollingwood The worst deal reality could impose would be an Iranian nuke. Any economic pain is worth enduring to prevent that

@admcollingwood The choice is simple, accept a bad deal now or have reality impose a worse deal later.

@admcollingwood Good!

@P_Whittingham @DanielJHannan It still will, and we need to do it.

@DanielJHannan I never believed it was possible without boots on the ground. That would've required a force nearing one million combatants. It would require the US, Israel, the entirety of Europe, the Gulf States and the Kurds to achieve that objective.

@admcollingwood @AbstractTruthSP The only way it would be successful is enough hawkish anti-Iran Republicans join with the Democrats to get sufficient numbers. Which is probably exactly what they’re threatening him with if he capitulates to Iran.

@AbstractTruthSP Every chance he will be impeached after the midterms. I don't know much about US politics, but my impression was always that the instant the Dems won back control of the Congress, they would do exactly that anyway. Whether it is successful is an entirely different matter.

I do not believe it is politically possible for the US to swallow the only deal Iran would accept. The economic pain would have to get much worse.