>>17807325 (OP)
Because the current sistem is ass.

>>17807325 (OP)
I don't think he does, he just knows the hyperindividualist society will inevitably collapse under its own selfishness eventually.

>>17807325 (OP)
I found his latest series lackluster. The first episode is good, works in his typical style of combining many disparate seemingly unrelated concepts into one larger comprehensive point. (Creation of the WW2 hero myth, dissolution of the post war concensus, change in the foundation of concrete beliefs with regard to science)
The rest of the series was literally just describing events in sequential order, no different from any other documentary. It had very little to say. I suppose this is a problem with the subject matter because what do you really say about Britain in the 90s? Nothing particularly relevant happened between Thatcher leaving office and Blair getting in, nothing that wasn't covered by describing the effects of Thatcher's policies, anyway.

I hope it's just that, that the subject matter was truly inconsequential and that he hasn't lost the ability to create truly thought-provoking stuff. I'd hate if everything he made from now on was just clips of archive footage and describing the events depicted in them.

>>17807406
I dont know how you managed to get nothing out of it, it was about the financial institutions basically dismantling britain for their own gain, and how this basically erased british culture along with the promotion of individualism above all else and how these both interlinked. The millennium dome was basically the ultimate conclusion, a big dome filled with nothing because there was no identity left as radical individualism has basically erased it all.

>>17807406
I agree. I didn’t much buy his reasoning for why he chose not to do his traditional voice over narration this time. Something about the the events playing out on the screen would have less impact if his voice told people what to think. Wut.

Still the best

>>17807414
This is what I mean, it was just describing events as they happened. Nothing wrong with it, and not incorrect, but it didn't engage or have the narrative power of the first episode.
The first episode bewilders, it presents a corpse being dug up in Kent, an intersex dog, a depressed pilot, medieval nobility, British soldiers fearful in the Raj, Stephen Hawking, you're sat, wondering how on earth these very different ideas can have any overarching point and then it clicks into place when interviews with his squadmates about him being a liability who was derelict from his duty and yet still got a full state funeral with honors emerges. They had to formulate a coherent collective narrative about the legendary fighter pilot of WW2, telling a nuanced story wasn't important, they followed the zeitgeist of the hero despite it not being true because it was convenient. The land of make believe.

The rest of it was just going through the motions. X happened because Y. We already knew about the atomization of society, privatization, the miner's strikes, there was no new concept being elaborated on there. The idea of WW2 being a hero worship cult (especially them hoping the pilot was descended from the old aristocracy so they could tie him up to some noble aristocrat fantasy) and the ramifications of that were salient, that the whole of society is basically a vibes based organization where if enough people believe something then it becomes true and vice-versa. Episode 1 was the only part of the series with something to say in my opinion.

I still greatly enjoyed the rest of it, but only the first part left me with something to mull over, the rest was just reinforcing what I already knew. I hope to find things of interest with Curtis, not rote memorization of events.

>>17807416
I reckon it's legitimately just him seething about people making "and then something strange happened" parodies.

>>17807406
>because what do you really say about Britain in the 90s?
Parklife!
>nothing particularly relevant happened between Thatcher leaving office and Blair getting in
Parklife!
>nothing that wasn't covered by describing the effects of Thatcher's policies, anyway.
Parklife!

https://butthiswasafantasy.com/

Kek

>>17807459
>This is what I mean, it was just describing events as they happened. Nothing wrong with it, and not incorrect, but it didn't engage or have the narrative power of the first episode.
If I'm honest I feel like it's more like a Britain specific continuation of Can't Get You Out of My Head, it covers a lot of the same themes but just more specific to Britain itself, and in that sense speaks for itself.

>>17807390
why? It can just adapt, has that advantage

>>17807325 (OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg

>>17807414
>promotion of individualism above all else
what's wrong with that?

>>17807537
It doesn't really because it can't coherently organise itself and basically slowly collapses as business interests seek to maximise efficiency by getting rid of as many people as it can, but because it's individualist has no way of dealing with the ever growing portion of the population who have nothing to do and no real direction or vision to work towards. Also has a tendency to keep hurting itself with short term thinking that ebbs at the foundations.
I'd say their biggest issue is that the economy stops being a force that services the people, but that the people exist to service it in the most pessimistic nihilistic way imaginable and creates lots of discontent. I can't see much of the west surviving more than 40 years from now.

>>17807550
Yes individualism can organize itself, usually top down. It just updates the guidelines, what's your problem with that?
Don't you value free will or you believe everything is hard determined? If yes acknowledge that it's determined for collectivism to fail.

>>17807522
In that though you had a principle where he told a tiny story which functioned as a microcosm for the society as a whole. Jiang Qing's ratfuckery in China emphasized how cliquey the nature of power is, paralleled with how it was in the West with old money, and how they would go out of their way to issue retribution for personal vendettas rather than focus on steering society forward. Weaving together different concepts and groups, the cultural revolution, the black panthers, the PLO, into one coherent plot.

My point is Shifty really didn't seem like an Adam Curtis documentary at all. The spark of inspiration simply wasn't there. Maybe the BBC convinced him to make a UK centric docuseries because Traumaland didn't get good viewership? I don't know. It felt like his heart wasn't in it.

>>17807541
The kind of hyper individualism we have today isn't just healthy ambition, they have no actual community at all to the point of much of the west becoming rotten with criminality. There has to be some sense of community goal or cohesion or your society will just collapse.

>>17807325 (OP)
what ideology even is this guy?
seems to shit on everything
he's against individualism, collectivization, capitalism, communism, what does he WANT society to be?

>>17807561
He wants to goon to porn in freedom.

>>17807552
You can organise it when its tempered by some sense of community, once you hit the nihilistic consuming we have now you're on your way to doom. Free will or not is irrelevant to this point.

>>17807571
Nihilism is not an issue under atheistic socialism? You come as a commie, do you have something else in mind?

>>17807550
>I can't see much of the west surviving more than 40 years from now.
Depends on your definition of "the west".
A tiny percent of billionaires ruling over a beige slave class fighting amongst itself while keeping the gears of the machine printing monopoly money will still exist as it does today in 40 years, depending on whether or not you consider that "the west" it's already gone.

>>17807574
I'm not a commie, I just think the hyper individualism that was pushed in much of the west went too far. You need a balance of both to have a stable society, not just a load of people stabbing each other in the back trying to consume as many goods as possible towards no particular goal.

>>17807567
Isn't he following some random teenage e-whore on tikstagram or something?

>>17807583
I cannot justify to promote anything but individualism in all contexts. Usually people fail because of skill and spiritual issues.

>>17807561
His ideology is very simple. He proposes a bunch of questions he does not have any answers to, then he sets up seminars that he charges $30 per guest to join, then he spends the next 2 and a half hours on stage abusing overly verbose rhetoric in order to fill the slot and distract people long enough so that they don't realize their time and money have been wasted and then he has his agent book him a spot on Joe Rogan to continue marketing his grift

>>17807591
I mean if you're happy with a society where everyone is basically a violent sociopath then sure.

>>17807595
But that's just not true.

>>17807598
Criminality is the end result of individualism, of caring for no one but yourself and destroying everyone around you for your benefit.

>>17807601
A macro level look at crime statistics shows that it's getting better decade after decade.
Even if legal, what's getting worse is financial crimes, people optimizing taxes and using tax heavens. But that's a matter of policy making and I believe Piketty is right about how to handle it, or maybe add transaction costs cross border.

>>17807608
We now know that in socialism they were murdering people "legally", sham trials, sham mental institute diagnosis, sham reasons to arrest/survey people by the omnipresent secret police, murder cases not being recorded because that's not what happens in communism according to the book dogma.
Petty crimes were more present in all socialist states before the change to liberalism, bribery was more widespread as well.

>>17807608
Only because we have yet to reach peak individualism, though you can see crime increasing in most of the west as state police control unravels because people dont see any value in paying taxes for that.

>>17807608
>A macro level look at crime statistics shows that it's getting better decade after decade.
Yes, anarcho-tyranny.
Nobody reports actual crimes because they're not dealt with.

>>17807616
I rather think they are better reported than ever, especially in the smartphone age, so many angles to correct data or ensure it actually gets reported. We even have 20th century cases of missing people solved all the time by amateur detectives because everything is online now, numbers, services and individualism forces these institutions to pick up phones, pass data out.

Anyway liberty does entail that people are free to become genuinely dangerous, train their fighting skills, body strength, fire arm usage, you should be aware of that and not provoke such people into pointless fights, you're also free to become strong or if you are strong you are perfectly free to restrict your power and be gentle, important nuance, it's different from being innocent and incapable to defend yourself or do harm!

>>17807625
>society will turn into a mad max society of a bunch of people shooting and killing each other for fun
>this is good because... uuuh, muh liberty!

>>17807629
But I'm not a libertarian and I do not envision that end goal, even as a joke.
I believe the state is crucial, my individualism presumes the rule of law. You do crimes, you pay for it.

While I am a capitalist I want a form of anarchy in it, grassroots communities having their own local banks, preferably local council controlled - non profit - I want a supra national institution that controls capital flight and so on.
I want central bank/state window guidance for the economy towards productivity but also mindful over the distribution of wealth, which again is a matter of policies.
I am closer to fascists to be fair or third way politics but I do not identify with those, just saying.

>>17807634
Fascism is antithetical to individualism by nature, it's basically a parallel fork to socialism but focuses on national endeavours over internationalism. It's literally about guiding people towards a transformation.

>>17807642
I'm not really a fascist but I do take a lot of practical policies from them, China is an example of a modern country that also does that.
I actually dislike everything about historical fascist states except some technical economic details. I'm not a racist. I'm not a totalitarian. They were dead ends in every other aspect, look how schizo Hitler's Nazism was, all that occult stuff, anti-Christian intentions.

Look at this older post I've saved. I agree with everything here as I had verified individually these things before finding it:

>>17807651
It would be suicide to ever use that label anyway, never use their symbols, rhetoric and so on, reframe everything in low-cognitive load format and try to justify things to people.

>>17807550
>Individualism is against hierarchies
Explain this, more precisely, the thought process of someone who thinks like this, quite interesting desu
>>17807583
>I'm not a commie
>Hyper individualism
Pick either collectivism or individualism, they are fundementally opposed to each other and cannot be synthesized.
He's accusing you of being a commie as they use the motte of someone opposing hierarchies in individualism being retarded to defend the bailey of collectivist communism which itself is also against hierarchies
They ignore the contradicton because they base their ideology on dialectics Instead of actual reasoning

>>17807659
>They ignore the contradicton because they base their ideology on dialectics Instead of actual reasoning
I base my plans on induction, not so loyal to ideologies.
Be friendly, ask people to define terms and ask questions. We're not omniscient and this is an anymonous board, we're talking heart to heart for no other interests.

>>17807651
>I actually dislike everything about historical fascist states except some technical economic details
Their economies were literally plundering.

>>17807676
Yes that was their plan lol. I'm not saying you should "print" money just for war goals.
I'm saying "print" money for businesses, towards export. Pie gets bigger for everyone, it's not a zero sum game.
I mean the tool is right, just abstract it and use it for other goals, we have working examples of it in US, Germany, Japan, China, Vietnam etc.

>>17807679
>I'm saying "print" money for businesses, towards export. Pie gets bigger for everyone, it's not a zero sum game.
Putting aside the whole debate about inflation this post raises, do you really think creating a monopoly-money service-based society where the entire system is passing arbitrary figures of fiat while nothing is actually produced or made is a functional system?

>>17807651
China is governed horribly, literal mongoloids governed china better than the national socialist regime of the CCP. Most of the power of china is a constantly diminishing mass hence the tendency of any cursory research into it to conclude:
>China collapses in 2 weeks
Or determine the bullshit metrics they use are correct, resulting in;
>China numba wan, 2B population superpower by 2030
>>17807662
I don't get what you mean by that, commies legitimately cannot solve contradictons, they base their ideology on dialectics which has a couple of problems. For example;
>Dialecticing God being and not being
>Dialectic supergod
>You now have dialecitic super duper god
>Rinse and repeat
And the fact that you can't necessarily get the negation of something from itself
On the question;
>Can you describe the thought process of an individualist as opposed to a hyper individualist
>>17807679
>Print money
if that is fiat money you're taxing people via inflation. To pick and choose winners and losers in the economy completely independent of any legitimate economic process, none of these states have achieved anything of value from this system and are arguably in the process of collapse due to it

>>17807685
To your point directly:
I didn't put my emphasis on services whatsoever, you do nee to produce actual things. Growth as in GDP in my vision comes from producing things, at least sustainable growth.

There's no inflation if you do it for productive ends, like your local businesses. Never give credit for financial assets of home purchases, that's just inflationary then as it's merely a title ownership swap on a piece of paper.
There are countless academic papers on this with large datasets, there's genuinely no inflation from this.

This is explained by endogenous money theory being the right one but again if you believe any other is true I might see your point but there's no empirical data for the other ones.

>>17807690
There's some room for inflation, but it's largely manageable by window guidance, look at Switzerland, China.

>>17807690
Dialectics are something I'm not found of, seem to be a problem with Western culture, as an Eastern Orthodox I have countless conceptual tools and books that transcend this thinking.

>>17807692
>There are countless academic papers on this with large datasets,
Yes, these systems worked in the 19th century before manufacturing was moved to areas like Japan, then China, then Indonesia, Bangladesh, and every other shithole on earth.
The West does not produce anything now, it can't due to a combination of the capitalist class refusing to invest, the western workers expecting more rights (these two facts are related), and the affordability of global transport.

If we enacted your policies in 2025 the people getting the loans would use them to invest in stocks or crypto coins. Nothing of value would be created. The GDP might artificially increase but no actual product or tangible good would be created.

>>17807692
define productive ends
>>17807696
It's foolish to concentrate this amount of other people's power in the hands of a manager like a central bank or a party with as flimsy a eccuse as some variation of "the greater good".
Industrializing USA, specifically in opposition to the USSR is good evidence that even basic lazy fairy econ with minarchist government is significantly better than such systems
>>17807700
Okay, can you define what differentiates a hyper individualist from a regular individualist? Or a collectivist from a commie?
To me, these seem the same and inclusive respectively

>>17807712
>If we enacted your policies in 2025 the people getting the loans would use them to invest in stocks or crypto coins.
that would be banned in my policies, 0 loans for speculation

>>17807714
>define productive ends
GDP growth also sustainability

>Okay, can you define what differentiates a hyper individualist from a regular individualist?
I'm not that person when he said hyper individualist I just read individualist. You are confusing two distinct persons.

>>17807714
US is an example of a country that uses large parts of my policies. Lots of small/medium sizes banks giving credit for productive ends. US is quite close to my ideal or was especially in that time-frame you've picked.

>>17807716
>I'd like a loan to create a store.
>here you are
>*invests in stocks*
Damn, who knew you could simply lie?
Worse than that, megacorporations would create artificial companies that didn't really exist to do this legally, the same way they avoid taxes by having their HQ in the pitcairn islands.

>>17807726
Then, he would never get another loan ever again and he would lose his collateral, simple as. Anyway you're presuming the analysts are breathing manually trough their mouth all the time.

>>17807714
cute pic

>>17807728
This system was attempted in the 80s and led to lower standards of living ever since.

>>17807738
Not really, what happened since 80s was that the service economy took root with loans for speculation dominating.
My system is actively applied right now in China and Vietnam for example, in purer forms.

Anyway a bit on the topic, Curtis does seem to cite meaningful books and so on so he might actually go to library and ask around.
This is leagues above youtube slop or most documentaries as a matter of fact

>>17807741
China has manufacturing infrastructure and a (though improving now) slave like workforce, the West does not.
Tell me, do you really think if you gave an entrepeneur money here they'd be able to create a large export focused business producing actual physical goods and be able to find enough people to accept slave wages to do it?

>>17807757
Well duh, someone on legacy media like television is always going to be leagues above a teenage retard with a camera on jewtube.

>>17807722
>GDP growth and sustainability
First one has its famous faults and i would like to ask what you mean sustainability and how you would achieve it
>Wrong guy
Apologies
>>17807725
Such banks are most efficient when not mandated or influenced by government barring the basic rule of law.
You need actual market forces And accountability, politicizing these and making arbitrary regulations would be counter productive.
Not to get too /pol/ but ideally you would have the least amount of regulation and politicization possible
>The factory that pollutes pays back the pollution according to the wishes of those affected
This is a legal case of compensation, no fines or regulation are necessary. The factory owner can actually produce without polluting if wanting to profit more, you have little to no corruption and people would organize naturally specifically rather than the rigid parties you need for politics being used for everything

>>17807758
when those "slaves" convert their savings to US dollars they save more than Americans it seems
>Tell me, do you really think if you gave an entrepeneur money here they'd be able to create a large export focused business producing actual physical goods and be able to find enough people to accept slave wages to do it?
YES, not A tier exports, but at least B tier and that's enough for growth!!! This happens to this day in Germany where they couldn't get rid of all the small banks in random towns/villages, you go there for visit and you make friends and learn how they male satellite components and so on or other advanced stuff while living in the middle of nowhere and every time you ask them how they came to that the answer is the same: oh well the local bank knows me and gave me the loans to get all the equipment.

>>17807759
Give me a single example of a legacy media show/documentary on this level. I think this is more the merit of Curtis as the individual.

>>17807767
Are these German village satellite mills in the room with us now?

>>17807765
>Such banks are most efficient when not mandated or influenced by government barring the basic rule of law.
They're still able to do their magic solely because of government regulation which allows them to loan without caps, sure in absence of government you wouldn't have caps either so the same could apply, but they're free to exploit things like real estate bubbles and financial speculation as well.

>>17807777
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKsWZkuZL38

>>17807771
Literally every tv documentary?
Name a single one and it's better than youtube slop.
Except that netflix black cleopatra one, but netflix isn't legacy media.

>>17807791
I wish that was true, then I could spend my idle time pirating TV documentaries, but that's simply not so.

>>17807796
Better than youtube =/= good in it's own right

>>17807804
It's better only in the sense that they could afford an expensive visual artist to make some epic effects, not in any other way.

>>17807765
>i would like to ask what you mean sustainability and how you would
nowadays it means both ecological sustainability and the ability to grow as a business, you need to sell something meaningful

yes eco sustainability is best done and managed under capitalist systems when people care, socialist ones are infamous for still uninhabitable industrial waste lands and usage of the cheapest products possible and large waste

>>17807777
>Banks can print Fiat money without government
those would have no value not enforced as legal tender and/or working with government owned/financed businesses
the bank would be sued if they tried to abuse the money, which is when the rule of law applies.
>bubbles
Naturally irrelevant or results of economic meddling
>Speculation
Can you define speculation?

>>17807825
>Can you define speculation?
Buying homes to sell them for more, buying stock to sell it for more, buying high volatility financial instruments all with credit.

Yes there were lots of problems with lots of banks without a central bank, people didn't even value their currency from a bank outside of the geographical area of the bank that issued it.
We do need central banks, they can be used for other ends, such as social engineering, forcing people to pay taxes, care about social stuff but those too need to be managed, regulated, as it seems from the data worldwide, if you give them more and more power they just engineer more dumb crises to gain more power which they use for the same again and again, nah, not again to be sure.

>>17807805
Some y*utubers have good visuals, especially compared to modern TV slop

>>17807833
doesn't even come close to shit like this: https://youtu.be/Npr_VsuCEkg

>>17807828
>Profiting off an arbitrary risk margin
Or
>profiting off scarce resources
the first one as I said, is arbitrary and frankly naive, the latter is retarded
>We do need central banks because people were more isolated
I would argue the exact polar opposite argument, the economy runs best when there is no one trying to save or make it better
as there is no neutral party, economics isn't a truly empirical science, and isn't your last point valid for any politicized matter?

>>17807846
Then you have no economy.

Who doesn't like revolution anyways?

>>17807849
are you saying it isn't a real economy if the government doesn't mandate it?

>>17807468
banger desu