Rafael Thundercat

I urge anyone interested in this topics to really read the work of Silvia Federici. The woman took decades researching the connection of the Rise of capitalism with the way woman bodies where treated. Is impossible to understand history ignoring the woman in it. Her book the Caliban and the Witch is the missing link in the understanding of capitalism and the myth the capitalism was naturally risen from Feudalism. No, capitalism was a counter-revolution that destroyed the possibilities that were emerging from the antifeudal figths- possibilities that in case could be realized, would avoid the imense destruction of lifes and natural space that was the mark of the advance of capitalistic relations in the world.

@Joseph Maynor great video. Now understand why there was Nazis in Indiana Jones movie that happen in Egipt.haha

Thanks, but as you may guess, I keep the work of trying to not let my mind be decived everyday. If is not mormonism we always have other shit to clean from our way. Even Ayahuasca circles are full of delusions. If one dont be careful one adopt new delusions.

What?????

I dont even keep track of all that happened yesterday.

@Phil King the plate start with AI. Haha. Maybe a sign of the universe. Hehe

I guess understanding it will not stop the consequences. I did a Claude research about it "Scholars are arguing about exactly this, and the labels aren't mutually exclusive. There are three main camps: Techno-feudalism (Varoufakis, Durand): Varoufakis says he isn't claiming we've literally returned to feudalism, and that rent-seeking isn't new to capitalism. His core claim is that digital capitalism is driven less by labor exploitation and more by rent extraction and control of digital infrastructure. (transcend) (developingeconomics) "Still capitalism, just late-stage", which is closest to your framing. Louçã argues this is a transformation within late capitalism, not a return to a past era. Critics add that the feudalism label underplays capitalism's built-in tendency toward monopoly. Morozov's worry is that the techno-feudalism critique could end up rehabilitating capitalism. (Techno-feudal lords or oligarchy of data traffickers? +2) Technofascism: critics apply it to figures like Palantir's Karp, who explicitly links technological superiority, military power and national destiny. Others push back: calling everything "technofascism" stops thinking and turns complex problems into simple enemies. (Substack) (dailysabah) The main fault line is whether the digital economy is a new mode of production or capitalism's usual monopoly logic in new clothes. "Fascism" is a different kind of claim. It's about political form (state capture, suppression of dissent, a fusion of corporate and state power), not economics. So you could hold both: capitalism's organic dynamics as the engine, and an authoritarian political outcome as one possible destination. One thing to examine in your own framing: "organic problems of capitalism and materialism" bundles an economic claim with a philosophical one. Which of the two are you really pointing at? And what would you have to see, concretely, to shift from "dystopia" to "fascism"? The links of this claims https://www.transcend.org/tms/2026/08/technofeudalism-and-the-future-of-capitalism/ .... https://developingeconomics.org/2025/05/05/digital-lords-or-capitalist-titans-critiquing-the-techno-feudalism-narrative/ ..... https://internationalviewpoint.org/Techno-feudal-lords-or-oligarchy-of-data-traffickers ... https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/blogs/news/where-is-digital-technology-taking-us-cedric-durand-responds-to-evgeny-morozov .... https://asianarratives.substack.com/p/technofeudalism ... https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/why-we-must-look-deeper-than-the-technofascism-label/amp ...

The world keep existing in the absence for the one who is gone. Keep existing for Others who still stay.

In the series is good to notice that women comply with the Gilead Republic

https://www.qasimrashid.com/p/russell-brand-rape-and-not-all-men Good read.

It goes back in History. Some connections with the Habsburg Family. who was the guy who was shot dead in Saravejo "Wiki Help" " Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was the prominent Habsburg royal shot and killed in Sarajevo (modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina, then annexed by Austria-Hungary) on June 28, 1914. His assassination by a Bosnian Serb nationalist triggered the chain of events that led to the outbreak of World War I. Key Details of the Assassination The Victim: Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne. His wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, was also shot and killed in the same attack. The Location: The shooting took place in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina. While often associated with Serbia because of the assassin's nationality and political goals, Sarajevo was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the time. The Assassin: Gavrilo Princip, a 19-year-old Bosnian Serb student and member of the revolutionary movement Young Bosnia, fired the fatal shots. He was backed by the Black Hand, a secret Serbian nationalist military society. The Aftermath: Austria-Hungary blamed Serbia for the attack and declared war one month later on July 28, 1914. This activated European military alliances and sparked World War I."

What would be a better description?

I like to watch the Negacionists as well. well, lets forgive her, she is young. If the Tale would become reality one can know to what side she would be part of.

Remembering that Handmaid Tales was a book Banned from US schools..

For those who watched or are watching this serie. I just Started and I am reading The Caliban and The Witch together with watching it. Also I am watching some YouTube Analisis of this series. The series touch a various array of topics many of those we discuss here about Politics,Human Corruption, Cults,Religion, Bias. And from the analysis of this video about how the Gilead Republic works we have the topic of Hypocrisy. The Hypocrisy we see in the Christianity circles. "Hypocrisy is largely unconscious. The hypocrite’s mind is not self-aware enough to see its own hypocrisy. When the hypocrisy is pointed out to it by outsiders, the mind is caught by surprise because it saw no hypocrisy there. So the mind gets defensive and tries to rationalize away the hypocrisy rather than owning up to it. Mind is so vast, subtle, and hairy that its hypocrisy goes unseen, because it is hard for the mind to keep track of all of its positions and beliefs. It is easy to see hypocrisy from outside, it is very difficult to see it from inside. The mind does not have conscious access to all its positions, utterances, and beliefs at once. Thanks to this, hypocrisy has plenty of room to hide in the shadows of the mind. Being a hypocrite is automatic, by default, unconscious. Not being a hypocrite requires lots of self-reflection, which is tedious, boring, and threatening. The more conscious I become, the more hypocrisy I see in myself. It is unpleasant to catch one's own hypocrisy because one doesn't think of oneself as a hypocrite. Seeing one's own hypocrisy is ugly, but it is healthy because you can't fix what you can't see.