What the fuck is this about? Is it satire?

odd that you accuse him of serving the SJW when he is also accused of propagating right-wing narrative

There's this weird thinking that if you partake in pop culture instead of worrying about politics 24/7 you're ruining the country. But isn't the point of being politically aware and fighting for your beliefs to one day have the liberty to indulge yourself in whatever inanities you wish?

Yeah almost like both parties making accusations are fucking retards that have no thoughts of their own

If you don't seriously consider this man's thesis, you're part of the problem.

you're accusing too, hypocrite

he just doesn't have in-depth experience of stuff like social media because he's a 50-something year old attacking it from a historical narrative, from the outside in, whereas we live with it every day.

There's nothing offensive or unique about any of his critiques though -- namely that algorithms and the curatorial nature of social networks allow us to create echo chambers that pander directly to versions of ourselves.

It's all basic knowledge. The people that actively hate him like are just made that he bashes their right wing demagogue Trump. Funny how they never critique anything Curtis actually says, just the way he says it.

If you don't consider my penis you are part of communism.

>for the first time ever banks in control of society

well I guess someone has to gatekeep the left

so I guess we should ignore people who cry Cred Forums and tell them to go back to their containment board? I didn't even know Trump was in this.

In this he implies Ayatollah Khomeini invented suicide bombing. This is not the case. NVM.

Bombing as a way to martyrdom in Islam is a recent phenomenon, since the Qu'ran specifically forbids suicide. But they explain bits of that in the doc anyway so you should know:

>According to author Sadakat Kadri, "the very idea that Muslims might blow themselves up for God was unheard of before 1983, and it was not until the early 1990s that anyone anywhere had tried to justify killing innocent Muslims who were not on a battlefield." After 1983 the process was limited among Muslims to Hezbollah and other Lebanese Shi'a factions for more than a decade.[230]

>Since then, the "vocabulary of martyrdom and sacrifice", videotaped pre-confession of faith by attackers have become part of "Islamic cultural consciousness", "instantly recognizable" to Muslims (according to Noah Feldman),[143] while the tactic has spread through the Muslim world "with astonishing speed and on a surprising course"

WHERE THE FUCK WERE YOU GUYS WHEN I WAS TRYING TO START A DISCUSSION ON 'ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE' REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Yeah but suicide bombing wasn't invented by Muslims. That's all I was saying.

I was talking about it in a pub with my friends from the working men's club.

Curtis is a fucking hack

youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg

really seemed like he wanted you to sympathize with Gaddafi.

Good.

Trump bookends the film. Curtis's thesis is that America, Britain and its historic interventions in the Middle East created a "post-truth world" that Trump (and Putin) is now taking advantage of.

this and Century of the Self are my fav Curtises. I'll talk about it w/ you, user.

He's erudite and well respected.

He's good at what he does.

pretty sure he's well aware that all those despots killed millions of people too.

you can have sympathy with Gaddafi that he was played by the Americans, but he was still a dictator at the end of the day.

'Sympathise' may be pushing it; 'explain' would be more apt.

i never knew gaddaffi was funny as fuck until now

None of this is what Hack means.

You don't remember his address to the UN that lasted hours? Or his final televised speech from in front of that destroyed building before he died?

He was completely nuts. The green book was his Unabomber manifesto.

Are normies like years behind everyone else?

Who exactly is Curtis ripping off?

This style is so singularly his that it's become a parody of itself.

The second and third episodes started to go all over the place but it was still bretty gud

Not really. He's just less focused now.

He's got a handful of big ideas in this that he sort of ruminates on and uses examples from different regions but same eras to demonstrate them. Which is also funnelled through his usual hang ups.

Well, Putin for sure.

His defense for every move is;

>They do it too!

...and there's not much more to say on the matter.

to be fair HyperNormalisation is like a greatest hits of his other series (banking + technology = All Watched Over, Middle East + political narratives = Bitter Lake)

but with up to date inclusions of Syria, ISIS and Trump.

Also one horny fuck with his harem of girls and boys. Apparently he was into watersports.

Yes, it's a parody of the modern excesses of "style over substance" by way of a "documentary" that is all style and no substance.

Reminder that this is still his best documentary

It has good style though. And I like the fact that he tries to create a narrative. I cant fucking stand hearing news reports on the radio by the BBC about random bombings in Syria or libya or iraq while no context is given.

fpbp

Just watched that today.

Tiny Rowland was a cunt.

> words words words I heard somewhere
How's being a teenager?

> incoherent tripe
Not really, at least for people with a concentration span of more than 5 minutes.

Jimmy Goldsmith was based as fuck

youtube.com/watch?v=4PQrz8F0dBI

>"post-truth world" that Trump (and Putin) is now taking advantage of
My gripe is that the observation is sound, but he only implicates unpopular figures when many more particitants are just as prevalent. Maybe it risks alienating too many viewers and he must pick a side for audiences sake?

Did you actually watch it?

Trump's involvement goes deeper than running for President in 2016. Trump's antics go back 40 years.

>Did you actually watch it?
Oh course not. Trump's entire support base is built on willful ignorance

His moral panic over social media and ''AI'' is laughable

(You)

>tfw no beta uprising
>tfw you're in your comfy place in this world

I think the film is trying to explain the ideology behind Trump and his supporters specifically, through a recent history of how America itself deconstructed truth and used politics to shape its own truth instead.

Trump is the proud figurehead of the modern liar. He doesn't give a shit about logic or factual evidence because he's building his own reality which people buy into based on their distrust of established "truth."

looks like shit. but who is this semen deamon?

Yes, what I am saying is the selection of who to focus on is demonstrably bias. Many other prominent figures engage in similar behavior with equal or more influence and resources. I'm saying Trump is rightfully included, but others are strategically excluded to support hypers narrative and create an audience.

i love this one because it feels like his style wasn't codified yet and it was very substance heavy to compensate

he made an old documentary about housing that was very dry and substance heavy too, it's pretty good (he didn't narrate it though):

youtube.com/watch?v=Ch5VorymiL4

also i've just realised that there were almost no interview segments in Hyper Nomalisation, which is strange since his interviews tend to be really good

he has a british accent so he must be right

Here's a good parody of Adam Curtis:

youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg

Are you sure 'social media' are a force for good?

Yeah, thought so.

His movies aren't much of coherent documentaries, more like pretty looking video art.

to be fair he's attacked both labour and the conservatives here in britain and i think he was critical of obama's administration in bitter lake

the bias that led him to include trump has more to do with how topical an example it is than any sort of desire to undermine trump

i get what you mean though, his inclusion of ukip felt less appropriate to me and there are plenty of other examples he could use

this is awesome... great watch

Trump is/was more than a 'topical example'. Trump precipitated the entire 1975 New York crisis.

Did you actually watch Hypernormalisation?

Not really...see, Clinton still maintains the facade. Her followers know she is lying, but they, and her, don't break frame.

Trump and Putin will do two things;

Say something outrageous and shocking that's true...that SHOULD offend people...but doesn't because "It's authentic".

Or tell lies so stupendously huge and blatant that people should be shocked...but they aren't because it's delivered with a wink...we understand it's all in the game, right?

This is why I like him. You can only do so much information dumping in a doc before it becomes unwieldy and unsuited to the medium.

Curtis actually tries to entertain as well as engage the mind. He's also a master curator of archival footage, most of which no one has seen before (he spends his days sifting through footage that's being digitally archived at the BBC)

He pushed his artistic ambitions further in It Felt Like a Kiss and Bitter Lake and I think they're amazing evolutions of the form. They were less about making a point than about immersing the viewer in a mood.

>Trump precipitated the entire 1975 New York crisis.

not really, he just took advantage of it after it was underway

>Many other prominent figures engage in similar behavior

He's got a fucking film to make

Here's a better one

todayfm.com/The-Rubberbandits-Guide-To-ISIS

On a moral basis, is neutral.
Curtis certainly overestimates the eco chamber effect (it's very easy to overpass and people comunicates on other channels) and the effect of mass surveillance on society (much much less effective than everybody aknowledges)

No he didn't.

Unless you're one of those fringe BLM types who sees white flight and gentrification as targeted conspiracies by Whitey to fuck over the black man, rather than people acting in their own self interest.

Whites fled to the suburbs to escape being around poor minorities.

Poor minorities ran down the value of their city to the point that it became highly profitable for people like Trump to move in, buy up the properties, renovate them (...and evict poor minority occupants) and sell them back to young rich people migrating back from the suburbs into the cities.

What precipitated the 1975 New York near-bankruptcy was inept government management, corruption and parasitic citizens coupled with integration policies. A sad fact is that, if people can move away from a problem, they will, rather than fix it.

>A sad fact is that, if people can move away from a problem, they will, rather than fix it.
Hello refugees

>much less effective than everybody acknowledges

I think for many in charge the hope is that it's reputation acts as a panopticon.

and yet he never touched on the person who had him killed...or the fact that everyone recognized what a warmonger said person is, nobody is really living in delusion about what happened in libya like his cynicism would have you think

i thought the ending was really bizarre and a cop out of sorts...i couldnt get where he was going criticizing brexit yet admitting that the islamists were successful in undermining authority through small scale terrorism. is his line really the bootlicker-manufactured "we just gotta live with terrorism, otherwise they win?"

i was hoping for it to end on a more baudrillard-esque note about the "fakeness" of the entire election, but it just turned into this weird bureaucrat worship with that colbert brexit scene

Given his previous documentaries it seems utterly bizarre for him to be "pro" Remain.

Especially since the Remain camp wants to remain part of a system that literally relies on the projections of a fake world and huge, complex systems run by financial institutions and technocrats that are balanced like a house of cards in a windstorm.

That's not even a judgement call on the election - Just a confusion as to how he could be Pro Remain while espousing many of the other views he does and the subjects he covers.

He did make a point about fakeness, hence the entire inclusion of the Trump narrative.

The brief Brexit inclusion just seemed to underline the current state of affairs, which isn't as clear or understandable as once thought (so he shows the woman crying because the vote didn't line up with her expectation of the bedrock that was the EU).

He didn't exactly make a whole thing about it. Same with that footage of the refugees on the capsizing boat. It's just... there.

Yet Brexiteers still want all the benefits of being in the EU like the single market, which might tear the UK apart by itself?

This could get into a whole thing, but the Brexit camp was based on lies (£350 million a week? yeah, nope), fearmongering, and the illusion of greater control, when the path to any of that still hasn't even been imagined, much less realised.

Not them. I only watched half last night.

So far the Trump/New York opening hasn't tied back in all. I'm interested to see where this goes.

That's irrelevant though.

It's not about an A/B choice.

The remain option leads to remaining in a fake world/complex system, the kind which he has railed against in the past.

Regardless of the reasons for leaving, be they lies or (like one of Curtis's pet peeves, appeals to an unreal past) other methods, they're still out of that system and fake world.

In fact, part of the fear and threats were that leaving that fake world would be traumatic and upsetting for the populace. Which they are/will be.

I won't spoil it for you, but

The Trump story is all about the removal of power from politicians to the rich, and the fabrication of a 'new reality' where everyone pretends this hasn't happened.

PS. Having had a cigarette and thought about my post,

It does seem odd that having gained political power through capitalism (the abuse of it), Trump should seek to gain the overt political power, in the form of the Presidency, which Curtis deems irrelevant.

Him mocking the Saudis was always fun

I think Curtis's fetish for complex systems doomed to fail is meant to target the people who manipulate the system for their own needs at the expense of others. He's not necessarily against any large governing body like the EU.

But sure that's an interesting argument. Haven't read much of Curtis's blogs so I don't know if he's ever commented on Brexit outside of "narratives" and "power."

You're not the only one asking about this;

People don't believe he's genuine, but also seem confounded as to what his end game is, since this can only seemingly hurt his brand.

Is he really, actually broke? Is he angling for a higher profile to launch a media company?

Or is he genuine?

It's quite unusual.

>post-truth
Using that term should have completely invalidated the entire documentary. Truth has literally never mattered, and anyone who believes otherwise is delusional. This term is pure, unadultered pseudo-intellectualism.

Well rumor is he's starting "Trump TV" after the election so you might be onto something...

theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/donald-j-trumps-television-future/504500/

it's funny because what you're saying is that post-truth is a legitimate concept.

The concept that in politics truth and facts are irrelevant, that I agree with. What I disagree is with the idea that there was ever an era in which it was not like that (implied by the term post-truth).

If anything, I believe that facts and the scientific method are stronger today than ever, and tons of small political decisions are being made based on that instead of dogmatic ideologies.

I have to admit I've not watched most of the documentary yet, so maybe he addresses this point.

>The concept that in politics truth and facts are irrelevant, that I agree with
then you're living in an absurd world governed by nothing.

fact-led policies affect our every day lives and alter the fabric of our societies. We're all shaped by scientific studies that take place over decades which provide us with the support systems that we have today.

Don't be a fool. Stay in school.

youtube.com/watch?v=JeSx0g-PnaE

Issac Cronin's Call it Sleep 1982

Great. Cred Forums made Adam Curtis a meme.
Now all the useless retards can chime in with their hot opinions.

>lol I watch Mike Cernovich podcasts and Paul Joseph Watson YouTube videos to form my opinions, this is just liberal propaganda even though I clearly didn't watch it because I missed the point entirely due to my short attention span
>lol I don't need outside information to form my own conclusions because I was born with a higher IQ therefor I don't need to learn anything
>lol I'm special because this sneaky soft voiced British man won't trick me
>lol it must be satire and definitely not me
>lol it's just style over substance and definitely not me
>lol it's incoherent and definitely not me
>lol it's pretentious and definitely not me
>lol it's so tinfoil hat and definitely not me
No it isn't. You're just really stupid.

ACIDF pls go

>then you're living in an absurd world governed by nothing.
I'm living in reality. Where politicians are elected based on charisma and not policies, where how a politician makes people feel is a dozen times more important than whatever he or she is actually saying.

If you look hard enough into ANY ideology (specially if it's popular) you will soon encounter tons of logical contradictions that don't make sense unless you understand that people are driven by emotion, not facts. Everyone (including you and me) is coexisting with cognitive dissonances the size of a moon.

As an example, take the debate surrounding transexuals. Their existence is perfectly acceptable under a conservative viewpoint, since it validates the concept of sexual dimorphism (men and women being essentially different). Yet conservatives despise them because it means change and accepting things out of the norm. Same with liberals, who logically should not like transexuals, yet they have evolved to accept them only because it goes against the status quo.

Watch his other docs.

>Same with liberals, who logically should not like transexuals
this makes no sense whatsoever. Like, none.

>no counterarguemts, just hyperbolic ad hominem
>"Comments are disabled for this video"
Go ahead and let dumb people make decisions for you.

I think he just mentioned brexit as one of the signs that people can't really see what's going on in society; it doesn't matter which choice is right, the fact is that neither side is operating on ideas that reflect reality, it's just a bunch of rhetoric used by the powerful to get results that they think will benefit themselves.

Another tripfag to filter...

Fresh meme, hot off the presses.

this meme would be popular if it was 1979

i like it

Mere pseudointellectual shilling for the Left. Sage.

Not him but liberals believe men and women are the same, and transsexuals basically contradict that notion

>le Curtis is a leftie meme

...

The majority of policies supported by liberals regarding gender are based on the idea that men and women are mostly equal mentally, so all differences are explained by culture. A feminist who has spent 2 minutes researching the wage gap would argue that the cause for this difference is how men and women are educated, making women choose lower paying jobs and avoid things like hard STEM fields. Gender is artificial and can be changed to anything.

A transexual is someone who claims to FEEL like the opposite gender. That they like "girly"/"boyish" things, that their brain is in the wrong body. The assumption here is that gender is innate and there are specific traits associated with being a boy or a girl. The only way to reconcile liberal ideology with trans rights is pretending that everyone can be transgender, which is complete bullshit (gender dysphoria has always existed regardless of education).

Do you see what I mean?

GADDAFI DID NOTHING WRONG

He did, just not was he was accused of

you have no idea what pro-feminist liberalism is. Men and women aren't the same. You either mean liberals believe they should have the same rights, which is true, or are inferring that they should be the same biologically, which is false.

Liberals do not promote the latter point. Transexualism is part of the liberal ideal what gender is fluid and masculine/feminine archetypes are largely a form of social conditioning, and as such are malleable.

I am convinced that Gaddafi was a secret bastard child of Mussolini. Libya was an Italian colony.

Maybe I'm missing the logic in your post but I still don't see how that would mean liberals should not believe in transexuality. Help me out:

A) Anyone *can* be transgender if they subvert gender norms
B) Transexualism is a form of gender dysphoria

A does not contradict B, correct? Dysphoria is an anomaly of identity. Everyone has the potential to develop this, therefore everyone can be transgender.

But also: if you actively subvert gender norms while also claiming not to have dysphoria, that's still an act of transgenderism, even if it's not psychosomatic.

>A thief claims he didn't commit a crime.
>Well then, he is free to go I guess.

He conveniently exposes Trump's devilish persuasion but doesn't says anything about Obama's involvement with ISIS or how SA fueled the Arab spring. Hardcut to Trump protesters greeting birddogged and meme comedy making fun of Drumpf has some sort of argument.

When there is evidence of Russia doing something good he claims "Hmm, truly a mystery. No one really knows what Russia is doing in Syria."

And when he runs out of arguments to make it's time for a non-sequitur cut. This documentary is one of the most disjointed ones I have ever seen.

Ignores the simple concept of Skin In The Game that explains easily every single irrational decision done by the public such as Brexit and Trump rising to popularity. They are not complex schemes by elites. There is no PostTruth world, politics have always worked like this.

And then at the end, obligatory crocodile tears set to sappy music.What a waste of time.

>We shall have a harder christmas than we have known since the war
>AWOO!
99% sure this just plays on a loop in my head when I'm asleep

He harshly criticized the Clintons and Tony Blair in at least 3 documentaries.

but it gives us those in the left something to feel intellectually superior about subjects we don't have much knowledge of. dont you see the value in that?

Why are you two turning this into a trap thread?

>Obama's involvement with ISIS
you mean the outsider group who broke from Al Qaeda and took advantage of the chaos of the Arab Spring to conquer land all without the West's help?

The Arab Spring, in that it was about grassroots movements protesting abuse of power, was in essence a good thing, so SA being a part of that is bad because...

>When there is evidence of Russia doing something good
yeah like bombing civilian hospitals multiple times and claiming it wasn't them. or supplying military weapons to shoot down a commercial airliner then not allowing investigators onto the scene to collect evidence.

so brave.

Never make a documentary or write an political article.

>Arab Spring
>not a CIA led color revolution

Because "The Trap" is one of Curtis' better documentaries.

>That bit about how Blair's targets managed to fuck up everything as people gamed the system.

I was a bit disappointed that he ignores the basic concept of disenfranchisement and instead believes it's all meme manipulation.

Just like Brexit, a lot of Trump voters know perfectly well it's horseshit. It's a protest vote, and in my country, politicians lay awake at night worrying about "Skin In The Game" and both sides of the aisle try to maintain a level of it because they're paranoid of the outcome if they don't.

>ignoring the millions of Arabs who organised and took part of that by themselves

yes, yes, everything is a conspiracy. false flag. tower 7, etc etc

I thought the point was that Russia was deliberately making the situation there complicated to foil the US?

>He conveniently exposes Trump's devilish persuasion but doesn't says anything about Obama's involvement with ISIS or how SA fueled the Arab spring.
because they're completely different things. Obama and SA's involvement in the Middle East have to do with promoting regimes that may be better for America's position. It obviously didn't work out that way, but at least there's logic behind it beyond pure grandstanding.

>Ignores the simple concept of Skin In The Game that explains easily every single irrational decision done by the public such as Brexit and Trump rising to popularity.

>There is no PostTruth world, politics have always worked like this.
no, they legitimately have not. In the past people actually cared if a candidate lied every time he opened his mouth. There's always been spin but there's never been this complete disregard for even caring what the truth is. People vote for Trump as a symbol and as a fuck you to liberals and even his diehard supporters admit he's a serial liar and says 90% of the things he does purely to trick people into voting for him (except for them of course, only they know what he *really* stands for)

You should probably your own advice or even watch the Curtis documentary, because you're pretty out of the loop there, pal.

>The Arab Spring, in that it was about grassroots movements protesting abuse of power, was in essence a good thing
muds need dictators to prevent full snackbar - liberals in Egypt learned that
>muh Russian boogieman
kys

You need some dose of Skin in the game before you are allowed to have those opinions.

Please move to Syria and ask the people if the revolt was a good thing.

your a dorable

The doc didn't touch on Obama's involvement in the Middle East at all, only the possible ideology behind why Putin may be operating there.

Did YOU watch the doc?

>boogeymen
>ignores independent commissions and investigations led by multiple countries
now who's willfully ignoring facts

I want reddit to leave

Most Trump voters are doing it as a Fuck You to the system that they feel disenfranchised from.

I think he's getting too much credit from the left.

They should be more concerned with fixing the root cause, because if the rot gets worse, the next person to come through might be a lot worse.

Why don't you go there and ask them if Assad's rule was a good thing?

there's still a civil war going on for a reason: they didn't go back to Assad because for a vast number of people that wasn't an option. They were caught between a rock and a hard place and the mood of the region was revolution. It was bound to happen. It wasn't a Western conspiracy you dip.

Your post contained more than Obama's role in the mid east.

this is reddit you fucking newfag

>they should fix the problem
>when all the right does is elect more and more insane people as protest votes
first it was the Tea Party and that did a fat load of good, now it's Trump. If you want to fix things how about not electing people who proudly admit they're just there to be a hinderance to the government working??

>Why don't you go there and ask them if Assad's rule was a good thing?

Buddy, hang out at /syria/ just once.

youtube.com/watch?v=8rNc82fgvz4
youtube.com/watch?v=zxwXU4vhrZE
youtube.com/watch?v=aGJUDCynOtQ

Everyone prefers Assad.

>goes to Assad controlled city home to Russian naval base
>asks if they like Assad and Russia

well gee, user. really made me think.

>government
>working
not in our interest

...

>well gee, user. really made me think.

Evidently it didn't.

People would rather live under dictatorship rather than being bombed the US and beheaded by ISIS.

that still doesn't negate the intentions of the Arab Spring. You're just comparing ISIS to Assad.

>the Arab Spring
was fucking retarded and anybody who thinks it is a good thing is a menace
kys

>Arab people having their own protest movement is retarded
ok.

anybody willing to stand up to injustice under a dictatorship is brave. you're a coward for blaming the rise of ISIS and resulting chaos on the protesters.

why?

>muh dictatorship
Strongman rule is the best they can do you liberal imbecile
kys

Before this he was talking about the utopian vision of the internet. This was to show what it has actually become

you can be a strongman leader without using bombs on your own people, dipshit

pri.org/stories/2014-02-04/what-are-barrel-bombs-and-why-syrian-military-using-them

f m k?

He reuses that clip with different covering music to convey a completely different mood, in line with what he's been telling you about the fakeness of the world.

Also Curtis was probably in Savile's pedo circle and managed to escape persecution for it so he continues his dark craft.

bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/7fd095e6-549a-3b2c-b2e9-e01473ae9877

'War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it; the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.'

The choice is secular barrelbombers or jihadis who burn people alive in cages while filming it and run open slave markets. I prefer the first. There is NO 3rd chioce.

or, y'know, the option of having some kind of political referendum or snap vote which Assad denied them. Instead, he killed people.

The protesters didn't actively choose ISIS over Assad. Assad's aggression only stoked the fire of chaos further, which allowed ISIS to proliferate.

> (OP)
>Are normies like years behind everyone else?

>Literally aired two days ago

10 minutes in and it's pretty much all 'CAPITALISM BAD' nonsense

think i'll pass on this

It's not actually about capitalism though. One of the interesting thing curtis has noted is that our current fetish for "markets" isn't actually traditional capitalism at all, and the way we interpret it owes more to cybernetics and game theory than to adam smith.

consider especially the use of "internal markets" during tony blair's government (in his documentary 'the trap' this is sort of covered, as they set targets for staff in various government services, excepting them to respond in a rational way and complete the targets efficiently - instead they cheated, for example having someone in hospitals to greet you so that they could officially say you were "seen" within a short waiting time.) where they're used as a bizarre form of central planning instead of as an actual implementation of free markets.

perhaps on a wider tangent: capitalism is good. banks are bad.

A significant chunk of it is dedicated to showing how the soviet union was terrible. Curtis isn't anti-capitalist, he's anti financiers running literally everything.

comfiest intro desu
vimeo.com/68299139

you forgot (((Technocrats)))

>ending with it
absolute madman