It’s really remarkable how blatantly corrupt a government can be. Well, not really, because it’s just the logical consequence of the fact that even the most serious crimes go unpunished in the U.S.

What’s almost funny is that so many U.S. citizens still insist they live in a country governed by the rule of law. I have no idea how they can still believe that, given what happens there every single day.

But then it’s not funny anymore, because the consequences for the whole world are so dire.

Printer cartridges and razor blades

Yeah, that’s true: Stephen Hillenburg, the creator of SpongeBob, and his team certainly had some socially critical intent when they created the show and its characters - after all, there are often deliberately exaggerated everyday situations and the like which address social issues in a humorous way.

But also yeah, exactly: I added /s because, while the underlying message is at least somewhat recognizable, I presented it in such a pretentious way. I was just lazing around in bed and thought I’d have a little fun with some kind of pseudo-intellectual silliness.

So /s - mainly so no one here thinks I’m some completely out-of-touch political theorist or something who actually takes this exaggerated view all too seriously :)

Mr. Krabs’s relentless emphasis on profit -expressed through wage suppression, obsessive cost-cutting, and the conversion of social relations into transactions - renders him a concentrated embodiment of profit-driven logic. SpongeBob’s boundless cheerfulness and dutiful labor on the other hand present the idealized worker who performs emotional compliance as part of his job; his behavior makes visible the moral contradiction at the heart of an economy that prizes surplus extraction over workers’ wellbeing. The Krusty Krab’s daily rhythms - timed shifts, commodified leisure, scripted upselling, and constant attention to margins - show how extraction becomes normalized through routine rather than force.

The rivalry between Mr. Krabs and Sheldon J. Plankton further highlights the system’s subtly coercive nature: their ceaseless competition is less about innovation than about maintaining status atop the same extractive order, a ruthless free market theater in which two capitalists conserve and contest power while workers absorb the costs. The comedy works because it literalizes these dynamics - affection as account entry, friendship as transaction - so that the satirical clarity of the show forces viewers, even while amused, to recognize how profit as an organizing principle reshapes everyday life and renders cheerfulness itself a technique of compliance.

/s

Du bist ja ganz schön clever, mein Freund…

It would be great if that were the case, but unfortunately, I’m afraid it won’t last long. Gun lobbyists are already scrambling to strike deals that will sooner or later sway corrupt politicians. The fact that Western countries have still not imposed any sanctions - neither against the U.S. for its blatant violation of international law, nor against Israel for the same offense and, additionally, genocide - shows that this is a thoroughly realistic assessment.

Thanks, that’s a shame to hear. I’d read about his case some time ago, but now that he’s so openly siding with those responsible for precisely this kind of ridiculous abuse of the legal system, I’ve immediately lost interest - it’s inexcusable to me, because I firmly reject everything this criminal regime stands for. Besides, as I said: calling Afroman a musician would really be an exaggeration - no matter what standard you apply.

Afroman

Edit: the one on the left is a rapist and war criminal

Has he always been such a spineless traitor, or is he just sucking up to the orange pedo so he can get off the hook?

I know absolutely nothing about this clown - except for the fact that he has remarkably little talent.

Well, he’ll soon realize that the clan is even less interested in his shitty music than everyone else. What a moron…

What does that remind me of? … Exoskeletons… Hmm… ah, yes…

Indeed, I do believe, however, that neo-Nazi parties like the AfD are by no means successful on their own merits.

As in the U.S., I think, this is only possible thanks to the active support of the very same billionaires who, in the U.S., ensured that a pedophile serial criminal could become president. In my view, this is only made possible by an artificial illusion of public opinion, which is now predominantly propagated through mainstream social media platforms.

If one considers public opinion according to the definition by the renowned political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, I think it becomes clear what I mean:

“Public opinion is the sum of those opinions on a given issue that individuals express publicly because they believe they are socially acceptable and will not lead to isolation.”

Elisabeth Noelle-Neuman, The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion - Our Social Skin

Mainstream Social Media platforms are, after all, controlled unilaterally by billionaires who use them to advance their interests - something Musk for example makes particularly obvious. In doing so, they control public discourse and make Nazi ideology appear socially acceptable again by artificially amplifying it to make it seem like a majority opinion.

Unfortunately, this has by now eliminated the effect of social isolation, which explains why, even in Germany and despite its terrible history, Nazi ideology appears to be a socially acceptable viewpoint - which, in turn, has a very significant effect on political discourse.

And I wouldn’t exactly call it subtle - quite the opposite, in fact: in Germany, for example, politicians step in front of the camera and openly spout Nazi slogans. Just 10 years ago, they would have had to resign for that, and rightly so.

Yes, that’s definitely true, and it’s the same irrational fear of the unfamiliar that you find almost everywhere in the world. This is particularly absurd in rural areas of eastern Germany, because there are actually very few foreigners there.

It is not the people who make the laws, but their representatives, who, all too often, unfortunately do not make decisions in the people’s best interest. Nevertheless, it is indeed the people themselves who decide whether to use Twitter, speak to a voice assistant, or reveal their personal secrets in an AI chat.

Of course, it’s true that it may be appropriate to protect people from themselves, but I still think it’s also entirely appropriate to hold them accountable for their decisions and the consequences. For example, there are countless alternatives to Amazon, but people still order from there because it’s just so convenient.

In addition, people could also put pressure on their representatives if they allow themselves to be bought off by lobbyists yet again. Unfortunately, that just doesn’t happen very often.

What I’m getting at is this: None of what we’re experiencing today would be possible if people didn’t make it possible by buying products from companies that everyone knows are harmful to society.

I really wonder how we ended up here.

Why do people use mainstream social media? Why do they buy those stupid glasses? Why do they willingly feed corporations their most personal data?

Unfortunately, one has to conclude that it is, to a very large extent, people’s blatant stupidity that has led us to a point where there is now something like a new monarchy of unscrupulous billionaires - if not their stupidity, then at least their indifference, their apathy, and laziness. It’s just awful…

I’m afraid Germany hasn’t learned anything from him: In the state where I live, the state government unfortunately decided late last year to implement Palantir, even going so far as to amend the police law specifically to retroactively lend at least the appearance of legality to a contract for the purchase of the U.S. mass surveillance software “Gotham” that had already been concluded unlawfully.

There was significant public resistance, but it was simply ignored.

It may still be possible to prevent this through a lawsuit filed with the Constitutional Court, as the use of such applications for groundless mass surveillance is unconstitutional in Germany due to the right to informational self-determination - and I also find it hard to believe that such a thing is compatible with EU law.

I think our politicians must have been bribed. I can’t explain it any other way, because even just from security standpoint, it goes without saying that it’s insane to pass even the most sensitive data directly to the fascist regime in the US - thanks to Snowden, we all know that there’s almost certainly a backdoor.

Try explaining that to the people in Iran who rose up against the regime, were shot by the hundreds, and are now being bombed by the U.S.

The U.S. has threatened a founding member of NATO with a war of aggression, and furthermore, the U.S. is committing war crimes alongside the genocidal Israel - this is the situation in which the U.S. is calling for support for a war of aggression that tramples on international law. Or to put it another way: It is the situation that a narcissist - who should have been in prison for decades - has brought about with what he calls the “Art of the Deal.” GTFO!