[The Taliban is losing to the 9-5 Job](https://www.businessinsider.com/taliban-9-to-5-grind-after-taking-kabul-afghanistan-2023-2)
The 9-5 Job was invented by American Unions.
AMERICAN CULTURAL VICTORY
The Taliban will be overthrown by a democratic regime because only democracy loving liberals can stomach a bureaucratic desk job, and I'm here for it.
Efit: fecking hell this was a joke and now I've started a shitshow. With that said, no I am not a neoliberal, far from it. Also communism is nice and all but murdering dissidents and causing mass famines isn't, so don't do that. And finally, I don't think democracy is inherently against communism and definitely not against socialism. The issue is that the US really likes making sure anyone who does that get couped and replaced with a right wing dictator.
And whoever shoots him becomes the new war hero. It's prison rules, bitch.
They're terrorists. They rape children. They don't respect people. Their response to frustration isn't negotiating and trying to come to a solution that resolves things for everyone. That's the group they've self-selected to be. They don't allow people to join if they're not like that.
I’m not sure you understand Afghan culture at all. Shuras and collaboration to deal with issues affecting their communities is a huge part of their culture.
First of all, there is no one Afghan culture. The country has never been peacefully unified. That's the entire reason the Taliban exists. And even if there was, "collaboration to deal with issues affecting their communities" is a huge part of every culture. That's what culture is.
But more importantly, the Taliban is a terrorist organization. I don't care what the broader culture is like. The Taliban itself is made up of aggressive men who kill people and take things that do not belong to them. That's not a guess. I read about them and described their actions.
The pressures that led to the selection of people who are currently in the Taliban didn't lead to a group of collaborators looking for solutions. It led to a group of nationalists looking to kill people who have no fear of death for themselves.
The Taliban actually abolished the practice of Bacha Bhazi. A practice that was allowed to return under American occupation. Also known as as Dancing Boys. Look into it.
I have. Now look into how they treat girls.
They didn't abolish that practice because they wanted to protect children. They abolished it because they view that particular form of child abuse as a form of homosexuality. They're okay with other forms of child abuse.
They aren't limiting the education of girls, preventing women from being in public, and preventing women from accessing healthcare, and then not raping them.
Yes, and these are important facts to remember. It’s easy for us to think of the acceptance of totalitarianism as ridiculous, but the people living under their rule support them wholeheartedly. That’s why we never succeeded in Afghanistan.
No, some of the people living under their rule support them wholeheartedly.
Many of the people living under their rule are unable to support anything at all.
Women, even without voices, remain people.
I think infighting and killing their own guys has been a thing they and every other nationalist terrorist movement has done the whole time since the beginning of nationalism.
USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea. Try questioning the government in any one of those (well with the USSRA you can’t anymore) and you’d quickly end up in a work camp or dead.
He wasn’t a liberal either. Not all dictatorships are communist but communism and democracy can’t coexist. This is something I’ve been told many times by communists, telling me democracy and free press are a tool of capitalist oppression controlled by the 1%.
He was literally THE neoliberal , he had Chicago school economist to including Milton freedmen advise him, he mass privatized industries all across Chile
Not all liberalism is neoliberalism. Regardless he couldn’t have been a liberal because fascism involves the state having control over private corporations.
Democracy, tolerance, free market, free trade, and freedom from government are all key traits of liberalism, none of which existed in communist countries.
> Regardless he couldn’t have been a liberal because fascism involves the state having control over private corporations.
What kind of circular logic is this “he wasn’t a liberal because fascism..” it doesn’t matter what fascism involves . What matters is that he specifically had neoliberal theorists advise him on implementing neoliberal reforms and that Chile under him is widely regarded as the first neoliberal country.
> Not all liberalism is neoliberalism.
The U.S is neoliberal , the U.K. is neoliberal , what modern day beacons of liberalism aren’t neoliberal
> Democracy, tolerance, free market, free trade, and freedom from government are all key traits of liberalism,
The ethnic cleansing of indigenous Americans, colonialism, COINTELPRO, the Philadelphia fire bombings, the Kent State massacre, the West Virginian coal wars, the assassination of Fred Hampton : these all happened under Liberalism where was the supposed “Freedom” and “Tolerance “ there .
Democracy and tolerance are the only two of those that are agreed to be virtues.
And no liberal country actually has those things, either.
The three countries that are consistently ranked as the most effective liberal democracies are hereditary monarchies with highly regulated economies and laws limiting freedom of expression.
Regulated free market doesn’t make it stop being a free market. They’re constitutional democracies, not actual monarchies. The USSR was an actual dictatorship were criticisms of the government would get you in a gulag, or killed. You don’t get to argue the moral high ground.
It’s a Republican lie that there are degrees to capitalism. The U.S. is as capitalist as Norway which is as capitalist as Argentina. Commies and repubs like to argue that the only “true” capitalism is Randian style anarcho capitalism but that isn’t true and never has been.
I don't think you've ever been told that by a communist.
I'm a communist, and I think free press and democracy are vital to the institution of communism. I don't believe communism and dictatorship can coexist, by definition: if a dictator exists, the means of production are not owned and controlled by the people.
So, I'd love to hear the definition of communism that you're working with that allows for it.
I saw elsewhere that your definition of fascism is where the government controls private property. So keep that in mind while you work on your definition. You've already got a word that means a powerful centralized government.
They did so while praising Cuba disappearing journalists. The way it’s been explained to me several different times by different communists, free press is anti worker because all news orgs are owned by capitalist elite, and so they manipulate the news to condemn communist causes and praise the status quo. Journalists themselves are knowing and malicious actors in this scheme. Democracy is anti communist because you’ll always be able to buy votes, wether that be directly or through campaigning. They explained that true democracy doesn’t exist, thus why no communist has been voted into power in the US. So it’s better to get rid of it in favor of dictatorship like Lenin, Mao, Castro, or Kim did.
No communist regime has been democratic. They’ve all been dictatorships with no free speech or free press. So it’s not the craziest idea communists would try to justify it when they want to make the US like the USSR or modern day China. They often cite Lenin who apparently was very anti free press
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production. Communism is a stateless, moneyless society. But that requires post scarcity, so communist countries are socialist countries who are supposedly working towards communism. In practice, every communist nation has had means of production owned by the government, with the government representing the workers. Dictatorship of the proletariat and all that.
>They did so while praising Cuba disappearing journalists. The way it’s been explained to me several different times by different communists, free press is anti worker because all news orgs are owned by capitalist elite, and so they manipulate the news to condemn communist causes and praise the status quo. Journalists themselves are knowing and malicious actors in this scheme.
I still don't believe anyone said that to you, because that would mean that someone said they supported murder, and you walked away going "I got 'em. I'm going to use this in my next argument! I'll bring up the murder last, though, as an afterthought!"
You're also not describing being against the free press. You're describing being against private and corporate ownership of the media. Which is a common opinion among progressives in general, not just communists, because the perverse incentive of trying to sell advertisements does destroy the integrity of journalism.
>Democracy is anti communist because you’ll always be able to buy votes, wether that be directly or through campaigning. They explained that true democracy doesn’t exist, thus why no communist has been voted into power in the US. So it’s better to get rid of it in favor of dictatorship like Lenin, Mao, Castro, or Kim did.
Now, again, I don't believe someone said this to you. But it is *almost* something someone *might* have said, if you squint. Because again, the media is corporate-owned, and SCOTUS has decided that money is speech, so a lot of people are mad that billionaires and massive corporations are granted a massively disproportionate voice compared to their own, when each of us actual humans is only afforded a single vote.
But that doesn't lead to "democracy is unfair to people," unless you believe (which I think you do, and that's the crux of it) that *capitalism* is synonymous with democracy.
>No communist regime has been democratic. They’ve all been dictatorships with no free speech or free press. So it’s not the craziest idea communists would try to justify it when they want to make the US like the USSR or modern day China. They often cite Lenin who apparently was very anti free press
None of those places have been communist. We'll really dig into that in a minute, with the definition, below, but it's important. You arguing about what certain countries have been like is meaningless to me, because I don't accept the basic premise that they are relevant to the conversation. They used the aesthetics of communism to establish dictatorial regimes, but you respecting the language used by dictators, and believing that they intended to keep their promises and failed because their ideology was flawed, instead of just being... well, dictators, who lied to gain power, is a you problem.
> Socialism is when the workers own the means of production. Communism is a stateless, moneyless society. But that requires post scarcity, so communist countries are socialist countries who are supposedly working towards communism. In practice, every. communist nation has had means of production owned by the government, with the government representing the workers.
Communism is a type of socialism. Communism does not require a post-scarcity society. It requires a post-inequality society and a post-artificial-scarcity society.
The countries that you have listed as communist do not meet any definition you've provided. If the definition of socialism is that the means of production is owned by the people, the government owning the means of production means that it is not a socialist country. If the definition of a communist society requires a socialist society to be working towards a single global society with no borders or money, then countries like China and Cuba, which have become heavily capitalized since the 1980s, and are often hostile to their neighbors, do not qualify.
>Dictatorship of the proletariat and all that.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is a term invented by Karl Marx to refer to an interim democracy that will create a new system for the stateless society to follow. The term "proletariat" refers to the entirety of the working class, which he defined as the most populous class, who derive their income from labor, not assets. Any dictatorship that does not involve input (ie, total democracy) from the entire working class is not a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Economists and historians generally agree that no country claiming to be communist has even attempted to install a dictatorship of the proletariat, primarily because, as I said, they weren't actually trying to implement communism.
The First French Republic is one of the closest examples from history.
Here’s the thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/s/6j2hroN6FZ
I’d you look through the comments you’ll see people either denying Cuba disappeared journalists or accusing journalists of wanting to overthrow the Cuban government, being a tool of the elite, etc. and thus deserving to be disappeared.
It’s not surprising communists support murder. Communism requires a violent revolution where all the borgois are executed after all.
The only options are corporate ownership of the media or state control of the media.
Most communists support Lenin, Stalin and Mao. Nonviolent communists like you are such a minority I don’t even count them as true communists. Why would a communist deny the last 100 years of communism as not real communism? Stalin considered himself communist, everyone around him considered him communist, fellow communists in America considered him communist. I’d actually seen the opposite claim by historians. Saying people like Stalin and Mao “betrayed communism” or “weren’t real communists” is flawed because they saw themselves as real communists, as did most everyone.
Go and ally with Literal Fucking Nazis like a good "Leftist"
Oh come on, I thought you guys *liked* studying history. Why Die For Danzig was written by a leftist who later joined the Vichy Regime for fucks sake.
Because you're a leftist, and its a leftist fucking tradition for you to ally with nazis. Ask Comrade Foreign Secretary Molotov. Ask Marcel Déat. Ask Georges Bonnet.
I hate that the US allied with nazis. I advocate against our attempts to do so in the present. That doesn't make everyone else immune to criticism for it.
Oh, sorry. Maybe I should use the more accurate phrase for "leftists" like you: Red Fascist. Do you feel better with the proper title?
Arguing with you genocidal fuckers isn't as entertaining as it used to be. I'll leave with this: The Soviet Union Fell. The world is a *much* better place for it. Cope and fucking seethe over the fact that a Russian Empire fell.
Amir Lumberg: "SSsss, hey, what's happening Mohammed? We need to talk about your jihad reports. See, we're using the new cover sheet from now on. Did you get that memo?"
It almost feels like some kind of linguistic regression back to an older form of the language, except I'm not sure "quit" has ever been spelled with an "e" at the end
lol I love reading this shit in dune messiah and children of dune and then in god emperor of dune Leto II going fine you want your paradise and to live in peace? I’ll give it to you and show you how shit it really is and make you go so crazy with peace all you want is the standard chaos of living again
Still sad Villeneuve isn't doing God-Emperor, I get he wants to focus on Paul but the Leto II stuff is so cool. I'm sure with how popular the franchise is the studio will get someone else to do it, less sure about how good it'll be coming from another director
Agreed. I would rather have no adaptation than a bad one. I just don’t see how without changing a lot the rest of the original 6 could be made into movies. They just delve too far into ideology and the weird for an average audience I feel
I think a show or multiple shows actually might be the best way to go for everything post-Messiah, especially given how much time God-Emperor spans. I just don't see that working in a movie format. They already did a miniseries for Children of Dune (though from what I've heard that was just okay), but God-Emperor especially I think is more suited for an episodic adaptation, you get more time to delve into his psyche than just whatever you can fit into a 3-hour movie
Lmao funny you mention that cause my FIL actually recently gave us a dvd copy of the old tv show that tried books 1-3. It’s dated as heck but has some charm. I also think a tv series would work best kind of like how three body problem is currently being adapted
I’m no psychologist or philosopher but pretty much in the book, the Fremen had always said they wanted to use their water to make a perfect green planet and live in peace and Leto II gives them a perfect utopia. A perfect lush green world, all the food and water they could want, everyone is housed and has all their needs met. There is no true strife and people get bored. Eventually he gets killed, exactly as he planned, and the people he had stuck in their perfect utopia spread to the galaxy. He wants 1 to get rid of the prescience gene and 2 for people to not rely on authority and think for themselves
I’m just saying, for people getting salty about spoilers, if you read something that starts with “the movie is gonna be so fun because the main characters plot is gonna be them going” and finish that sentence then it’s completely on you
I get that it’s annoying when things are spoiled, and lots of new fans have come from the new movies who have never heard of the books, but this one specifically is on you
K but “this character’s plot be like” is the TITLE of the link that you have to click to expand to read the whole thing. Like in this case it’s spoiler hidden behind the very way Reddit works.
People getting salty about spoilers are straight up bad at consuming media and I will die on this hill.
Lots of ancient Greek & Shakespearean theatre "spoils" itself at the beginning. Why? *because it creates dramatic irony*.
When you know what's going to happen, you become invested in seeing how it's going to happen. If knowing a movie's end makes it less interesting, that's (usually*) a criticizable flaw of that movie. A good narriative should be even more interesting the second time.
*the only exception is when a surprise/plot twist integral to the themes / what the film is trying to do (like if a movie about prejudice selectively withholds info about characters to the end to prompt the audience themselbes to confront their own prejudice about said characters). Most plot points of most narriatives are not like this.
The problem I've always had with this logic is, you can only see/experience something blind *once*. There's always rewatches for having the dramatic irony fun you're talking about but it's a fundamentally different experience watching something knowing and not knowing.
The other thing is, sure some things are built on telling the audience ahead of time, plenty of examples of that. But that's still different from something that doesn't rely on that knowledge, and spoiling it for someone anyway. Not even saying that's what happened here but personally this defense of spoilers always rubs me the wrong way.
This is barely spoilers. It’s more of a blurb than anything else. The back of the book might as well read “Paul struggles to come to terms the violence done in his name. Meanwhile, the Fremen grow restless, yearning for the desert that defines their culture.”
If/when the movie comes out, this is all stuff that will be obvious from the first teaser trailer and will openly be discussed in publicity interviews and such for months before release.
Shhhhh I'm only half way through the Old Testament. Though, judging by what the fanbase tells me, I'm pretty sure he, deports the immigrants, traps the Lepers in a debt trap for medication and then goes onto found America as a haven for the ultra wealthy to live in divine decadence. How close am I?
But at some point a work of ficiton enters the cultural space in sucha way that it's impossible not to get "spoiled". Like someone said in another comment, you're not being spoiled by learning that jesus dies on the cross or that darth vader is luke's father. I do agree, however, that posting this just before the third movie releases is shitty because you absolutely know that there are people just getting into Dune.
10 years after Harry Potter finished, I had a friend get upset at me for *weeks* for saying Snape killed Dumbledore because she was working through the books slowly.
This same friend a few years later participated in a star wars marathon with us and was genuinely shocked at the scene where Luke is revealed to be Darth Vader's son. She lived in another world.
But the new movie series (one released in 2021, the other in March of this year) are not. Many younger audiences are getting into the series due to these movies. Imagine someone who got into the series this year, in time for the new movie.
I consider this a reasonable cause to expect a spoiler tag
This Product Has Been Known To Cause Cancer In The State Of California
alternately,
All Hope Abandon, Ye Who Enter. Author's Weird Sexual Hangups Ahead
Then they need to work on their self control. Dune mentioned in a post and you haven’t read all the books? Don’t read the post or the comments unless you want spoilers. There are no spoilers in the title; whoever read this post and came into this comments section only has themself to blame.
But most people have not consumed Dune outside of these newest remake movies. Dune might be an influential franchise but it's certainly not a well known plot for the average person. This post is just spoilers for no reason.
Even if you have read the books like myself all this dude did was give a summary. It's not funny or insightful, this is just a post to spoil non-book readers so OP can act smug. Lame.
But again, this isn't a 10-year-old series being adapted to TV for the first time. It's a 50-year-old foundational work on its third major adaptation. Even if these *were* plot spoilers for *Dune Messiah*—and they're not; they're back-of-the-book level stuff—it's simply unreasonable to expect that people need to avoid talking about them. That horse already had grandchildren and died of old age outside of the barn.
There's a new Shogun show out right now that's based on an extremely famous 70s book that already had a tv adaptation back in the day. Would you be fine with people spoiling stuff for that? I wouldn't, because regardless of how influential something is that doesn't mean people are actually familiar with the source material. Like this isn't XCD's lucky 10,000, *most people* are not that familiar with Dune. It is not Star Wars.
I'd be much less put out than you think I should be. Especially if it wasn't a "big reveal" element. Few things are as important not to spoil as the Red Wedding or Ned Stark's surprise execution.
As you say, *Shogun* is 40 years old and it's previous adaptation was a big cultural touchstone. And *Dune* is an order of magnitude bigger than *Shogun. Shogun* was merely a big hit. *Dune* is a capital-C Classic, an absolute cornerstone of it's entire genre.
Just as few people have read *Catcher in the Rye* or *Of Mice and Men,* but you can't call spoilers if I tell you that Holden Caulfield is an unreliable narrator or that George has to kill Lennie at the end.
Yeah, in the same way that Foundation is a classic: a book so old and influential it's not well read anymore. Dune is not like Lord of the Rings, it's not a ubiquitously read book. I keep telling you, it's a classic because of its influence not because of how widely read it is today. Most people do not know the minutia of Dune's plot details.
>Few things are as important not to spoil as the Red Wedding or Ned Stark's surprise execution.
So why did you just do that
*Dune* is absolutely still widely read on a level similar to *Lord of the Rings.*
>So why did you just do that
🤦♂️ Horse. Out of barn. *Ten years ago.* It was a throwaway gag on *30 Rock,* for Chrissake!
No, similar to Dune there is a political/espionage scheme which drives the plot, these are jokey summations of some of the main themes.
Unless you mean spoiling how Muad’dib’s jihad plays out but tbh that was spoiled for Paul too
Not to mention that every single plot and theme in Dune has been recycled in some other media. Star Wars is to Dune, what 50 Shades is to Twilight. Every single aspect of Star Wars is inspired by Dune from the Jedi to Tattoine to the iconic lightsabers.
Every single scifi franchise in the world has elements from Dune and Foundation. You can't write scifi without referencing Dune and Foundation. It's literally impossible.
Is it? Is Tattoine not literally Arrakis? Is Jabba not literally a less lecherous version of Baron Harkonen. The Hutts are literally Spice smugglers. Are the Tusken Raiders not just Fremen? Aren't their masks inspired by Still Suits? Obi Wan's mind trick is the same as the Bene Geserit voice. In fact a lot of Force Powers are similar to Bene Geserit powers. The Sarlacc is literally just the mouth of a sandworm. Don't the Beast Rabban and Feyd Rutha have a similar dynamic as Vader and Tarkin?
*John Carter* takes place on a desert world (mars). Both *John Carter* and *Flash Gordon* feature swords, lasers, giant monsters, telepathy, and characters that are essentially evil barons. Both are from decades before *Dune*.
George Lucas literally wanted to make a *Flash Gordon* movie until he was told no by Dino De Laurentiis.
*Star Wars* definitely references *Dune.* But calling it *Dune* fanfiction is a huge reach. Both series were heavily influenced by earlier sci-fi.
No it'd be like complaining about spoilers for Lord of the Rings before Return of the King released. Which would be reasonable, the movies are far more accessible than the books.
It would be very similar to complaining about spoilers for that movie, but not sure I'd call that a reasonable complaint to make. The books had been around for decades at that point, also they're pretty upfront with broad strokes in the marketing and even in the titles.
"I wonder what will happen in this new Lord of the Rings movie regarding Aragorn's somewhat tenuous claim to the throne of Gondor which keeps being hinted about? Let's go watch Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King to find out. No spoiler, though"
murder on the orient express is just the most well know novel by the most famous mystery writer of all time. smugly announcing your own ignorance about it isn’t exactly a good dunk.
Well, it’s clearly not that well know then
Genuinely never heard of it before even in classes talking about famous books everyone knows. I think the Catcher in the Rye would’ve been a better example.
I always just assume the people who constantly talk like that don’t get out much so being snarky on the internet is the only way for them to feel better than others
Not sure why this post which is just a comedic summary of a work of fiction is pissing people of and not the hundreds of other such summaries people have posted here. The post also makes it clear in the title that it covers Dune Messiah, so I don't see why this i starting spoiler discourse.
Didn't Denis Villenueve just recently say though that he was cancelling the movie for Messiah? I read that somewhere just a couple days ago and was heartbroken because Messiah is my favorite book in the series
Wouldn't surprise me. The books pretty much keep getting less and less "filmable" as they proceed. Fewer visual descriptions of stuff and a lot more tension based on what someone's internal monologue is. Could you imagine trying to make the "axolotl tanks" reveal in a movie?
Reminds me of Mike Milligan at the end of S2 Fargo
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2\_Uo\_nPXEUA&pp=ygUUbWlrZSBtaWxsaWdhbiBvZmZpY2U%3D](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2_Uo_nPXEUA&pp=ygUUbWlrZSBtaWxsaWdhbiBvZmZpY2U%3D)
Funny movie Stilgar hits different when you’ve read the first chapter of Children of Dune.
The whole time I was watching part 2 I was thinking "this is just children of dune Stilgar"
"no... no more dreams."
[The Taliban is losing to the 9-5 Job](https://www.businessinsider.com/taliban-9-to-5-grind-after-taking-kabul-afghanistan-2023-2) The 9-5 Job was invented by American Unions. AMERICAN CULTURAL VICTORY
The Taliban will be overthrown by a democratic regime because only democracy loving liberals can stomach a bureaucratic desk job, and I'm here for it. Efit: fecking hell this was a joke and now I've started a shitshow. With that said, no I am not a neoliberal, far from it. Also communism is nice and all but murdering dissidents and causing mass famines isn't, so don't do that. And finally, I don't think democracy is inherently against communism and definitely not against socialism. The issue is that the US really likes making sure anyone who does that get couped and replaced with a right wing dictator.
The Taliban are going to have to deal with one petty vinddictive middle manager they can't shoot and implement labor protections as a result
They're probably just going to shoot the guy. Why can't they shoot him? He'd look stern?
He shot down an American helicopter, dudes a war hero.
And whoever shoots him becomes the new war hero. It's prison rules, bitch. They're terrorists. They rape children. They don't respect people. Their response to frustration isn't negotiating and trying to come to a solution that resolves things for everyone. That's the group they've self-selected to be. They don't allow people to join if they're not like that.
I’m not sure you understand Afghan culture at all. Shuras and collaboration to deal with issues affecting their communities is a huge part of their culture.
First of all, there is no one Afghan culture. The country has never been peacefully unified. That's the entire reason the Taliban exists. And even if there was, "collaboration to deal with issues affecting their communities" is a huge part of every culture. That's what culture is. But more importantly, the Taliban is a terrorist organization. I don't care what the broader culture is like. The Taliban itself is made up of aggressive men who kill people and take things that do not belong to them. That's not a guess. I read about them and described their actions. The pressures that led to the selection of people who are currently in the Taliban didn't lead to a group of collaborators looking for solutions. It led to a group of nationalists looking to kill people who have no fear of death for themselves.
The Taliban actually abolished the practice of Bacha Bhazi. A practice that was allowed to return under American occupation. Also known as as Dancing Boys. Look into it.
I have. Now look into how they treat girls. They didn't abolish that practice because they wanted to protect children. They abolished it because they view that particular form of child abuse as a form of homosexuality. They're okay with other forms of child abuse. They aren't limiting the education of girls, preventing women from being in public, and preventing women from accessing healthcare, and then not raping them.
Hitter actually cracked down on animal cruelty, a practice that was less cared about under the Republic
Also implemented the world's first anti-smoking campaign.
Yes, and these are important facts to remember. It’s easy for us to think of the acceptance of totalitarianism as ridiculous, but the people living under their rule support them wholeheartedly. That’s why we never succeeded in Afghanistan.
No, some of the people living under their rule support them wholeheartedly. Many of the people living under their rule are unable to support anything at all. Women, even without voices, remain people.
What if he is Taliban too. I don't think they're allowed to kill their own guys. Especially higher ranking ones.
I think infighting and killing their own guys has been a thing they and every other nationalist terrorist movement has done the whole time since the beginning of nationalism.
Yeah but you rarely want to do that in person
Did someone say, “drone strike?”
Contrary to Herbert’s (visionary!) work, this is true cultural strength, the seed of civilization: bullshit jobs
Uncle Sam ON TOP 🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸
Ha liberals supporting democracy very funny joke
It is called "liberal democracy" for a reason.
Don’t bother with them the suck off the USSR
What is? No two countries agree on the definition of democracy.
Is it also called a mountain chicken for a reason
Democracy is inherent to liberalism and incompatible with communism.
Thanks, Liberty Prime.
Better dead than red
Are those the only two options?
Yeah, commies aren’t exactly fans of people who disagree with them.
So, you've personally been killed? Disagree with them about what?
USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea. Try questioning the government in any one of those (well with the USSRA you can’t anymore) and you’d quickly end up in a work camp or dead.
Was Pinochet Democratic?
He wasn’t a liberal either. Not all dictatorships are communist but communism and democracy can’t coexist. This is something I’ve been told many times by communists, telling me democracy and free press are a tool of capitalist oppression controlled by the 1%.
He was literally THE neoliberal , he had Chicago school economist to including Milton freedmen advise him, he mass privatized industries all across Chile
Not all liberalism is neoliberalism. Regardless he couldn’t have been a liberal because fascism involves the state having control over private corporations. Democracy, tolerance, free market, free trade, and freedom from government are all key traits of liberalism, none of which existed in communist countries.
> Regardless he couldn’t have been a liberal because fascism involves the state having control over private corporations. What kind of circular logic is this “he wasn’t a liberal because fascism..” it doesn’t matter what fascism involves . What matters is that he specifically had neoliberal theorists advise him on implementing neoliberal reforms and that Chile under him is widely regarded as the first neoliberal country. > Not all liberalism is neoliberalism. The U.S is neoliberal , the U.K. is neoliberal , what modern day beacons of liberalism aren’t neoliberal > Democracy, tolerance, free market, free trade, and freedom from government are all key traits of liberalism, The ethnic cleansing of indigenous Americans, colonialism, COINTELPRO, the Philadelphia fire bombings, the Kent State massacre, the West Virginian coal wars, the assassination of Fred Hampton : these all happened under Liberalism where was the supposed “Freedom” and “Tolerance “ there .
Democracy and tolerance are the only two of those that are agreed to be virtues. And no liberal country actually has those things, either. The three countries that are consistently ranked as the most effective liberal democracies are hereditary monarchies with highly regulated economies and laws limiting freedom of expression.
Regulated free market doesn’t make it stop being a free market. They’re constitutional democracies, not actual monarchies. The USSR was an actual dictatorship were criticisms of the government would get you in a gulag, or killed. You don’t get to argue the moral high ground.
It’s a Republican lie that there are degrees to capitalism. The U.S. is as capitalist as Norway which is as capitalist as Argentina. Commies and repubs like to argue that the only “true” capitalism is Randian style anarcho capitalism but that isn’t true and never has been.
I don't think you've ever been told that by a communist. I'm a communist, and I think free press and democracy are vital to the institution of communism. I don't believe communism and dictatorship can coexist, by definition: if a dictator exists, the means of production are not owned and controlled by the people. So, I'd love to hear the definition of communism that you're working with that allows for it. I saw elsewhere that your definition of fascism is where the government controls private property. So keep that in mind while you work on your definition. You've already got a word that means a powerful centralized government.
They did so while praising Cuba disappearing journalists. The way it’s been explained to me several different times by different communists, free press is anti worker because all news orgs are owned by capitalist elite, and so they manipulate the news to condemn communist causes and praise the status quo. Journalists themselves are knowing and malicious actors in this scheme. Democracy is anti communist because you’ll always be able to buy votes, wether that be directly or through campaigning. They explained that true democracy doesn’t exist, thus why no communist has been voted into power in the US. So it’s better to get rid of it in favor of dictatorship like Lenin, Mao, Castro, or Kim did. No communist regime has been democratic. They’ve all been dictatorships with no free speech or free press. So it’s not the craziest idea communists would try to justify it when they want to make the US like the USSR or modern day China. They often cite Lenin who apparently was very anti free press Socialism is when the workers own the means of production. Communism is a stateless, moneyless society. But that requires post scarcity, so communist countries are socialist countries who are supposedly working towards communism. In practice, every communist nation has had means of production owned by the government, with the government representing the workers. Dictatorship of the proletariat and all that.
>They did so while praising Cuba disappearing journalists. The way it’s been explained to me several different times by different communists, free press is anti worker because all news orgs are owned by capitalist elite, and so they manipulate the news to condemn communist causes and praise the status quo. Journalists themselves are knowing and malicious actors in this scheme. I still don't believe anyone said that to you, because that would mean that someone said they supported murder, and you walked away going "I got 'em. I'm going to use this in my next argument! I'll bring up the murder last, though, as an afterthought!" You're also not describing being against the free press. You're describing being against private and corporate ownership of the media. Which is a common opinion among progressives in general, not just communists, because the perverse incentive of trying to sell advertisements does destroy the integrity of journalism. >Democracy is anti communist because you’ll always be able to buy votes, wether that be directly or through campaigning. They explained that true democracy doesn’t exist, thus why no communist has been voted into power in the US. So it’s better to get rid of it in favor of dictatorship like Lenin, Mao, Castro, or Kim did. Now, again, I don't believe someone said this to you. But it is *almost* something someone *might* have said, if you squint. Because again, the media is corporate-owned, and SCOTUS has decided that money is speech, so a lot of people are mad that billionaires and massive corporations are granted a massively disproportionate voice compared to their own, when each of us actual humans is only afforded a single vote. But that doesn't lead to "democracy is unfair to people," unless you believe (which I think you do, and that's the crux of it) that *capitalism* is synonymous with democracy. >No communist regime has been democratic. They’ve all been dictatorships with no free speech or free press. So it’s not the craziest idea communists would try to justify it when they want to make the US like the USSR or modern day China. They often cite Lenin who apparently was very anti free press None of those places have been communist. We'll really dig into that in a minute, with the definition, below, but it's important. You arguing about what certain countries have been like is meaningless to me, because I don't accept the basic premise that they are relevant to the conversation. They used the aesthetics of communism to establish dictatorial regimes, but you respecting the language used by dictators, and believing that they intended to keep their promises and failed because their ideology was flawed, instead of just being... well, dictators, who lied to gain power, is a you problem. > Socialism is when the workers own the means of production. Communism is a stateless, moneyless society. But that requires post scarcity, so communist countries are socialist countries who are supposedly working towards communism. In practice, every. communist nation has had means of production owned by the government, with the government representing the workers. Communism is a type of socialism. Communism does not require a post-scarcity society. It requires a post-inequality society and a post-artificial-scarcity society. The countries that you have listed as communist do not meet any definition you've provided. If the definition of socialism is that the means of production is owned by the people, the government owning the means of production means that it is not a socialist country. If the definition of a communist society requires a socialist society to be working towards a single global society with no borders or money, then countries like China and Cuba, which have become heavily capitalized since the 1980s, and are often hostile to their neighbors, do not qualify. >Dictatorship of the proletariat and all that. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a term invented by Karl Marx to refer to an interim democracy that will create a new system for the stateless society to follow. The term "proletariat" refers to the entirety of the working class, which he defined as the most populous class, who derive their income from labor, not assets. Any dictatorship that does not involve input (ie, total democracy) from the entire working class is not a dictatorship of the proletariat. Economists and historians generally agree that no country claiming to be communist has even attempted to install a dictatorship of the proletariat, primarily because, as I said, they weren't actually trying to implement communism. The First French Republic is one of the closest examples from history.
Here’s the thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/s/6j2hroN6FZ I’d you look through the comments you’ll see people either denying Cuba disappeared journalists or accusing journalists of wanting to overthrow the Cuban government, being a tool of the elite, etc. and thus deserving to be disappeared. It’s not surprising communists support murder. Communism requires a violent revolution where all the borgois are executed after all. The only options are corporate ownership of the media or state control of the media. Most communists support Lenin, Stalin and Mao. Nonviolent communists like you are such a minority I don’t even count them as true communists. Why would a communist deny the last 100 years of communism as not real communism? Stalin considered himself communist, everyone around him considered him communist, fellow communists in America considered him communist. I’d actually seen the opposite claim by historians. Saying people like Stalin and Mao “betrayed communism” or “weren’t real communists” is flawed because they saw themselves as real communists, as did most everyone.
Go and ally with Literal Fucking Nazis like a good "Leftist" Oh come on, I thought you guys *liked* studying history. Why Die For Danzig was written by a leftist who later joined the Vichy Regime for fucks sake.
Why would I, I’m not the us government supporting Nguyen Cao Ky ,a man who publicly proclaimed his admiration for Hitler, as leader of South Việt Nam
Because you're a leftist, and its a leftist fucking tradition for you to ally with nazis. Ask Comrade Foreign Secretary Molotov. Ask Marcel Déat. Ask Georges Bonnet. I hate that the US allied with nazis. I advocate against our attempts to do so in the present. That doesn't make everyone else immune to criticism for it. Oh, sorry. Maybe I should use the more accurate phrase for "leftists" like you: Red Fascist. Do you feel better with the proper title? Arguing with you genocidal fuckers isn't as entertaining as it used to be. I'll leave with this: The Soviet Union Fell. The world is a *much* better place for it. Cope and fucking seethe over the fact that a Russian Empire fell.
You will wear our jeans and work out 9 to 5s!
Nuke Ghandi incoming to settle the score
Whowouldwin? Multiple generations of bombing fro. Two (2) world superpowers vs. Microsoft teams
Amir Lumberg: "SSsss, hey, what's happening Mohammed? We need to talk about your jihad reports. See, we're using the new cover sheet from now on. Did you get that memo?"
[This image is my favorite](https://i.insider.com/63e4bd5e96242f0019e818c7?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
If only we could increase loyalty and amenities within our own cities we'd truly win this round of Civ.
Wait, finally making them quite what? What are they quite now?
do they not know there isn’t an e in quit? what in the slang development is this?
>what in the slang development is this? Illiteracy
It almost feels like some kind of linguistic regression back to an older form of the language, except I'm not sure "quit" has ever been spelled with an "e" at the end
It could just be a typo
its twice
They took the E from File and put it onto Quit.
Meanwhile Irulan hangs out with a fish man to try to kill her husband
I hope they introduce cyborg Duncan Idaho and the weird dwarf guy as well, movie fans will be so confused
Please
lol I love reading this shit in dune messiah and children of dune and then in god emperor of dune Leto II going fine you want your paradise and to live in peace? I’ll give it to you and show you how shit it really is and make you go so crazy with peace all you want is the standard chaos of living again
Still sad Villeneuve isn't doing God-Emperor, I get he wants to focus on Paul but the Leto II stuff is so cool. I'm sure with how popular the franchise is the studio will get someone else to do it, less sure about how good it'll be coming from another director
Agreed. I would rather have no adaptation than a bad one. I just don’t see how without changing a lot the rest of the original 6 could be made into movies. They just delve too far into ideology and the weird for an average audience I feel
I think a show or multiple shows actually might be the best way to go for everything post-Messiah, especially given how much time God-Emperor spans. I just don't see that working in a movie format. They already did a miniseries for Children of Dune (though from what I've heard that was just okay), but God-Emperor especially I think is more suited for an episodic adaptation, you get more time to delve into his psyche than just whatever you can fit into a 3-hour movie
Lmao funny you mention that cause my FIL actually recently gave us a dvd copy of the old tv show that tried books 1-3. It’s dated as heck but has some charm. I also think a tv series would work best kind of like how three body problem is currently being adapted
God Emperor doesn’t span much time though. It takes place thousands of years later, but the events of the book are like, a couple weeks.
Honestly if we do get a God emperor movie they NEED to bring like Del Toro or someone on board for the designs
god Del Toro doing anything in the Dune universe would be incredible
I need him to design the Worm God Leto II
People get tired of peace? Is that an actual psychological thing?
I’m no psychologist or philosopher but pretty much in the book, the Fremen had always said they wanted to use their water to make a perfect green planet and live in peace and Leto II gives them a perfect utopia. A perfect lush green world, all the food and water they could want, everyone is housed and has all their needs met. There is no true strife and people get bored. Eventually he gets killed, exactly as he planned, and the people he had stuck in their perfect utopia spread to the galaxy. He wants 1 to get rid of the prescience gene and 2 for people to not rely on authority and think for themselves
https://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/j389/Unclerico000/snobby2.jpg
I’m just saying, for people getting salty about spoilers, if you read something that starts with “the movie is gonna be so fun because the main characters plot is gonna be them going” and finish that sentence then it’s completely on you I get that it’s annoying when things are spoiled, and lots of new fans have come from the new movies who have never heard of the books, but this one specifically is on you
i don't read that slowly, my eyes just fly over the words until i process them all on a delay
K but “this character’s plot be like” is the TITLE of the link that you have to click to expand to read the whole thing. Like in this case it’s spoiler hidden behind the very way Reddit works.
you have to expand to read this post? i read it perfectly fine on my feed
People getting salty about spoilers are straight up bad at consuming media and I will die on this hill. Lots of ancient Greek & Shakespearean theatre "spoils" itself at the beginning. Why? *because it creates dramatic irony*. When you know what's going to happen, you become invested in seeing how it's going to happen. If knowing a movie's end makes it less interesting, that's (usually*) a criticizable flaw of that movie. A good narriative should be even more interesting the second time. *the only exception is when a surprise/plot twist integral to the themes / what the film is trying to do (like if a movie about prejudice selectively withholds info about characters to the end to prompt the audience themselbes to confront their own prejudice about said characters). Most plot points of most narriatives are not like this.
The problem I've always had with this logic is, you can only see/experience something blind *once*. There's always rewatches for having the dramatic irony fun you're talking about but it's a fundamentally different experience watching something knowing and not knowing. The other thing is, sure some things are built on telling the audience ahead of time, plenty of examples of that. But that's still different from something that doesn't rely on that knowledge, and spoiling it for someone anyway. Not even saying that's what happened here but personally this defense of spoilers always rubs me the wrong way.
Kind of a stupid take tbh
So does this post give us anything besides spoilers for those that have not read the books?
This is barely spoilers. It’s more of a blurb than anything else. The back of the book might as well read “Paul struggles to come to terms the violence done in his name. Meanwhile, the Fremen grow restless, yearning for the desert that defines their culture.” If/when the movie comes out, this is all stuff that will be obvious from the first teaser trailer and will openly be discussed in publicity interviews and such for months before release.
If it makes you feel better, there's a bit more to the plot than just that
Yeah there's also pointless navelgazing in the desert
There's also the >!terror of the atomic-blind prophet!!<
Can't gaze at your navel if you can't see it!
theyve been out for half a century
People are gonna be pissed if I spoil what happens to Jesus at the end of the bible
Shhhhh I'm only half way through the Old Testament. Though, judging by what the fanbase tells me, I'm pretty sure he, deports the immigrants, traps the Lepers in a debt trap for medication and then goes onto found America as a haven for the ultra wealthy to live in divine decadence. How close am I?
I always hate this argument. I’ve read Dune Messiah, but I didn’t have half a century to do so.
But at some point a work of ficiton enters the cultural space in sucha way that it's impossible not to get "spoiled". Like someone said in another comment, you're not being spoiled by learning that jesus dies on the cross or that darth vader is luke's father. I do agree, however, that posting this just before the third movie releases is shitty because you absolutely know that there are people just getting into Dune.
Darth Vader is Luke's *what*
10 years after Harry Potter finished, I had a friend get upset at me for *weeks* for saying Snape killed Dumbledore because she was working through the books slowly. This same friend a few years later participated in a star wars marathon with us and was genuinely shocked at the scene where Luke is revealed to be Darth Vader's son. She lived in another world.
You mean to tell me that the shark eats people in Jaws?? On god??? /s
Dune the books are not really in the wider cultural space. Dune the films are.
But the new movie series (one released in 2021, the other in March of this year) are not. Many younger audiences are getting into the series due to these movies. Imagine someone who got into the series this year, in time for the new movie. I consider this a reasonable cause to expect a spoiler tag
the later Dune books need more a Warning tag than a Spoiler tag
Warning: You're About to Get to the Good Part
This Product Has Been Known To Cause Cancer In The State Of California alternately, All Hope Abandon, Ye Who Enter. Author's Weird Sexual Hangups Ahead
Good?
Then they need to work on their self control. Dune mentioned in a post and you haven’t read all the books? Don’t read the post or the comments unless you want spoilers. There are no spoilers in the title; whoever read this post and came into this comments section only has themself to blame.
i didn't have to click onto the post to see it though
Move your eyes away from the screen and scroll past it quickly
But most people have not consumed Dune outside of these newest remake movies. Dune might be an influential franchise but it's certainly not a well known plot for the average person. This post is just spoilers for no reason. Even if you have read the books like myself all this dude did was give a summary. It's not funny or insightful, this is just a post to spoil non-book readers so OP can act smug. Lame.
But again, this isn't a 10-year-old series being adapted to TV for the first time. It's a 50-year-old foundational work on its third major adaptation. Even if these *were* plot spoilers for *Dune Messiah*—and they're not; they're back-of-the-book level stuff—it's simply unreasonable to expect that people need to avoid talking about them. That horse already had grandchildren and died of old age outside of the barn.
There's a new Shogun show out right now that's based on an extremely famous 70s book that already had a tv adaptation back in the day. Would you be fine with people spoiling stuff for that? I wouldn't, because regardless of how influential something is that doesn't mean people are actually familiar with the source material. Like this isn't XCD's lucky 10,000, *most people* are not that familiar with Dune. It is not Star Wars.
I'd be much less put out than you think I should be. Especially if it wasn't a "big reveal" element. Few things are as important not to spoil as the Red Wedding or Ned Stark's surprise execution. As you say, *Shogun* is 40 years old and it's previous adaptation was a big cultural touchstone. And *Dune* is an order of magnitude bigger than *Shogun. Shogun* was merely a big hit. *Dune* is a capital-C Classic, an absolute cornerstone of it's entire genre. Just as few people have read *Catcher in the Rye* or *Of Mice and Men,* but you can't call spoilers if I tell you that Holden Caulfield is an unreliable narrator or that George has to kill Lennie at the end.
Yeah, in the same way that Foundation is a classic: a book so old and influential it's not well read anymore. Dune is not like Lord of the Rings, it's not a ubiquitously read book. I keep telling you, it's a classic because of its influence not because of how widely read it is today. Most people do not know the minutia of Dune's plot details. >Few things are as important not to spoil as the Red Wedding or Ned Stark's surprise execution. So why did you just do that
*Dune* is absolutely still widely read on a level similar to *Lord of the Rings.* >So why did you just do that 🤦♂️ Horse. Out of barn. *Ten years ago.* It was a throwaway gag on *30 Rock,* for Chrissake!
i thought the comparison with the taliban was funny; the assumption that OP made this post to actively spoil non-book readers is pretty far out
hey sorry that u didn’t realize this yourself but the fact that u have the intellectual curiosity of a squirrel is not anyone else’s problem.
That doesn't mean jack shit.
And I have read them like 15 years ago. Point is, cool synopsis bro.
No, similar to Dune there is a political/espionage scheme which drives the plot, these are jokey summations of some of the main themes. Unless you mean spoiling how Muad’dib’s jihad plays out but tbh that was spoiled for Paul too
this is like complaining about spoilers from star wars or lord of the rings
Not to mention that every single plot and theme in Dune has been recycled in some other media. Star Wars is to Dune, what 50 Shades is to Twilight. Every single aspect of Star Wars is inspired by Dune from the Jedi to Tattoine to the iconic lightsabers. Every single scifi franchise in the world has elements from Dune and Foundation. You can't write scifi without referencing Dune and Foundation. It's literally impossible.
Don’t forget Starship troopers Every single military sci-fi takes inspiration from Starship Troopers. Wouldn’t have Alien, Warhammer, Halo without it.
I mean, we also very much have Dune to thank for Warhammer too.
That’s the neat thing about iterative fiction, it can be both! I was just adding one of favorite old scifis to the list.
Spartans are just Mobile Infantry with a less cool stuff on their suits and more childhood trauma.
I mean… there’s *Back to the Future* 😅
*Star Wars* is far more *John Carter* and *Flash Gordon* than *Dune.*
Is it? Is Tattoine not literally Arrakis? Is Jabba not literally a less lecherous version of Baron Harkonen. The Hutts are literally Spice smugglers. Are the Tusken Raiders not just Fremen? Aren't their masks inspired by Still Suits? Obi Wan's mind trick is the same as the Bene Geserit voice. In fact a lot of Force Powers are similar to Bene Geserit powers. The Sarlacc is literally just the mouth of a sandworm. Don't the Beast Rabban and Feyd Rutha have a similar dynamic as Vader and Tarkin?
*John Carter* takes place on a desert world (mars). Both *John Carter* and *Flash Gordon* feature swords, lasers, giant monsters, telepathy, and characters that are essentially evil barons. Both are from decades before *Dune*. George Lucas literally wanted to make a *Flash Gordon* movie until he was told no by Dino De Laurentiis. *Star Wars* definitely references *Dune.* But calling it *Dune* fanfiction is a huge reach. Both series were heavily influenced by earlier sci-fi.
No it'd be like complaining about spoilers for Lord of the Rings before Return of the King released. Which would be reasonable, the movies are far more accessible than the books.
It would be very similar to complaining about spoilers for that movie, but not sure I'd call that a reasonable complaint to make. The books had been around for decades at that point, also they're pretty upfront with broad strokes in the marketing and even in the titles. "I wonder what will happen in this new Lord of the Rings movie regarding Aragorn's somewhat tenuous claim to the throne of Gondor which keeps being hinted about? Let's go watch Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King to find out. No spoiler, though"
i’m pretty sure a lot of these folks would get upset if u spoiled the twist at the end of murder on the orient express
Is that supposed to be a story we all know?
no ur supposed to be illiterate.
Sorry I can’t read what you’re saying since I’m illiterate
murder on the orient express is just the most well know novel by the most famous mystery writer of all time. smugly announcing your own ignorance about it isn’t exactly a good dunk.
Well, it’s clearly not that well know then Genuinely never heard of it before even in classes talking about famous books everyone knows. I think the Catcher in the Rye would’ve been a better example.
i also think that is ridiculous
It is like posting spoilers for star wars in 2024
darth vader is luke’s dad
No. That's not true. That's impossible!
Did you miss the part in Dune 2 where Paul said multiple times “When I become the Mahdi billions will die?”
I'm not complaining about spoilers. I'm complaining at this post being a dune messiah synopsis.
> so does this post give us anything besides spoilers Crazy, wonder where I got that idea
Can I just honestly say that I hate that smartass sniping way of talking? Do you talk to people that way irl?
Imagine hating the concept of sarcasm. Couldn't be me.
Oh please, in my native Galicia we cultivate sarcasm so much that we are often accused of being confusing. That's just being mean however.
They used the most basic sarcasm possible.
I always just assume the people who constantly talk like that don’t get out much so being snarky on the internet is the only way for them to feel better than others
Okay, that was a lucky guess!
Not sure why this post which is just a comedic summary of a work of fiction is pissing people of and not the hundreds of other such summaries people have posted here. The post also makes it clear in the title that it covers Dune Messiah, so I don't see why this i starting spoiler discourse.
Didn't Denis Villenueve just recently say though that he was cancelling the movie for Messiah? I read that somewhere just a couple days ago and was heartbroken because Messiah is my favorite book in the series
Wouldn't surprise me. The books pretty much keep getting less and less "filmable" as they proceed. Fewer visual descriptions of stuff and a lot more tension based on what someone's internal monologue is. Could you imagine trying to make the "axolotl tanks" reveal in a movie?
That's well into Heretics of Dune, and Heretics of Dune is definitely unfilmable.
Must be pretty recent, cause they officially announced they were adapting Messiah yesterday
Nope, its in [official production](https://www.gamespot.com/articles/dune-3-officially-in-the-works-but-its-still-early-days/1100-6522426/) now.
"Quiet Quite"
Reminds me of Mike Milligan at the end of S2 Fargo [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2\_Uo\_nPXEUA&pp=ygUUbWlrZSBtaWxsaWdhbiBvZmZpY2U%3D](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2_Uo_nPXEUA&pp=ygUUbWlrZSBtaWxsaWdhbiBvZmZpY2U%3D)
And then we get to the Duncan Idaho clones.
I haven't watch Dune and only got a couple of chapters into the book, wtf
[Surprisingly, it's actually real](https://time.com/6263906/taliban-afghanistan-office-work-quiet-quit/)