While watching the GameStop stuff has been mildly hilarious (I mean who doesn't like watching the financial elite squirm?) it's pretty clear that a whole bunch of folk have convinced themselves this is ACTUALLY some kind of revolutionary activity. It isn't. 1/

Sure, it's highlighted yet another way in which the bastards profiteer but that's about it, stick it on the pile with the fifty other pro tips to keep the poor, well poor... It's todays banter and tho a few folks might have egg on their faces, literally nothing will happen. 2/
GameStop's three largest shareholders have earned £1.5bn+ during this. They sit at the top of some 200 institutions which are rolling. Meanwhile the ersatz rebels are now watching the bubble, realising there is profit to be made and having a wibble. 3/
No doubt some TRULY believe they are taking part in some kind of revolution but frankly it's utterly absurd and the vast majority are in it for the lulz and to cash in quick.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but you don't own GameStop.

4/
The reality is, the scale of the economic disparity and corruption is simply vast. Billionaires loosing a few millions means nothing. They buy one less yacht and you continue to live meal to meal.

The "Free Market" changes a few systems and the abuse continues. 5/
You know what it reminds me off? Being six playing Super Mario Bros 3 with my older brother and after loosing man times I finally won. I declared myself king of all gaming and never played him again, knowing that I was indeed the best ever and reigning champ.
6/
Maybe I should just shut up and let people enjoy things, but frankly, I hate watching people be lead down a deceptive road into the maw of bigotry that sits within the libertarian and AnCap communities. Shit even Discord found an easy excuse to ban them after multiple warnings.7/
The muppets that form the main body here are about three innocently asked questions away from spiralling into anti-semetic conspirocy and rabbling about 5G and Vaccines.

Honestly play innocent and ask your local AnCap / "classic liberal"/ Freeman... "whose behind it?" 8/
It's particularly cringe watching red roses and state commies jump on the bandwagon with these herrenvolk shites, willing ignorant of negligent IDK ... but I don't suppose such alliances have historical precidence or anything... 9/
Like I say, much like all good things, people who've sank heavy money here are starting to look at the figures, see green and there is a pop about to come.

Which for most of you won't matter, you only sank in what you could afford to loose for the gank, so whatever lol GG 10/
However, there are alternatives to just saying bye bye or cashing out a little richer.

For those of you who actually do have revolutionary intent and really want to nail down the message, while you're busy feeding the beast buy deliquent debt and then shred it.

11/
Like, best practice is not to dip ya hand into financial shite at all coz it's the banks that win every time, but if you care about the message in the memes, set up subreddits and form adhoc mutuals n shit to bulk buy deliquent debt, junk bonds & CDOs and then shred it.

12/
You took the money from the billionaires and erased the debt of some folk going through hard times.

Go on. Do it.

Don't reinvest into AMC and Silver.
Do a revolutionary thing.

Wipe out some debt.
No profit.
Just solidarity.

Go on #GameStonks, do it.
13/
It's not like it's without precident. look up RIP Medical Debt, a former CA who bought debt and wiped it out.

People who'd been getting fucked over got a letter saying debts gone, have a nice day.

A $10 donation can buy — and eliminate — $1,000 in long-delinquent debt.

14/
Personally I wouldn't touch any of this with a 10ft barge pole, coz fuck the finance industry, Y'all should shut down wall street by taking over the buildings and turning them into homeless shelters, but IDK, just saying if you want to live up to your memes...
-R

15/15
Inb4
Additional.
To give you an idea here... The smaller central billboard has a discount for wedding proposals where you get 6 minutes for just over $2000.

More from Trading

You May Also Like

THE MEANING, SIGNIFICANCE AND HISTORY OF SWASTIK

The Swastik is a geometrical figure and an ancient religious icon. Swastik has been Sanatan Dharma’s symbol of auspiciousness – mangalya since time immemorial.


The name swastika comes from Sanskrit (Devanagari: स्वस्तिक, pronounced: swastik) &denotes “conducive to wellbeing or auspicious”.
The word Swastik has a definite etymological origin in Sanskrit. It is derived from the roots su – meaning “well or auspicious” & as meaning “being”.


"सु अस्ति येन तत स्वस्तिकं"
Swastik is de symbol through which everything auspicios occurs

Scholars believe word’s origin in Vedas,known as Swasti mantra;

"🕉स्वस्ति ना इन्द्रो वृधश्रवाहा
स्वस्ति ना पूषा विश्ववेदाहा
स्वस्तिनास्तरक्ष्यो अरिश्तनेमिही
स्वस्तिनो बृहस्पतिर्दधातु"


It translates to," O famed Indra, redeem us. O Pusha, the beholder of all knowledge, redeem us. Redeem us O Garudji, of limitless speed and O Bruhaspati, redeem us".

SWASTIK’s COSMIC ORIGIN

The Swastika represents the living creation in the whole Cosmos.


Hindu astronomers divide the ecliptic circle of cosmos in 27 divisions called
https://t.co/sLeuV1R2eQ this manner a cross forms in 4 directions in the celestial sky. At centre of this cross is Dhruva(Polestar). In a line from Dhruva, the stars known as Saptarishi can be observed.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?