/lit/ - Literature

>>16157637
>practical commonality
Shared interests.
>[The state bureaucracy] have little to say about what is done, but how it is done.
I would seriously beg to differ, but on second thought, to the extent they do wield outsized power unaccountable to the people, they cannot be really compared to ancient aristocrats. Their time is occupied much more by administration than necessarily pondering Federalist No. 10, that is, eternal political questions. The difference is somewhat material but much more a matter of character.
I do not concede that the press and academia are not comparable to the old aristocrats, though.
>They are wage-laborers themselves, they vary significantly materially from old aristocrats. They also aren't the sole political decision makers.
I guess they can be described as wage-laborers, but their labor *is* their published thinking. I do not think an academic is limited by anything economic if he wishes to explore some political question. I suppose you're right that they are not the sole political decision makers, but on the topic of propaganda, any academic that is followed by agents of the press become by proxy the social decision makers. Take for instance the head of the New York Time's 1619 Project, essentially a task of anti-American historical revisionism, she is basically an academic. Given the arm of the press, she was able to effect a sweeping narrative change in how many Americans view history in the span of a *single* year, and now it is not uncontroversial to think the Founding Fathers were devils and the Constitution their satanic pact lorded over blacks. She is technically a wage-labourer de jure, but de facto she has a freedom from material that is comparable to old aristocrats.
That is but one example for my assertion that the parallel to the "old aristocrats" who were sufficiently free from concerns of labor such that they could etch out De Oficii is, without serious material difference, the press and academia, the class of people whose subsistence *is* publishing such content.
t. not into propaganda /lit/ and lacking sophistication on this topic, which is why most of this is just observations.

>>15926838
>picks on the phrasing of the weakest answer
>does not reply to >>15926741 or >>15926663
>goes on to assert kike on a stick tier unsubstantiated conjecture about christianity

>>6413943
>that early lovecraft story where everyone decides to pull on a rope with a sea monster on the other end and don't let go until they're sucked into an unbelievably dark abyss of darkness

>>6075706

>the general populous wasted no time in descending into a panic-stricken stupor of chaotic trepidation
>After all, ignorance is bliss.
>the full entirety of his speech
>America resumed it's prior state
>quiting
>chasing it's pray

comedy gold

>In five years as a columnist and commentator who also happens to be young, sexy and female
>sexy