What do you all think of the American Revolution?

**Zealot_Kommunizma**

Tyrlop wrote:

russia was very antisemite,

The Russian state, and there's a perfectly good explanation for that - jews make good bourgeoise, bourgeoise make good competition for monarchs.

Tyrlop wrote:

also the reds

Lenin and Trotskiy strongly disagree.

Tyrlop wrote:

and the whites.

Progroms. Russian state. Adressed above.

Tyrlop wrote:

in the 1700s the freemarket was born.

Which is relevant to the discussion because? And I insist, "Free market" is a funny concept.

Tyrlop wrote:

middle class is the same as a bourger, a bourger is a person who lives in a town/castle (burg) salesmen and such, famous danish burger: holberg (writer).

Middle class doesn't say much except is that it is the one that is not entirely fucked up but not the one running the show, to be colloquial. Other than that, the term makes no implications as to what it may stand for.

CoolKidX wrote:

And workers. I dont know why you keep saying it was only bourgeoise. You mind explaining there, I might didn get it.

If there are bourgeoise elements within the revlution, then bourgeoise are the ruling class, thus the revolution is bourgeoise. It's not matter of composition but matter of the interests pursued by the revolutionary movement in question.

CKX wrote:

Its good, no? Why not make your own government which is more good for you and your circumstances? Is that bad? I dont think so. I'd prefer that then a monarchy where your colony doesnt have a voice in.

It's logical that they'd want to impose a system where they'd be at the top of the economic food-chain instead of being just below the pinnacle. Good? I explained why I don't believe it to have been good in contrast to the monarchy. Plus "good" is subjective so it's not really entirely relevant.

CKX wrote:

It was the 18th centery, you think people will stop that in that time? Thats not very realistic.

There were seeral communities that did not have slavery, let alone racial slavery.

Yet, the fact that it was the XVIII century doesn't make it any more rational or acceptable plus it doesn't adress my point which is that it is not uch of a breakthrough.

_________________

**CoolKidX**

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

If there are bourgeoise elements within the revlution, then bourgeoise are the ruling class, thus the revolution is bourgeoise. It's not matter of composition but matter of the interests pursued by the revolutionary movement in question.

As a regular ass worker you still get taxed, and heavly, even their cup of tea. I'd be pissed. Its not the bourgeoise but also the workers.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

It's logical that they'd want to impose a system where they'd be at the top of the economic food-chain instead of being just below the pinnacle.

Yes ofcourse, very logical. But they want to be then top of their own chain, not of the world's one in that time.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Plus "good" is subjective so it's not really entirely relevant.

Yeah I am expressing my opnion in my posts either. While not thinking your always right.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

There were seeral communities that did not have slavery, let alone racial slavery.

Could you say which one?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Yet, the fact that it was the XVIII century doesn't make it any more rational or acceptable plus it doesn't adress my point which is that it is not uch of a breakthrough.

*XVII(1700 age) not XVIII(1800 age).
It doesnt make it acceptable now, but then it was kinda normal. Things change, and like every age there were diffrent things which were acceptable and not.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**Zealot_Kommunizma**

CoolKidX wrote:

As a regular ass worker you still get taxed, and heavly, even their cup of tea. I'd be pissed. Its not the bourgeoise but also the workers.

And you didn't get the point. It is a brougeoise revolution because its intention is to establish a bourgeoise system, a system where the bourgeoisie is the ruling class and where the ruling class within the revolutionary movement is the bourgeoisie, it is a bourgeoise revolution.

CKX wrote:

Yes ofcourse, very logical. But they want to be then top of their own chain, not of the world's one in that time.

Which is relevant to the discussion because ? And adresses my point how?

CKX wrote:

Yeah I am expressing my opnion in my posts either. While not thinking your always right.

Again, how is this relevant to the discussion?

CKX wrote:

Could you say which one?

Sure, hundreds of native american tribes all over the American continent and Cossack hosts for example.

CKX wrote:

*XVII(1700 age) not XVIII(1800 age).

Sorry Marnix, but you're mistaken:

0-99 - I. 100-199 - II. 200-299-III. 300-399-IV. 400-499-V. 500-599-VI. 600-699 - VII. 700-799 - VIII. 800-899 - IX. 900-999 - X. 1000-1099 - XI. 1100-1199 - XII. 1200-1299 - XIII. 1300-1399 - XIV. 1400-1499 - XV. 1500-1599 - XVI. 1600-1699 - XVII. 1700-1799 - XVIII. 1800-1899 - XIX. 1900-1999 - XX (Twenieth century, where all of us in WR were born). 2000-2099 (Twenty first century, where probably most of us will die).

Nice logic though, the same I applied when I was your age.

CKX wrote:

It doesnt make it acceptable now, but then it was kinda normal. Things change, and like every age there were diffrent things which were acceptable and not.

It was not acceptable 3,000 years ago, nor 500 nor 100 nor today and it won't be acceptable in 20 millenia. Specially when within the same and previous temporal frameworks other communities did not have those retrograde characteristics. Let alone acceptable but progressive, which is a more objective term.

_________________

**CoolKidX**

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

And you didn't get the point. It is a brougeoise revolution because its intention is to establish a bourgeoise system, a system where the bourgeoisie is the ruling class and where the ruling class within the revolutionary movement is the bourgeoisie, it is a bourgeoise revolution.

There wasnt really a choice, I'd say choosing democracy in that time over monarchy is pretty sweet. And they vote for rich people, yes, BUT the rich people who wanna be pres only get to vote on if they do waht the people want, like things they do waht the people like, they are kinda forced to, otherwise they wont get voted on or re-elected.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Again, how is this relevant to the discussion?

Just saying, just sayin'.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Sure, hundreds of native american tribes all over the American continent and Cossack hosts for example.

Yes, not ALL groups around the world do it. Logic. Not all the people of the world will do the same thing or accept it. Yeah, but fact is that in the Thirteen Colonies then, it was acceptablte there. And native american's did use some slavery actually.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Sorry Marnix, but you're mistaken:

0-99 - I. 100-199 - II. 200-299-III. 300-399-IV. 400-499-V. 500-599-VI. 600-699 - VII. 700-799 - VIII. 800-899 - IX. 900-999 - X. 1000-1099 - XI. 1100-1199 - XII. 1200-1299 - XIII. 1300-1399 - XIV. 1400-1499 - XV. 1500-1599 - XVI. 1600-1699 - XVII. 1700-1799 - XVIII. 1800-1899 - XIX. 1900-1999 - XX (Twenieth century, where all of us in WR were born). 2000-2099 (Twenty first century, where probably most of us will die).

Nice logic though, the same I applied when I was your age.

You sure? U got me there tho, touche.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

It was not acceptable 3,000 years ago, nor 500 nor 100 nor today and it won't be acceptable in 20 millenia. Specially when within the same and previous temporal frameworks other communities did not have those retrograde characteristics. Let alone acceptable but progressive, which is a more objective term.

It was acceptable in some parts of the world, and I'd say it was more acceptable around that time. And it was acceptable in the UK and the 13 colonies then.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**Black_Cross**

CoolKidX wrote:

Liche wrote:

They had just as many problems with large corporations as we did. George Washington however was a militaristic bourgeois scum bag.

Why? Can you give some examples of what he wanted and did which is militartic, bourgeois and shit.

Militaristic - Massacring the natives

Bourgeois - Using his influence to have the site of the new capital on land he owned in part, then selling the land to the government for a hefty profit.

You could call him trendy.

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--

**CoolKidX**

Black_Cross wrote:

Militaristic - Massacring the natives

Who didnt, but yeah your right. Poor natives.

Black_Cross wrote:

Bourgeois - Using his influence to have the site of the new capital on land he owned in part, then selling the land to the government for a hefty profit.

That's just making choices, and he wanted money so yeah.
But I wanna know more on this, so like after the war he got some land and he sold it? Ya know that US bought many land to form the USA today. Bought some Mexico, some wars, and u get a couple states.

Black_Cross wrote:

You could call him trendy.

Haha I bet.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**Liche**

CoolKidX wrote:

Why? Can you give some examples of what he wanted and did which is militartic, bourgeois and shit.

Quote:

In the early 1750s Washington was sent as an ambassador to the French traders and Indians as far north as present day Erie, Pennsylvania.

A French Ambassador came to visit him, Washington killed this man just because he thought his Indian companions would be dangerous (racism), he later realized his Commanding officer (a Brit) was waiting for a meeting with this Indian, the son of a chief, causing great tension with these Indians. this is from a special on the History Channel, if you want to make sure its true I can search it up for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Vernon plantation/ plantation/business owned by George Washington.

**Zealot_Kommunizma**

CoolKidX wrote:

There wasnt really a choice, I'd say choosing democracy in that time over monarchy is pretty sweet.

My point is that since it was a bourgeoise revolution it was not progressive. It's an opressive system over another opressive system. Not a leap forward. And, as if that was not enough already not to consider it progressive, tehy believed in racially based slavery and patriarchy two great leaps backwards.

CKX wrote:

And they vote for rich people, yes, BUT the rich people who wanna be pres only get to vote on if they do waht the people want, like things they do waht the people like, they are kinda forced to, otherwise they wont get voted on or re-elected.

Who talked about rich people? I talked about bourgeoise, people who in office or out of it still have power over the workers. They just need some guys in office to prevent workers from revolting.

CKX wrote:

Yes, not ALL groups around the world do it. Logic. Not all the people of the world will do the same thing or accept it. Yeah, but fact is that in the Thirteen Colonies then, it was acceptablte there.

Which makes it horribly backwards, instead of progressive in contrast to those that didn't.

CKX wrote:

And native american's did use some slavery actually.

Not all, so the assertion is nil.

CKX wrote:

You sure? U got me there tho, touche.

100%.

CKX wrote:

It was acceptable in some parts of the world, and I'd say it was more acceptable around that time. And it was acceptable in the UK and the 13 colonies then.

Which makes them backwards, which is my point.

CKX wrote:

Who didnt, but yeah your right. Poor natives.

By comparison, all the other empires were proportionally less murderous with the natives.

And, I like Liche's addition to this point with Washington's example.

_________________

**CoolKidX**

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

My point is that since it was a bourgeoise revolution it was not progressive. It's an opressive system over another opressive system. Not a leap forward. And, as if that was not enough already not to consider it progressive, tehy believed in racially based slavery and patriarchy two great leaps backwards.

it was progressive since something changed. People could actually vote on who will control the country. That is a porgressive change on that time. And who says they are opressed? The people didnt think so then.
So it can hardly be called like that.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Who talked about rich people? I talked about bourgeoise, people who in office or out of it still have power over the workers. They just need some guys in office to prevent workers from revolting.

They prevent them by making them happy, or atleast a part cuz you cant satafise every single one. Only if after the elections you won with 100% and everyone voted, and people still 100% like you. Which never happen.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Not all, so the assertion is nil.

No. Not really, your doing this if one didnt do it, everyone didnt, and if the majorty didnt do it, it doesnt matter. Atleast thats how I am getting it, but you could mean something diffrent, sir.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

100%.

That's over 99%.(lame one)

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Which makes them backwards, which is my point.

How does it make it backwards?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

By comparison, all the other empires were proportionally less murderous with the natives.

Are you kidding? No. I think the Spanish did some heavly damage to the natives more then them.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

And, I like Liche's addition to this point with Washington's example.

Me to.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**comrade110397**

All it did was to create a big, materialistic monster called the usa.

_________________
PROLETERIANS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

I ARE EMPEROR OF CATKIND

Kenzu, this post ISNT spam.

**Zealot_Kommunizma**

CoolKidX wrote:

it was progressive since something changed.

Change is not necesarily progressive, which is what you're implying. It remained as a stagnant system based on exploitation, oligocracy and plutocracy.

CKX wrote:

People could actually vote on who will control the country.

Which means that all people can do is choose their masters instead of having to accept that god put them there for them.

CKX wrote:

That is a porgressive change on that time.

Exploitation for exploitation. Opression for oppression. Racial slavery for racial slavery. Patriarchy for patriarchy. Nope, doesn't seem like there was a big progress.

CKX wrote:

And who says they are opressed? The people didnt think so then.
So it can hardly be called like that.

Let's see... people worked their asses off for some guy so this guy could become rich while other guy would decide the rules for that relationship to happen and a guy, just by being black would be treated as a good that provides workforce while women would be treated as inferior to men. Yup seems like there was no opression of any kind. Kudos for them!

CKX wrote:

They prevent them by making them happy, or atleast a part cuz you cant satafise every single one. Only if after the elections you won with 100% and everyone voted, and people still 100% like you. Which never happen.

They prevent workes from revolting by applying cultural hegemony and force.

CKX wrote:

No. Not really, your doing this if one didnt do it, everyone didnt, and if the majorty didnt do it, it doesnt matter. Atleast thats how I am getting it, but you could mean something diffrent, sir.

You asserted that native americans engaged in slavery. This implies that all natie americans engaged in slavery which is not true. Since it's not true, your statement is nil and in order to be valid must be modified.

CKX wrote:

How does it make it backwards?

"Backwards" - Less developed than others. The idea that black men just for the fact of being black deserve to be slaves is irrational and retrograde. It is a reasonably less advanced posture that that which believes there should be no slavery or racism.

Since many communities around the world not only at taht time but prior to the American Revolution were opposed to slavery and did not practice racism, and much less race-based slavery, the American Revolutionares as Enslaving Racists were backwards.

CKX wrote:

Are you kidding? No. I think the Spanish did some heavly damage to the natives more then them.

Actually, you picked precisely one of the worst examples. The Spanish mixed with themselves with the natives, around 5 to 10% of Mexico's population are direct descendants of natives to the point that many of those don't even speak spanish. The natives were not exterminated, they were employed as workforce that belonged to a lower strata of society (like the proletariat does nowadays). Hundreds of thousands died as consequence of the Spanish invation, but not due to Spanish prosecution but due to illnesses brought by the spainards and overall their condition as lower level citizens.

The Americans still had songs about killing "indians" even 300 years after in the New Spain (Mexico) Spainards fucked with Mexican natives on a daily basis.

And talking about backwardness, Slavery was abolished in Mexico even almost half a century prior to being abolished in USA.

_________________

**CoolKidX**

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Change is not necesarily progressive, which is what you're implying. It remained as a stagnant system based on exploitation, oligocracy and plutocracy.

Let's say it was, there was no guy who runned the country and controlled the country till his death, but a guy who got elected. That is a big change, especially for that time.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Which means that all people can do is choose their masters instead of having to accept that god put them there for them.

No. If they dont want to vote they dont, but the far majroty usually votes in America of the people who are registered people with a vote abilty. So they disagree with you.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Exploitation for exploitation. Opression for oppression. Racial slavery for racial slavery. Patriarchy for patriarchy. Nope, doesn't seem like there was a big progress.

Monarchy for democracy. Big porgress.
And opression? How were the people opressed there? They could be free to do what they want, ofcourse they need to listen to the law, killing someone is to much freedom without getting arrested.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Let's see... people worked their asses off for some guy so this guy could become rich while other guy would decide the rules for that relationship to happen and a guy, just by being black would be treated as a good that provides workforce while women would be treated as inferior to men. Yup seems like there was no opression of any kind. Kudos for them!

I say it again, that was kinda normal in that time, and its weird you dont know this. Yes women did not have much choice, only raising kids and cleaning. No shit that has happend for centeries then. Good thing its now gone in most countries. And let me say that all the blacks that came there were not a citzen of that country all of a sudden.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

They prevent workes from revolting by applying cultural hegemony and force.

Explain why by force.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

You asserted that native americans engaged in slavery. This implies that all natie americans engaged in slavery which is not true. Since it's not true, your statement is nil and in order to be valid must be modified.

But I did not say that all the native americans did, atleast that's waht I think. You may correct me however.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

"Backwards" - Less developed than others. The idea that black men just for the fact of being black deserve to be slaves is irrational and retrograde. It is a reasonably less advanced posture that that which believes there should be no slavery or racism.

You say backwards by the main normal things in that time. Its like a man who is a women hater and a new nation is made and women can work and earn money and wear the clothes they want. And the man things "Its the same(or backwards)" though the nation may change other things.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Since many communities around the world not only at taht time but prior to the American Revolution were opposed to slavery and did not practice racism, and much less race-based slavery, the American Revolutionares as Enslaving Racists were backwards.

Blacks who fought with the Americans got there freedom you know.
And not all blacks were slaves actually. And many European countries had slavery, its not backwards.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

The Americans still had songs about killing "indians" even 300 years after in the New Spain (Mexico) Spainards fucked with Mexican natives on a daily basis.

France, Great Britian, Germany killed many native's.
And the US in the revolution war not as much. I think the US killed more and more natives in the 19th centery, spreading of the West and shit.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**Zealot_Kommunizma**

CoolKidX wrote:

Let's say it was, there was no guy who runned the country and controlled the country till his death, but a guy who got elected. That is a big change, especially for that time.

Being able to choose your master doesn't make you stop being a slave. It may be a change, but not of condition just on how that condition develops. And for that matter, it was not the first political system to include "popular electio of leaders" at some level.

CKX wrote:

No. If they dont want to vote they dont, but the far majroty usually votes in America of the people who are registered people with a vote abilty. So they disagree with you.

Oh so they can't choose who their masters are? They can't choose whom to work for or choose who will make the rules by which everyone has to abide? Because that's what I said.

CKX wrote:

Monarchy for democracy. Big porgress.

Not defacto if we follow the etymology of the word democracy. De facto it remained a plutocratic oligocracy.

CKX wrote:

And opression? How were the people opressed there? They could be free to do what they want, ofcourse they need to listen to the law, killing someone is to much freedom without getting arrested.

When a bunch of guys determine how much everyone will get paid for working how many hours doing X kindof work in Y kind of way while other bunch decides how much land belongs to everyone and the overall rules of interaction and decide what happens to those who break those rules and have the faculty to apply force to enforce them and punish teh infractors and moreover, when a bunch of guys can decide whether all black persons just for the fact of being born black deserve or not to belong to someone and have the faculty to enforce private property over their persons, then there's oppression.

You can't reduce it to the "government prevents/punishes murders so its k" arguement, which by the way is flawed in what refers to prevention and pointless when it comes down to punishment.

CKX wrote:

I say it again, that was kinda normal in that time, and its weird you dont know this.

It is normal even today. People still work their asses off to make some guy inmensely richer than them while others help this guy perpetuate that condition.

Either way, not all communities were like that neither within their temporal framework nor prior to it. It just takes a single community in the whole world that did not include slavery or slightly worse as per blatancy, race-based slavery, to make them backwards. Plus I'm pointing out that the fact they did not get rid of this kind of mindsets reveals lack of progressive thought.

CKX wrote:

Yes women did not have much choice, only raising kids and cleaning. No shit that has happend for centeries then.

That doesn't make it any better. By comparison, in some African tribes men are punished by death for not satisfying their wives sexually or cheating on them. From the point of view of those who have had to live their entire lives under patriarchy and who have inherited this condition from a centuries-long status quo, it seems like far more progressive, too extremely I'd conted.

As another point of comparison - when women were relegated to such works in USA, in many other countries women even got the chance to be the supreme rulers. In matters of gender equality, the American Revolutionaires were quite probably 2nd to muslims in backwardness.

And this condition wasn't really culturally reverted until the second half of the XX century. As an addition, it took the American system to stop treating black men as slaves almost 100 years and from that point on it took yet nearly another century for them to stop treating them like second class citizens. Now, finally, after some while, some lucky black men have the chance to exploit both white and black alike and create the rules that will bind the freedom of both black and white men.

By comparison, in the Russian Empire black men were even granted the chance to form part of the nobility. Otherwise most probably we wouldn't have got Aleksandr Pushkin.

CKX wrote:

Good thing its now gone in most countries. And let me say that all the blacks that came there were not a citzen of that country all of a sudden.

As per the above arguement... so? And moreover, how is keeping slavery progressive?

CKX wrote:

Explain why by force.

There's a factory owned by Johnny. Workers work for Johnny. They decide Johnny's rules no longer suffice their needs and they make demands. Johnny is not eager to suffice said demands. Workers strike and occupy the factory as a protest. Johnny fires them and tells to the government "These people are invading my private property". Government sends police to take the workers out by force, putting an end to strike.

Depending on circumstances it could be the military or gangsters instead of policemen or a combination of them. And it could range from simply putting pressure on the workers to outright killing them.

Strike is a means to revolt and the police and army are the force the government gives the private owner to enforce his own rules within a certain extension of land or in regards to a certain resources or means of production. Mercenaries and gangsters are a good foce alternative to the state and are sometimes complementary.

CKX wrote:

But I did not say that all the native americans did, atleast that's waht I think. You may correct me however.

You said:

CKX wrote:

And native american's did use some slavery actually.

When you write it that way, you imply that all native americans did. If you had said "Some native americans did use some slavery", then it would be a defensible statement.

CKX wrote:

You say backwards by the main normal things in that time. Its like a man who is a women hater and a new nation is made and women can work and earn money and wear the clothes they want. And the man things "Its the same(or backwards)" though the nation may change other things.

As I said earlier, it just takes a single community that doesn't have these elements to call the rest backwards in comparison to this community on these regards.

CKX wrote:

Blacks who fought with the Americans got there freedom you know.
And not all blacks were slaves actually. And many European countries had slavery, its not backwards.

The vast majority of black men were slaves and they could be officially enslaved and slavery was protected by te law. Private ownership of a human being was as protected as private property over a mountain or a farm.

And you said it yourself "some european countries had slavery too". "Some", not all, not even within Europe, much less within the rest of the world. And as I said, and I repeat for the 3rd time, it just takes 1 single point of comparison - there were many.

CKX wrote:

France, Great Britian, Germany killed many native's.

*natives, without the apostrophe.

France didn't kill nearly as many as the American revolutionaires, in fact france is reknowned for having had more friendly relationships with the natives in coparison to other empires. Great Britain didn't kill nearly as many as the post-revolutionary government, specially as Great Britain held their grip over them for less time than the Americans. Germany? They didn't even have a colony here although quite probably they killed more native Americans during their interventions in USA than even Russia which did actually have a colony in the American continent (or what could easily qualify as an extension of their territory as per geopgraphic positioning).

CKX wrote:

And the US in the revolution war not as much. I think the US killed more and more natives in the 19th centery, spreading of the West and shit.

Ah, those sons of progress!

_________________

**carmen510** · Komsomol Member Posts: 158 Join date: 2008-01-27

My response to this thread:

**Zealot_Kommunizma**

That's how I would have looked like had I seen the development of the American Revolution in real time. And that's definitely my reaction at its fruits.

_________________