Post what you have copied and add "with cheese, Mr Squidward, with cheese".

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ipqqEFoJPL4 with cheese, Mr Squidward, with cheese.

it is very regrettable that the lady of whom we are speaking is of ill repute and has questionable morals "with cheese, Mr Squidward, with cheese"

Suetiful All Along with cheese, Mr Squidward, with cheese

You still interested? with cheese, Mr Squidward, with cheese

with cheese Mr. Squidward, with cheese.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OJQyTnD74gk with cheese, Mr Squidward, with cheese.

"with cheese, Mr Squidward, with cheese."

in my pants with cheese, Mr Squidward, with cheese

[ with cheese, Mr Squidward, with cheese.

https://youtu.be/wuB-M3VHu9U with cheese, Mr Squidward, with cheese.

Edited by YooberBop on Mar 15th 2019 at 10:04:57 AM

Tiocfaidh ár lá with cheese, Mr Squidward, with cheese.

" with cheese, Mr Squidward, with cheese

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cLnkQAeMbIM with cheese, Mr Squidward, with cheese.

I summon the two characters from my avatar. They transform into a giant werewolf and a huge demon fox and rush towards the godmodder, bearing sharp fangs.

Meanwhile I tell Pika with cheese, Mr Sqidward, with cheese.

with cheese, Mr Squidward, with cheese.

p61YjWczwLM with cheese, Mr Squidward, with cheese.

It's the video ID of the Black Knight 2000 OST. Good and energetic listening. You can do it, you can do it!

with cheese, Mr Squidward, with cheese.

Sascha Vykos, born Myca Vykos, is a monster whose legacy dates back to 11th Century Constantinople. Sired by the Tzimisce Symeon, Vykos eventually destroyed his sire by repeatedly consuming and regurgitating him before a final act of draining him to death. Changing his gender and taking the name "Sascha," Vykos became a major figure in the monstrous Sabbat, feared even by its monstrous Clan. Vykos invents new tortures, having perfected them upon countless unwilling victims whose agony it can prolong for years to centuries, alternating it with incredible pleasure to make the victim unsure if it is experiencing torture or rape. In modern times, Vykos plays a major role in the war for the United States East Coast, using its fellow Sabbat as Cannon Fodder or torture victims when it's bored. One luckless failed assassin is reshaped to its servant, tortured and broken so she may experiment with how loyal it has made him. With a thousand-year reign of horror, an insatiable hunger for knowledge and an unspeakable appetite for torture, Vykos is the one who shows the rest of the Sabbat what it truly means to be a monster.

With cheese Mr. Squidward, with cheese

I think, from now on, if anyone tries to tell me Act 6 is bad I’m just going to point them in the direction of this Pesterlog. There is... so fucking much to unpack here, so I’m going to break it into sections.

1. **Homestuck breaks its characters up and deconstructs them, isolating specific factors of their personalities in order to give us the best possible understanding of them. This ties into Rose’s portrayal of apples as the farthest someone could possibly go, the final component of ideas that cannot be divided.** She believes, in her intoxicated state at least, that apples are unable to be alchemized because they serve as building blocks for reality, fundamental stepping stones as units of knowledge. This is the best way I can think to describe Jasprose and Davepetas roles in the overall story. They serve as units of knowledge, indivisible concepts to highlight the depth behind Rose, Dave, and Nepeta. They are *the* peak of those three characters, as far as you can possibly take them, the culmination of all their identities. They hold the information within them, this elemental knowledge. They are apples, wells of elaboration on Rose, Dave, and Nepeta that cannot be parsed or violated or harmed. Much like apples in the Roseverse, they are who they are because they love themselves and want to probe the world. Within the narrative, though, they exist to tell us more about those characters, much like apples. They are harmless on their own, but when Dave attempts to make one it raises the conversation based off of their status. They make no attempt to serve as the megaphone for a message about fundamental knowledge. But their existence defines the nature of conversation around them. Personally, I think that’s pretty cool, and Japrose And Davepeta Are Good Actually.

2. **Homestuck places more emphasis on ideas than it does on physical objects, and often a symbol and whatever it is it stands for is interchangeable.** (Ex: The sufferers symbol. Metaphorically it represented his downfall. Physically, it served as his cuffs.) **This is reflected by Rose’s belief that the symbols, the stories that men have conjured are equal or even superior in importance to the things they represent, or the truth.** (Not to New Danganronpa V3 your ass but I can see some parallels there.) I touched on this a bit earlier, but Rose in general has a very strong connection to this idea. To concepts. It first shows up when she makes actual magic wands from a wizard statue, and the connections don’t stop from keep happening from there. Considering Aranea’s musings on the topic, and Vriska’s love and awe of Mindfang directly leads into her becoming and embodying Mindfang in some forms, it might be a light player thing. But it’s not just a light player thing. It’s also a Hope player thing. Brain Ghost Dirk is real because Jake believed in him. Eridan can do ~~magic~~ wwhite science because he believes in it. Both of them are essential commentary on the power of the conscience, and society. If by believing this carved piece of rock represents something with magical properties, you can will it into being that thing, and extract said magic. Combined human consciousness has conspired to attach such an international meaning to an object that they imbue it with qualities and connotations it didn’t/wouldn’t possess otherwise. And with Light relating to knowledge and a desire for relevancy, wouldn’t it make sense that there’s a natural connection there to overwhelming power, personification, and inserting excess knowledge into a vessel? I don’t really know how to bring this all together. I just think it’s exceptionally cool. God I love Homestuck Act 6.

These two ideas tie together, alchemize together if you will, into a hypothesis raised by Rose.

3. **Apples hold their power and irreducibility due to human belief, desire, and inspiration.** Rose posits that by BONKING himself on the head with an apple, Isaac Newton infused a sort of importance into them. She also asserts that this story is in itself a falsehood, and that men crafted these stories, hewed from the uncaring void, as a beacon of meaning and importance. Isaac Newton getting bonked mattered, and thus, so do apples. So what if they never really mattered, they were made relevant (uh oh light buzzword) by their perceived importance. They crafted themselves. In the quest to find relevance, they created it. And there’s nothing fake or phony about it. I’m gonna connect this to religion for a moment. I don’t actually know that much about Islam, so please correct me if I’m wrong. Say Muhammed wasn’t actually whispered to by God. I’m sure this concept would completely astonish and overwhelm those who believe. But... does it really matter? By believing in God, and informing people about Him, Muhammed retroactively creates Him, and his influence embodies him. The love and faith people have in Him outweighs his realness attribute.

The symbols, the faith, the belief...... hol dall the power.

With cheese, Mr Squidward, with cheese.

https://discord.gg/wHMQxhX

With cheese Mr. Squidward. With Cheese

keswek5 with cheese, Mr. Squidward, with cheese.

with cheese, Mr. Squidward, with cheese.

with cheese, Mr Squidward, with cheese.

with cheese, Mr. Squidward, with cheese.

The Marxist intellectual Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) developed the theory of cultural hegemony to further the establishment of a working-class worldview. In Marxist philosophy, cultural hegemony is the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class who manipulate the culture of that society—the beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values, and mores—so that their imposed, ruling-class worldview becomes the accepted cultural norm; the universally valid dominant ideology, which justifies the social, political, and economic status quo as natural and inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for everyone, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class.[1][2]

In philosophy and in sociology, the term cultural hegemony has denotations and connotations derived from the Ancient Greek word ἡγεμονία (hegemonia) indicating leadership and rule. In politics, hegemony is the geopolitical method of indirect imperial dominance, with which the hegemon (leader state) rules subordinate states, by the threat of intervention, an implied means of power, rather than by direct military force, that is, invasion, occupation, and annexation.[3]

The etymologic and historical evolution of the Greek word ἡγεμονία, and of its denotations, has proceeded thus:

In Ancient Greece (8th c. BC – AD 6th c.), ἡγεμονία (leadership) denoted the politico–military dominance of a city-state upon other city-states, as in the Hellenic League (338 BC), a federation of Greek city–states, established by King Philip II of Macedon, to facilitate his access to and use of the Greek militaries against the Persian empire.[2] In the 19th century, hegemony (rule) denoted the geopolitical and cultural predominance of one country upon other countries, as in the European colonialism imposed upon the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Australia.[4] In the 20th century, the political-science denotation of hegemony (dominance) expanded to include cultural imperialism; the cultural domination, by a ruling class, of a socially stratified society. That by manipulating the dominant ideology (cultural values and mores) of the society, the ruling class can intellectually dominate the other social classes with an imposed worldview (Weltanschauung) that ideologically justifies the social, political, and economic status quo of the society as if it were a natural and normal, inevitable and perpetual state of affairs that always has been so.[2][5][6][7] Historical Edit In 1848, Karl Marx proposed that the economic recessions and practical contradictions of a capitalist economy would provoke the working class to proletarian revolution, depose capitalism, restructure social institutions (economic, political, social) per the rational models of socialism, and thus begin the transition to a communist society. Therefore, the dialectical changes to the functioning of the economy of a society determine its social superstructures (culture and politics).

To that end, Antonio Gramsci proposed a strategic distinction, between a War of Position and a War of Manœuvre. The war of position is an intellectual and cultural struggle wherein the anti-capitalist revolutionary creates a proletarian culture whose native value system counters the cultural hegemony of the bourgeoisie. The proletarian culture will increase class consciousness, teach revolutionary theory and historical analysis, and thus propagate further revolutionary organisation among the social classes. On winning the war of position, socialist leaders would then have the necessary political power and popular support to begin the political manœuvre warfare of revolutionary socialism.

The initial, theoretical application of cultural domination was as a Marxist analysis of "economic class" (base and superstructure), which Antonio Gramsci developed to comprehend "social class"; hence, cultural hegemony proposes that the prevailing cultural norms of a society, which are imposed by the ruling class (bourgeois cultural hegemony), must not be perceived as natural and inevitable, but must be recognized as artificial social constructs (institutions, practices, beliefs, et cetera) that must be investigated to discover their philosophic roots as instruments of social-class domination. That such praxis of knowledge is indispensable for the intellectual and political liberation of the proletariat, so that workers and peasants, the people of town and country, can create their own working-class culture, which specifically addresses their social and economic needs as social classes.

In a society, cultural hegemony is neither monolithic intellectual praxis, nor a unified system of values, but a complex of stratified social structures, wherein each social and economic class has a social purpose and an internal class-logic that allows its members to behave in a way that is particular and different from the behaviours of the members of other social classes, whilst co-existing with them as constituents of the society.

As a result of their different social purposes, the classes will be able to coalesce into a society with a greater social mission. When a man, a woman, or a child perceives the social structures of bourgeois cultural hegemony, personal common sense performs a dual, structural role (private and public) whereby the individual person applies common sense to cope with daily life, which explains (to himself and to herself) the small segment of the social order stratum that each experiences as the status quo of life in society; "the way things are". Publicly, the emergence of the perceptual limitations of personal common sense inhibit the individual person’s perception of the greater nature of the systematic socio-economic exploitation made possible by cultural hegemony. Because of the discrepancy in perceiving the status quo—the socio-economic hierarchy of bourgeois culture—most men and women concern themselves with their immediate (private) personal concerns, rather than with distant (public) concerns, and so do not think about and question the fundamental sources of their socio-economic oppression, and its discontents, social, personal, and political.[8]

The effects of cultural hegemony are perceptible at the personal level; although each person in a society lives a meaningful life in his and her social class, to him and to her, the discrete social classes might appear to have little in common with the private life of the individual man and woman. Yet, when perceived as a whole society, the life of each person does contribute to the greater social hegemony. Although social diversity, economic variety, and political freedom appear to exist—because most people see different life-circumstances—they are incapable of perceiving the greater hegemonic pattern created when the lives they witness coalesce as a society. The cultural hegemony is manifested in and maintained by an existence of minor, different circumstances that are not always fully perceived by the men and the women living the culture.[9]

Intellectuals Edit In perceiving and combating cultural hegemony, the working class and the peasantry depend upon the intellectuals produced by their society, to which ends Antonio Gramsci distinguished between bourgeois-class intellectuals and working-class intellectuals, the proponents and the opponents of the imposed, normative culture, and thus of the social status quo:

Since these various categories of traditional intellectuals [administrators, scholars and scientists, theorists, non-ecclesiastical philosophers, etc.] experience through an esprit de corps their uninterrupted historical continuity, and their special qualifications, they thus put themselves forward as autonomous and independent of the dominant social group. This self-assessment is not without consequences in the ideological and political fields, consequences of wide-ranging import. The whole of idealist philosophy can easily be connected with this position, assumed by the social complex of intellectuals, and can be defined as the expression of that social utopia by which the intellectuals think of themselves as "independent" [and] autonomous, [and] endowed with a character of their own, etc.

— Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (1971), pp. 7–8.[10] The traditional and vulgarized type of the intellectual is given by the Man of Letters, the philosopher, and the artist. Therefore, journalists, who claim to be men of letters, philosophers, artists, also regard themselves as the "true" intellectuals. In the modern world, technical education, closely bound to industrial labor, even at the most primitive and unqualified level, must form the basis of the new type of intellectual. ... The mode of being of the new intellectual can no longer consist of eloquence, which is an exterior and momentary mover of feelings and passions, but in active participation in practical life, as constructor [and] organizer, as "permanent persuader", not just simple orator.

— Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (1971), pp. 9–10.[11] Gramsci’s influence Edit

In the 1960s, the German student leader Rudi Dutschke, of the 68er-Bewegung, said that changing the bourgeois West Germany required a long march through the society’s institutions, in order to identify and combat cultural hegemony. This quote is often mis-attributed to Antonio Gramsci.[12] Cultural hegemony has philosophically influenced Eurocommunism, the social sciences, and the activist politics of socially liberal and progressive politicians. The analytic discourse of cultural hegemony is important to research and synthesis in anthropology, political science, sociology, and cultural studies; in education, cultural hegemony developed critical pedagogy, by which the root causes of political and social discontent can be identified, and so resolved.

In 1967, the German student movement leader Rudi Dutschke reformulated Antonio Gramsci's philosophy of cultural hegemony with the phrase The long march through the institutions (German: Marsch durch die Institutionen) to identify the political war of position, an allusion to the Long March (1934–35) of the Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army, by means of which, the working class would produce their own organic intellectuals and culture (dominant ideology) to replace those imposed by the bourgeoisie.[13][14][15][16][17]

Critique of Gramsci Edit The ideological apparatuses of the State Edit As conceptual criticism of cultural hegemony, the structuralist philosopher Louis Althusser presented the theory of the ideological state apparatus to describe the structure of complex relationships, among the different organs of the State, by which ideology is transmitted and disseminated to the populations of a society.[18] Althusser draws from the concepts of hegemony present in cultural hegemony, yet rejects the absolute historicism proposed by Gramsci. He argues that the ideological state apparatuses (ISA) are the sites of ideological conflict among the social classes of a society. That, in contrast to the repressive state apparatuses (RSA), such as the military and the police forces, the ISA exist as a plurality. While the ruling class in power can readily control the repressive state apparatuses, the ISA are both the sites and the stakes (the objects) of class struggle. Moreover, the ISA are not monolithic social entities, and are distributed throughout the society, as public and as private sites of continual class struggle.

In On the Reproduction of Capitalism (1968), Louis Althusser said that the ideological apparatuses of the State are over-determined zones of society that comprise complex elements of the ideologies of previous modes of production, thus, are sites of continual political activity in a society, which are[19]:

the religious ISA (the system of Churches) the educational ISA (the systems of public and private schools), the family ISA, the legal ISA, the political ISA (the political system, e.g. political parties), the trade union ISA, the communications ISA (press, radio, television, etc.) the cultural ISA (literature, the arts, sport, etc.) Althusser said that the parliamentary structures of the State, by which the “will of the people” is represented by elected delegates, are an ideological apparatus of the State. That the political system, itself, is an ideological apparatus, because it involves the “fiction, corresponding to a ‘certain’ reality, that the component parts of the [political] system, as well as the principle of its functioning, are based on the ideology of the ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ of the individual voters and the ‘free choice’ of the people’s representatives, by the individuals that ‘make up’ the people.”[20]

Bullock, Alan; Trombley, Stephen, Editors (1999), The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought Third Edition, pp. 387–88. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition. (1994), p. 1215. Ross Hassig, Mexico and the Spanish Conquest (1994), pp. 23–24. Bullock & Trombley 1999, pp. 387–88. Clive Upton, William A. Kretzschmar, Rafal Konopka: Oxford Dictionary of Pronunciation for Current English. Oxford University Press (2001) Oxford English Dictionary "Timeline", US Hegemony, Flagrancy Hall, Stuart (1986). "The Problem of Ideology — Marxism without Guarantees" (PDF). Journal of Communication Inquiry. 10 (2): 28–44. Cite Seer X 10.1.1.1033.1130. doi:10.1177/019685998601000203.[permanent dead link] Gramsci, Antonio (1992). Buttigieg, Joseph A, ed. Prison Notebooks. New York City: Columbia University Press. pp. 233–38. ISBN 978-0-231-10592-7. OCLC 24009547. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (1971), Quentin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, eds., pp. 7–8. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (1971), Quentin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, eds., pp. 9–10. Buttigieg, J. A. (1 March 2005). "The Contemporary Discourse on Civil Society: A Gramscian Critique". Boundary 2. 32 (1): 33–52. doi:10.1215/01903659-32-1-33. Gramsci, Buttigieg, Joseph A, ed., Prison Notebooks (English critical ed.), p 50 footnote 21, archived from the original on 2010-06-16, Long March Through the Institutions 21 Buttigieg, Joseph A. (2005). "The Contemporary Discourse on Civil Society: A Gramscian Critique". Boundary 2. 32 (1): 33–52. doi:10.1215/01903659-32-1-33. ISSN 0190-3659. Davidson, Carl (6 April 2006), Strategy, Hegemony & 'The Long March': Gramsci's Lessons for the Antiwar Movement (web log). Marsch durch die Institutionen at German Wikipedia. Antonio Gramsci: Misattributed at English Wikiquote for the origin of “The Long March Through the Institutions” quotation. Althusser, Louis (2014). On The Reproduction of Capitalism. London/ New York: Verso. pp. 74–75, 103–47, 177, 180, 198–206, 218–31, 242–6. ISBN 9781781681640. Althusser, Louis (2014). On the Reproduction of Capitalism. London/ New York: Verso. p. 243. ISBN 9781781681640. Althusser, Louis (2014). On the Reproduction of Capitalism. London/New York: Verso. pp. 222–223. Further reading Edit Beech, Dave; Andy Hewitt; Mel Jordan (2007). The Free Art Collective Manifesto for a Counter-Hegemonic Art. England: Free Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9554748-0-4. OCLC 269432294. Bullock, Alan; Trombley, Stephen, eds. (1999), The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought (3rd ed.). Flank, Lenny (2007). Hegemony and Counter-Hegemony: Marxism, Capitalism, and Their Relation to Sexism, Racism, Nationalism, and Authoritarianism. St. Petersburg, Florida: Red and Black Publishers. ISBN 978-0-9791813-7-5. OCLC 191763227. Gramsci, Antonio (1992), Buttigieg, Joseph A, ed., Prison notebooks, New York City: Columbia University Press, ISBN 978-0-231-10592-7, OCLC 24009547 Abercrombie, Nicholas; Turner, Bryan S. (June 1978). "The Dominant Ideology Thesis". The British Journal of Sociology. 29 (2): 149–70. doi:10.2307/589886. JSTOR 589886. Anderson, Perry (1977). "The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci", New Left Review, http://newleftreview.org/static/assets/archive/pdf/NLR09801.pdf External links Edit Gramsci (archive), Marxists. International Gramsci society. Gramsci, journal, AU: UOW, archived from the original on 2012-11-28. Rethinking Marxism. Rethinking Marxism: Association for economic & social analysis, EI Net, archived from the original (review) on 2013-02-21 Gramsci, "Selections", Prison notebooks, Marxists. Gramsci, Prison notebooks, Marxists. "with cheese, Mr. Squidward, with cheese"