RedWizard

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago

"scrobbling". Man, I thought that died alongside Digg.com

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Listen love, git ya own ideas would ya, all you wankers left fur a reason yah? Bugger off!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The issue is, however, the largest superpower is backing and supporting the actions of Israel in this regard. "The World" would have to label the United States as an active participant and begin the process of sanctioning and isolating the US. Either way, it wasn't morals or ethics that ultimately led to turning on Nazi Germany. Before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the United States was very comfortable in keeping itself out of the conflict. At the time, Anti-Semitism was the soup du jour of domestic policy in Europe and America.

The Franks (of Anne Frank fame) attempted to immigrate into the US leading up to World War II, and despite Otto Frank's connections within the American government, and his connections as a businessman, him and his family were deemed a "security risk" and denied entry. They were one family out of thousands who were turned away by FDR's State Department. It was clear early on that the Third Reich was facilitating mass oppression against their Jewish population. The problem, ultimately, is that the prevailing opinions about the Jewish people were shared within the western powers. From an American perspective, what the Third Reich was doing with its Nuremberg laws wasn't too far off from what America was doing with its Jim Crow laws, in fact, the Nuremberg Laws were heavily influenced by the Jim Crow laws of America. Meanwhile, European countries facilitated the emigration of Jews from their borders through the Third Reich's first solution, which was relocating the Jewish people to "Israel", of which they covered the majority of the costs to do so.

The United States didn't enter into the war until after the attack on Pearl Harbor, which was a form of blowback resulting from the British and American embargo on oil heading to the Japanese Empire. Up to that point, the states had been operating Lend-Lease programs for weapons and supplying the Allied powers with material support in an attempt to allow them to deal with the Axis threat. There were great material interests in pushing the Third Reich back, as they had expansionist ambitions, ones that would see them control land and resources that the Allied forces had ready access to. Ambitions of conquest in Africa and Asia, as well as a colonization scheme into Russia. It wasn't until April 1945 that the Dachau Concentration Camp was discovered and ultimately liberated. The idea that the Allied powers were fighting against the Third Reich on Moral and Ethical grounds rooted in the treatment of the Jews is very much a misunderstanding of the timeline of that war. The European front was effectively finished by May that same year.

So this idea that the world "can find it in themselves to have a single moral or ethic, and then act on it", as if that was what happened in World War II, is idealism, and a revisionist view of the events of that war. I do not see this conflict playing out as the way you imagine it.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I hate to break it to you, but the people who were told "don't invade Poland" were eventually exfiltrated into the "international community" at large.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is the Marxist equivalent of "The mitochondria is the power house of the cell".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Often referred to as the "Compatible Left", like others have described, the ruling class in the west cannot simply suppress Marxist thought outright, that would pierce the veil to some degree and cause a much harsher backlash. Instead, the goal is to remove the fangs of Marxist thought by demonizing AES countries, and silencing true radicals and revolutionaries. Leaving only what the CIA calls the "Compatible Left" behind.

This could either be a designed outcome, or it simply is how Marxism has developed under the harsh pressures of the Red Scare and the Cold War. Most of the revolutionary voices within America have either been assassinated or run out of the country, leaving only the more "compatible" thinkers within the country.

Another problem that likely contributes to this is literacy rates. 54% of adults in America have a literacy below a 6th-grade level, with 20% being below a 5th-grade level. The US ranks 36th in the world for literacy rates. I think many people might subscribe to the ideas of Marxism, without actually having read much if anything from the vast trove of Marxist literature. The Manifesto might be the only thing they've read, and it's hard to say they really understood its ideas. This leads to misconceptions and false conclusions by those who are under educated on the topic.

There is a reason why one of the first things that happens in almost any socialist revolution is the institution of reading programs, attempting to make the population more literate. Not only does higher literacy increase productive output, but it also ensures that people have the opportunity to read theory and become more educated on the ideas that the revolution was built on.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

"Depression Drugs shouldn't create a dependency culture"

"Blood Pressure drugs shouldn't create a dependency culture."

Idiots.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lol yes they are. We're so fucking stupid.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I got no input other then, you're doing praxis even if its on a micro scale, great work!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

In total, between 2019 and 2020, “IRI issued 11 advocacy grants to artists, musicians, performers or organizations that created 225 art products addressing political and social issues,” which it claimed were “viewed nearly 400,000 times.” Additionally, the Institute bragged that it “supported three civil society organizations (CSOs) from LGBTI, Bihari and ethnic communities to train 77 activists and engage 326 citizens to develop 43 specific policy demands,” which were apparently “proposed before 65 government officials.”

Between October and December of 2020, the IRI hosted three separate “transgender dance performances” across the country. Per the report, “the goal of the performance was to build self-esteem in the transgender community and raise awareness on transgender issues among the local community and government officials.” At the final performance, in Dhaka City, the US Embassy sent its “deputy consul general and deputy director of the Office for Democracy, Rights and Governance” to participate.

Finally, the IRI also carried out “community-specific quantitative and qualitative research,” which included “three focus group reports” and what it called “the largest published survey of LGBTI people in Bangladesh.”

In sum: “IRI’s program raised public awareness on social and political issues in Bangladesh and supported the public to challenge the status quo, which ultimately aims for power shift [sic] inside Bangladesh.”

In the US, Republican Party politicians have traditionally scorned government support for visual artists, transgender dancers, and rappers. But when an opportunity to install a more US-friendly government arose, the GOP’s in-house regime change organ eagerly transformed its domestic cultural enemies into political foot soldiers.

This is incredible. This is such a prime and opaque example of Rainbow Imperialism. It's like this example was cooked up in a lab. Here you have, the most vile supporters of the erasure of queer life in America doing queer activism in Bangladesh, funding queer artists and organizations to bring awareness to queer struggles within Bangladesh, for the explicit goal of creating political unrest in the country so that its leadership can be removed and replaced with a Compradore Dictator.

If this was an organization being run by the Democratic Party, you would be hard-pressed to get any liberal to look at this critically. All they would see is their chosen saviors doing savior shit in Bangladesh. They would conclude that the change in leadership is justifiable because they're "saving" queer people.

So how do they square this circle now? How do you reconcile the notion that the GOP is doing Trans Rights in Bangladesh to topple the government, but also trying to genocide Trans people through stochastic terror campaigns here in the homeland? What could the conclusion be for these liberals?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

There was a line of Mario themed flash cards for teaching kids all kinds of stuff in the early 90s, I think. In the card about Mao, they depicted him like the image above.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (8 children)

I'm sure America has nothing to do with that. I'm sure America would just sit back and let weapons be delivered into Gaza or Lebanon without reprisal.

view more: ‹ prev next ›