deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Biden is, for example, a much more coherent genocidal Zionist, as is Harris.

Besides the token joke that Biden isn’t a “more coherent” anything, I think Trump would be equal in this respect (not worse, but equal). He doesn’t have the same developed reasons as Biden, but America’s zionist project has deliberately allowed for zionist organizations like AIPAC to buy out politicians and send lobbyists to him, and Trump will definitely follow the directions of the overwhelming majority of his allies if they are given to him consistently. He didn’t understand imperialism well enough to understand why military spending on South Korea made sense, but they simply don’t have much sway to anyone in America except a tiny minority. Israel – because of conditions the American imperial machine created and maintains for the purpose – does have that sway

The thing that I think really makes it obvious that your thinking here is completely defective is that you don’t even bring up the question “are you in a swing state?” I’m in a deep-blue state, why the fuck, even by your broken logic, should I vote for Kamala? She’ll win my whole state anyway, so all I’m doing is helping to legitimize her if I vote for her, not do a single thing to keep Orange Man out.

I guess I’ve discovered an “unreconstructed” socialist. I think an autocracy is bad even if it kills rightists, but that doesn’t mean I want to make peace with the rich. If the government isn’t bound by a popular mandate, then it’s just guided by the whims of whichever assholes are in charge, and you’ve basically reverted to monarchy.

Mao’s purging of the landlords was a great achievement, but it only worked because he left it up to the people rather than having the PLA go to every plot of land and dictate what is to be done with it. Likewise, it was also a great achievement that he was able to rehabilitate Puyi, the last Emperor of China, rather than resorting to killing him. Turning people into productive members of society is always the most preferential option, it’s just that it often simply isn’t viable.

Revenge is an idealist notion that doesn’t accomplish anything. It’s just sadism and leaves justice completely aside. Sometimes it is correct to kill people (and in times of war, unfortunately frequently so), but that is for the material difference that makes (e.g. diffusing threats) rather than because it rights some imaginary cosmic ledger.

Yes, we must seize power from the reactionaries, and that will require incredible violence and lead to lots of purging, but if we are separate from the people, we are just a military dictatorship like any other.

It’s a form of socialism in the broadest sense of the term, but what you’re describing has nothing to do with socialism as it has ever existed in the world and not something that should exist. Socialism must be democratic or it’s just a holding-state for fascism and, as you describe your “system,” an engine of gleeful murder.

no Tiktok = better times

This is boomer brainrot for it to make a three-item list of modern problems. People said the same shit about TV and even about books, not that I’d give tiktok much credit as an advanced medium in the same way those were. But it’s just philistine to consider it a great societal evil on par with climate change and the housing market.

Also where I live there wasn’t any “attempted genocide on gays”.

You all may perpetrate one yet considering the direction your country is going in.

If you come at things from such a completely misanthropic point of view, you firstly are unlikely to get off the ground, but even if you do, you’ll just be creating what liberals think socialism is (a very bad and ineffectual thing)

“death to America”

So mad about it that you had to mention it twice unprompted.

MuH AiDs

Literally an attempted genocide on the gay population. I think it’s fair to say life was pretty tough for them.

It’s an invented prescriptionist rule that was imported from studying Latin. You can completely ignore it and you’ll get more natural sounding language.

Oh certainly, they’ll fuck you up way more readily and viscerally than a horse ever would, I just always wondered about the logic of their name.

You can only get more conservative when you have things to protect like a house and a pension.

In aggragate, that’s the more reliable way to make a population more conservative, but remember that a reasonable portion of fascists in a society that is going in that direction are going to be people who either lost that or never had it and, in either case, blame some minority for that fact. (The majority are still people like you describe, though, the petite bourgeois, etc., who feel insecure in their holdings)

I agree if you mean neoliberal-conservative

Maybe that’s why they’re “water horses”, because they gallop underwater.

Hm I’d say, as a central European, that our continent had centuries of war and destruction and we finally left that behind.

A lot of people throughout history have liked to believe that when they don’t have war, it’s because they are more enlightened than other countries. This is idealist and self-flattering nonsense. Central Europe, being all in multiple levels of alliance with each other and having buffer states to their east and south (some in those alliances, some just as lackeys to those alliances, notably Ukraine), they are in a very convenient position to declare themselves more civilized than those war-like brutes who live in the global south, etc.

You’d think if merely having a history of going to war was all that was needed to become peaceful, Germany would surely be the most solid among you as being an enlightened nation (and I kind of wonder if you’re talking about Central Europe^tm because your German or Austrian), but Germany was glad to join the US for years in its blatantly imperialist war in Afghanistan, meanwhile the Germans could keep swilling their beer in their “peace” because they were invading from much further away than Afghanistan could hope to retaliate. Then again, I assume you’ll say that the higher level of development is because of Central European enlightenment too.

And I have no fucking clue what the Imperial core is.

Here you are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_countries

Considering the Anarchy: I believe that people need to be governed over. No order, no civilization…

We must consider why conflict emerges. Obviously in our current conditions, if you just removed government, things would immediately regress to feudalism, but why is that? Could it have something to do with individuals already having dictatorial power over others? Since surely they would be the new warlords. Could it have something to do with the development of production? Since surely the petty fighting would be, in part, due to resources already being too scarce for there to be enough to go around. Just some things to think about. Of course, you could say the socialist and even the anarchist don’t believe we should ever be lawless, but rather that the ultimate issue is being governed “over” rather than having people as a collective keep each other in line.

I don’t think I’ll actually move the needle on this one though, whereas perhaps I could help you learn about what modern imperialism is, so I’m fine if we drop it.

You don’t need to give air to a fascist myth

Maybe if you engineered some new pedal vehicle that is no longer really a bike, but hippos have neither the build nor the kind of gross motor skills (or prehensile forelimbs) needed to be successful as a high-level bicyclist.

Presumably the hippo also needs to ride a bike on that stretch, so they probably aren’t managing their full running speed.

Counterpoint: “Fact checkers” with an institutional bias are an excellent way to cover for lies promoted by those institutions