All the bourgeoisie see us as cattle, not all Jews do.

If you’re a socialist then you should understand that it’s more about class rather than race.

There used to be two opposing superpowers. Then there was one superpower, with nobody else powerful enough to keep it in check. How on earth was it not more balanced? How could anything be less balanced than a world with one superpower?

It was more balanced than it is today. And especially more balanced than it was immediately after the the USSR collapsed.

My example of a world with a balance of power isn’t any better than a world dominated by a single power?

Anyone who’s in camp 2 will be labelled as a “tankie” regardless of anything they say or don’t say.

But surely it’s better to have a balance of power between multiple flawed countries with some ability to keep each other in check, than to have one bad country that can act as a sole superpower and can do whatever it wants with impunity.

There we have what? A consistent stance that the US shouldn’t be able to dominate the entire world?

The USSR is a poor example of a counterbalance to the US as it engaged in the same behaviours as the US, just with the lie being communism rather than the democratic system touted by the US.

So, say what you want, your premise has a faulty foundation.

What I actually said was:

But surely it’s better to have a balance of power between multiple flawed countries with some ability to keep each other in check,

So what part of my premise is “faulty,” exactly?

The goals of 2 and 3 are completely aligned at this moment. So you can obviously dismiss anybody who supports 2 by accusing them of supporting 3.

“Simping” is a ridiculous, childish term to apply to geopolitics. This also doesn’t really have anything to do with my question.

I think the USSR served as a useful counterbalance to the US, and that the world was safer when there was such a force keeping the US in check. I don’t “simp” for it or consider it perfect by any means.

The question remains of whether you want to see any kind of force emerging that is capable of putting checks and balances on US aggression, or whether you want it to remain as the global hegemon.

I don’t “simp” any country and never have. But surely it’s better to have a balance of power between multiple flawed countries with some ability to keep each other in check, than to have one bad country that can act as a sole superpower and can do whatever it wants with impunity.

Oh it was awful. I was about your age back then, and I had been raised religious which I rebelled against by trying to be completely rational, to the point of trying to suppress all my emotions like a robot, which made me miserable. I had no self confidence, crippling social anxiety, and all sorts of bad ideas steering me in completely wrong directions.

I don’t think I had met any openly queer people at that point and the first time I did I was like, “I don’t get it, I would never express myself that way, because what would people think?” while of course completely sidestepping the question of how I actually felt or wanted to identify because again, suppressing my emotions. Spoiler alert: probably should’ve examined that!

The best decision I ever made in my life came a few years later when I studied abroad in Japan. It exposed me to a lot of different perspectives in the international house and also gave me interesting experiences to talk about which helped with my social anxiety (actively identifying and working on it with therapy techniques later on probably did more).

Politically, I had no real awareness of leftism and was into Ron Paul and libertarianism, because he was the loudest antiwar voice at the time. It’s also a great ideology for if you’ve never had a boss or a landlord. I was mostly just glad to be rid of Bush, and I had some hope that Obama would end the war, prosecute people in the Bush administration for war crimes, and stop mass surveillance. I was very naive at that time.

I feel like this was a time before a bunch of movements or cultural tendencies became associated with the right. The problems were still there, but there were also some non-shitty people included in them:

• It was before Gamergate, but there was a lot of sexism in video game communities.

• I remember being into “transhumanist” ideas that would these days be associated with Elon Musk and his sycophantic techbro fanboys.

• Many prominent “New Atheists” either had or would break right and support the wars in the Middle East, with logic like, “We’ve already fixed sexism completely here in the West (and the feminists who don’t agree with that are just a bunch of dumb broads), the big problem is Islam,” ignoring the threat of Christofascism at home.

• Even stuff like 4chan, I had friends who were on /b/ back in the day who turned out normal and chill. There was an element of rebelling against the Pat Robertson, stick-in-the-mud, “D&D is witchcraft” types, and part of that was reveling in rule-breaking, and so they delighted in shock images and made fun of anyone who cared too much about things in response to that.

I guess the positives were that people were less divided and it was easier to have hope for the future. But like there were reasons why those things changed, either movements/groups showed their true colors, or valid criticisms of those groups became more widely accepted. I much prefer the division and conflict that we have now compared to the “post-9/11 world” where virtually everybody was in agreement about slaughtering Muslims. And yeah I had more hope for the future but it was because I though technology would fix everything for everybody and didn’t understand how it could hurt workers and benefit capitalists, it was based on ignorance.

Everyone believes their cause is just. Every conflict ever can be framed as defensive. The US has compared every major conflict since WWII to stopping Hitler, even cases like Vietnam. My mother once quoted, “All that’s necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing” in the context of supporting the invasion of Iraq.

If You investigate and deconstruct the concept of “defensive” wars (as You are so wont to deconstruct concepts) then You will find that they are entirely dependent on socially constructed ideas about “legitimacy.” If Switzerland does not have “legitimate ownership” of Zurich, then to station troops there or to fight against Zurich being occupied by foreign powers would make Switzerland the aggressor. It could be argued that, when the US invaded Vietnam, it was merely “coming to the aid” of the Republic of Vietnam, which had requested our aid (nevermind that they were our puppet). Likewise, in Ukraine everything about how you view the conflict is dependent on who you think is legitimate - the “consensus” interpretation in the West is that the central government is legitimate and the separatists are just Russian puppets, while the pro-Russia view says that the separatists are legitimate and the central government just Western puppets.

So V.I. Lenin observes:

…the bourgeoisie [of all the imperialist nations] are always ready to say—and do say to the people—that they are “only” fighting “against defeat”.

Funny enough, this observation was shared by Leo Tolstoy, the Christian Anarchist/Anarcho-Pacifist, who writes:

For ever since the beginning of the world, the use of violence of every kind, from the Inquisition to the Schlüsselburg fortress, has rested and still rests on the opposite principle of the necessity of resisting evil by force.

World War I is a prime example of how things can go wrong. There had been a major socialist movement at the time across every major country in Europe, and there had been a significant fear that, should the imperialist powers start a major war like that, it would lead to a coordinated revolution across all of Europe. But instead, when war broke out, the social democrats all found reasons to rally around the flags of their respective countries. They were committed to keeping their positions within the realm of acceptability, and the war narrowed that realm of acceptibility to the point that coordination with ordinary people of other countries (or genuine opposition to the war) was considered treasonous. So, all the social democrats of Europe rallied around their flags and drafted proles to go out and kill each other for no good reason.

If Your “anarcho-antirealist” stuff is supposed to have any merit at all, then it ought to allow You to recognize that the concept of “defense” is largely arbitrary - or are You seriously of the belief that national borders have some inherent natural truth when even the law of gravity does not?

The Emperor’s Naked Army Marches On.

I had a part time job at a UPS warehouse in Tennessee when covid hit. We got a new manager, and so they gathered everyone in the warehouse together into a small break area, everyone was right next to each other and nobody was wearing a mask, and the manager gave us all a speech about how much he cared about our safety. There were TV screens in the break areas that had been set to display information about covid safety guidelines that were being blatantly violated.

The same day, my supervisor informed me of a new policy: they’d had too many people “faking” being sick and calling out, so from now on you have to come into work even if you’re sick, and they’ll decide if you’re sick enough to go home. I with I had gotten it in writing because what she told me was definitely illegal, I actually called OSHA afterwards but it was my word against theirs. This was the only time I’ve quit a job with no notice, I remember it clear as day, I told her, “People are dying” and she replied, “I have a business to run,” and I said, “I don’t care.”

I wanted to set the damn building on fire. I was fortunate to have saved enough to take time off work because I lost all confidence that there was anywhere around me that would be a safe place to work.

When it breaks. I don’t remember how long I’ve had this one but it was made in 2019.

Technically correct. It’s a valid comparison to Catholicism and Catholicism is, indeed, a bad faith.

This shouldn’t be misconstrued as women being less than a man it’s just that their roles are different.

Oh, I get it, they’re separate but equal!

What a load of horseshit.

Catholic and Orthodox have way less loonies comparatively than either evangelicals or the fedora wearing atheist crowd which is basically another form of protestantism.

I’ve never been religious by my little sister was. She loved helping out at Mass every Sunday, and volunteered to be an alter server. She was one of the most faithful and good-hearted Christians I’ve ever met. As long as you didn’t bring up abortion, anyway.

Then one day the priest said she wasn’t allowed to anymore, because she was a girl. He said that only boys should be allowed up in the front of church. His justification was that being an alter server was practice for being a priest, and only men were allowed to be priests.

Do you happen to know what the Catholic Church’s justification for only allowing male priests is, by the way? Well you see, God is male, obviously, and the Church is symbolically married to God, so that means that the Church must be symbolically female, and priests are symbolically married to the Church (the Church is poly?) meaning, of course, that priests have to be male.

If you get a Protestant or a fedora atheist, you’re basically rolling the dice, but if you get a Catholic, you know for a fact that they’re at minimum fine with being part of a deeply sexist, homophobic, and authoritarian institution.

Fucking Amazon would be a better moral authority than the Catholic Church because at least Amazon doesn’t explicitly descriminate based on sex. Always the last to be dragged into the future, kicking and screaming the whole time, since Galileo if not before.

WKUK - Pope Rap