SoonToBeBanned
No bio...
User ID: 2653
SoonToBeBanned
2mo ago
What evidence? Snopes isn't great but they say this photo is from Columbus, Ohio not Springfield. And there's no evidence the man is Haitian and not just some black American. There's this video from someone at what looks like a public community meeting in Springfield claiming such (@1:04). But who knows how legit the rumors he's quoting are.
Just so we're clear. The video of a cat eating woman (Alexis Telia Ferrell) was also not from Springfield and was not known to be Haitian rather than just some black American, probably on drugs.
Shower thoughts: I watched some of it and was deeply unimpressed with both. Just constant lying and avoiding answering questions to deliver intelligence insulting propaganda soundbites instead. I hate American presidential debates and continue to do so.
As someone that I would self-categorize as "crazy person," namely I consider myself a socialist and a Marxist but I hate woke and what the modern establishment Democrats have become, I was flirting with the idea of protest voting Donald Trump. I think this debate pretty much sealed me against that.
In particular his two stances refusing to concede and admit he lost the 2020 election, that it was stolen, and supplication to Russia/Putin by refusing to endorse defense of Ukraine were red lines to me.
Unlike a lot of people, I don't have a lot of problem with Jan. 6 and hardly buy into the establishment Democrat narrative that it was some sort of horrific never again atrocity and affront to "democracy" (read: their deep state establishment power) "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." and so on. I think it's kind of cool the Congress felt some real fear of the people for once, actually. That said, Democracy depends on people accepting they lost and acknowledging the winners as legitimate leaders to work with. A refusal to do this is a dangerous and destructive degradation of western civilization. I don't know if Trump genuinely has a mental problem or if he's just playing to his base that can't accept loss, but either way it's totally unacceptable. Likewise, I don't know where this subservience to Russia comes from, other than again playing to his retard extremely online base, but it's not okay. The USA shouldn't be bowing to anyone. They both bow to Israel though - which would be a red line for me too except.. yeah. It's was sadly expected and there's no apparent escape from the domination.
Apparently Trump also commented on Marxism but I missed that. Well obviously I oppose that as a slur, but that's pretty unique to me I guess. I was already severely backing off from strategic protest hearing that J.D. Vance endorsed some insane Red Scare book that promotes the "Cultural Marxism" myth and argues that democracy is bad and the them are subhumans trying to get you, if you don't get them first. No proof Vance actually read and liked the book for real, but apparently Trump is all in on this shit. It's a reminder that there's no real strategic friendship here. No socially conservative "populist" economics helping born Americans grow strong with brotherhood. In the end they will still sell out America to the elite monied globalists. They will still cut taxes for rich people and pollute the world. They will always pander to & reflect the culture and politics of the lowest IQ band of whites. I hate Democrats, progressives, and wokies. But Conservatives and you people are just plain evil and nothing good can come from this rotten soil. Sad.
Sidebar: looking up that Jefferson quote more interesting things arise from the letter to what I believe is a response to Shays's Rebellion
The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist?
Truly there is nothing new under the sun.
And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness.
The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? ... The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them.
It is true, though, that Elden Ring has hardly any Japanese or Asian influences in it and is in its core sensibilities a thoroughly Western game.
This sentiment I'm seeing is such a weird one. What even is "Asian" or "Japanese" here? The way people are speaking it's as if it has geisha women walking in woden sandals and gongs then it's "Japanesey" and if not then it's Western. Culture and the world did not end in 1800. This entire sentiment belies a denial and ignorance of the much more interconnected nature of modernity. People in Japan take influence from things outside of Japan now. What else can they, or anyone else, do but grow in such a way or choose to be an ossified cultural taliban? They were blue jeans. They eat hamburgers, and listen to rock music. And it's all 100% Japanese. Japan makes "western" fantasy and has done so for generations since the early days of D&D being translated over and the game Wizardry getting popular (in Japan).
I'm reminded of when I read a short story by Haruki Murakami about a couple robbing a McDonald's. And the author made an amusing account of the cashier being so shocked and confused by being held up at gunpoint in Tokyo at 1 am under charge to give up dozens of burgers that she didn't know whether to keep "that McDonald's smile." Which doesn't exist in, say, America. It hit me that here is this very American seeming thing but it's very much by and for the Japanese here, and of course McDonald's is just a much a fixture of modern Japanese life as the subway is. The same as childhood karate might be for an American. That's modernity for you.
Also what's a asian vs western game here for that matter? Japan in particular has been a mover and shaker of video games since pretty much the beginning. Arguably Japan more or less made the console a thing. Video games and computers are, again, one of those things made after 1800s. There's cross pollination here. If video games made in Japan by Japanese people are not asian game then what is? Touhou coded exclusively in Ruby?
SoonToBeBanned
4mo ago
Well we all know, hopefully, how first accounts during live news go. Crazy amounts of bullshit. But anyway, checking wiki to see if there's been any U.S President assassination attempts since Squeaky Fromme on Ford, there's been a surprising amount. I guess the media decided to not report these things. Though it's hard to tell how serious all the listed are.
But the point is, the examples of the lesser known recent assassination attempts sound very schizo. Random Chinese man wouldn't actually be out of the theme. I like this one:
Joe Biden: May 23, 2023: Sai Varshith Kandula, a 19-year-old man from St. Louis, drove a rented box truck into a barrier that separated the White House grounds from the public. Shortly thereafter he was taken into custody by the United States Park Police and was found to have a Nazi flag in his truck. Kandula expressed admiration for the Third Reich and stated his intentions were to "kill the president" and "seize power".[128]
SoonToBeBanned
4mo ago
I'm getting this in writing while things are hot. The amount of narrative control by Internet janitors, as of writing, is interesting. I'm ashamed of myself for firing up 4chan like old times, but the /tv/ board, which is the default unofficial shitposting general board, is mass deleting any word of this on the second. Some fatass is watching the live post queue with wide dilated pupils, sweat, and hair trigger. If I hadn't heard about this elsewhere by coincidence, I wouldn't have known it happened yet. On Reddit, the /r/news thread is locked. On /r/worldnews (supposedly non-USA news) I don't see any thread. On /r/neoliberal the major thread is labeled [restricted], whatever that means.
It's big news worth discussing yet... Seems like liberal anti-Trump jannies are freaking out and doing what they know best when confused and inflamed. Deleting/restrict everything until further marching orders are given and official consensus thought is reached from mothership.
In my paranoid mind, if we wanted to believe in a conspiracy line of thinking, I think a theory for the surprisingly unified harsh open acknowledgement of the emperor's clothes would be:
a. In the mainstream media's supreme narcissism and entitlement to (attempt) socially engineer, they believe as a gestalt that only they could save the Republic and the Democratic party system (for most of the MSM it's one and the same) by setting the narrative for the Democrats to force them to swap out Biden. In their mind, because the media can shape the public's mind at whim, they can force people to abandon Biden by smearing him, and thus force a swap. So they got in their backroom group chats and all agreed "this is the talking points memo."
b. The American Deep State is genuinely concerned about Trump. Actual, important people, lives are on the line, because if he gets elected he might start putting allies of theirs in legit jail in vengeance. Perhaps he really is a rogue free agent from the usual bread and circuses show with its vetted actors, and that's always been a concern. Similar to point a, but this presumes most of the MSM basically takes marching orders from entrenched shadow elites from the likes of the CIA or whatever. An order was given out that "Biden really can't be the one to win against Trump. We tried our best with him with this performance and it's still not enough. Force a swap now before it's too late - or we are fucked."
As an addition to b. While I don't fully believe it myself, a predictive test of this theory might be that said elite influencers will go full gun blasts against Trump and do something really nutty. Like actually sentence him to prison this coming July criminal trial sentencing. Again I don't believe this will likely happen, I'm betting on a more level headed slap on the wrist since the real goal was the prestige of calling Trump a convicted criminal, but I want to get it in writing for a still "you heard it hear first" rights - just in case.
Either way it's astounding to me this event is what finally made people acknowledge Biden's obvious mental decline. So much so it's weird and suspicious.
SoonToBeBanned
5mo ago
Many see Glucksmann's timidity towards LFI as weakness given he held a larger share of the vote in the European elections, and some, including two former prime ministers have denounced the alliance's inclusion of parties that supported Hamas, including the NPA,
[citation needed] What prominent politicians "support Hamas"? What did they say exactly?
SoonToBeBanned
5mo ago
Thus, Azov aren’t really Nazis, they’re just… LARPing, I guess?
What is "really a Nazi"? The German NSDAP party (1920-1945) has been defunct for generations. It's physically impossible to be a real Nazi then. And yet people keep using that word without irony and demanding to be taken as if they are speaking seriously.
I, personally, continue to be confused and angered by other's dialog around this fetishezed word. How it's used is clearly propaganda and point blank logical fallacy usage. The equivocation fallacy, I believe. X thing holds the mental symbolic resonance of [evil] thing we all hate. People want Y thing to be hated too, so they use the title of X and expect transference of associations, even though Y is objectively different than X in all the ways that made X probable to be associated with the mental color [evil]. Namly Y is not a militarized authoritarian party in the 1940s running Auschwitz and making massacre graves on the Eastern Front. What I don't get is why people, you included, seem to believe their own propaganda. This shit ain't real. "Nazis" are no longer real. Is there confusion on this?
What there is, and has been before, during, and after Germany 1920-1945 is the an ultra "right-wing" mentality and disposition. Some of these people do in fact engage in LARPy antinomian symbology and acts associated with the past NSDAP party (e.g. swastikas, salutes, black sun) - intentionally because they are so taboo most likely, because there's limited good ultra-right art/iconography to draw on, as well as admiration for the high point of the German ultra-right at its apex when it was winning. People love a winner and tend to rally behind one. But the ultra right mentality would exist if God deleted Germany from all time. People are their own thing. Again, is there confusion on this?
SoonToBeBanned
5mo ago
Reminder that the USA has the largest incarcerated population in the world. Beating out even China and other such jail happy and/or third world nations.
In fact, at its height the USA has a greater prison population, at times, than the USSR under Stalin and GULAG. No, not just in raw numbers because the USA is bigger. In per capita rates too.
The US incarceration rate peaked in 2008 when about 1,000 in 100,000 U.S. adults were behind bars. That's 760 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents of all ages.[25][26] This incarceration rate was similar to the average incarceration levels in the Soviet Union during the existence of the infamous Gulag system, when the Soviet Union's population reached 168 million, and 1.2 to 1.5 million people were in the Gulag prison camps and colonies (i.e. about 714 to 892 imprisoned per 100,000 USSR residents, according to numbers from Anne Applebaum and Steven Rosefielde).
If you really believe there are no significant innocent people caught between the cracks of the system. That such an idea is an impossibility. Would you bite the bullet and say the same of the Stalin's prison state? Or is it that Americans are just sooo much more criminal than Soviets or really anyone else.
SoonToBeBanned
5mo ago
making an unlawful corporate contribution to the Trump campaign by paying Stormy Daniels.
The reason for the description of the payments was to conceal Cohen's crime.
Why is this Cohen paying off Stormy Daniels with hush money so she doesn't hurt Trump's reputation for campaign an illegal campaign contribution?
I'm trying to wrap my head around how the actual spirit of the law was violated here. In a post Citizens United world I thought it was decided money is free speech (which I find astoundingly stupid and wrong), and effectively there's no such thing as too much money spent or proper use anymore, so long as certain bullshit forms are obeyed. If Cohen declared himself a PAC would he not be able to spend money on Trump's "mistresses" on his behalf? Is the special code words weren't evoked the problem? Frankly why can't trump pay off women as a campaign expense? What about a personal expense?
Politicians spend hundreds of thousands paying and being paid in wine and dine influence sessions, speech engagements, etc. all the time - as is my understanding. We all know this. It's not illegal. But a politician forwarding money to silence someone to protect his reputation is suddenly an unconscionable use of money in campaign/politics? Why?
I haven't read this book. And I don't have certainty on the origins of woke or even what its definition is. I would classify myself as coming from a old "left wing" background, but I detest "I know it when I see it" woke and have somehow missed the call that affects so many other "left wingers."
With that said, what I vaguely think I've seen and know.
- 1 The great aWokeing was in 2016 or so, way later. Civil Rights is clearly not woke (I am not woke and I in theory like the idea of Civil Rights). Civil Rights is however the origin of "Identity Politics." Identity Politics here is distinguished from a universalist project of rights and or socialism. I.e. anti-racism is synonymous with ending discrimination for all universally, not advocating for black rights individually. Clearly woke feeds off identity politics, but again it existed for a long time before it, and I think it popped into existence for clear reasons that are not woke mind virus.
In orthodox Marxism everything is the economy stupid and changing the economic superstructure of capitalism is the only sure way to change negative social mores. Even Engels himself was writing how discrimination of women has its origins in capitalism and industrialism. The project of personal liberation, for a woman, and being a socialist is one and the same. In a post Identity Politics split, such a person would just be a feminist and maybe also a socialist.
The importance of socialism here is that the previous project of universal rights, enshrined in the founding ethos of the USA itself, was old school Liberalism. But the liberals won completely and already wrote all the laws. The old left-right divide in the French revolutions was between republican liberals and monarchists. But you don't see any monarchists around and the Church as a power estate is near nonexistent. There's a point after the fall of monarchies and therefore true ancien regime Rightwing-ism (I'm going to say around 1848) where those that still had the mentality of "let's keep challenging the system but now with say... women" started calling themselves Socialist instead of Republican or pro-democracy. Like you can clearly see the Jacobins are partly proto-socialist, but they're just too early. This is why you don't see, unlike a Paradox game, revolutionaries in South East Asia quoting Thomas Paine and waving yellow don't tread on me flags. Either they're with the status quo or they are Red. Anyone that didn't like this was an anti socialist (liberal) "Conservative."
And so it mostly was until 1960s when Identity Politics happened. And it's easy to see why. Gulag Archipelago happened. The Revolution was not happening. In general "left wing people," synonymous with the global project of socialism, were starting to suffer under constant judgment on the value of the USSR. And here comes MLK to offer actual immediate "we're doing something" change with positive results not bolted to the fucking USSR and making you a domestic terrorist in the Cold War. The "progressives" that went with Identity Politics curb stomped old left universal project socialist in popularity and mainstream political power. None of this is woke.
- 2 Identity Politics has mutated as time goes on, it's become the only way to be a progressive, and it's further fused with the establishment as not being threatening to the true economic elite. Hot take: I suspect one origin of Woke is that at some point the mental egregor that makes up the "progressive" mind started grappling with the initial huge wins of non-socialist Identity Politics starting to bring back embarrassing failure. This is very familiar in the "disparate results MUST be the result discrimination" equity vs equality dialog everyone loves to hate. At first you succeed in black school integration, or women entering the work place, but then the black students still aren't the same as white students and the prophesied cure to the Feminine Mystique "Is this all there is?" challenge is less than impressive.
Africa I think is especially illustrative of this. If you were a radical in the 60s you were no doubt psyched that colonialism was finally ending in Africa. And then, constant disappointment and at times utter hell. When you look at the capstone failure of South Africa post apartheid some people no doubt have the thought worm into their head "do black people just suck? Were they really the white man's burden?" And I suspect thoughts such of these has engendered a more anti-rational, authoritarian, purity obsessed, and debilitated but highly performative defensive ethos. To shake off such intrusive thoughts.
It's not all that. I'm sure. But this turned out way too long.
P.S. I guess I kind of wanted to comment in general but used one post. Apologies if this wall of text in an inbox shocks you and seems inappropriate.
SoonToBeBanned
6mo ago
Hispanic obviously means mestizo as a race. Which should be a racial category if we're going to have them. It's just the government is piss scared to engage in official racial phrenology in the modern day, so we get old calcified classifications from when everyone knew asians, whites, and blacks were a thing. I'm surprised they had the balls to change it.
I don't think as many people know this as should, but there used to be very few mestizos/hispanics in the USA. So few no one thought to count them in census regularly. By the time the "hispanic" category was cooked up there was already millions of racially ambiguous people living in the USA.
SoonToBeBanned
6mo ago
This whole "red-blue tribe" obsession and talk is utterly useless, imo. It's long turned into an excuse to vigorously engage in naked tribalist politics while hypocritically professing to speak about and above such.
Getting that off my chest, of course the heads of industry "lean right." They "lean right" everywhere. What pro-union socialist heads of industry can you name? Honestly, trying to do away with simplistic political memology, what do you think California is? Some Communist monolith? The is the state of Nixon and Reagan, "right to work" laws, and prop 13. There's millions of people of every political stripe.
SoonToBeBanned
9mo ago
It's rare that we can come up with something that is both legitimately more efficient than what evolution has come up with and sustainable in time.
If your standard is life by any measure goes on, then ok. But it's not like mass extinction has never happened, and given enough time, will not happen again. The Permian–Triassic extinction event knocked out something like 81% of all marine species, according to wiki. Some things lived on or recovered over the course of millions of years, but plenty of creatures got perma-wiped. I don't see why humans could never ever be like the trilobites.
SoonToBeBanned
9mo ago
I've often felt engineered disease is underrated as a human apocalypse scenario. Largely, I think, because they didn't exist when nuclear mass annihilation first came into concept.
In WWII it seems, to my non-expert contrarian eye, that the "good guys" had started to descend into a philosophy where mass murdering "enemy" civilian populations to simply brute force attrite the rival society into nothing was taken to be valid. It's probably a good thing the war ended when it did. Since winners write the history books, and people like to justify "their side," everyone just kind of ignores this, or says it wasn't a big deal, or even tries to justify it. Also mostly fortunately, nuclear MAD means the taste of it has never since been realized again in a protracted war between two fully developed industrial powers where leaders would again descend into (mass) murderous impatience. But if that did happen I feel like it would be a countdown until some idiot sociopath in the top brass started suggesting that maybe a strategic disease could be controlled, and if it could then it would end the conflict with ease that no bomb could. Disease is such a more efficient killer than bombs, and cost effective too. The longer a protracted war goes, the more likely people will start listening to the idiot.
I don't think that's very likely for normal orthodox war these days because of old fashioned nuclear deterrence. But what about a civil war? Some gambler in an American civil war gets ahold of the disease library in Atlanta. The CPC loses legitimacy and China descends into power struggle chaos.
With overwhelming power superiority Israel has, if they wanted to massacre a million people in Gaza, or West Bank, that would have already happened.
Israel isn't going full auschwitz solely, by what I can see, because of goy morality and power. Without that all non-Jews would be either killed or cleansed into outside borders - whichever is more pragmatic. Any honest assessment of sympathy for goy/Palestinian civilian life in the greater Jewish/Israeli public results in basically nothing. They want these people gone and have zero interest in cohabitation. But even with Jewish subversion of the American government, a hostile USA and/or "West" would be an apocalyptic disaster. So PR still matters. Getting the South Africa treatment alone (even though they are objectively worse) would be catastrophic. If they only had nuclear arms alone to make an argument against Turkey curb stomping them, or even worse, a total unified middle east, it could be all over. Right now is a balancing game in how far they can go without critical consequences, with a heavy experimental lean towards killing as many men, women, and children as possible, while maximizing destabilization.
Now personally, I find the word "genocide" tiresome. It's overly political (in a bad way) and basically amounts to a modern version of what excommunication was in the middle ages. With all the subsequent pointless theology and dishonest motivated reasoning that comes with such.
That said, if we call the Armenian Genocide a genocide I don't see what is so different about Gaza. Only time and, again, the morality/power of the non-Jewish side of the USA is preventing it from even greater realization of the logical conclusion of their deliberate actions. Will they take responisbitly for a food/disease crisis they have created? Will they allow the rebuilding of hospitals? And if they drag their feet to x degree exactly how many statistical deaths will that result in? Time, and power politics within the USA will tell.
Given the source I'm suspicious. Even more so it's weird to me how he goes on and on about "Iranian propaganda" in true "omg Russian bots!" fashion as if the Iranian deep state has arms in every American university and anti-Zionists need Iran of all places to tell them Israel is a violent apartheid state. Given the source, again, it seems very complimentary to Iran. On the other hand, if it's a fake it's good in its organic American dialog - no awkwardness or weird translations here.
But assuming it's true. The the thing that jumps out to me is the line: "The number of young people who think Hamas's massacre was justified is shockingly and terrifyingly high".
To me this indicates he drinks his own kool-aid. One of the more annoying things about Israel apologists and Zionists to me is how they constantly attack this weird strawman of anyone that disagrees with them is pro-Hamas. How they repeat Hamas Hamas Hamas like it's a brain virus. It's hilarious to think it's a relatively recent post 2006 phenomenon in Israel-Palestine. The way some people speak it's as if Hamas Hamas Hamas was the singular bad force ruining everything and if it weren't for these ultra-monsters, well shucks, good ol boy Israel wouldn't have to act so bad.
I always assumed it's a talking points memo for public propaganda. It's clearly from the "when did you stop beating your wife" school of distraction & attack. Focus on Hamas and mention it as much as possible. No one wants to defend them, and any talk about them is not talking about all the people Israel is killing while creating a constant negative mental association. Anyway, I have literally never seen this mythical Western pro-Palestinian pro-Hamas "liberal".
Here we see Greenblatt privately believing this psycho BS that the only way anyone could be anti-Zionist is that they are totally fans of Hamas and pro-massacre of civilians. It would never occur to a principled person to notice Zionism's evil actions without being crypto Islamic theocrats. Absurd and wildly detached from the mind of your average Zionist critical secular university aged student. The Zionist equivalent of believing all Trump supporters are literal Nazis.
I see the motivations for a Jewish homeland in the Levant to be sound and understandable.
Why? Why do Jews have a right to invade someone else’s land and ethnically cleanse the native populace? Why aren’t jews obligated to live in humanitarian multiculturalism like ever other western nation on the planet, and instead get violent ethnonationalism that inherently can not cohabitate with the non-Jewish natives of the land they are (violently) immigrating to? Why do the Palestinian people not have a right to resist this?
The area was already inhabited by Arab Muslims by the start of early Zionist migration.
“Arab” is not a real racial category. It’s a cultural one for speakers of Arabic. I see this a lot with people that are Israel apologists. Basically an attempt to delegitimize and dehumanize the Palestinians as a faceless and vaguely threatening barbaric mass. And an attempt to bring back the terra nullius justification argument for colonialism. Are you sure you were neutral and not… faking? Because you don’t sound it. You sound like a typical agenda’d and hardened culture warrior with all the same boilerplate.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. Palestinians are not all Muslim, and it’s very interesting that pro-Israels keep talking about them like they are. There have been Christian Palestinians since about as long as there’s been Christianity. You haven’t outright said it, but this also seems to come with a completely ignorant but political motivated historical belief that the Palestinians are all foreign “Muslim” barbarians that come in at the 600s and took over the joint or something. That’s not how these things work. Egypt turning Muslim (also not all Muslim) did not replace the Egyptians.
There’s no reason to believe the canaanites and yes, Jews, of the area didn’t just convert - like everywhere else.
The Arabs too have a historical claim to the area and also benefited from being last in the very long list of adverse possession feuds.
Historical claim is putting it mildly and quite curiously. Yes, the Poles have a historical claim to their land in a conflict with Germans invading too. The Palestinians are natives of the land. The Zionists are not. Again, they are probably in no small part descendants of the Hasmonean kingdom that converted to Christianity and then Islam. Just as the English are descendants of ancient Celts that converted to Christianity and latin/germanized. There’s no reason to believe otherwise.
Next door to Israel, the ongoing Syrian Civil War has a death toll (500k-600k dead) nearing that of the Nakba's displacement figure, alongside a global refugee crisis.
The thing is though in the end Syria will still be Syria no matter what shitty dictator or not reigns in the future. Just as Russia weathered an Ivan the Terrible or 2. A war to straight steal land and displace the natives is a whole other kettle of fish. That preeminently changes the geography of the planet and destroys a people in an area forever. The Taino will never come back to the world after the Spanish colonial conquest of the Caribbean. Some things can’t be reversed or 2 things at once.
Being OK with this means accepting on the world scale permanent malevolent wars of conquest as a valid tactic (see Russia right now for why that’s a problem) without any real defensive casus belli. The nature of Zionism means the invaders fundamentally won’t and can’t cohabitate with the natives whose lands they are “moving” to. Their gain comes from the flesh of the other. On the ground, this makes it totally zero sum. That’s not that usual for war actually.
There's no guidance system to speak of, and the most precise aim Hamas could hope for is [waves vaguely over the distance]. … I see either excuses about how we outsiders shouldn't cast judgement upon the anguished and desperate actions of an oppressed populace, or affirmative declarations that "resistance" is justified through "any means necessary".
There’s value to what you say. But let’s consider the opposite. What value is there in passivity? Look to the West Bank and see what a more passive stance has achieved. Nothing but further expansion of Jewish colonies and a tightening noose around the Palestinians’ neck. That’s pretty damning. I think it’s objective at this point that “just be more peaceful” is an utter failure and an invitation to personal destruction.
Let’s go there and consider a case of a Jew in Auschwitz. He somehow finds himself in a position to kill a guard’s, who is an avid assistant in mass killing, wife and child. Is it moral and right to do so? If I were in that situation I don’t know what I would do. Per your own arguments, there’s a very, very strong case to be made that innocent should not be hurt. But oh how it stings. At the same time, what good does such moralism do? If the Jew passively lays down and lets the Auschwitz system do its thing without any karmic vengeance, however unfairly undirected, what good does it do? It only assists and convenience an evil act without any consequences.
A key here is that Zionists jews and the proverbial guard put themselves and the “innocent” into a position of aggression and violence. They woke up and chose to wrong another every day. And they could stop at any point if they really cared. They are betting on power saving them from any blowback for their actions. Weakness, only reifies this into being and, from a certain point of view, enables evil into the world. It’s not the same thing as walking up to a random baby and stabbing it for some vague incoherent goals. They could always choose peace.
This is why I suspect the myth of Israel ever giving a damn about the “peace process” (puke) is so popular with Israel apologists. People desperately need to believe Zionists are something other than what they are to apologize for them in normie morality. Like they just tripped, fell, and accidentally violently invaded another people’s land and constantly expanded - to this day. They could always choose not to do this. They could always go back to the 1967 lines and respect the Palestinians. They won’t. Ever.
Your analogy to a self justifying spousal abuser is apt and good food for thought. But are you not by your own admission a person on Israel’s side? Are you not really just asking for the Palestinian’s to conveniently to “let it happen”? What good does moral passive acceptance do? It only make Israel’s job of destruction of the Palestinian people easier. The Zionists do not want the Palestinian’s to exists in “their” territory, which includes all the homeland of the Palestinian people. They, again, by nature can not cohabitate or play nice. This is an existential war of total destruction.
In the end we are all dead. It’s highly questionable to kill the proverbial guard baby in a vague attempt to hurt the guard. But if you are a moral person and do nothing you die anyways. How much better is that than if you became an evil person that died and gave the forces of evil some karmic consequences for their actions that in the end also amounted to nothing?
I am a proponent of 100% open borders
This is an old post that was questionable to reply to but this is laugh and half. No you aren’t. No apologist for Zionism is. It’s logically impossible.
I have no idea what the alternative solution is supposed to be here.
One state solution? Again, like every western nation is expected. An immediate reversal of “settlements” (colonies) would be a start.
Given the constant sloganeering about "Apartheid" and given that Israel was founded to be an ethnostate intended to prioritize the interests of a Jewish population, I was surprised to learn about the conditions of Arab-Israelis.
You seem to heavily hinting without stating here that Israel doesn’t really want to be a racially pure Jewish ethnostate. That it took in Palestinian “Arabs” out of multicultural acceptance and not grudging forced calculation.
Did you know Israel has anti-miscegenation laws? There are probably others on the planet but Israel is literally the only one I know of that exists in the modern day. Other examples would be pre civil rights USA and Nazi Germany. It’s not legally possible for for a Jew to marry a non-Jew such as an “Arab.” If Israel did not want to be a racially pure as possible ethnostate the right of return would be a non-issue and the highly demonstrative contrast of Birthright/Taglit free travel tours and citizenship for vaguely Jewish diaspora would not be a thing.
But to be clear, the apartheid charge is for the occupation and treatment of Palestinians outside of Israel proper. At least to me.
One of the first red pilling experiences I had was a family member visiting the West Bank, for non-polticidal reasons, and learning multiple things (they were the often politically erased Palestinian Christians). First how normal and civilized they were. But second that there were checkpoint guards everywhere even in “Palestinian” territory. Palestinians encounter Jews all the time. Jews that absolutely will give your brother a hard time for being a non-Jewish male, and absolutely deeply racially hate you to the very core for being different from them - the enemy. And against popular news implication, they actually don’t all blow up everyday in spastic violence despite constant encounters and humiliation. It blew my mind that you could be Christian and live couple kilometers from the birth and death places of Jesus and just have to decide it’s not worth it to visit holy sites for Easter or Christmas. The Jewish checkpoint guards that sit between your home in Ramallah and “East” Jerusalem will absolutely give your family a hard time and maybe imprison someone for some imagined offense of just shoot. Who’s going to stop or punish them? I instantly understood where the 14 year old rock throwers came from ,where before I was always confused and thought them such savage retards. The West Bank is the Jim Crow South on steroids, but you’ll never see it presented that way to the dipshit BLM libs that watch CNN.
What’s more, Israel blockades Gaza. This would be an illegal act of war if it was a sovereign nation, which the MSM acts like it is for propaganda convenience currently. But it’s not. Nor is it annexed and given equal human rights like it should be, if it’s not a foreign entity. The ever fake “peace process” (spits) acts as a shield to keep the situation in a convenient limbo. This is the apartheid.
The "colonization" narrative is facile and misleading
It’s objective fact. I always don’t know if people arguing against this are simply historically confused or outright cynically lying. A meandering linked article isn’t going to change anything.
The early Zionists secured land through legal purchases, though the transactions were often made with absentee landlords and came as a surprise to the occupants.
Okay yeah, here we go. +1 point for the not really confused category. There is no such thing as legal valid permanent exclusionary “purchases” of land/people in a society that has no democratic representation. Let’s be clear about something, this was all done with non-voluntary coercive state violence. That’s why it’s a conflict. No one asked the Palestinians until the situation got really, really bad.
Palestine is unique in that it was colonization on behalf of another party. Ethnic replacement colonization is actually pretty rare (e.g. the British left India as India). But normally it would be the colonizers ethnically cleansing the natives. Here the colonized received the action at the barrel of a gun, but for Jews. Probably because the British just didn’t give shit. But that doesn’t change the experience for them.
If the Palestinians had a self-determined state with their own laws and army Zionism NEVER would have happened. That’s pretty clear and absolutely key. No nation concedes to letting foreigners slow invade their land by “purchasing” land with an intent to never again ethnically cohabitate with the native people effectively zero-sum removing it from the former nation. Hell, Americans can’t even purchase own Mexican land at all, let alone create gringo only enclaves with the full intent to create a white only state in Mexico.
If you object to Zionism, specify what kind and why.
I said it before but I’ll say it again. Why did Zionist Jews have a right to violently invade a people against their consent and expel them from their lands. Why are they owed land/flesh at other’s expense? Why is resistance against this a terminal wrong?
SoonToBeBanned
1yr ago
While using civilians as human shields is certainly morally dubious
Can you provide a falsifiable definition of what a "human shield" is? I've never seen one. What is the objective scientific difference between a legitimate tragic human shield and an aggressor killing a civilian without mercy ostensibly to get at a "valid" target, and just invoking the phrase "human shield" to abrogate moral consequences for their actions? How many people or what methods are used when one shifts from the other?
If a bomb is dropped and kills 10 people to get at one that operated much of his guerilla field planning from home is that human shields? 100? 2? If a cop shoots through a hostage to kill a fugitive killer is that a human shields (blameless and free from personal responsibility for their actions)? What if it's a drugee and not a killer?
Palestinians are the ones who are murdering civilians whenever they can
Israeli dead: 1,400
Palestinian: 8,000
And rising for the Palestinians. Scuttlebutt is the only thing keeping the Israelis from murdering much greater amounts is the U.S. and maybe some saner military officials fighting the government in backrooms.
I've said it before appealing to dead bodies is such a weird strategy for Israeli apologists. Anything you can say about the Palestinians you can say about the Israelis. The killed more people ratio has always been in favor of Israel, before current events.
And again I say, Israel did start this. Their demands of: "let us come in, steal your land, and ethnically cleanse you for our ethnostate" have never been reasonable or would lead to anything but conflict. It's just they won. But peaceful good boys who dindu nuffin? Never.
SoonToBeBanned
1yr ago
The former, almost assuredly. Doesn't change any of the truth of what I said.
SoonToBeBanned
1yr ago
The south was arguing for their right of self determination?
The South didn't want self determination. It wanted slavery. This is indicated by the fact that there's no meaningful concept of self-determination for southern states once slavery becomes moot in politics. Without the slavery before or after there is no state "nationalism." That's not the same and it's not sympathetic.
Likewise, the Palestinians claim the right of self determination but their stated intention is to kill the Israelis (from the river to the sea has a meaning).
I don't know what to say to this. It's such a bizarre straight face statement of propagandized narrative as fact. First of all let's be clear about something, Israel invaded the Palestinian's lands. And they're the ones that have a ethnostate based around preserving and expanding their ethno-purity at the expense of the natives. Israel is also the one violently expanding. I don't know if people are just not aware of this or they elide over it for propaganda reasons. It's Israel forcing violence into the situation.
There's no reason to project some certainty that anyone saying free Palestine or whatever wants to kill all Israelis. Least of all on to "progressives." I'm not aware of a single person that believes that. At the most extreme you'll get people suggesting Israelis should leave and go back from where they came from (Europe), or rather their forefathers at this point (this would be very difficult for Mizrahi).
There isn't any real similarity here.
SoonToBeBanned
1yr ago
"If he dies, he dies."
- Ivan Drago
I don't really consume news media these days, on account of it being such propagandist shit. Only occasionally encounter it when something is linked in an online politics discussion. I still get annoyed when I see a paywall and, yes, I do feel entitled to read it for free. To speak to the implied bluff calling here that wouldn't I deal with the ads if I had to? Shouldn't I appreciate the hard work that goes into the service? No. I wouldn't be sad at all if all news and journalists died due to lack ad money. It's already effectively dead to me. The world might have a hard time functioning without literally any journalism, but then I don't think that's a real threat right now, nor is it a me problem. There's very few ad supported "services" that I truly could not live without if push came to shove.
People need to get paid,
Do they though? Again to keep with the news example, I would say a fairly worthless bullshit job is massively oversaturated. Do we really need BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, etc., etc. all reporting on the same news bite thing happening? Yet they all want an individual slice. Maybe there should be a culling and some people don't deserve to be paid. And right now things are holding on due to cattle like normies and people willing to put up with the bullshit because of adblock. I might be willing to throw down some money to fund actual quality (which doesn't exist in journalism) if there were only a handful of real journalists informing the world and my contribution was genuinely needed, but that's not the real status quo.
server fees need to be paid
Youtube, or rather the concept of video sharing/hosting, is one of the few ad supported things I genuinely want around for sure. But on this though I don't think it's as true as you say. Somehow they operated for years off normies without problem. MEGA and other services run without this ad aggression.
I also take issue with the sudden unexamined and selective Marxism that always shows its face in these arguments. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Money isn't JUST going to pay to server hosting. It's going to Yachts, to DEI officers living in SF, to office yoga sessions. People always make this appeal about resources needing to go to core real labor or machine costs, but it's never the reality of funding. And if that were the true concern there would be more efficient ways to do it without all the dead weight.
Bandwidth is a semi-solved problem. Pirating operates with 0 ad revenue decentralized sharing, or standard ads with shifty websites. I pay for all the basic necessities to make it work (and more) with the my bills already.
SoonToBeBanned
1yr ago
Come on. It's pretty clear that black people are perceived as the anti-white canceler by the culture war generals involved here. Take for example the frequency of blacks in UK advertisement despite being only 4% of the UK population (though 2.9% mixed/multiple ethnicity).
And why shouldn't they? Black admixture is the most dramatic to "white" populations. Black people fit the profile of sentimentality for globalist multiculturalism/immigration the most. When future mass migration happens, if it does, it will predominantly come from Africa which is one of the only places in the world still rapidly growing in population.
No. It's not. I'm a Marxist. If it were real I would have heard of it. The first time I heard of it was from ultra-right wing extremely online types. And they continue to be the only ones that talk about it. This leads to at least one of two conclusions
In the years I have argued Marx and Socialist stuff I have pretty much never encountered an anti-Marxist that really knew much of anything about Marxism. It really is kind of astounding how ignorant anti-Marxists are about the ideology they profess to hate, actually. Up to the most respected professors, it's immense amounts of confused BSing. And we're not talking about something small that's easily missed here.
You mean academic singular. I watched this happen in real time. The extreme right-wing types that desperately wanted to put the cultural marxism myth on to wikipedia were having a hard time with power users and their citation gatekeeping. Eventually someone just went to google scholar and found a book with the title Cultural Marxism from the 80s or 90s from some literal who. Not a single conservative I've seen citing this "proof" has read said book, that I know of. Nor has any serious Marxist. Nor have I. There might be others, I don't know, since culture and marxism are two very popular buzzwords for overproduced academic hacks, but no serious Marxist has ever talked about such things. This might not be obvious to you, but trust me, It's really obvious to me because I am actually somewhat familiar with this ground.
The other works the conspiracists like to cite never call themselves "cultural marxist" e.g. the Frankfurt School. Who are not literal whos. No fan or detractor of them has called them such in Marxist circles. Again, it's all right wingers from without confusedly opining. Fans call their influence "critical theory" and it's no great secret or grand conspiracy.
Again we are talking about a supposed movement that's brought much of the developed world to its knees. Despite the fact economic leftism as a movement is laughably dead and pathetic now. Not some micro book from around the collapse of the USSR.
If wokeness had much to do with serious Marxism maybe I would be Woke. I'm not. I'm opposed to it.
More options
Context Copy link