Reminds me of this quote:

We should also wonder how our appreciation of the sophistication and totality of the propaganda apparatus and its ongoing repression squares with the peculiar kind of “critical” media that does make it to wide circulation, usually to universal praise from both the mainstream and the counter-cultural “left.” […] Disaster movies insist that the end of the world is inevitable, that we are all complicit in ecological devastation for not doing our part recycling cans — this is environmental critique. Triumphant, handsome, charismatic, “alpha” men climb to the top of their respective empires of crime in highest-budget four-season shows and are awarded the highest accolades in their profession — this passes for an indictment of capitalism. Eileen Jones insightfully observes, about David Fincher’s Gone Girl:

Even as I watched it and shuddered with revulsion, I had to admit it — Fincher’s got our number. He’s figured out how to regularly wow contemporary audiences, to present us with the appalling truth of how despicable we are in a way that never really strikes home, by alternating coldly disapproving, feel-bad effects with conspiratorial smirking ones that remove any real sting. He so often uses the trappings of film noir to showcase our “badness,” but since we’re all perverts together, it’s just the “badness” of S&M sex-play, so who cares?

if voting for my own interests comes with the cost of implicitly accepting that tens of thousands of children will be killed in bombing raids abroad, then I refuse

AFAIK the total destruction by conventional bombs in the Gaza Strip is equivalent to at least a couple atomic bombs; most buildings especially in the north have been destroyed and conditions for civilians are unbearable.

I think the reason why Israel hasn’t nuked Gaza is that a) it’s a major taboo which would massively isolate them even beyond their current growing isolation, and b) doesn’t actually solve any problems for them. Hamas exists in tunnels underground and nukes won’t kill them, and Israel is already killing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (and perhaps a million or more will be dead by the time Israel collapses) by blocking off aid and starving the population to death. And as you say, the radioactive particles would probably hit Zionist-occupied Israel too. Might also provoke Hezbollah and others, depending on what exactly they have planned in the event that most of Gaza’s population dies.

Similar reasons why Russia probably won’t nuke Ukraine. Not to say that Russia = Israel, if anything it’s the other way around when talking about the Donbass, but: what problem does nuking Ukraine solve which is unattainable with conventional explosives? And is that problem being solved worth the potential international isolation?

it’s more fun to have your own, very specialized definition and conception of communism and socialism and repeat them for a few decades than to read boring books for a few weeks and have your misconceptions cleared up.

“my ignorance is as good as your knowledge”, but not in a bad stupid American way, but in a good virteous down-to-earth proletarian who doesn’t need the work of fancy shmancy professors way

any guesses what the overlap is between people who complain that only men are forced to serve in the military and not women, and the people who complain that the military is getting too woke and effeminate to fight America’s enemies?

To the point that there is a lot of footage of the people of Iran cheering in the streets.

we’re really doing this propaganda again? can we please get more interesting stuff than the “my people yearn for freedom from this tyrant”?

The vestiges of the imperialist system will probably continue for decades to come but it seems plausible that with mounting crises and contradictions, we’re looking at a meaningful collapse of hegemony within the next 15-20 years. I think it can be very easy to understate what’s been going on for the last couple years if you’re a liberal “It’s just a war in Ukraine, a trade war against China, and a fragmenting Israel versus half a dozen heavily armed militant groups - nothing that threatens the United States!” but one can also overstate what’s going on without an understanding of how deeply rooted most countries are in terms of debt and monetary flows to and from the United States, and just how many military bases there are, etc. These aren’t intractable problems but the easiest problems are being solved first (dedollarizing between two countries that are already being sanctioned) and the harder problems, like actually creating the alternative institutions that most of the world’s countries would be happy with ceding a portion of their sovereignty to, are indeed very hard.

It’s very encouraging that US military might already seems so undermined and ineffectual, though, as being militarily challenged is a really big first step towards the end of empires. The usual people will keep spending billions on American weapons, obviously, but the mere concept that there are indeed problems that America cannot simply bomb or overthrow out of existence (e.g. Ansarallah blocking the Red Sea) is a massive shift from the high-point of the 1990s, especially as America has no other tools in its toolbox except for sanctions, which are becoming less effective by the day. And the fact that America has to send Israel billions in weaponry every few months is encouraging in the sense that such massive volumes are clearly required for Israel to merely stay afloat, as they don’t seem to be, say, going to war against Hezbollah with them or anything. The monetary values are meaningless, the US would have no qualms with printing a quadrillion dollars for Israel if that was what was needed, it’s the resources being taken out that are the real prize here. You can’t bomb people with dollar bills, nor could Israels eat them under siege.

in totalitarian communist North Korea, the regime disseminates propaganda assuring their brainwashed citizens that being hungry is actually beneficial due to their failed communist agrarian policies

those four oblasts are looking awfully annexed for a “failed annexation”

It does honestly feel like people - on both sides of the war, I will freely admit - put way too much focus on individual events and are unable to see the bigger picture of logistics and equipment produced and so on.

So you end up with, just as a recent example, the Ukrainians going on and on about that Bradley vs tank incident and how “owned” Russia was or whatever (that is managed to keep going for like 5 minutes in constant Bradley fire? sounds like a pretty awesome example of how great Russian tanks are tbh), or that Russian plane full of Ukrainian POWs being shot down by a Patriot, or now this boat being sunk. But none of this actually matters. What’s really going on here is that the pro-Ukraine crowd is seeing these events and drawing absolutely massive conclusions from it. “Aha, see, we can now destroy all Russian tanks with just our infantry carriers! Aha, see, we can now shoot down every Russian plane with our air defense! Aha, see, we can now sink every boat in the Russian fleet!” Russia has thousands of tanks, its planes are routinely not shot down by Ukrainian air defense because of how depleted it is and the Russian countermeasures (flying low, etc), and honestly, sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet would be an L but it would be very far from war-ending, given that Ukraine has no navy for it to fight anyway and Russia obviously has inland missile launchers. But the pro-Russian side like Rybar tends to take these narratives and feels the need to address them because they’re just as caught up in these narratives as everybody else, when they could just ignore them and watch as they’re forgotten in a week.

Wars are determined by systemic issues and, most importantly, the capacity for the warring nations to overcome those issues. Neither side is permanently locked into its state of affairs (in most cases; e.g. WW2 Germany had problems the whole war with getting enough fuel due to simple geography). Not being able to see how a military could make up for its deficiencies is what lead to the Kharkov surprise for the pro-Russian side who didn’t understand that Russia went into the war with too few troops to man parts of the front and that Ukraine had been creating brigades in the rear while their frontline army was getting mauled over the spring and summer, and then the surprise of the failure of the counteroffensive for Ukraine, who didn’t understand that Russia had found a way to counter the Ukrainian offensive strategy and thought that the same trick was guaranteed to work twice.

In short, if you’re going to make an assumption that a military is unable to counter a new problem, you need a LOT of evidence for it - not just vibes about how you think the conflict is going to go. Never assume that a military is stagnant unless you have extremely good reasons to believe so. I personally don’t believe that the Ukrainian military is stagnant and totally doomed and they can still probably keep defending for at least the better part of a year and finding new strategies to counter Russia, but the ongoing lack of Western military reindustrialization is my ‘extremely good reason’ to believe that Ukraine will be unable to win unless there is a very sudden change in the economic strategy of the West away from neoliberalism and just-in-time manufacturing.

You can see all these points made in the opposite direction when they talk about US GDP increasing. Many liberal economists have been utterly bamboozled by the concept of “the economy” doing better while public sentiment is very unhappy, but it makes total sense if, completely unlike China, “the economy” improving is actually only synonymous with “capitalists getting richer”. It’s also why we need better measures than GDP if we’re going to do actual economic analysis. These neoclassical economist dipshits would have you believe that doubling your food prices is actually good and a sign of a successful economy because it means that the GDP number goes up.

At this point, I think of the US GDP going up (in lieu of deeper statistics) as a sign that the economy - as in, the actual one that 90% of the population live in - is getting worse, not better.

It’s quite racist (and antisemetic) to think that just because things look similar that they were intended to be the same thing. They’re not.

“Oh, you think that this fantasy race that has many of the anti-semitic tropes of Jewish people might in fact be a reference to Jewish people? Well, you’re the one who associates those features with Jewish people, not me. Just saying.”

This is where the moronic “maybe the curtains are just blue” reddit-tier analysis of literature gets you - completely unable to see any kind of allegory or metaphor, especially when bigots say that, no, that person in that book totally isn’t a racist caricature, it’s just a person with those traits!

If I wrote a book about a fantasy world where I used lots of sexist stereotypes about women - that they’re less intelligent; that they’re inherently subservient to men; that they “belong in the kitchen”; that they should be “barefoot and pregnant”; etc, and without ever even making a critical judgement of those traits or showed that the men in that society are bad for maintaining this status quo, then I would rightfully be called a raging sexist by people. They would probably believe I was one of those tradcath, alt-right MGTOW incel people. If I turned around and said “Uh, it says a lot about liberals that they think these traits are stereotypically true of women! Maybe they’re the real sexists, not conservatives?” then you would, hopefully (though I’m not so sure given your lack of sensitivity towards Jewish people) call me a total fucking dipshit.

Yeah. The problem with predicting timeframes is that all these gradual, quantitative changes result in qualitative changes (that is, sudden fractures) which make it difficult to give estimates. The gradual march of NATO’s army eastward in their military offensive against Russia over the last three decades, conquering Eastern Europe as they went, led to the sudden faultline of Ukraine activating. That there might have been an event like this at some point, in some place, between Russia and NATO was perhaps predictable - but the time and place and result was not as predictable. Similarly, in Palestine, that there might have been some existential battle between the Zionists and the Palestinians might have been predicted, but the time and place was not so (regardless of how much Israel copes that they actually saw the attack coming), especially because Hamas didn’t even tell their closest allies they were going to attack in order to preserve the surprise element as much as possible.

In geology, there’s two dueling concepts of uniformitarianism and catastrophism. The first assumes that the natural world around us is formed by gradual, small-scale processes, like the erosion of a beach and the slow construction of a mountain range. The second assumes that instead, short, large and violent events are more important - a meteorite crashing into the Earth, or a supervolcano erupting, or a massive flood. While uniformitarianism pretty handily won the debate overall, it would be folly to say that occasional violent events haven’t been extremely important. The meteorite that ended the dinosaurs fundamentally changed the Earth’s biosphere, and was essentially totally disconnected from the Earth system. Even inside the Earth system, when Lake Agassiz in North America released its massive quantities of water into the ocean about 10,000 years ago, global sea levels rose relatively quickly by up to 10 feet and disrupted oceanic currents and possibly resulted in temporary cooling, with all the knock-on impacts that had on the Earth and humanity.

World events work similarly to geology, though obviously on a much smaller timeframe. The world, its nations and corporations chug on, day to day. Sudden events from both outside and within the system - sometimes predicted in advance - can have massive and fairly unpredictable impacts and lead to major changes. The United States may not have been able to take its position as the quasi-hegemon if not for the World Wars, and while a great European conflict was predictable beforehand, all the effects it would go on to have - the fall of the Russian Empire and the rise of the USSR; massive changes in the Middle East; the eventual end of colonialism; etc - were much, much less predictable. If you were in 1910 and decided to merely plot the gradual effects that you expected capitalism to have on the world and said “Well, according to my model, capitalism will end in 2142 due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and an inability for imperialists to continue governing the world. It seems that the British Empire’s apex will continue for another few decades and perhaps steadily decline all the way to the 2100s, based on comparisons with the Roman Empire…” then you would be mighty shocked when just 10 years later, Europe was on the brink of a communist revolution.

So, for that reason, I find time estimates rather unhelpful. Like many others, I have talked about how the US probably has a few decades left as an empire - and that might very well be true - but this is assuming a gradual decline without sudden events. If you’d have told me just in 2020 that the US of three years from then would be unable to protect shipping routes through the Red Sea from Yemen despite having two/three aircraft carriers and various other naval assets throughout the region, I would have said that you’re bonkers. If you’d have told me that Russia was almost singlehandedly taking on the combined might of NATO in a proxy war and not only winning, but winning very convincingly, I would have said “There’s no way that they’re actually fighting without nukes dropping, and how could Russia resist NATO anyway, given all their problems?” If you’d have told me pre-October 7th that Israel would very soon be in the worst crisis in its history due to mostly the efforts of Gaza, I would have been like “Well, that’s a nice thought, but we can’t really expect the population of a concentration camp to be able to resist their prison guards to that extent.” God knows what sudden events will happen this year.

Oh, okay, so you think that Israel is bombing Gazans. However, if they wanted to do this, first the bomb would have to fall half the distance to the ground. However, if we treat that as the new starting point, then the bomb then has to fall half the distance to the ground again. Repeat this until infinity and it’s pretty obvious that it would take infinite steps for the bomb to hit the ground, and thus it is impossible for Israel to be bombing Gazans.

it’s literally just protectionist policies by the US that have to be justified by something else for whatever reason

Very true, so long as it begins with the most carbon-emitting people (e.g. western billionaires who own large pollution-emitting corporations) and works its way down

The correctness of an idea is totally independent of how many people believe it, and to believe otherwise is to be some dipshit who says “Idiocracy is a documentary!!!” and invoke Hanlon’s Razor instead of having actual good, materialist analysis of the world

Why doesn’t China annex Mongolia, Korea, and large parts of Southeast Asia? They also have historical claims to those regions, and they can use their resources to further their aims.

I don’t think any country “should” annex any country unless a) it’s necessary to stop atrocities and/or prevent future ones (e.g. the Soviets annexing/taking control/whatever you want to call it Eastern Europe up to Berlin), or b) the people there actually want to be part of the country that is doing the annexing (e.g. Crimea, Donbass). But I can’t personally assign anything other than a moral claim on the word “should”, in the same way that you “should” help a stranger if you have the ability to do so (with various qualifications about your own safety etc). It’s all just authority and violence and military power at the end of the day.

Cuba “should” be able to get Guantánamo Bay back by force - but they obviously cannot, or the US would destroy them. If a large majority of people in the Essequibo want to join Venezuela - keeping in mind that relatively few people actually live there compared to eastern Guyana - then sure, I guess, Venezuela “should” be able to annex it. But unless Maduro is confident about his abilities to withstand US pressure and potential military bombardments, I don’t think it’s a war we have to worry about actually happening.

“Should” countries be able to attack Western-aligned countries? I don’t know, maybe. If China started raining down missiles on Japan tomorrow, or the DPRK attacked South Korea tomorrow, or Cuba attacked Guantánamo Bay tomorrow, or, indeed, if Venezuela attacked Guyana tomorrow, would my reaction be “Oh no! Those poor places being invaded! This is strongly against international law, and we must condemn this attempts at annexation!” It probably wouldn’t, I would support China/DPRK/Cuba/Venezuela, because I don’t give a shit about international law if it benefits imperialists. People who jerk off about how important international law is (like most Western politicians) have the exact same perspective as me but in reverse - they don’t give a shit about it if it benefits countries/areas being exploited (comparing their reactions to Ukraine being invaded and the Gaza Genocide is a good case in point for this). I just don’t pretend to support international law, while those people do pretend to.

One useful thing this conflict has done is reveal who would have absolutely, 100% been fine with Hitler’s policies when living in Nazi Germany. Not even the ongoing extermination of the Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank - millions of people - is sufficient to snap you out of your election fetishism? Biden is continuing most of Trump’s policies. He’s building Trump’s wall. The suite of laws opposing the LGBTQIA+ community is happening under his presidency. Deportations and child imprisonment at record pace. Abortion rights were lost under his watch. The only reaction you are capable of having to this is “Well, imagine how much worse it would be if Trump was the one doing it!” because this is all a giant game to you. You don’t have to focus on basic survival, on keeping yourself alive and fed for the next month, and thus considering possibilities outside of the finely-curated electoral circus that your eyes were so expertly programmed to consume. If you were actually affected by any of these policies, you wouldn’t be arguing between President Who Will Take My Rights Away #1 and #2, you would be trying to form organizations and survival networks to survive the storm. Any mental or physical effort spent on these elections is wasted energy.

You are the most pliant, brainwashed people in human history. You are completely content to watch every minority around you get fed into the grinder because it’s “lesser evillism”. First they came for the trans people. Then they came for the immigrants. Then they came for the black people. Then they came for me, and as I got on the train on the way to the gigantic human flesh grinding machine, I thought “Well, at least Mango Mussolini isn’t putting me on this train! Boy, if the Republicans were doing this, it would REALLY be fascism!”

Genuine question - how many people would Biden have to kill for you to not support him anymore? A million? Ten million? A hundred million? A billion?

they demanded anarchists become MLs if they wanted bullets.

Stalin literally gave them hundreds of tanks