just start a business

it’s easy, get a check for $245,000 from mom and dad like Joff Barzos, and then get additional rounds of funding from your investment banker friends

Q: “I have hundreds of historical events you’ve never heard of before. what have you got?”

A: “repeating platitudes I’ve heard talking heads say on TV.”

“what if we used some of the proceeds of the bloodsoaked orphan-crushing machine to make our lives better?”

c’mon Bernie if you form a new party we’ll let you bomb Yugoslavia one more time just for funsies

their motivation for protesting is so they can post pics of themselves on social media

for all her faults Hillary Clinton had this shit figured out in 2021: “You will never compete and win against them, unless you take back the means of production.”

What might derail it?

subtext: WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO STOP THIS SHIT THEY’RE BEATING OUR PANTS OFF

the list of Washington’s crimes is lengthy. the indigenous called him The Town Destroyer

allowed itself

causality/agency feels a little complicated because the US has been pushing Banderite ideology in Ukraine since 1953 via CIA’s Operation Aerodynamic, and executed a coup against the country in 2014. Victoria Nuland specified who she wanted in each government position on a leaked phone call. iirc during Maidan they had coup snipers shooting people dead at protests for chaos value and provocation

the Philippines is definitely paying attention

It is so frustrating to argue with libs who make arguments so old that literally Marx himself responded to them. I get the impression that Marxists already won the debate back in the 19th century and the liberal tactic has just been to pretend the debate has never happened, to continue repeating centuries-old arguments over and over again as if they’ve never been responded to, and to discourage anyone from looking into Marxism or reading Marx, Lenin, Mao, etc.

In 1991, in the context of the destruction of the Soviet Union (Cuba’s largest trading partner), with neighbors salivating at the prospect of capitalist restoration, a Mexican journalist asked Fidel Castro, “why do you not allow the organization of people who think differently, or open up space for political freedom?” He answers frankly:

We’ve endured over thirty years of hostility, over thirty years of war in all its forms — among them the brutal economic blockade that stops us from purchasing a single aspirin in the United States. It’s incredible that when there’s talk of human rights, not a single word is said about the brutal violation this constitutes for the human rights of an entire people, the economic blockade of the United States to impede Cuba’s development. The revolution polarized forces: those who were for it and those who, along with the United States, were against it. And really, I say this with the utmost sincerity, and I believe it’s consistent with the facts on the ground, but while such realities persist, we cannot give the enemy any quarter for them to carry out their historical task of destroying the revolution.

(This implies, for example, that political dissidence will not have a space in Cuba?)

If it’s a pro-Yankee dissidence, it will have no space. But there are many people who think differently in Cuba and are respected. Now, the creation of all the conditions for a party of imperialism? That does not exist, and we will never allow it. [8]

As far as I can tell, on this score, there’s only two main differences between Fidel Castro and Western leadership. The first is that he stands for anti-imperialism and socialism, and they for imperialism and capitalism. And the other is that he’s honest about what Cuba does and why, whereas capitalist states brutally crush communist organization with mass-murder and imprisonment — COINTELPRO, Operation Cóndor, Operation Gladio, etc. — then simply lie about embracing plurality. Just think here about the notion of white North Americans celebrating “Thanksgiving.”

And I tend to think that this is, in the final analysis, the crux of the matter. The question of “free press” and “free speech” is not separable from the question of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie versus the dictatorship of the proletariat. The idea of “political plurality” as such turns out to be the negation of the possibility of achieving any kind of truth in the realm of politics, it reduces all historical and value claims to the rank of mere opinion. And of course, so long as someone’s political convictions are mere opinion, they won’t rise to defend them. And so the liberal state remains the dictatorial organ of the bourgeoisie, with roads being built or legislation being passed only as commanded by the interests of capital, completely disregarding the interests of workers. Under regimes where political plurality is falsely upheld as a supreme virtue, the very notion of asserting oneself as possessing a truth appears aggressive and “authoritarian.”

from https://redsails.org/brainwashing/