[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)


IRC Chat





| Catalog | Home

File: 1678650145933.jpg (144 KB, 1148x1630, boringdystopia-11p4vhm.jpg)

 No.467069[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Realistically how do you reconcile lack of gun control in the school shooter era?
These kind of incidents can't go one forever without some kind of push back. Can gun rights preserved without having to live with school shootings?
328 posts and 30 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


fuck off with your muh children shit, Caren

funny how just as Uncle Same prepares for war, you want to take our guns away


File: 1680171704029.mp4 (855.24 KB, 640x360, sYfKX_auhOZboDgC.mp4)



>Noooooo it's not true, everything is a psyop.


Firearms have been widely owned in the US for centuries.
Semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines have been owned in the US for over a century.
Semi-automatic shotguns have been owned in the US for over a century.
Semi-automatic pistols have been owned in the US for over a century.
For most of the US's history it was easier to get a gun than it is today. There were less identity checks and less scrutiny.
School shootings in the form of spree killings, got their start in the 90s and escalated in the 2000s.

Clearly firearms ownership and spree killings are not connected inherently. And if anything there is a large lack of association.
Firearms are just a means by which disaffected psychos express their insanity. The drive that turns normal crackpots and sociopaths into resentful spree killers is the issue that needs to be tracked down. Why now? Why today? What has changed to make this happen? Why wasn't this happening before? What were we doing right before that we aren't today?
Those are the questions to answer, not "how do we take away guns?". Otherwise the same madness will still be in place, and will express itself through anti-social violence in other ways.


Manifest destiny would have still happened.
Canadians and Australians used their standard police forces and militias to wipe out or crush the Natives first before sending in settlers. The US just preferred to leave that to the settlers unless necessary.

File: 1680224036967.png (167.96 KB, 400x292, CourageBackground.png)


This might not be worthy of its own thread, but once you've built a solid support base within one workplace/neighborhood/whatever, how do you build connections with other activists while simultaneously avoiding feds as best as possible(I am pessimistic on how possible that is, but that is a gut feeling rather than something that I have strong logic on, and will accept criticism)? If anyone has insight, it'd do a great service.


I don't think you're going to be able to avoid feds, and spending too much effort to try to weed them out is effort you're not expending toward the actual things you want to accomplish. Far better to assemble structures and rules from the outset that are resistant to sabotage. For example, don't ever give leaders too much power so that their position becomes a target for opportunists. Conversely, don't use anti-democratic decision-making processes such as "consensus" that allow the weakest link to sabotage decisions. At all costs, you want to avoid the kind of performative arrangements that allow narcissist identarians to make meetings about themselves instead the actual fucking task at hand. Feds or not, they are the ultimate wreckers. Never give these people an inch or they'll take a mile.


Rather than asking yourself what a cop/fed would look like so you can avoid them, ask yourself "What is a cop/fed likely to do in this situation, and how can we obviate it?"

File: 1676735784813-0.jpg (72.9 KB, 774x800, trolloon.jpg)

File: 1676735784813-1.png (76.74 KB, 1294x1362, imperialism wages war agai….png)


So the entire UFO happening was the US military spending big bux to shoot down hobby-balloons.
I feel bad for the people who have that hobby, they probably thought that balloons were so harmless that nobody would ever bother to disturb their happy fun time.

Why did this thing turn into such a big deal ?
10 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1678141892196.jpg (112.15 KB, 1009x862, spycranes.jpg)

<National-security and Pentagon officials are warning about the potential use of giant Chinese-made and operated cranes as intelligence collection tools


Is this a genuine thing, or are they manufacturing more balloon-type hysteria ?
Are all chinese things going to become Amogus ?



When America's "right" is in power it's all "we are the strongest, haha, look at our might."
When America's "left" is in power it's all "well, we can't let the "right" call us weak, better be exactly as retarded and let them get whatever they want and blame the voters"
It's very disconcerting, or it ought to be!



Idk… I mean all this shit has had computers in it forever. The US seems to want every piece of its own tech to have a double-purpose for surveillance, it's probably something which could be done. It's dumb, but… the whole thing is fucking dumb. The US is paranoid, but also kinda should be… but the American public should be more paranoid about the American state itself.


If the US wants to have surveillance for those cranes, can't they just stick their own surveillance equipment on those cranes ?

>The US is paranoid, but also kinda should be…

In that case I don't get it. From a technical point of view the most secure crane, is the one that uses technical minimalism. If you only implement the technology needed to operate the crane, the attack surface for subverting it's function is the smallest. If you add more features like surveillance, that massively increases the attack surface.

As far as container security goes, i would try to figure out ways to scan their contents for malicious stuff. The scan method has to be fast and economical, so x-ray-ing a bazillion containers is out. However you can scan for particulate emissions to find hazardous materials like toxic chemicals or explosives. You only need an air-pump and a molecular-particle detector to extract a container-gas-sample, which only adds a few seconds to container processing because it only requires sticking in a small suction-tube in one of the many container-drain-holes. That method is neigh impossible to beat because it will detect particles even through many layers of plastic wrap. Inherent Molecular vibration means all containers leak a little. A few molecules will always manage to wiggle through the walls of any container, and even low cost mol-dedectors are ridiculously sensitive.

>the American public should be more paranoid about the American state itself.

Even if you trust your own government, you have to be aware that all technical backdoors are very promiscuous.
In a potential cyber-war between the US and China, the Chinese will have access to all those backdoors as well. Backdoors have become near-infinite-value targets, and any rational actor with the means to pay the price for getting in, will do so. This isn't just my opinion, this is what most technical security researches think.


Apparently the Chinese refused to set up a meeting to talk about the balloon with US delegates.


time stamp 01:08:40

File: 1678548620202.jpg (97.86 KB, 1200x900, Space chariot.jpg)


Noam Chomsky has a principle that he will only criticize his government (the US government in his case). His reason is guarding against co-optation, he doesn't want the chorus of reactionary intellectuals that manufacture consent for the powers that be, to be able to use anything that he writes or says for their sinister purposes. I think the Chomsky principle is largely correct but it's too strict, i think that you can criticize other governments as long as they aren't on the official LE-BIG-BAD list. So based on that you can criticize countries like Saudi Arabia or Israel, but for example Russia, China, and the DPRK can't be criticized, because they are the ""axis of evil"" in the mainstream narrative. I'm following this weaker Chomsky principle because i don't want to say anything that might be appropriated for an argument that supports a new cold-war or worse. Keep that in mind when you read this.

Main topic
I'm trying to get a materialist view of liberties. Usually people consider liberties to be timeless conditionaless absolutes. In some places of the world owning a gun is considered a liberty. In order to have that liberty you do need a government that doesn't try to disarm it's population, but far more importantly you need to have invented sophisticated metallurgy and gunpowder. So in conclusion liberties are conditional to development, in this case technical development. Tho not all conditions for liberties must be of a technical nature.

Many people are criticizing China for lacking certain personal liberties, and a big chunk of that is made up horror stories that never happened, but not all of it is wrong. For example China lacks technology privacy.

A considerable section of the Chinese population is not plugged into the techno-social information infrastructure. Since China has only beaten absolute poverty but not yet uneven development. That means if china were to move ahead and improve the tech-rights for Chinese citizens at this point in time they would benefit only the wealthier sections of society that can afford all the information services. That section of society could potentially seek to pull up the ladder behind them selves and prevent the rest of society from gaining access to beneficial information services.

So I will speculate that once China has leveled the uneven development, it will become politically viable for China to advance tech-rights. Politically viable in this context mePost too long. Click here to view the full text.
37 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


China-expert should be hyphenated. The rest is you pretending to be dumber than you are



I have no idea why, of all things, multiple people ITT have chosen to focus on me referring to China as "CCP."
It's not a talking point. Whether it's called CCP or CPC has literally zero bearing on my opinion of them, it's still the same country.

>brand China as an enemy

But I don't see China as an enemy?
I see its system of government as something I wouldn't personally like. People both in and outside of China seem to think it's especially censorious, but that doesn't make China an enemy - a lot of Chinese people like the way China is run, that's none of my business, I just would not like living in a country which operated this way. They have privatized industry and, even by their own admission, pretty strict regulations of expression & social life. This is what I describe as authoritarian capitalism.

>I don't want to get to deep into political theory but whether or not authority is good or bad depends on whose interests it serves.

Yeah, no, I don't actually agree with this.
I don't see protection of individual rights as authoritarian, I don't see recognition of rights to organize as authoritarian, I don't see abolition of slavery as authoritarian. I do see rigid restrictions on speech and restrictions imposed upon workers as authoritarian. This doesn't mean that a government which does these things can't also do good things - for example, China has, as far as I'm aware, a pretty robust public healthcare & housing system. This is good! This is also something Nordic socdem countries with fewer restrictions on speech have afaik, but it's good that China also does it!

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>me referring to China as "CCP."
Well there is a point in not using that propaganda terminology. If only to communicate that you aren't towing the ideological line that seeks to demonize China in order to make war. Also language is an ideological battlefield why would you seed any ground to the warmongers ?

>But I don't see China as an enemy?

You are still repeating the same criticisms about China that are being used to manufacture consent for painting China as an enemy. The neocon warmongers create a black and white political reality where you are either with them or against them. They will treat you as an enemy unless you tow the warmonger line exactly. Otherwise they will treat you as an enemy regardless how nuanced your stance is.

When somebody resorts to this us/them-binary, the only rational choice that you have is to maximize the hostility of your stance against them. Unless you can find a way to criticize China while still maximizing your opposition to the neocons, you will maneuver your self into a weak position, where you partially agree with people that will do nothing but relentlessly attack you.

>I see its system of government as something I wouldn't personally like.

There's the problem, you are looking at this separated from the material world, as if you were analyzing a platonic ideal.
>People both in and outside of China seem to think it's especially censorious
Censorious in relation to what ? China has a lot less censorship than it did 30 years ago.

Before the communist revolution, China was a defeated empire under foreign colonial occupation, there was no freedom of speech and since most people were illiterate and could not access information systems, there wasn't even the potential for it. When the communists took over they fixed illiteracy and they build accessible information systems. While they very severely censored those systems, they did create the potential for freedom of speech to exist. The Chinese internet is very heavily censored, but Chinese people can say more than they used to. It's a slowly improving trajectory. You may lament that they are on a low level of civil liberties, but as long as it's getting better, it's not worth much worry.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>Well there is a point in not using that propaganda terminology. If only to communicate that you aren't towing the ideological line that seeks to demonize China in order to make war. Also language is an ideological battlefield why would you seed any ground to the warmongers ?
So basically virtue signaling?


What ?
no, it's not a virtue, there's nothing virtuous about this, it's an ideological position.

File: 1679615705471.png (96.03 KB, 300x388, goldcoiins.png)


During marx's time money based on precious metals like gold or silver were the universal commodity, against which all other commodities were measured.

After money was detached from metal, the only real universal commodity money was the dollar because that was the only one against which all other commodities were measured. And you could say many of the big currencies that were easily converted into dollars had some of that universality rub off on them. By the way i count precious metal derived money as fiat money as well.

After the US began expanding sanctions at some point they crossed the line where the dollar can't be considered as the universal commodity against which all other commodities are measured anymore.

Precious metals are still universal in the sense that every economy will exchange for it, but you can't really use it to buy stuff. Shops don't have scales for measuring the weight of metal anymore, and won't accept pieces of metal as payments. That means that it's not really money.

There are a select few crypto moneys that appear to have the ambition to become a universal commodity, but they are very far away from realizing that.

So where does that leave universal commodity money ?
Does that still exist ?
48 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Anyone who doesn't agree with me is more evidence to supports my worldview


You reek of Tavistock.


How do you know what it smells like though?


It's so odious that the smell is transmitted by words alone. You know it when you develop a sense for it.


Sounds like you spend a decent amount of time around troons. No doubt all part of the eugenics plot

File: 1680139320386.png (199.18 KB, 512x512, 1673203564626.png)


Visited leftypol accidentally thinking it was this site, whole place just looks like a Twitteroid hivemind but more "sophisticated". Why is leftypol such a shithole but this place seemingly rational?


File: 1680140583001.png (900.84 KB, 1190x800, 94.png)

>lazy moderators
>semi-shit posts are realized to be semi-shit posts
>circle jerks get the acid treatment
thats all really


File: 1680165493409.jpg (293.17 KB, 900x900, a1410459764_10.jpg)

troon-joon modocracy tyranny

no gods no masters

File: 1641545780518.jpg (498.25 KB, 1280x720, 985499.large.jpg)


I'm really enjoying all of the videogame journalists pissing and shidding themselves over the gold rush game publishers are in over NFTs.

Practically every major publisher is promising to integrate NFTs into games and some like Sega, are already selling them now.

One legitimate criticism of NFTs are their environmental impact. But every media talking head that brings this up never spoke out against the Iraq War that irradiated entire cities with depleted uranium munitions, or the Pentagon, who is the number single emitter of greenhouse gases.

So I'm with the crypto bros on this one say this is sour grapes on people that missed out on the ground floor of this get-rich-quick scheme.

I also see this as anger from the burger settler class who are now really getting priced out of the middle class lifestyle in earnest to the point where their steady diet of new videogames may soon be out of their reach. As someone who grew up poor and was always priced out of these type of consumerist leisure goods I relish their anguish.

Another example of this is when Settlers (read white people) shidded themselves over Disney's new $2000 a night Stars Wars themed hotel. As they rightfully saw this as a new trend in Disneyland Theme Parks where they will soon only cater to the 1%. I never got to go to Disneyland when I was young and was told by these same Settlers that I shouldn't be upset because I can live without it. Ironically, it's them who will now live without it while I can actually still afford to go.

And game journalists are particularly hypocritical because we've seen none scarce digital goods sold for 20+ years now, first with iTunes, and then with Amazon with books, and later Steam with games. No one every questioned the environmental impact of these systems.

Overall I think NFTs will be a net good for the proletariat, it will provide a second hand market of digital goods that proles have already spent billions on, and put a lot of equity in their pocket.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
75 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1645644647347.jpg (103.92 KB, 534x606, REBubble-szpcqk.jpg)



>That is true, but in order to get the full freedom like the ability to host a website on your home computer,
It was far more difficult to locally host your own website then than now.
You could get Windows Server 2003 with IIS but that license cost $$$ or you setup an Apache server on linux which was hard as balls as there wasn't good documentation or YouTube back then.


Uh yes the fuck you can. It's tedious as hell but you can do it. Putty is on the fucking app store.


This bby far is TНE most enjoyable sports betting game
avаilable!There aгеn't many ads. Тhe numberѕ are annоunced in a
pleasnt manner and thеу have the ssports betting board close tօ your cards sο you ϲan look up yߋur numbеrs in casse you
missed one! !


>Are you retarded, the pre smart phone internet was a middle class country club. It was closed off to the poor, that's what we've been arguing about.
kek, Imagine believing this

the sheer copes phonecucks invent to convince themselves they are not a segregated cattle

>No one said the internet was free but it was more open than it is today by a long shot. To bad you zoomers missed it cause it was pretty neat.
Amen brother. When "browsing" actually meant something.

Barely seen a captcha before phonepocalypse. Corporations fucked everything up, from web design to data silos

Present day "Internet"? more like Botnet lol

File: 1677912317287.jpg (130.98 KB, 1184x1280, IMG_20230303_095035_568.jpg)


<Why is China so incredibly based?

Virtually everything they do in practice makes the faggot western left seethe. How can we bring this energy to America and Europe? We need socialism that castrates faggot pedos, bullies trawnies to suicide, executes drug dealers, and sends fatties to the labor camps.

Are you a NEET? Minus 50 social credit points.
Masturbate too much? Sorry, no high speed internet for you.
Didn't visit you grandma? Shame on you, not report to the reeducation program.
Don't want to have kids? Why are you supporting invasive bourgeois ideology.

<Chinese socialism is the final solution to the western left(tm).
10 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1679855678480.jpeg (979.39 KB, 1725x2560, 123.jpeg)

pretty sure that fag is not a worker but just your typical chink nazoid bureaucrat who wanks to legalism and gets all sweaty when you mention the Cultural Revolution


>Do I like what this person is saying?
They're a worker
>Do I not like what this person is saying?
They must be petty booj

<Leftoid thought process


look at his profile pic
does that look like a profile pic of a worker to you? that's a suit if I ever seen one

just by looking at it I get an urge to bitchslap that goblin with his chicken frame
just by squeezing that oversized ugly head you could pop it like a watermelon


I'd honestly not be surprised if it's some white dude trolling


File: 1680160498249.mp4 (17.64 MB, 1080x1920, yt1s.com - Chinese Militar….mp4)

File: 1679847267602.jpg (1.32 MB, 1840x2342, f49 (1).jpg)


Why does the left have such a massive issue with protecting itself against Cluster B (BPD, NPD, ASPD) types worming their way into orgs and up the ladder? Why do in particular, BPD's gravitate to the left?
It's very likely that several Actually Existing Socialist leaders with Cluster B (*CoughCeausescuCough*) and I've watched with my own eyes, BPDs and Narcissists wreck orgs i've been involved in and watched them time and time again wreck movements and orgs across multiple countries.
Every time I've watched this happen, nobody has called out their unhinged behaviour and pulled them into line, instead, half the org usually does the "You go! show them!" when the person starts dolling out the unhinged accusations or wrecking while the other half just plays along for whatever reason.
I mean, just look at all the Nu-Gender theory Idpol shit which is pretty much Borderline Personality Disorder the movement, yet the Baizuo lets these people pretty much set the "purity requirement" for the modern left despite their positions being completely schizo, slippery sloping by the day and incoherent.
It's a clear weakness of the left that organisational discipline doesn't seem to kick in against these types and that people seem terrified of calling them out. How can the left learn to better deal with the personality disordered? Especially the Borderlines that run rife through our movement?
22 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


It is easy enough to call the sexual politics shit what it is without succumbing to weakness. What is difficult is answering the underlying question which makes that sexual politics a constant pressure that can be used to derail politics. It forces the left to take a stand in favor of eugenic separation of certain undesirables, without taking care to judge what these things are. The Marxist philosophy doesn't allow for genuine dissent in the ranks of the movement - it's a total system by design, so there is an implied orthodox sexual politics. This is why sexual politics was a preferred vehicle for destabilizing communism, in addition to all of the things that suggested sexual politics was a psychological vehicle to disrupt any mass politics. At its core is a seething contempt for the very idea that democratic assemblies are possible, and this too was a weakness of the Marxist thinking on the political. Ultimately Marxism and a democratic society were incompatible, but this was mystified because the concept of democracy itself was no longer comprehensible except as a vague idea. A meaningful democracy would entail the people receiving their shit back as a first step, before any concessions to the state or "society" as an abstraction are considered. That was the bare minimum for socialism to be situation people wanted to maintain, and so far as socialism was successful, it did pay attention to people wanting their shit back and a degree of freedom to live their damn lives. The same strategies that destroy any nascent democratic forms were very applicable to socialist societies, because they never overcame their philosophical weaknesses. Mao at least was trying to bridge that gap but good luck getting that through with how fucked China was in 1949.


File: 1680065734514.jpg (23.99 KB, 330x438, bookmanhead.jpg)

What creeps me out, personally, isn't so much that it happens - of course it does, and in at least some cases it's very clear that the success of wreckers is down to some very shady people trying to promote them and use them to subvert organizations.

What creeps me out, personally, more even than the presence of bad actors and ill-will… is people apparently falling for it. Again and again. Like how fucking stupid are these people?

It just happens all the time - bad ideas, cynical clawing for power, idpol guilt tripping, weird coked out idpol cults like Black Hammer… for fuck's sake, people! Come on. It's fucking ridiculous the shit people fall for, and not just when the most egregious idpol schizos are doing it. The rise of Keir Starmer basic followed the same pattern on a larger scale, but in support of the blandest, shittiest ""centrist"" possible. It's so, so sad having seen this unfold from the United States, because I stupidly assumed that people in the UK might be a bit keener, might have learned from Blair… but no, doesn't seem like it, all it took was insane lies about Corbyn repeated often enough to get him out of the way.

People really ought to be able to see through this shit by now, but they rarely do!


*basically followed


>Agreed, but then is the left so unable to police against BPD/NPD abuse and behaviour. It's not like these people aren't extremely obvious, just people refuse to stop them.

Well, I wonder about that tbqh… because the degree of concession is frankly a bit confusing, you know? Even if privately some folks higher up might admit that the stuff these folks do is shit, if you say it yourself you might feel pretty alone. If the whole group is just lying, just letting a few folks abuse the rest of them to be "diplomatic"… well, it's almost difficult to believe.


>is people apparently falling for it. Again and again. Like how fucking stupid are these people?

From experience, this has happened to me several times since I WILL call out bullshit.
Every time this happens, I get octricised from the group. Why? Because wreckers have their allies and those who benefit from the wrecking who whill use your calling them out as bad faith as evidence of your "reactionary beliefs" or whatever, then you have a whole bunch of useful idiots, who just play along because they don't want to be seen as bad or half the time, want to fuck the wrecker (usually a transwoman or woman).
Right now, go into any Leftist fbi.gov, Subreddit, Libcom, Revleft and callout the insane idpol bullshit, even from a Marxist position and watch what happens, your account won't survived the day.
People are just that dumb as well, it's very rare to actually come across Leftists who are Leftists based on a position of theory rather than "muh morals", this is why most leftist slurp down reactionary, liberal idpol, because it "sounds nice", "is the moral thing to do" rather than it having any grounding in a theoretical backing.

File: 1679597769492.jpg (100.15 KB, 787x590, necon.jpg)


I'm asking my self whether or not the neocons are nothing but blood-dripping salesmen for the arms-industry, and all their ideological stuff is foolishness.

I'm not looking for cheap shots, like proving they never achieve their stated goals like "winning the war on terror". Just assume it's part of their strategy to lie about their true goals.

I used to think that they were both effective at generating profits for the arms industry and also furthering US imperial power. But I don't think that anymore.

For example the wars in the middle east caused something like a war-chaos-belt that separated Europe from Asia and prevented the formation of "Ꭼurꭺsian" (loaded term) economic integration that could potentially become an economic block that would be many times more powerful than the US. So in that sense you could look at the failed wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and so on as somewhat effective at maintaining US hegemonic power.

But it turns out that it wasn't the case. The conclusion that most analysts are drawing now is that the US wasted a bunch of time and effort fucking up the Arabs. And was nothing but a distraction that allowed China to grow into an economic powerhouse that is now more or less untouchable for the foreseeable future.

The Ukraine crisis again follows a similar structure, it seemed like a viable way to separate Russian-German economic cooperation by creating a trade-disrupting war-zone and political-capital for economic separation, so that economic integration may not lead to a Russo-European economic block that would have been more powerful than the US.

But it turns out that this wasn't the case either. The result of the Ukraine crisis is:

Sino-Russian economic integration. Which might lead to the formation of a much more powerful economic block than the Russo-European one. But the consequences don't stop at undoing the Sino-Soviet split. It also has killed the economic power of Europe which means that a potential Trꭺnsatlꭿntiꮸ (loaded term) economic block is much weaker now.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
15 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>Now onto Ukraine - nah. I'm not "NAFO" or whatever, but that was a dumb move on Russia's part, and it's resulted in more countries near Russia getting more scared of Russia. In the entire time I've been alive, Ukraine hasn't been a part of Russia. Russia wasn't about to be "greeted as liberators" for invading this country full of grown men who had never lived in the Federation. If it's bringing Russia and China closer, then ok… but it's also positioning European govt's more against Russia. China would win playing either side in this scenario, but Russia's fucking itself, and in this case I think Putin is being entirely up front when he says he doesn't recognize Ukraine's sovereignty - he thinks it's Russia's rightful land, and this is the impulse which motivates his backing of Russian separatists in Crimea & Donbas.
Yup this part is entirely composed "NAFO" talking points, and every single one of which is wrong. I don't want to derail this thread so if you want argue this go to the Ukraine thread and repost it there.

>this idiotic tug-of-war between Russia and the EU

The EU certainly is a culprit as well, but it's primarily a tug-of-war between the US and Russia. Only a few EU countries actually wanted this war, like the 3 Baltic states, Poland and perhaps Norway, but the 2 big EU powers like France and Germany probably didn't.


>The short answer is yes - that's oversimplifying it a bit, though. The neocons, and the broader neolib "movement" they were a part of, are competent in a sense, but that sense is maximizing short-term gains. Massive deregulation was a competent move for the short-term gains of the financial class, "outsourcing" jobs was competent service of the same class

But the result of these politics have created negative consequences for that same class. The US ruling class is loosing power on the global stage. That translates into real and significant material losses. So even with that myopic view of the most narrow self interest, this was not a competent move.


>As for America? America didn't invade that one.
The CIA has intensely meddled in Ukraine for decades, that's just covert warfare. It's not morally better than overt warfare, because it causes a similar amount of death and destruction. The difference is that it's slower and it uses mostly structural violence to destroy people and infrastructure, instead of kinetic violence. It's just a different type of invasion and method of combat.

You can't give them a pass for this type of shit.

Normal spy operations that don't count as covert-war are limited to stuff like espionage, ie stealing secrets. And it can include acts of sabotage like preventing other countries from building powerful weapons. For example the US wrecking Iran's nuclear centrifuges (though that one is borderline because it's dual-use stuff, where it can be military or civilian, purely civilian nuclear enrichment for example is not a legit target, like when there is effective international oversight, or technical limitations preventing weaponization) . And it can also mean spy on spy violence, like secret agents murdering spys. All that stuff is not a type of war-fare. However when it's fucking with institutions of a country to the point that it affects their citizens in a negative way, that makes it a type of warfare.


>The CIA has intensely meddled in Ukraine for decades
As did Russia, nazoid.
Just look at Donbass, classic CIA-style meddling with arming the "noble rebels".


this is the thread for bitching about the neocons, if you want to bitch about the Russians go to

Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29 / 30 / 31 / 32 / 33 / 34 ]
| Catalog | Home