Forums / Discussion / General

I'll be honest with you: we care too much about race and gender nowadays. Its extremely important but we leave hardly any time to talk about all the other issues happening in the world.
I mean… Latino America might be flooded in a few decades and not many are talking about that.

Well yeah, it's because giant corporations pay them not to talk about that

It sure is convenient (and rather dystopian) the main issues we see in politics nowadays are issues that corporations can easily pander to. Disney acting pretty woke everywhere except China…

Remember when there was a massive movement in 2011, against wallstreet and corporate interests and suddenly, within a few short months, it transformed entirely into identity politics?
Makes you really think.

What?
the 1% using their influence to take down any opposition
that would never happen /s

They didn't just take it down.
They transformed it into a new market.
Look how eager so many corporations are to sell and advertise to the woke.

Nike products are made by Uyghur slave labor in China?
Who cares! They are totally behind Kaepernick

Oh, just wanted to chime in something.
There has been some seriously huge protests in Russia over the detainment of Alexei Navalny. I am sure, you're probably going to hear about it soon on social media and so many people showing solidarity. Because Putin is bad or something.
Anyway.
Just a casual reminder.
Navalny is a literal ethno-nationalist, who considers himself a "Democratic Nationalist" who wants to integrate Belarus and Ukraine into Russia. Who's major criticisms of Putin's foreign policy is that it didn't really go far enough. Who's participated in marches that were attended also by neo-nazis, (which he has no regrets of), and who fought for a campaign that would end food subsidies to the Caucauses – who he considers ugly brown people.

Oh! Oh! But he did support BLM, and he is pro same-sex marriage. So he's forgiven ;)

Putin is a peice of shit and the russian government is beyond corrupt
but yeah, that guy just seems like an anthrnonationalist in progressive clothing

Like. I'm browsing Twitter, and you got Gary Kasparov, who's been railing against Trump for 4 years in a row, stanning the dude. And it's not just him, the US media is all "he's our guy".

Bruh.

Just because he voiced support for BLM, a movement that has no bearing on Russia at all, and is for gay-marriage, doesn't erase the fact that he's an ethno-nationalist arguing for Russia for Russians. It's not even "Make Russia Great Again", it's literally "Russia for Russians". Now, what does that mean? Well let's be friggin clear here, because of the USSR, a hell of a ton of various ethnicities and nationalities are now part of Russia – plenty of Georgians, Armenians, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Siberians, etc, all part of Russia, as a nationality, but not as an ethnicity. I've heard this before.

That he laments how open Russia has been towards Muslims (primarily from Chechnya), that he marched with literal neo-nazis and dismissed them as just disenfranchised dissidents. But now he's the darling of the US and Western media? Holy shit. Is the hatred for Putin from the West so strong that they are willing to support someone that's actually ideologically right of Putin? Is this related to Trump? I have no clue anymore.

lel, almost looks like i put anthronationalist
in case anybody was wondering it was supposed to be ethnonationalist

They dont consider hypocrisy enough of a sin to not support an enemy of thier enemy. Assuming they are even aware it is hypocrisy in the first place.

Interesting that they would consider putin a lesser evil. Maybe they consider this guy as a paper tiger; incompetent enough to not pose more of a threat than Putin in the seat of power, despite his ideology.

Bah it's like in WW2 were each opposing block have a crazy racist leader; Churchill for the allie, who treat India and other colony like shit and… you know who at the opposite side.

It's just a matter who is the most dangerous of the two.

>It's just a matter who is the most dangerous of the two.

I'm a fan of alternative-history as thought experiments. And I am a big fan of youtube channels dedicated to this. One of the most interesting ones, that a lot of them kind of subscribe to is the question of what would have happened if the USSR was lead not by Stalin, but by Trotsky.

Of course, we know full well the brutally efficient nightmare of Stalinist Russia – but we also know the limitations of Stalin's geopolitics, because that's where history took us. Many speculate "oh if only it was Trotsky, who wasn't so insane".

But…here's a great video:

So in essence, I am not sure if we even really know who the most dangerous of the two would be.

Putin has no realistic expansionist geo-political interests. His main policies were 1) lessen the influence of the US and Western Allies on the global stage – allowing him to maneuver in his own backyard (Asia and Europe), unimpeded. 2) Solve the demographic nightmare Russia is currently facing, which, by the way, is what motivates him annexing segments of countries with high ethno-Russian populations. 3) maintain geopolitical hegemony through energy exports 4) maintain a tight domestic powerbase at home through support of the military, the police, and the oligarchy.

Putin is conservative, predictable, and in some ways, contained.

Navalny has been explicit about unifying with Ukraine as a whole, and Belarus, he has also been incredibly hostile to caucauses' who traditionally and historically were closer aligned to Russia. He's been hostile to oligarchs, the police, and the military, so if he was to take power, you'd see a massive transformation internally, massive reforms.

Navalny is nationalist, opportunistic, and a wild card.

The Canadian government has voted to declare the Proud Boys a terrorist organization.

It was unanimous.

Putin has no realistic expansionist geo-political interests.

Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Czech Republic, The Balkans, etc.

All would beg to differ.

Ukraine – annexing Crimea ethnically and historically Russian section of Ukraine.
Georgia – same damn thing.

Syria – the only Middle East ally Russia has remaining and their only realistic geopolitical stronghold in a region that directly produces the same damn resource that they do. They have an interest in the Middle East for the same damn reason the Americans have. Same with Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, both of which do not have nearly the kind of relationships with Russia that they do with the US.

Balkans speak for themselves – Slavic groups that historically align themselves with Russia than they do with the rest of Europe.

Did I ever make the case that Navalny will ever replace Putin? Or that the protests in Russia are going to amount to anything?

Navalny is a political opportunist, yes, he's also arguably the biggest internal threat to Putin – but that isn't saying much.

All revolutions succeed when a sizable portion of the military class side with the revolutionaries.
The Russian military, and Police, are wholly loyal to Putin.

Joe Biden just now in his remarks on climate change:

"We're not going to ban fracking" pic.twitter.com/9JcFjTTjzv

— jordan (@JordanUhl) January 27, 2021

AZ Republicans want Trump's election loss scrutinized, but not their own victories.

A "why should we when they wont be?" moment I guess.

Maybe the democrats should offer an audit of all election results across the board, you know, like someone confident in the legitimacy of thier victory would do.

Remember when politicians weren't hypocrites? Neither do I.

I hate making comments that have nothing to do with the images posted, but I'm really surprised KYM isn't talking about the relationship between Robinhood and the new Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.

Janet Yellen? Wasn't she a head of federal reserve at some point?

You mean Robinhood endorsing the lie that Nazis were socialist?

go fuck yourself, they weren't you capitalist retard.

I was referencing the fact that Yellen has taken over $800,000 in ""speaking fees"" from Citadel, a large investor in Melvin Capital who is also 40% of Robinhood's revenue from buying customer info from them, and has not recused herself from the ongoing affair despite her obvious conflict of interest.

Also the Nazis were ""Socialist"" because like most Right-Wing Populists they co-opted some Left-Wing political messaging about class and then turned around and did everything they possibly could to help the upper-class (Capitalists).

I certainly also hope the argument isn't that they have the word Socialist in the name, in the same way North Korea call themselves Democratic.

"Much has been given us, and much will rightfully be expected from us. We have duties to others and duties to ourselves; and we can shirk neither. We have become a great nation, forced by the fact of its greatness into relations with the other nations of the earth, and we must behave as beseems a people with such responsibilities. Toward all other nations, large and small, our attitude must be one of cordial and sincere friendship. We must show not only in our words, but in our deeds, that we are earnestly desirous of securing their good will by acting toward them in a spirit of just and generous recognition of all their rights. But justice and generosity in a nation, as in an individual, count most when shown not by the weak but by the strong. While ever careful to refrain from wrongdoing others, we must be no less insistent that we are not wronged ourselves. We wish peace, but we wish the peace of justice, the peace of righteousness. We wish it because we think it is right and not because we are afraid. No weak nation that acts manfully and justly should ever have cause to fear us, and no strong power should ever be able to single us out as a subject for insolent aggression."

That was an excerpt from Theodore Roosevelt's inaugural address in 1905.
Just thought it was interesting to see a politician supporting war for good and not so just so they could line their pockets.

Here's a video of a woman recording her aerobics class in Myanmar while the military in the background arrives to the parliament to stage a coup. I have a feeling this is gonna become a meme soon.

Boogie while Burma Burns.

Depends on how one defines socialist.
I am curious as how some people define Socialism.

There is a strict definition that you can google:

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

There is a lot of interpretation that can be extracted from the bold part.

Fascists tended to adopt a corporatist economic system, and corporatism is extremely similar to syndicalism which is a "left"-ideology. (although even in Fascist Italy, despite adopting corporatism it did mostly serve the interests of Mussolini) The Nazis certainly privatized a lot of it's public sector – to raise funds for it's military machine. The Nazis were extremely cool with the idea of private enterprise – as long as it served the production of military goods. I wouldn't say that they adopted a model where the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned by the public, but it was regulated to to serve "the community [read military machine]" as a whole. If you want to generalize that socialist economic models tend to be collectivist in nature than yeah the Nazis fit the bill nicely, but that's if you define it that way.

That's why I ask "how do you define socialism" because it's an extremely broad economic definition that fits a few different varieties of economic models – with the only real similarity being "collectivist" in nature. BY THE WAY – there are far-right ideologies that also view economic activity from a collectivist point of view and not strictly individualistic which raw-capitalism is.

The Nazis did not view themselves or their definition of "socialism" from the lens of international socialism of the Marx variety. But they did believe that industry, even privatized industry, should serve the collective common good.

Personally, I wouldn't view a society that has a generous welfare program, like Scandinavian model, to be socialist. I also don't think that having something like universal healthcare as inherently "socialist" either. Since in Scandinavia the generous welfare model is supported almost exclusively by capitalist economic principles.

Find it hilarious for someone who rails so hard against the Nazis would be so damn eager to use their rhetoric.

Makes me wanna go "Hmmmm"

Must have read "On the Jewish Question" a little too eagerly.

I'm disappointed I didn't get a chance to lurk on the guy though. I literally saw these things when he was already banned. Curious if it's someone else on KYM under another username.

Kyle Rittenhouse violated his bail by moving away from his home, and the courts can't find him.

He's probably off to murder again.

It was probably an alt troll account made by War'yun, or something. Very similar rhetoric and writing.

From the sounds of it, he was moved to a secret "safe house" by his lawyers after constant death threats. The prosecutors are angry because they weren't informed, but they also apparently refused to say they would keep the location a secret, so I understand why they were kept out of the loop.

Thing that is throwing me off is the rhetoric is clearly something out of the white-supremecists, yet the guy is here being a literal tankie. Like. It would make so much more sense to me if he just called me a Zionist Imperialist Racist Scum or something.

War'yun is a troll, and flip-flopping on their "convictions" is nothing to a troll.

Tankies, defenders of the USSR by definition would be exposed to the terribly anti-Semitic and racist history of the bolshevik movement.

And the settled single-party government never attempted to not be terribly racist. We're talking official lines about how black people were inferior, latent Russian ethnic superiority, how convenient it was that the Holodomir happened to Ukrainians and not Russians, the even at the time denouncements of the regime as Red Fascism, and the constant deportations that under the modern UN definition were genocide.

So point being, tankies are awful and will excuse anything

They talked differently from war yun though

any proof of this? Because his lawyers would certainly let the courts know where they moved him and he wouldnt be missing right now

Here's a source.

Relevant excerpts:

"Prosecutors seeking to increase Kyle Rittenhouse’s $2 million bond said Thursday that the ability of the Kenosha, Wisc., shooter to “roam freely” before trial is “extremely rare for an accused murderer” and argued his address should be made public. But his defense attorneys argue that housing Rittenhouse in a secret safe house is necessary to protect his life."

"Rittenhouse’s attorneys argued that his address needs to be shielded from public view for his safety. Mark D. Richards, one of the attorneys, wrote that Rittenhouse has faced a volley of “death and other threats,” forcing his family to move to “an undisclosed ‘Safe House.’ ” "

"Pierce also said in his affidavit and the interview that a Kenosha police captain advised him to put the Antioch address on the bond release paperwork for the family’s safety. The police captain, Pierce said, told him: “Do not put in the safe house location; he will be killed. If his [Antioch] address is still a good address, put it in and we’ll deal with it later.” "

Notably, wrt the first quote, his bond was set as high as it was to make it impossible for him to pay it. A massive funding campaign to pay someone's bond was not something anyone anticipated, though it's not unprecedented; something similar, but less specific to one person, happened earlier in 2020.