CleverOleg

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

The memory of 2003 weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living

[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

Plausible, my only counter is that I am becoming increasingly concerned that the US/Israel/NATO really want to “break the seal” on tactical nukes and Fordow represents the perfect opportunity for this. The West could easily spin that tactical nukes were the only option there, and the number killed would presumably be very low (US could potentially warn when they will bomb and tell Iran to evacuate, even). The real goal here wouldn’t even be the destruction of Fordow but to try and get the world over its fear of tactical nukes. If the US is able to nuke Fordow without much criticism, get ready to see tactical or even low yield conventional nukes in the places where the West decides to turn its imperialist gaze (I could see them going back and dropping tactical nukes on Yemen and Lebanon if they do so on Fordow and face no consequences).

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago

Hasan was suggesting - mostly facetiously - that this is Trump telegraphing when he will nuke Natanz and Fordow.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago

Hasan was suggesting - mostly sarcastically - that this is Trump telegraphing when he will nuke Natanz and Fordow.

[–] [email protected] 64 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I’m watching Hasan’s stream and it’s haunting me how similar this is to 2003. Anyone who goes on TV and questions it gets pushback in the form of “well Iran is a danger so are you saying we should ignore dangers to the US?” It’s the EXACT SAME WAY the media approached the question of Saddam and WMDs. “Saddam is a danger to the US, why shouldn’t we take him out”.

For the young-ins, this is so much like 2003 (from the media perspective, not popular views) it’s scary.

[–] [email protected] 89 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

I said something to this effect yesterday, but it’s pretty incredible how as soon as there’s a chance of war, the news media gets in line and never questions whether the US should get involved in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is good and important. One of the most critical things rhe Resistance can do is make Israelis uncomfortable so they fuck off back to Brooklyn.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago

This could be his GWB moment

Inshallah

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I think the overall conclusions are correct, but people rightly point out that the Iranian side kinda “cheated” by exploiting holes in the way the scenario was set up.

But beyond that, it’s my opinion that it was never really a sincere effort on the part of the US to understand how a war with Iran would go. I think it was just intended to be propaganda - because why would you talk about a war simulation and the results otherwise? Show Iran how this simulation shows how we’ll totally kick their ass.

The idea was to make a war game with a conclusion already determined: the purpose was to show Iran how badly a war with the US would go. But Van Ripper definitely didn’t understand the assignment, and genuinely tried to win it by any means necessary.

But that said, a war with Iran on the ground I do think would go pretty much how the simulation showed, if not even a bigger disaster for the US since missiles have only gotten better at potentially sinking the big ships in the last 23 years.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Afghanistan is a balloon party compared to what Iran would be, I cannot imagine a situation where the US tries to land boots on the ground.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 day ago

Your posts are so valuable because often, you say things that I don’t want to be true (and I know you don’t either), but the facts point to a particular reality taking shape. We must of course maintain that revolutionary optimism but also not ignore material reality. Thank you for all you contribute.

 

Link

I think it’s a good statement, short and to the point. The replies are absolute poison though, hasbara bots really honing in on them. Feds will try and make something stick but it doesn’t sound like he was even a member.

50
submitted 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

(I want to preface this by saying my problems are of course absolutely nothing compared to what Palestinians and especially Palestinian parents must go through. I am only expressing these feelings in case there are others who feel similarly and don’t want to feel alone).

I have little kids. For over a year and a half now, I cannot shake this feeling. I don’t really know what to call it. But I cannot accept that my kids have this happy, comfortable life while there are little kids just like them being tortured to death under rubble, in fire, and by IOF bullets. Why am I in this position while Palestinian parents are in theirs? How can reality be this warped? I look at my kids, I can see them experiencing what thousands of kids in Gaza have had to endure, and my brain kinda shuts down. And in those moments it’s actually hard to be around my kids. This isn’t all the time - most often I’m able to be a good, present parent. But in that state it’s like I don’t want to be reminded that children even exist in this world.

It’s like, sometimes when my kid is laughing I can only thing about how there’s another kid half a world away who is screaming in pain, or experiencing terror and sadness in a way I cannot comprehend.

I was raised as an evangelical Christian. The main reason I deconverted years ago was I could not accept the idea of eternal conscious torment in hell for all unbelievers. I could not accept that that was how the universe worked. That was nearly 15 years ago. I hadn’t even thought about it much until these last 19 months. But I recognize the feeling since it’s all coming back. I see kids being tormented and killed, and it’s like my brain cannot accept this is reality.

Seeing that little light inside my children, and know that thousands of little lights are getting snuffed out… I don’t know, I just don’t have any more words or tears.

 

Ever since the election, there seems to be a torrent of polling that shows Americans in their late teens and early twenties are fairly reactionary (young men overwhelmingly so). I’m old so I don’t know anyone IRL in that age bracket. But something about what the media has been claiming for months now doesn’t seem to sound right. Idk maybe it’s 100% true but it’s something I have a hard time taking the media’s word for. I know we have quite a few users here in that age bracket. What are your real-life experiences (i.e. not online) with this? Do you think this age demographic is actually trending reactionary?

(I do remember digging into the details of one poll, and while it seemed there was more affiliation with Republicans than previous, it also seemed like there were an also very large segment that were openly showing to be further left than the democrats? So maybe more reactionary sentiment but also more genuinely leftish sentiment?)

 

I am so conflict-avoidant that I’m now at the point that most people in my life don’t actually have any idea I’m even close to being a commie. I really want to start expressing myself more openly and honestly - especially since I feel like I’m actually harming my mental health by not saying how I feel - but I always feel held back. Any tips on improving this are appreciated.

 

As in our comrade Karl Liebknecht, co-founder of the KPD? All these years I’ve been saying “LEEB-necked”, two syllables. But the I heard Matt Christman say “Leeb-KUH-neck-et” (four syllables). And I realized I don’t really know why I was saying it like I was. Anyone know how to actually say it?

 

I identify differently depending on the context.

When around comrades, I will identify as a Marxist-Leninist, as this is the most precise definition of what I hold to. I generally don't use this other than around comrades because no one else has any idea of what it means.

If I'm around people who at least sort of know what Marxism is, I'll call myself a Marxist. But in my experience this is pretty rare. Or this is what I will default to around people who I know are leftist broadly. I feel like "Marxist" is accurate enough where getting into the details of M-L isn't really necessary.

But when I'm around most normies, I will identify as a socialist. I think it's accurate enough to convey to people who do not have a very developed political understanding what I hold to. "Socialist" at the same time conveys a commitment to radical change well beyond the current Republican/Democrat paradigm, while not, for example, putting my job in jeopardy if I call myself a socialist to co-workers.

So the obvious question is why I don't call myself a communist very often IRL, even though I am one. I have before and used it a bit interchangably with M-L among comrades, but I don't use it around people I don't know well and know they are down with it. What I have found with the people in my broader social circle is such a huge lack of political understanding that calling myself a communist only shuts people down. When it comes to Americans, I think it's easy to overestimate their political understanding. I used to think most Americans just think communism is when "everyone is equal". What I've found is worse than that: it's more like people just have this vague notion that "communism = evil". They have no idea what it's about other than decades of propaganda that just equates communism as the ideology of our enemies and those who want to destroy America. So to most Americans, a communist is just someone who is "very bad person" who wants to destroy America (I mean, death to Amerikkka of course, but it's so much more than that). My own parents just think that communism means atheism and can't explain it more than that.

I totally understand the idea that we shouldn't shy away from calling ourselves communists. We need to normalize the idea because communism specifically is what's needed to save the planet. But idk, at this time and place in the US it feels like trying to do this just closes more doors than it opens, at least with the politically ignorant (most people).

 
 

I’ve tried to educate myself more about Palestine, decolonization, and the one-state solution over the last year and a half. It seems intuitive to me that ethnostates should not exist and that no, it’s not valid to carve out a land for the exclusive use of a certain people (especially but not exclusively when someone else is already there). So it’s not just about Palestine, but also about places that seek balkanization along ethnic or religious lines.

So while it’s intuitive to me, I realize that it’s not intuitive to nearly everyone around me (in the US, for reference). There seems to be this very pervasive understanding that of course the Jewish people should have their own exclusive land. Or that if two or more groups of people don’t like each other, it’s better to “divorce” and split up the country.

I struggle with explaining why all this is bad and not a real solution, though. Is there any more in-depth resources (books, articles, academic papers) that articulate a theory of why ethnostates are bad, and why splitting up places isn’t a solution?

 

It’s been long enough, I find myself really missing Matt’s voice. I never really followed his CushVlog - mostly because there was other stuff I wanted to get through when he was putting those out, and I’m also not great with sitting down and listening to YouTube videos.

So I’d like to watch some episodes, but I also don’t really want to slog through all of them. Do you all have any episodes that you like and can recommend?

 

I’m really trying to commit myself to getting a better understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of Marxism. I’m starting with the Vietnamese textbook on dialectical materialism that Luna Oi translated, before moving on to The Dialectics of Nature and Anti-Duhring.

My problem is I really struggle with philosophy. Marxian economics I can vibe with all day, but philosophy is something I’ve never been able to really get a hold of (but wanting to fix that).

So my first big struggle is understanding the difference between dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics. Is the former more of the worldview or viewpoint, and the later is more for explaining and analyzing specific processes? And if that understanding is correct, isn’t materialist dialectics the things we should be committing ourselves to as it’s what helps us better understand material reality (rather than dialectical materialism, which I guess would be more of a “belief statement?)? I don’t know I probably have a lot of this mixed up, just looking for any help on this I can get.

 
 

Just in case anyone else here is watching the match.

view more: next ›