robinn_IV [he/him]

Graphic design is my passion. I’d say it’s maybe 50/50 or 60/40 for content. At least half nonsense.

He was right about 1984, it’s defeatist nonsense.

I want to know what the pamphlets say.

5,000 years of conflict over those fucking sand dunes.

You are not the Kwisatz Haderach and you have no clue what you’re talking about. The United States created ISIS as a proxy force against Syria, they destroyed social and economic reform in Afghanistan by funding and training the Mujahideen (leading to the creation of the Taliban and Al Qaeda) so they could lure the USSR into “invading” the country (and also went back to bomb them for a couple of decades, preventing any new development), they (along with the British) staged a coup against the PM Mosaddegh in Iran and propped up a backward monarchy leading to the reactionary rule today, and the colonial British created Israel as a European Jewish settler-colony directly leading to the mass slaughter of Palestinians and later the occupation of Syria and conflict with Iran, Israel of course now being propped up and supplied weapons by the US as a point of influence in the Middle East. This can all be boiled down to Western imperialism.

Conflict in the Middle East is not just children “killing each other all the goddamn time” for no reason who need to be taught rationality and brought to civilization by a redditor in a sheep’s clothing. You need to straighten out why the fuck your liquified brain is covered in maggots and instead of seeing a doctor you’re using your last moments of semi-sapience to mash your head against the keyboard and act like you’ve said something profound.

?

but Iran isn’t the anti-US champion I’m backing. The enemy of my enemy isn’t a friend I have principals and they don’t involve theocracies.

“The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible revolutionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such ‘desperate’ democrats and ‘Socialists,’ ‘revolutionaries’ and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British ‘Labour’ Government is waging to preserve Egypt’s dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are ‘for’ socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.” — The Foundations of Leninism

Death to America

If both resolutions were essentially the same, why did the US propose one and then abstain from the other? The intricate wording of these resolutions is actually extremely important, with deliberate choices made down to the letter. For example, the US resolution stated the “imperative of” but did not “demand” an immediate ceasefire; it’s like a fucking land acknowledgement with how pathetic it is. The only reason the US proposed their resolution was as a last-ditch effort to dilute the demands of the international community as a ceasefire became inevitable.

Regarding their vote, China’s Ambassador Zhang Jun stated that the US resolution set up preconditions for a ceasefire (“supports ongoing diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire” “in connection with” the release of all remaining hostages), making it unacceptable, whereas the new resolution “demands an immediate ceasefire” “and also” “demands the immediate […] release of all hostages,” and so makes these matters independent demands without preconditions.

Wrt to the invasion of Rafah, the US proposed resolution specifically notes the inevitability of “ongoing and future operations,” noting only the importance of “measures to reduce civilian harm” thereof—obviously there is no explicit reference to Rafah, but this is the “effective green light” Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia was referring to, and further:

One of the earlier iterations of the draft resolution currently in blue said that the Council determined that “under current circumstances a major ground offensive into Rafah would result in further harm to civilians and their further displacement including potentially into neighbouring countries” and underscored that “such a major ground offensive should not proceed under current circumstances”.

This language was apparently challenged by a majority of Council members out of concern that it could be interpreted as the Security Council indirectly approving an offensive in Rafah under some circumstances. In an apparent attempt to address these concerns, in the third revised draft the US moved the language on the offensive from the operative section of the resolution to its preamble and removed text saying that an offensive “should not proceed under the current circumstances”, leaving text saying that “under current circumstances” an offensive would result in further harm and displacement of civilians. It seems, however, that many members were still uncomfortable with the reference to “under current circumstances.”

Not in my Gotham City

It’s absolutely absurd to compare the Western settler colony of Israel’s “relationship” with Palestine to the Russia’s relationship with Ukraine. Israel, since its inception, has been oriented towards the subjugation, displacement, and slaughter of Palestinians as a whole, whereas Russia is responding to Western-backed Nazi aggressors. Investigate Operation Aerodynamic, NATO’s Operation Gladio, the US and Nazi role in the 2014 coup, hell what do you mean nobody will fight for Ukraine? The CIA have trained soldiers and there has been billions sent in aid by the US.

Have some decency, he already demanded FULL accountability. Asking anything more is simply uncivil.

Yeah, you’re right, sorry. They’re acting like legalizing pot is done purely to feed addiction and that “empathetic rehabilitation” of those addicted is an alternative to legalization/will make legalization unnecessary, so I still disagree with their original comment, but I shouldn’t have so flippantly dismissed the concept of addiction.

Whoop-dee-frickin-doo.

Holy shit shut up

empathetic rehabilitation.

From what? Pot addiction? Lmao?

“The Department of State fully recognizes that it may be necessary at some stage for the United States to take military action if [Taiwan] is to be denied to the communists… Such intervention should be publicly based not on obvious American strategic interests but on principles which are likely to have support in the international community, mainly the principle of self-determination of the [Taiwanese] people” — “Memorandum by the Acting Secretary of State to President Truman”

Not only do the majority of Taiwanese people not want independence from China [*], but less than a dozen UN countries even recognize Taiwan as a legitimate separate country from China, and none the legitimate ruler of China (ROC over PRC) as they would like–Taiwan’s airline is China Airlines, Taiwan’s banking is China Trust, Taiwan’s oil is China Petroleum, Taiwan’s communications are China Telecom; Taiwan speaks Chinese and has the same dialect as across the strait, Taiwan’s streets are named after mainland cities (unlike Hong Kong), the “local cuisine” is Chinese cuisine (and Taiwan competes in the Olympics as “Chinese Taipei”).

In 1971, the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 2758) revoked recognition of Chiang Kai-shek’s ROC due to the KMT not being in governance (decreeing to “expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy”) and recognized Taiwan as Chinese (not “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan” to quote the session). The United Nations officially states that they “[consider] ‘Taiwan’ as a province of China with no separate status”, that “authorities in ‘Taipei’ are not considered to… enjoy any form of government status”, and that they “[consider] ‘Taiwan’ for all purposes to be an integral part of the People’s Republic of China.”

In 1972, the U.S. officially stated, “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.” They STILL do not officially recognize Taiwan as separate from China.

[*] “臺灣民眾統獨立場趨勢分佈”, conducted by Taiwan’s National Chengchi University, an explicitly anti-CPC source, in 2022, showed the following results with regards to the perspective of Taiwanese citizens on independence and reunification: (Status Quo as Autonomous Part of China and Complete Unification Compiled [part of PRC] : 63.4%) (General Support for Independence Including Status Quo Moving Towards Independence [not part of PRC]: 30.3%) (Non-Response: 6.3%)

Even if you believe that Taiwan is “foreign” to the PRC, it is objectively not “clearly foreign.”

The most pathetic, cowardly excuse for a “leftist politician.”

Examine your logic of “Government X is bad, therefore it’s good when bad things happen to its civilians.”

Read up on the inherent violence of settler-colonialism; settlers cannot be equated with civilians

I’d suggest this way of thinking is flawed in both situations.

Western values on display once again.

This is a ridiculous accusation… ISIS has claimed responsibility

Not the contradiction you think it is