- cross-posted to:
- chat
You must log in or register to comment.
I mean... what's their counter-narrative for this? This is straightforwardly what they want and advocate for. I'd be curious to hear what the spook read on the situation is.
Sucks when Trump is the only anti-war voice with any chance of gaining power anytime soon. International A.N.S.W.E.R? Don't make me laugh.
Is he even an anti-war voice? He assassinated an Iranian general and bombed Syria. He used drone strikes more than even Obama somehow.
No, if he had been president during the invasion he would have done the same thing Brandon did. Perhaps he would even send some troops to help Zelensky.
He is an opportunist who says what the people want to hear in order to get elected.
Honestly even if Trump stays cucked to the foreign policy establishment ghouls he's still better than DeSantis just because he's too stupid to do any real harm
Remember when he tried to order an end to the war in Syria, and an outraged McCain immediately flew there to confer with US puppets? Then the next Monday a false flag chemical attack occurred and suddenly oops, we can't let use of WMD go unpunished and the war continues today.
Too bad the USA going full fash seems like an inevitability now, I was hoping for peace in my lifetime...
You have to wonder if they were planning on a border skirmish and were really caught by surprise when Russia waged a full invasion.
Yeah politial ghoul class gambled big and lost. A massively irresponsible gamble, made by people who think they own the casino.
Never get high on your own supply, they used to know this
But mom, I want the originator of the La-li-lu-le-lo, mom!
Be quiet, we have a Sipher at home!
Link
https://twitter.com/john_sipher/status/1607266150135783425?s=20
He's not wrong. Remember right after 2016 the right wanted to drop NATO and start a new alliance with Russia and post-brexit Britain? Imperialism of a different shade.
I dunno, China's wishy-washy response to Russia's invasion shows that their alliance is not as strong as they say.
Who do you think they are doing those drills in preparation for?
The Cuban Missile Crisis, but this time it's just nuclear-armed Mark Cuban.
The Russian ruling class consists of various shades of compradors, they would sell out to the West in an instant if America would let them have slightly larger share of profit from plundering the country, so Russia keeping its course basically depends on Americans being too stupid or arrogant for this.
I doubt the Russians would attack the Chinese, the US only had good relations under Putin because Russia was also using the whole anti-Islamic terrorist narrative to crack down on separatists in the Caucasus. Everything was destroyed after 2014.
But I think most Republicans really want to get into a full-scale war against China because they think America is strong enough, while Democrats want to sacrifice their NATO allies and proxies first.
I love this cause what is John's contention exactly? It isn't the case that either side wants war with China (or in lib-imperialist parlance will be "forced" into war I guess)? Or that it's true but it's just a faux-pas to actually say it?
Libs wanna be "forced" into a war with China the way I want to be "forced" to cum
How do the Republicans want to use Russia against China? The Republicans never struck me as actually pro-russia just not anti-russia.
How does that have anything to do with GOP opinions of Russia? Do you think the GOP gives a shit what Kissenger thinks?
Maybe "Post-American Left"? And by "American Left" I mean "Still do genocide, but let's means-test it after we run it through our focus groups!"
Eh... That's just bog-standard Clintonian liberalism. 'Post-left' is usually a specific philosophical or analysis term that was applied to "philosophers" like Nick Land. I mean you could call it 'Post-Modern', but it's less about the dissolving of modern narratives of progress, and more about dissolving everything, including class.
Like, Marx and Engels saw capitalism as dissolving and discarding social structures, both old and new, but clarifying the relationship between the proletarian and the bourgeoisie as the primary mover of history. Post-left analysis sees capitalism as even dissolving that class relationship (usually by ignoring imperialism and just focusing on first world labor relations, generally by discarding basic Leninist analysis) with many seeing the primary contradiction between other forces (usually between AI/robots and humans). Often this wraps it's way towards reactionary beliefs and facism.
Matt isn't generally a 'Post Leftist' because he still doesn't reject class analysis or even class conflict being the primary mover of history, he just thinks more in terms of actual material historical American trends than most modern thinkers (i.e. if communism comes to America it will as a spiritual revival) to the degree he has consistent analysis.
Of course. You and I both know that. I just want to decipher what they could have possibly meant here. Maybe they also know, and are trying to discredit our large dry son? Propaganda is a real fuck.
Ah, fair enough!
We'd have to look into the related accounts to decipher it, which, gonna be honest, I can't be bothered to do.
I'm trying to imagine anyone who unironically follows "Post-Left Watch" and I guess it would absolutely be this toe head.
