I’ve watched this video a bunch of times, and it utterly baffles me. I genuinely cannot understand how BadEmpanada came to this conclusion.
To start off this video, he immediately does the most annoying YouTube loser thing ever. He does the whole, “I’m gonna piss off some people with this heh heh heh” thing. That’s annoying to begin with. He appears to believe that anti Americanism is “contrarianism” when it isn’t. The vast majority of internet contrarians are not Intersectional Third Worldists. He then defines the “socialism” that he follows as “trying to do the best possible for the majority of people” which is incredibly anti materialistic and anti scientific marxist. Then, he breaks into the contrarian bullshit of the “but” principle, where he pretends to be against America (he really isn’t). It’s very clear that he’s lying about how much he doesn’t like America. He then says that he opposes America for political reasons and not just “because it’s america.” You know, a lot of people in the Middle East, who live in constant fear for clear skies because they could be vaporized by missile blasts, hate America because it’s America. To say that this is wrong is to delegitimize the third world who is oppressed primarily by the white western country of America.
Then, he does the EPIC contrarian thing where he brings up China. I’m gonna just say it outright here. Fuck critical support. China isn’t doing anything wrong. It is following correct Dengist principles. Criticism of China is entirely rooted in Americanism, White Supremacy, Western Imperialism, and Sinophobia. China is not “state capitalist.” It is Leninist-Dengist. China has lifted millions out of poverty. China has developed the most advanced rail system in the world. China is bringing benefit to non western nations across the world. If you have problems with that, go fuck yourself.
Then he brings up Iran. Iran is in the same boat. Iran is a good anti American country that strives to destroy imperialism from the white westerners. Iran deserves uncritical support. Calling Iran “far right” is a false flag, and is the most western thing ever.
I’m gonna read a quote here where he’s being sarcastic, but it’s entirely true.
US aligned is bad, US opposed is good.
This is entirely true.
This whole video is a CIA Black Ops Gladio hit piece against some of the only good western journalists. The Grayzone is a great news source. To attack it is to promote white supremacy and western imperialism.
He then defends the US by saying it has been on the right side of history (it hasn’t) occasionally (never)
You know what I can’t even go two minutes into the video without screaming. BadEmpanada is a white westerner from Australia who is promoting the colonization of non western Argentina. Fuck him and fuck anyone who defends him.
I’m gonna just say it outright here. Fuck critical support. China isn’t doing anything wrong.
lol
Fuck critical support. China isn’t doing anything wrong.
which is incredibly anti materialistic and anti scientific marxist
Isn't this the same guy who thinks Brace Belden is a CIA asset?
I'm less impressed with your ability to spin narratives as I am this community's ability to upvote content because "team".
It's the latest and arguably most successful implementation of a Marxist vision.
But it's a far cry from the Marxist spirit or goal. They're taking a very circuitous route, even if they are moving in the right direction (which is, itself, debatable).
Supertrains do not a Marxist nation make. Neither does a stack of dead corporate clowns. The book on Chinese Marxism is a long way from being fully written.
Edit: I'd go one step further and argue Cuba is the most authentic implementation of Marxism, with Bolivia in the running. China is simply the largest legacy of the revolutions of the 1920s.
Criticism of China is entirely rooted in Americanism, White Supremacy, Western Imperialism, and Sinophobia
Lol piss off.
I can understand that, but every time a white westerner criticizes the PRC, they play into the narrative being crafted by anti third worldism in the CIA
The Jackie Chan position on diplomacy.
spoiler
I'm not joking, he actually said that in an interview. It actually makes sense, just surprised he said it.
Except we are never in private on the internet, and only in private without electronics around us
Lmao he’s absolutely right. I’m sorry, but if the gray zone style of America bad is the best anti-Imperialism we have, anti-Imperialism is toast. We need to make better arguments. You can have “critical support” for governments. We can acknowledge that Venezuela is having a crisis that is partially the fault of the regime without supporting the US-backed coup.
The Grayzone guys do the laziest parroting of pro-regime sources which people would absolutely correctly recognize if it was coming from CNN or whomever.
Anti-imperialism is an absolute necessity for our time and it deserves better advocates than these dipshits.
Yep. Just look at the garbage Norton put out on Ecuador this week. He called an indigenous political movement, which he supported 2 years ago, a movement which has the support of the Ecuadorian communist parties, ultra left anarchist us puppets. Just a total lack of understanding of Ecuadorian politics when there's great people one could go to like Thea Riofrancos (who spent 7 years among Ecuadorian socialists) instead (who Norton is also baselessly attacking on twitter right now for her criticizing his piece).
Are you referring to Pachakutik and Yaku Pérez? Have to admit that he is pretty problematic:
When asked about Andrés Arauz's plan to give $1,000 to 1 million mothers who are the heads of their households once he's elected president, Yaku Pérez claimed these people will "probably spend it all on beer that same day."
According to Leonidas Iza, an indigenous leader and president of the Indigenous and Peasant Movement of Cotopaxi, Evo Morales did not invite Yaku Pérez to the inauguration because the Pachakutik candidate celebrated the right-wing dictatorship in Bolivia. He also never condemned the Anez regime's massacre against indigenous protestors. He accused Morales and Correa of “authoritarianism, machismo, extractivism, and populism.” Pérez also called Maduro and Correa “colonial, ethnocidal, and racist.” He rooted for their governments to "fall":
“Now all that’s missing is for Rafael Correa and Maduro to fall. It is just a matter of time.”
The "us puppet" description of Pachakutik originally comes from Venezuelan-American journalist Eva Golinger who revealed that the Pachakutik party and anti-Chavista opposition parties were financially supported and trained by the US government's National Democratic Institute which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, United States Agency for International Development, and the US Department of State.
I think it's a gross distortion to simplify CONAIE and Pachakutik to that. It just doesn't make sense. CONAIE spent decades fighting Texaco and other US oil companies to get them out of Ecuador and tried to emulate Chavez in a failed coup in 2000. I don't like Perez either, but the situation is quite complicated. For example he has the support of the ML communist parties in Ecuador which is bizarre. Pachakutik and CONAIE as a whole act very differently from each other even though Pachakutik is nominally the political arm of CONAIE (for example the head of CONAIE did attend that meeting in Bolivia while Perez did not). I mean the very neoliberal reforms Norton tried to attach to CONAIE via Pachakutik were heavily protested against by CONAIE itself in 2019, and CONAIE as a whole heavily supported MAS after the coup in Bolivia. Norton's piece is more than anything a hit job against CONAIE because of their opposition to Correa (or rather Correa's successor Andres Arauz) , opposition that exists because despite Arauz's left wing leanings, he is pro extracting Ecuador's resources which CONAIE categorically opposes (and has severe apprehension about as people in Arauz's party were found to have taken bribes from multinational corps for extraction policies though I'm not sure what the truth of Correa's bribery conviction is considering the rightward turn of Morena).
Here's a long form interview with Thea Riofrancos on the entire situation which she just had a book come out on.
The best explanation that I can give on why Pachakutik showed up in that list is that the US gave money to every single political party that opposed Correa, whether that opposition was legitimate or not in its grievances.
IDK what makes him do anything outside of being a massive contrarian to get outrage clicks. Like I do not know. He's been this way for years. The only time I see his pieces on my timeline is when he attacks some other writer or organization I follow. The real mask off moment for me was when he doxxed a DSA housing steering committee member and called her COINTELPRO for speaking up about her sexual assault, and then called the whole org state department controlled Trotskyites around the same time.
The gray zone is so bad it’s almost astonishing, I wish I was surprised by how much people here seem to like them. Most of what they put out reads like it could be from the LaRouche Movement or something.
I assume it has to be people who mostly read grayzone and nothing else, and don't organize with anyone except maybe their fellow grayzone readers because IRL (or even if you just read books from Haymarket or Verso) you will run into people who strongly dislike them (because grayzone attacks their orgs) almost immediately. Either that, or people who read sparingly and just don't pay attention enough to notice. The pod has not interacted with them since like 2016 which was a bit before they really started going off the rails and people started noticing. There's also a definite bent they've taken ever since Norton joined PSL.
China isn’t doing anything wrong.
The death penalty. Here, that's one thing wrong - and it's definitely not the only one.
Yes, and that doesn't make it right. It's a gross human rights infringement. We should strive to do better.
If they're not actively resisting the liberation of said slaves ? yes. Just put them in prison for the rest of their life. Assassinating them is against human rights. But I'm speaking in the context of a post-revolution period here, where wholesale abolition has been established and is in the process of happening - if we're talking more in the context of what, say, John Brown did, then I'd agree killing them might be a spark, an act that might trigger more large scale movements, and in such cases morally justified.
To get back to my initial answer: yes, but would I shed a single tear if one of those newly-freed slave were to kill them, or even prosecute those slaves ? definitely not. Their own human rights were abused much more in the first place than those of the slave owner would be were he to be killed.
Maybe I'm showing my EU bias here but again: I see any application of the death penalty (as in the context of a legal framework) as gross abuse of human rights, and personally incompatible to me with leftist thought. I've had debates on this here many times though. Still stand by it.
We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall strive to take the high ground. :marx:
I mean, I know you're mocking me here but I'd genuinely see that version as an improvement. Perhaps I am too idealistic.
How would you handle the situation with the Russian royal family in 1918?
I'd argue that's a very specific example because:
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights wasn't even a thing before 1948; it's problematic to consider such facts through a modern lens.
- When revolutions happen, it's hard - if not dangerous - to control the anger/rage that comes from the injustice that triggered it all.
But if you think killing their kids - especially the two minor ones - was morally justified, especially as viewed under a more modern lens, then I definitely disagree.
Its always amazing to me how even with the length of time of 100 years the 'killing the poor Romanovs' sob story still gets a hearing
Instead of you know... The tens of millions of children that prostituted themselves in Gorky park or died of malnutrition every year under Tsarist rule
Or hell..the 20 million Russians that died in WW1
The millions of Russians that died in unmarked graves thanks to the Tsar and we discuss the morality of shooting a few Royalty during a civil war. Bizarre
No arguments there. Doesn't negate the fact it's hard to defend killing a 13 years old kid. What was he guilty of, really ?
But agree, all in all it doesn't deserve that much highlight compared to millions of other kids killed or abused.
that’s a very specific example
It's always going to be a specific example, a complicated situation---that's the problem with idealist declarations, they become impractical as soon as rubber meets the road.
You can't make a revolution wearing white gloves.
Putting, into law, that the state has the right to execute people is wrong, period. Killing people while a revolution is in progress is different. It's got nothing to do with idealism or wearing white gloves, unless you think the USSR, China, and so on didn't/don't have the resources to hold those people in prison indefinitely instead. They did, and they do.
I think the fact the soviet themselves put it this way:
[The death penalty being permitted] as an exceptional measure of punishment, until its complete abolition
Or the fact that apparently, two-thirds of death sentences were commuted to prison terms, both show that they knew it was far, far from ideal in a leftist/communist society. They knew at the very least complete abolition was the goal.
Killing people while a revolution is in progress is different
What if the revolution never ended? :back-to-me-shining:
Is this a bit
this reads like a neolib making fun of what they think anti-imperialism is
If they're white they aint alright.
Imagine criticising China... A nation that hasnt been to war since 1979 and in that period went from subsuharan African living standards to a space faring nation helping to develop the poorest countries in Africa with a life expectancy surpassing the US...
All without colonies, slave trading, neocolonialism or debt trapping poorer nations
Any 'left' incapable of seeing the incredibly progressive role China is playing pulling down the pillars of Western imperialism is a national chauvinist that is incapable of removing the liberal brain worms from their mind
I dont want to be too much of a "nuance" logic bro here, but you can believe all that without also thinking that China is perfect. China has accomplished a lot. Its seriously fucking astounding to think about what china has accomplished in the past century. The Chinese working class living standards are rising faster than they have in basically any country anywhere in human history, and that's fucking incredible and it deserves to be noted.
But that deosnt mean that China is perfect or immune from criticism. Our ML comrades have correctly pointed out that a lot of anti-Chinese criticism has its origin in yellow peril racism. That's 100 % true and I point that out to irl friends when the topic comes up.
But it's a massive leap of logic to go from that correct insight, to then saying that all ctitisicm of China is racist and illegitimate.
I agree with your entire comment except your last paragraph which i would again agree but i would say 1 percent of criticism of China is done in a comradely, informed, investigated and researched place and 99 percent is racist, illegitimate and can be dismissed
For instance whenever we hear critiques about China...we never first hear that the Chinese people, led by the Communist Party, have moved heaven and earth in China since 1949
Never do we hear this praise as you or i have put it
Imagine thinking that the opinions of leftists on China, either positive or negative, is relevant or has any effect in the real world. China is better than the USA as a capitalist country, but they still repress socialists. If you're actually interested in socialism and not just fapping to red flags, if you try to organize workers in China, you will face the same repression as in the USA.
China is better than the USA as a capitalist country, but they still repress socialists
Theres 90 million communist party members. But sure im sure some Baizuo who learned socialism a year or two ago has a better line on the material development than a nation of 1.4 billion people on the front lines against imperialism
If they need to repress 'socialists' they're probably of the caliber of the Russian trot orgs that "call for the downfall of Russia" or the socialists in CWI who were supporting the Hong Kong protests by violent far right thugs who kept calling mainland chinese "cockroaches"
if you try to organize workers in China, you will face the same repression as in the USA.
These the same workers in China that have an 80 percent approval rating of the government and have seen real wages increase at a speed never before seen anywhere on the planet?
Or the same China where 90 percent of the population said "China was going in the right direction"
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/countries-going-right-direction/
Also your point about "opinions of leftists outside China": all certain segments of Nato intelligence service think about is how you think about particular topics. As they cant go to war without first manufacturing consent
Secondly, its more about exposing opportunists like Bad Empanda
" Iran is a good anti American country that strives to destroy imperialism from the white westerners. Iran deserves uncritical support. Calling Iran “far right” is a false flag, and is the most western thing ever." This is your brain on pure Anti-Americanism, folks. And for the record, I am neither western nor white.
hahahahaha i missed that part lol either OP is a fed or white middle-class american
He then defends the US by saying it has been on the right side of history (it hasn’t) occasionally (never)
The only time this could remotely be true is when it fell ass backwards into fighting German and Japan for political reasons and then framed itself as fighting for justice or whatever after handing the blueprints for and inspiring the nazi’s genocide and racist laws.
And the US’ reasoning to enter the war against Japan was to genocide Asian people, and they fought Germany to prepare for war against Stalin.
reasoning to enter the war against Japan was to genocide Asian people
they got attacked? no argument that the US had racist conduct but characterizing them as aggressors is a bit
Yeah I think the takeaway from US involvement in the war is that they didn't really give a shit until it was right at their doorstep and directly threatened them (like usual)
They aggressed by cutting them off from natural resources, and Pearl harbor was known in advance
They aggressed by cutting them off from natural resources
This is your brain on anti-Americanism.
They cut them off because they didn't like the damage they were causing with their imperialist war. Acting like poor little Japan was pushed into war by the US is hilarious revisionism when all Japan had done for years before was attempt to take as much as they could from the surrounding area.
Not selling oil to an imperial war machine is literally one of the few good things the US ever did and even then it was more just because the did imperialism to the wrong countries but don't talk about Japan like it wasn't a horrific genocidal bully.
Lmao what the fuck is wrong with you, you're literally defending an Axis power by saying they were "aggressed" because they were cut off from natural resources while they were genociding everyone around them and aiding Hitler.
Natural resources being used in the bloodiest war in Chinese history. Unironically good the US and West did that. Not altruistically, very much pulling up an imperial ladder behind them "we get to beat around Asia, you don't" but fucking hell, I don't wanna know what the Japanese empire might've done if everyone looked the other way.
And then the US immediately supported the KMT which was assisting the genocide in China.
??? Chinese United Front ???
The KMT murdered the Reds before the Japanese began the war. Both the KMT & CCP fought against Japanese imperialism and genocide.
Who did the KMT genocide? They resumed the fucking civil war. Almost everyone involved was Chinese?
Who did the KMT genocide?
Half of Shanghai back in 1928, just for starters.
so in 1937, when the CCP had put that aside to oppose a foreign invader, the KMT are assisting genocide? The IJA was genociding the whole Chinese people, but I guess right wingers with a vested interest in not dying can't be worked with
War makes strange bedfellows.
But the theory that the KMT was good because the IJA was winning is thin. Mao played his hand masterfully, and his only mistake was letting Kai-shek escape the mainland. But the KMT was not good because it was backed into the same corner it had forced the CCP into a decade earlier.
the KMT was good when their soldiers were fighting and dying by the tens thousands to defend Chinese cities from Japanese slaughter. no ands ifs or buts. the men between Nanjing and the Nanjing massacre were fucking good, right-wing or not.
Simply fighting for survival in the face of a better armed and organized invader does not make you "good".
Yeah and the CCP was murdering their fellow citizens, that's kinda what civil war is. Look. they're obviously the bad side in the Civil War, but they weren't on the bad side when it was China v. Japan. There's a reason even the CCP fought alongside them, dude.
I've heard a bunch about how the US entry in the European theater was motivated by limiting Soviet gains, but if you have a chance can you say more about the Pacific?
Almost all of the propaganda in ww2 was racist towards Asians. As someone who has studied the pacific wars in order to compile a long list of Naval History, it is very clear the exterminationist rhetoric the US believed. They nuked Japan twice, for gods sake. And they rarely took prisoners. Not to Mention the death camps they set up for Japanese-Americansz
they nuked Japan twice, for gods sake
And, it can’t be stressed enough, for no greater reason than bc they just wanted to
(Not that there really could be a good reason to bomb civilians but still they just wanted to swing that nuclear dick, marg bar amrika
No greater reason than to scare the Soviets and to kill non white people
Also Truman wanted to show Congress what they had been paying for. Tons of people were pissed that the mysterious "Manhattan project" had been siphoning away war resources so Truman nuked Japan in part to justify the expenses.
This whole video is a CIA Black Ops Gladio hit piece
Channeling some Q prose word salad there: "globalist deep state antifa trans agenda"
Words have meaning.
Iran is a good anti American country that strives to destroy imperialism from the white westerners. Iran deserves uncritical support. Calling Iran “far right” is a false flag, and is the most western thing ever.
Yeah ok bro, you die on that hill...
PLENTY of people living in China criticize the Chinese government/local governments. Many of them even organize protests (a lot of them about environmental and urban development issues [sometimes NIMBY, in cities at least] and labor rights — one result of Dengism is the rise of a new bourgeoisie who are thankfully so far not allowed to be politically active). BUT most of them are what sociologist Yao Li (she's at Harvard and definitely NOT a "China-symp") calls "regime-engaging protests", not "regime-changing ones." The fact of the matter is that as a whole the Chinese are less cynical about their government (particularly the central government; the local governments in my anecdotal observation tend to be met with more scorn) than the Americans. But I guess they are just docile pliable orientals too scared to fight for their own fweedom until the white knight arrives.
They’re agreeing with you for the most part lol. They’re accusing the imperialist ‘China watchers’ of racism, not you.
I’m gonna read a quote here where he’s being sarcastic, but it’s entirely true.
US aligned is bad, US opposed is good.
The Post-WW2 de Gaulle government repeatedly butted heads with the United States. In the 40s and 50s, his government espoused the "Politics of Grandeur", insisting upon complete autonomy for France in global affairs. In 1966, he executed a partial withdrawal from NATO. In 1970, his treasury famously bleed the American specie reserve dry by immediately exchanging every greenback they could get their hands on for its commodity-equivalent. This ultimately forced Nixon to adopt a full-fiat monetary policy, enraging the goldbugs in his party's base.
France repeatedly positioned itself as US-Opposed in post-war Europe, and resented American imperialist expansion into the continent.
But go into Algeria or West Africa or Vietnam and explain what a cool, stand-up guy de Gaulle was for being "US opposed".
The US was not the only imperial power in history. Neither is being "anti-American" inherently good, when you're simply looking to supplant US hegemony or buck US corporate interest. This is a false choice, as material conditions do not improve under a Gaullist public policy. They only shift the balance of power and the location of the imperial core.
He then defends the US by saying it has been on the right side of history (it hasn’t) occasionally (never)
The US has been on the winning side of history for decades. And, as a consequence, it has claimed credit for a great many advances in human achievement by way of being the global hegemon responsible for the security, infrastructure and trade that makes advancement possible.
It is only "good" in so far as it does not actively disrupt the natural tendency among peoples to collaborate and contribute to one another's well-being. And while the Pax Americana has done that better for Anglo-Saxon Men than any other empire in history, that's a far cry from being "good".
Whether a US rival outperforms the US hinges heavily on whose material conditions it ultimately benefits. Even then, the rival is still only "good" for this marginal group of people. You're still playing by the rules of empire.
The only ones who are truly good are The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.
Yeah, the CIA supported fanon for instance because he opposed the ussr and French in Africa.
