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.

  • zifnab25 [he/him, any]
    ·
    3 years ago

    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.

    • gammison [none/use name]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Yeah, the CIA supported fanon for instance because he opposed the ussr and French in Africa.