#41
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
liberalism: teaching the controversy
#42
Post rating: +

Crow posted:

Bomb the New York Times, Before It's Too Late



its too late

#43
Post rating: -

getfiscal posted:

liberalism: teaching the controversy



Liberalism doesn't teach controversy, it only destroys. Always remember that the first feminists were liberals.

#44
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: +
this article isn't actually a sign that america wants war with korea. the function of an article like this is to make new york liberals seem more "reasonable" than the bad cop militarists. this guy is just a random putz. they probably shopped around for someone who would actually say it. i don't think any policy people are seriously afraid of korea, it's just functional for politicians to ratchet it up because it's like a slam-dunk issue. beating up on north korea and playing off their threats is political gold, it's like bush framing his main enemy as insane terrorists.
#45
Post rating: ~
But why the hell did they quote XI YINPING, was that necessary? Aren't there enough other people who can say bad things about North Korea rather than a puppetmaster using them to annoy the West?
#46
Post rating: +

getfiscal posted:

this article isn't actually a sign that america wants war with korea. the function of an article like this is to make new york liberals seem more "reasonable" than the bad cop militarists. this guy is just a random putz. they probably shopped around for someone who would actually say it. i don't think any policy people are seriously afraid of korea, it's just functional for politicians to ratchet it up because it's like a slam-dunk issue. beating up on north korea and playing off their threats is political gold, it's like bush framing his main enemy as insane terrorists.


here's someone more serious and important doing the same thing (skip to the last few paragraphs for the relevant part)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/07/leslie-h-gelb-on-obama-s-dangerous-nuclear-dance.html

though obviously, agreed.

#47
Post rating: ~
Rhizzone agrees on everything, that's a given. You can argue for absolutely anything and as long as you add some anticapitalist rant at the end the response will be a head nod. Don't worry.
#48
Post rating: ~
what
#49
Post rating: ~
The genocide of the native americans was justified, poor white proletarians seized the means of wampum bead production.
#50
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: +
because of the might and glory of stalinism and decolonization, states calling themselves revolutionary or marxist or whatever spread across most of the world. but this process was uneven and incomplete, partially because of the enormous counterattack of fascism, but also because of attempts to collaborate developed through imperialism. so many middle elements tried to build a middle ground between the west and socialism. this rotting process was such that revisionism set in and the tidal wave of proletarian revolution crested and ebbed. each major setback fed another and the core socialist countries all restored capitalism. the capitalist world-system then consolidated itself, but there were still remnants of self-rule all over the world, with increasingly irrelevant autarkic features and attempts at resisting foreign rule by capital. since the 1990s the main aim of the US has been to "mop up" these countries by isolating and then destroying them. and the isolation of these countries has been very real and costly, so it's not complete insanity for collaborators to prostrate themselves when the whole world seems against them. but the system of imperialism always produces "errors" that can accumulate into poles of resistance, indigestible elements, and it's our responsibility to support such resistance, because it must be exhausted into its only sustainable form of resistance which is socialist revolution.
#51
Post rating: ~

mustang19 posted:

But why the hell did they quote XI YINPING, was that necessary? Aren't there enough other people who can say bad things about North Korea rather than a puppetmaster using them to annoy the West?



because they are supposed to be the sole enablers of north korea, finally showing signs of breaking ties. depending on your narrative this either means regime collapse is imminent and thus the government will declare war out of pure vindictiveness or that "diplomatic" pressure is working and north korea will finally be forced to reform after it loses it last ally. useful either way.

its pretty questionable that xi was even talking about nk as well http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/04/misreading-xi-on-north-korea.html

#52
Post rating: +++++
#53
Post rating: +++++

#54
Post rating: +

uh, professor, I just want to ask you about... professor, are you listening to me? hello?


\


sir?


\



\

Edited by ArisVelouchiotis ()

#55
Post rating: +
stopped reading at Austin, TX
#56
Post rating: ~

because it must be exhausted into its only sustainable form of resistance which is socialist revolution.



Hopefully you mean in the historical sense, not the ecological-bullshitological sense.

since the 1990s the main aim of the US has been to "mop up" these countries by isolating and then destroying them. and the isolation of these countries has been very real and costly, so it's not complete insanity for collaborators to prostrate themselves when the whole world seems against them.



I still don't think that's a very good explanation of US foreign policy. For example Algeria in the 1990s was basically the situation we have in Syria, but in reverse. The US was supporting the socialist FLN against Islamist rebels. Likewise the US has propped up Central Asian regimes like Turkmenistan against Islamists.

Sometimes the US supports Islamists, other times secular lefties. I can't even explain what the motives behind US policies are, they've supported every faction out there at some point in time and spreading liberalism appears to be only one motive.

because they are supposed to be the sole enablers of north korea, finally showing signs of breaking ties. depending on your narrative this either means regime collapse is imminent and thus the government will declare war out of pure vindictiveness or that "diplomatic" pressure is working and north korea will finally be forced to reform after it loses it last ally. useful either way.



I doubt the author put that much thought behind it. However it would satisfy the need of the fukuyamists. North Korea is a lot less dependent on China than it seems to be portrayed. Their terms of trade are very ungenerous and Korea is selling coal at about half market price, the DPRK could survive without that.

In context the quote actually seems to be Xi's way of exaggerating the North Korean threat so it's not surprising that our friend Jeremi used it. I don't think a North Korea collapse is the ideal scenario for the liberal elite because it would be a big mess to clean up, they would probably prefer China to use diplomacy or a military coup to Dengize it.

Dunno if I posted it but China built a hugeass rail system a few years ago to stream troops into Korea once things crumble.

Edited by mustang19 ()

#57
Toronto
Post rating: +

discipline posted:

big hollywood doesn't make any film that isn't a blatant CIA film anymore, how many films are out now about north korea?



the two movies i watched in cinema were both anti-dprk, namely; g.i joe and olympus has fallen. the latter being a film where north korea literally attacks the white house and tries to blow up every nuke in the U.S

#58
Post rating: ~
According to CNN.com, "North Korea Has Already Won"!!!!!

It is too late. Should have showed up for work last week Jeremie, you could have prevented this.

JewMedia is going full blast on this stuff.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t1#/video/world/2013/04/11/tsr-dnt-todd-north-korea-fmr-spy-who-defected.cnn

CNN found some random old lady to foretell doom.

1:40 is awkward as fukkkk.

Edited by mustang19 ()

#59
Post rating: +

getfiscal posted:

because of the might and glory of stalinism and decolonization,



New Catchphrase <masses start singing>