I have no horse in the colonial race.

But you do, your post history is entirely pro China. Each article you’ve chosen is limited in scope, looks at only small details; whereas I’m coming at this from a contextual point of view. Why are you trying to pretend you haven’t cherry picked your references to suit your political leanings? It’s baffling.

Also, Marxist-Leninist fits, thanks for your honesty. I’m with Lenin, up until he calls for a continuous revolution against all political opponents: that’s the point at which a righteous revolution turns into tyranny.

From my point of view, colonialism regardless of the flavour of it, serves only to impoverish and destroy the lives of a large number of working people. Its the opposite of what true communism should look like.

Despite this, I actually gave China a tiny bit more credit because at least they’re building infrastructure, the USA wouldn’t have done that historically. Even if that infrastructure is a debt slavery trap.

You’re welcome to think of me as loving the USA though. From where I’m sitting tonight that’s given me such a chuckle.

All your links are media arms of the Chinese government.

All of your points are quite literally Chinese governmental talking points with no nuance and no analysis from any point of view that isn’t pro-China.

And you call my post projection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative

Much like America’s more usual approach, it’s softer colonialism than what the Brits did.

The difference this time around though is the building of infrastructure. America didn’t do as much of that during its rise or prime. That said, it’s often just another way to get the nation indebted to China, it’s not like they’re building the projects for free and often enough the debt is more than the country in question’s economy can handle.

Colonialism is colonialism afterall.

This method is built on political manoeuvring behind the scenes through intelligence assets and corruption with infrastructural incentives masking debt slavery out in the open.

Here’s the list you asked for:

Angola, DRC, Zambia, Sudan, Mozambique, Gabon, Ethiopia, Venezuela, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Pakistan Kazakhstan, Myanmar, Iraq and Iran.

The only downside is living in a universe that has the Borg. They are existential terror incarnate.

That said, they seem to always get defeated one way or another. Just make sure you live in a major federation star system and you’re golden.

Yes, water is indeed wet.

You dont understand how the American two party system works. Let me explain it in simple terms.

You have one party that is corporate light; that’s the democrats. And you have another party that’s corporate get fucked in the arse; that’s the Republicans.

Both parties serve their corporate masters first and foremost before any consideration of the common man. Neither party will challenge this status quo in any meaningful way. The difference is that one is willing to be a little more giving than the other fiscally.

But the reality is that the entire political process is captured by vested financial interests that own politicians and work together so that over the long term it all gets shitter and shitter for the common people and they get richer and richer.

The only way out of this is to primary every politician in the democratic party that have any financial ties to the elites. To money.

That’s most of them.

So many generalisations and a complete lack of understanding of there being other valid ways of conducting a relationship beyond what you’ve experienced yourself or seen with your own eyes.

True love is like any other feature of a relationship, only as enduring as the health of that relationship. That takes work, communication, and many other aspects too numerous to list here. It is complex and not easy to define. But it can endure just fine.

If it makes you feel better to think that relationships based on true love don’t last, by all means continue in that fantasy. But it is a fantasy and I think it says more about your fear of what you’re missing as someone who’s likely stuck in an arranged relationship, or stuck in a culture where that is expected of you, than it does about how enduring true love can be.

I dont mind the presence of these articles. I like to be in the know. I like the opportunity to engage in a constructive nuanced discussion that you can no longer find on Reddit, and can be found in abundance on Lemmy.

What effects me most is that, whether honest (human), not (bots) or covert (intelligence agencies), the defeatism, acceptance and obeyance in advance is the fundamental barrier to meaningful change. It catches, it spreads and it demoralises. It is the boot on our collective necks.

We need to be more mindful of spreading our nihilism to each other, unless we’re happy being part of the problem. More solutions, more raising each other up, less wallowing.

When pressed, he refused to declare Zionism racist in that interview. That’s quite different from saying zionism isn’t racist; he just wouldn’t say that it was. Also, he’s kind of right isn’t he? From a nuanced perspective, it’s Netanyahu and his party that have largely created the fascism at the heart of Israel, so I appreciate his point. But, I suppose theoretically, the fact he went to reflect before changing his position, could indicate a needed to gain permission from the person he is owned by before changing his stance.

This week he has said specifically, that zionism is racism under pressure from his party. I don’t see that as the act of a committed zionist, but then again is it just verbal buttering? He’s seemingly willing to go so much further than Starmer, Badenoch or Farage in his anti-Israel speech. If he was owned by Netanyahu like so many politicians are, he wouldn’t be able to say this freely surely? It also shows he’s willing to go with consensus of his party which is also a good sign.

That said I’ve been fooled before by music to my ears; so it comes down to a matter of trust doesn’t it? Do we trust him? There’s no telling before reaching power. He’s been transparent about his finances at least; and doesn’t appear to have been bought like many other politicians. But whether or not he’s a Trojan horse for the left, who has a hidden master, is impossible to see at this stage.

Here’s a paraphrased quote from Zack Polanski: “Zionism is Racism”

What are you even talking about? Israel owns all the other major parties, except the greens! That quote is 100% more than any leader of any UK party has ever said regarding Israel or Gaza.

Three very different sources on this:

• https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/polanski-indicates-support-for-greens-zionism-is-racism-motion/

• https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-green-zack-polanski-zionism-is-racism-motion/

• https://news.sky.com/story/israel-not-committing-genocide-in-gaza-but-casualties-and-destruction-are-utterly-appalling-says-uk-government-13427380

It does seem to be a downward trajectory at least though. Let me cling to a little hope please :P. Perhaps the debates will swing it in Polanski’s favour; he is the only one who lays out a reasonable plan for working folks.

I hope the wider British public wakes up before the election. But, pretty much all of the mainstream media encourages their base instincts to blame immigrants at some level, rather than the wealthy. They are caught in a propaganda loop. Some of that influence is obvious (The Mail), some of it is very subtle (BBC, TheGuardian - editorship).

But I’m not overly optimistic. It took them way too long to realise the Tory leopards were eating their faces.

Americans coming over here is quite laughable. Good luck guys, you’d be better off somewhere that has a relatively young democracy and/or dictatorship in living memory (Germany and Spain look pretty good from where I’m sitting - but even Germany is a little bit O.o).

Ah yes, the great purge was so wonderfully kind.

In case you can’t tell, that is sarcasm.

How can any system of government be defined as democratic when that system concentrated power into a single party system? All the while suppressing dissent and suppressing civil liberties.

Democracy is defined as power ultimately residing with the people, either directly or through freely elected representatives. None of which the USSR had. It was a totalitarian dictatorship with power concentrated centrally through the politburo and a dictator sitting at the top of it all.

Did I also spot an apologist for the acts of the great purge elsewhere in this thread?

Also, your “meme” is based on the logical fallacy of false equivalency. Comparing a single aspect of two different systems of government, doesn’t equate that either of them are better than the other. You’ve selectively chosen a single frame of reference that doesn’t prove your argument in your “meme”. It is a misleading and fallacious method of debate.