Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)TT
ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them] @ ThereRisesARedStar @hexbear.net
Posts
0
Comments
389
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • you always pick prominent, well-respected, honourable, non-partisan middle of the road people for that kind of thing. People who can be trusted to organise proper elections and not fuck shit up in the meantime.

    Is this a joke? The US sidelined the main opposition forces who wanted to stay on good terms with both Russia and the US in favor of literal nazis. The new president was the leader of the "fatherland party" until he splintered it off into an even more conservative group which had a military council of nazi paramilitary leaders and was basically generically called "national socialist party"

  • During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

  • I mean yes, we are literally seeing more military coups in Africa by left wing folks who are quoting beloved anti-colonial icons, making concrete steps toward proletarian democratic elections and walking the walk on panafricanism. Algeria literally just blocked France from transporting troops through their country. Plenty of people are using the Amerikkkan empire and its European vassals being distracted and exhausted to cast off their shackles.

  • I concede that, if we live in your counterfactual reality where Hitler did the exact opposite of what he actually did, you'd have a point.

    I know what you're trying to say but i think you're trying to stretch reality to fit your comparison instead of trying to make an accurate comparison around reality.

    Maybe you should look for other real world examples that would fit your comparison better. I bet there are plenty of examples of nazis in nations fighting the nazis doing genocide denial during ww2 that you could find.