WelcomeWEFreedomWindsorEssexCounty-ActionCommunicationsRalliesResourcesSocialEventsWednesdayNightMeetings-ActivismAgoraAgorismCanadaCommonLawCommunityDataCentersDataCentresDoocracyFarmersMarketIntroductionsNaturalLawNewslettersOntarioOrganizingOutreachProjexProjexWikiRalliesResistanceAnalysisSoireesSoiréesWikiSpooksWindsorElectionsTop Subs
1
Opinion - - (+0|-0)
Israel and China are trying to gain sympathy by attacking the other, leveraging the other's bad rep. And it will probably work on some people.(self)
1 commentbyx0x7

China Uncensored just put out a video taking Israel's side in this tiff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJNAlKiXo6A

Both China and Israel are bad actors and both benefit from pointing fingers at the other because some people are dumb enough to blindly agree with someone pointing a finger at a bad actor. But it's so easy for bad actors to do that they all do it. But if I was forced to side with one or the other, I'm not, I'd side with China. Both try to manipulate us. Both respect zero law in other places. Both ethnically cleanse those inconvenient to them. Both desperately want the US population to not see them as a threat. Both corrupt foreign politics. Both pretend to be stabilizers of their region while doing the opposite. Both pretend to be champions against nazism while doing things that look suspiciously like nazism.

The difference is that Israel is actively ethnically cleansing more people currently. I think that's a legitimate reason to consider them more bad. I think a lot of good would come from blindly following that rule. Because if everyone did that they only way these countries could get a good rep is to not ethnically cleanse people. It's a strategic metric for controlling state actors. Just ask "how many civilians are you killing?" and throw out all other nuance. Now they will have to chance that metric.

States desperately want you to like them. They put a lot of propaganda effort into it. So clearly they are willing to jump through some hoops to get what they want. We should think about what carrot we dangle in front of them.

But if we did want to add more nuance.. both try to manipulate our politics, but Israel is better at it and has a bigger chance at gaining complete control over our political system, considering they've already done it. Maybe that is preferring tomorrow's oppressor to your current one. But fine, yes it is. Preferably we'd have neither corrupting out politics, but if Israel were to lose control over the US and China gained it we'll oppose them then. For now I'm 60:40 on opposing both Israel and China. And no amount of finger pointing from either at the other is going to make me feel better about either.

Comment preview

[-]x0x70(0|0)

FYI. China is what actual nazism looks like. I know a lot of people through the word around at anything that moves, but I think I do have a point.

I have a theory about what I call the three socialism. No socialist country can ever pursue only one out of the three and meet their logistical needs. So all socialist countries adopt an ad-mixture of the three. This especially let's the communists claim "but true communism has never been tried." And as much as that is a cop out, it's technically true.

So what are the three socialisms? First let's say what a socialism is broadly. A socialist political ideology is any that views "the greater good" as being the only thing that matters. A "social creature" is personified from the people and it's health is the only moral value. It rejects hard the concept of individual rights. People exist only to serve the state which is equated with the people. There are some anarcho-socialist variants that remove the state, sort of, but it's pretty irrelevant to what countries actually do. So if we are looking at what socialist states do we'll ignore it.

So the three socialisms:

  1. Communism - state ownership and control of the means of production
  2. Fascism - Non-egalitarian socialism. It admits people have different abilities and need to occupy different roles, and be rewarded differently. Everyone still doesn't have rights. Everyone is expected to pursue the social program from their station in life.
  3. National socialism - Racial socialism. A socialism that considers the body of "social creature" on ethnic lines.

In practice none of them ever adopt a pure form of any of them. The NSDAP didn't take "ownership" of the means of production but they did take the fruit of them, directed what was to be produced, and paid the owners in phony money that would have exploded if we had let that experiment run longer. It basically was seizing the means of production while trying to claim they weren't communist. Communist score, 30%. Not zero. They also employed the concept of people having unique stations in life. Fascist score. 50%. They really did want all workers to be equal.

I could give more examples from other places but let's jump straight to China. So it's an ad-mixutre, but how much of each? While they are ideologically communist and they teach communist dogma, the state controls very little of the means of production. Almost none. Everything is privately managed and owned. How about fascism? How equal are people in spite of being in a socialist country where human rights aren't really a thing, supposedly to prioritize the greater public good. Not equal at all.

But the real kicker is how national socialist are they? Benefiting the Han Chinese is the highest value. Even to the point that is why communism is on hold. It's not what is best for the Han Chinese at this time so it is on hold until it is. This doesn't mean communism isn't a value. It is. They teach communist dogma in their schools. It's just any other value can be on hold for their racial priority.

This is why China is actually Nazi. In terms of actual policy they are about 10% communist, 70% fascist, 100% national socialist. Dogmas can be very different from people's acts. So in terms of teaching they are 80% communist, 40% fascist, 60% national socialist. They want to be 100% communist but they do have to teach some of the other ideals if they are going to justify them as policies.

Is Israel National Socialist? They are super racial. The question is how socialist? I guess it depends on if they view their own citizens as having natural rights. Do they indoctrinate their citizens to believe their sole purpose is to serve the state? Considering they let many orthodox groups live there that have very opposing views to that concept and they don't just cancel their right to speech or to practice their religion I guess they aren't that socialist. Just general statist I suppose, and currently killing civilians.

parentlinkreply