Convolutional

> conquest is still on the forefront of many dictator's minds

I should note that the US government and media cheered when Yeltsin had the army shell the elected Duma in the Russian White House, so that Yeltsin could carry out his western backed economic shock therapy more quickly and without hindrance. And that Yeltsin chose Putin as his successor.

Something to keep in mind when westerners drone on about dictatorships.

> a cowardly war on people who did nothing to harm him

The majority of comments on here are cheerleading the US sending weapons to the Ukraine to kill, among others, the soldiers of the people's militia of the Donetsk and Lunhansk people's republic, who are being attacked with US weapons and their proxy forces.

Or the people who lamented an end to the military operations in Afghanistan.

And on and on, the US torturing Arab nationalist in Guantanamo Bay and the killings done all over the world.

Under this view, with Kaczynski having killed a business owner and two executives, I don't see him being particularly violent.

Reddit management is in the process of learning from what had seemed the boon of unpaid labor. The struggle of management and ownership against the unpaid moderator workers is over control of the means of production and the relations of production.

> every normal weather event

San Francisco and the PNW being covered by smoke every summer is not a normal weather event, and now it is starting on the East coast. The east and southeast is also being hit harder by hurricanes, and they are not stopping at the Gulf of Mexico any more. These are just the events people have been able to see in the US in past years and they're not normal and with ever-increasing carbon output it is undoubtedly going to get worse.

I'll take the entire northeast being covered in smoke as an "over the top" claim that just came true.

It's bizarre how the US attempted to block Cuba from getting the Internet, and still blocks Cuban Internet through many means ( https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/other-site-policies/g... ), but the presentation is that the suppression of content is of Cuban origin.

It reminds me of when the US said Cubans were not allowed to leave Cuba, and the mental hospitals and prisons were filled with political prisoners. Castro announced anyone who wanted to leave Cuba, even those prisoners or mental patients, could go to Mariel harbor and leave if they wished. Suddenly the US did a turnabout and began demanding Castro stop letting Cubans leave Cuba, and too many were prisoners and mental patients, when the US suddenly discovered those were the inhabitants of Cuba's prisons and mental hospitals.

> Ellul was a pacifist, and Kacsynski was a violent terrorist.

Kacsynski killed three people, wounded some others. A drop in the bucket to the $100 billion in bombs being sent to the Ukraine which people here are cheerleaders, or the bombing in Syria, Lybia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, I can go on and on.

It's a laugh that he killed three people and is called a monster when the Silicon Valley bigwigs have been cheerleaders and enabling mass slaughters around the world for decades.

> Kaczynski's ideas because they came from a convicted terrorist

The reason Kaczynski stopped is he saw a social movement taking root with similar ideas, sometimes even more radical ideas - Kaczynski saw the industrial revolution as the problem, while people like John Zerzan saw the agricultural revolution as the problem. While these primitivists are all over the place, a lot of them live from Seattle down to Oregon and the north coast of California, maybe down to Berkeley.

Regarding MKUltra - the only reason we know what we know about it, after the CIA director directed in 1973 that all documents on it be destroyed, is that some of the MKUltra documents were mislabeled and not destroyed. They were discovered in a 1977 FOIA request.

Aha, so during the Opium Wars, in this battle, the US invaded China, killing hundreds of Chinese soldiers and capturing four forts, but you have some definition in your mind where "the opium wars didn't involve the US". The Chinese have a different opinion.

Also, "the US invaded the country to protect Americans there" is one of the oldest excuses for an invasion in the book. Just thinking of the Caribbean in the span of a few years, it was the stated reason for the US invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965, and then Grenada in 1983 (the latter following days after the US invasion of Lebanon).

Also this was just one battle in the Opium Wars. The US fought alongside the English in the Battle of Taku Forts, as well as other skirmishes.

> face a Jury of your peers

Like the Arab nationalists being waterboarded in Guantanamo Bay?

Although some of them the US realized it picked up the wrong guy and released them.

Incidentally, Guaantanamo Bay is occupied by the US military against the wishes of Cuba.

> Or go to Middle East and call out their leadership and see what happen

The US and Europe have spent over a century backing despots in the Middle East and putting down or helping put down popular movements by force. The US doesn't even seem to mind if they dismember Washington Post reporters in their embassies. The US sends billions to Netanyahu every year to put down the Palestinian mass movement.

Funny how the US props up these despots, then points to them as a point of supposedly flattering comparison.

So who was fighting the Chinese during the Battle of the Barrier Forts?

> China's business-political environment is a carbon copy of the US.

It's not a carbon copy, the US and UK fought a war to push opium and heroin in China, are currently flying fighter jets off the coast of China, flew a military plane into a Chinese plane in 2001 killing the pilot and landing in China without authorization, the US is arming a rebel province which b the PRC, Taiwanese and US governments all agree is part of China etc.

They're not a carbon copy, the US is much more militarily belligerent than China.

> the price paid by their own children

If French workers allow Macron to jack the retirement age up, the price surely will be felt by their own children.

Income does not corollate exactly to relations of production, but it is a decent enough independent variable.

CNN 2020 exit poll - income over or under $100,000. The majority above voted Trump, majority below voted Biden.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/natio...

With regards to liberals abandoning the working class - this did not happen because liberals were never for the working class. Nor were conservatives.

> I was amazed when living in SF how many of the homeless are not locals. Not even Californians!

I visited the Bay Area a number of times and only met one person who was born locally. "Not even Americans!" in many cases.

The US backed radical Islamic jihadists to overthrow the secular government running Afghanistan. The US president invited them to the White House, then armed and funded them https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Reagan_s... .

Trying to split hairs saying there was infighting and not all of them joined the Taliban does not change that.

Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda also came out of all that.

Now I'll go back to reading the mainstream media's encomiums to the Azov batallion in the Ukraine.

> Japan was invading Asia and Germany was invading Europe. Many of the things that exacerbated the Bengal famine were due to defensive measures designed to avoid even worse deaths if those invasions were successful.

You're talking as if England had not invaded and subjugated India. Gandhi was in prison during World War II due to noncooperatiom with the English invaders, and Nehru and the then big tent Congress party had the same policy. Bose actually went to Japan as he wanted the Japanese to come into India and drive out the English invaders.

What was the Dust Bowl famine in the US at the same time but policies of "agriculture for ideological reasons"?

Then why are we continually subjected to propaganda about the "Holomodor" famine in the Ukraine in 1932, or the (last) famine in China in 1959?

England is blameless for their imperial involvement in the Irish and Indian famine - the Soviet Union and PRC are communist evil when a famine happens in their countries.

I should also note this Ukrainian Holomodor junk people are babbling about (which Walter Duranty and the New York Times at the time said was not happening) was before the English-enabled Indian famine.

> A left wing pressure group identifies the article publisher as a right wing pressure group.

If we look at the author section of the website, it lists former members of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, members of the American Enterprise Institute etc.

Also the "left wing pressure group" says IRS filings show the Koch brothers fund the CPC.

The reader can look at the facts, some on their own web site, and decide if they are a right wing pressure group or not.

The act is the act of suppression, which they were involved in. They did not participate in the delay portion of the suppression, nor does it say they did.

The first sentence blames the delay on the dictator of Guatemala, quite explicitly. Then in the next sentence it says the CIA aided in the suppression of the novel, which it did.

The text never days the CIA delayed the novel, it says the CIA aided in suppressing the novel. The CCF didn't even exist until the 1950s.

You would think if it was inaccurate, the inaccuracy could be quoted from and pointed to. You do not do so.

I see claims there is an inaccuracy there.

I see people doing paraphrases and inventing conditionals and saying they are inaccurate. Which they are. But they're not the original text.

It's pretty simple, quote some text and say why it is inaccurate.

As there are no inaccuracies of the type mentioned, this does not happen because it cannot happen.

> The claim specifically made in the article that the delay in publication from 1936 to 1946 was due to CIA action through a front group.

It doesn't say that anywhere in the article. You've created a conditional in your head that is found nowhere in the article.

> Since the CIA did not, in fact, exist, any claims of what the CIA tried to do are self-evidently false, and need no more rebuttal than the date the CIA came into being.

The CIA did not exist prior to its establishment in 1947, to use your nomenclature. So what is false? Everything it says the CIA did from 1947 to the 1960s is true.

> 1946 the book was published, 1947 the CIA was created.

Right. So what is inaccurate in the piece? I don't see anything that contradicts this.

> And this produce what is objectively an historical howler right at the start.

What howler? You quote it ascribing actions to the Guatemalan dictatorship in the 1930s which is accurate. Then you claim the piece says the CIA was active in the 1930s, which it does not say anywhere.

It didn't. Nor do the sentences you quote say that.

This piece covers a period of time from the 1930s into the 1960s.

What is actually inaccurate? The CIA was doing the things the piece mentions from its inception onward.

Do you mean the entrepreneur who killed the angel investor, or the fire chief who sprayed a homeless man (the last in a series) and the homeless man fought back in self-defense?