MultigrainCerealista [he/him, comrade/them]

Literally a truck load of croissants seized by the military is this real life

I once got on the wrong plane entirely that’s how loose shit was. As a kid I remember we would be waving goodbye to people on the tarmac at smaller airports.

It sounds like they’re exploitative scum who rely on your strong work ethic to allow them to live it up on permanent vacation.

Repeat after me: “fuck them”

It’s “9/11” as a brand just like “7-11”

Hey I’ll offer you a used Xbox for you to risk your entire career and possibly a stiff jail term in your home country. It comes with Halo.

I would like to extend my best wishes to all, even the haters and losers, on this special date, September 11th.

BAKE UP WEEDPLE

I’m not supposed to laugh at 9/11 but I’m allowed to hijack a jet in GTA who is the real monster

Jet memes don’t smelt 9/11 dreams

The people who died didn’t deserve to die but America deserved 9/11 does this make sense?

Can we please stop celebrating on this awful day, the diada of Catalonia when they lost their independence and became part of Spain you awful fucks

I think as a broadly applicable rule, the slower this conflict burns the better it is for Russia.

That’s not the same as saying the longer it burns since I think Russia has more interest in a permanent settlement than a continued war, but the slower it burns means cheaper for Russia in terms of western support fading away and Russian advantages in manufacturing of munitions being maximized.

I don’t see any reason for Putin to engage in a risky big arrow push at any stage of this war. He tried it at the beginning and got burned, since then it’s been favorable attrition warfare. Why would this strategy change?

3 favorites 😂

I don’t think what you’re saying is wrong, it’s more that I think it’s too convoluted.

Something like 75% of the worlds oil is in the Caspian basin and this explains most of the past 30 years of US war.

I think Iraq, Georgia, Ukraine, Crimea, Syria, it’s about that oil and the countries in proximity to it.

This stuff about “finance capital vs industrial capital” I dunno, it’s not wrong I just think it’s a bit too abstract high concept.

The wunderwaffe is a moving goal post. It’s always the next weapon that will change everything. The weapon that hasn’t yet been delivered is the secret ingredient that will change everything.

Currently this is the F-16.

The reasoning NAFO types engage in is that western weapons are exceptional and remarkable such that only a small number of them can counter much larger Russian forces.

“Wunderwaffen” is the term for this reasoning.

The more cynical view, our side of things basically, is that the west is only providing enough to keep Ukraine in the fight but not enough to win because the west benefits more from this conflict dragging out than it benefits from any peace settlement.

Ukrainian victory is not plausible without western forces actually deploying, and since the west is not actually willing to bleed for Ukraine, the objective of the west is to prolong this conflict for as long as possible in order to make Russia bleed as much as possible.

The mask slips pretty frequently as US senators or EU presidents boast about how “cheap” this war is because “it’s not US soldiers dying.”

The concept is known as a bleeding sore. The west wants to engage Russia in as expensive a conflict as possible in order to force Russia to expend blood and treasure in Ukraine, with the rationale being this makes Russia weaker in the medium term future.

Secondarily and specifically for the benefit of the USA, it forced europe to cut economic ties with Russia and broke apart the growing links between Germany and Russia which ensures Europe remains firmly under US vassalage. The loss of very cheap energy imports from Russia also dramatically undermines European manufacturing which rather directly benefits US manufacturing since the US is also pushing the EU into a trade war with China.

Term limits are a mistake.

It seems appealing to be able to force corruptible goons like Pelosi out but the problem is the supply of corruptible goons is endless so you’ll just be replacing her with someone equally ghoulish and beholden to the ruling class.

And the supply of good leaders who represent the people is very small so the effect of term limits is to replace the good with the bad far more often than the bad with the good.

By rotating politicians on a short term basis you are forcing public politics to operate with short term vision, meaning long term planning is left in the hands of the opaque think tanks and the donor class.

Now, in the USA obviously that’s a moot point because all politicians are already beholden to the bourgeoisie but think about for example Xi in China. The neoliberal faction in China had imposed term limits precisely because they wanted to hobble the ability of any Chinese leader to effect change by limiting their term of power, which was in actual fact a transfer of power to “institutional” power (such as banking) and the long term planning of private power centers such as corporations.

Or look at the introduction of term limits in the USA. FDR was a lib but he was a social welfare lib and even that was too much for the piggy class of the USA to bare. The popularity of sharing at least some of the wealth in the USA made FDR enormously popular and so the bourgeoisie demanded term limits to prevent any future populist from doing that again.

Term limits serve the interests of private capital and not the interests of the people because corrupt goons are highly replaceable meaning it doesn’t matter if you rotate them rapidly but principled populists are rare and so should be preserved in power.

It’s not about the money. It’s about the adrenochrome. They would have died 20 years ago if they didn’t have access to the spice.

Edit: not an important argument

Critical support to the worst person in the world