Why the fuck is this suddenly a federal crime? Do federal prosecutors only wake up to combat worker revolts?

My bad, sorry.

Removed by mod

Iran needs money (since the US has sanctioned them to kingdom come) to preserve the value of its currency and its balance of payments, and this is a good way to do so. What did you expect Iran to do? Fight the U.S. without getting any money in return?

Ah yes, the classic western leftist approach of disapproving of every AES and anti-imperialist state and instead trying to build something completely new out of doing mutual-aid and aimless anarchism hard enough.

It’s arguably a good idea for the world in general. By occupying the strait and being the official security provider, Iran prevents the U.S. from ever taking that role. One of the reasons the US tried to collapse Iran was so it could come in and occupy the Strait, then use that power to cut off China from Hormuz oil as an extension of their Strait of Malacca blockade strategy into the Middle East.

Just imagine if the U.S. was able to enforce sanctions and blockades at the Strait of Hormuz, restricting oil going from the strait to any U.S.-sanctioned country. That would be the exact inverse of what Iran is doing right now.

If Japan doesn’t send anything against Iran, they may be able to negotiate some deal to get oil. If Japan starts sending warships there, then Iran will immediately cut them off, and Japan will go from having an oil shortage to an oil drought.

Yes, either the Chinese are working too hard and the West should be like them, or the Chinese are too lazy and the West shouldn’t be like them. Schrodinger’s whatever the f.

The author saw that 996 wasn’t a viable avenue of attack, as it’s mostly a myth unless you’re in the startup sector (in which case it’s completely voluntary because you’re doing it to make bank). The author then decided that to meet his China negativity quota, he had to lament about normal work culture in the public sector (as it’s super bad because it’s “China-style” or something).

What the fuck does this mean? If China was directly fighting the US, then the US would be less violent? Is that what they’re arguing? The sheer audacity.

Fuck him. China had around ~600 nuclear weapons, while the US has 5177. It is about time China increased its nuclear weapons count to at least match, but ideally double or triple. As I have written before, China needs the ability to fire 3-4 nuclear warheads to match the deaths from each one US warhead, due to China’s much higher population density.

Also, Japan is a nuclear threshold state just like Iran, with enough plutonium to immediately build 5500 warheads. China cannot be outmatched by both the USA and historic war-criminal Japan.

PSL helps organize almost every major protest, and “technically not-technically” run Breakthrough News, the most popular socialist video news org on YouTube.

I think Zyuganov is happy to work under Putin for now as the representative of the second largest party in Russia. If the KPRF went politically against Putin, it would create the perfect instability for U.S. color revolution shit. Putin is at least a Russian nationalist who is willing to use industrial and fiscal policy to strengthen and develop Russia.

Apparently, this is enough rice to feed Cuba for half a year.

It’s best they do stay secretive; otherwise, the US will let loose the terrorists they’re funding to destroy Myanmar to go kill them too.

Yep. Apparently states have the right to oppress minorities, but not the right to stop them from being oppressed.

So the Supreme Court is saying that conversion therapy must be allowed? The fuck about conservatives’ “states rights”?

Here’s the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10144-z

Agree. The West seems to define human rights as “the complete freedom of people to do whatever they want (barring outright torture/murder except in cases where the people murdered are anti-imperialists)”. Most importantly, this includes the right to sell off the country to Western capitalists. However, if people are starving and dying because of a lack of social services and infrastructure, that’s not a problem of human rights. According to the West, that’s just natural law.

The Soviet Union abstained from signing into law the UN Declaration on Human Rights explicitly because its negative rights of political and economic freedom directly opposes the construction of socialism, which requires opposing the economic and political power of the bourgeoisie. The West is perfectly happy to say that they support economic and political rights for all because in practice the bourgeoisie dominates due to their existing wealth.

I think someone just forgot to add them. Laos has a very low profile on the international stage.

I’m also studying that subject!

Here are some good books:

• Communism, the Highest Stage of Ecology (very technical, focusing on ecological policies in AES states)
• Socialist States and the Environment: Lessons for Ecosocialist Futures (this one focuses on ecology in the Soviet Union and China, requires prior interest in said countries)