For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
Americans are a little too hitlerite to see their settler colony as what it is
https://x.com/nukedwest/status/2054601717501550915
All because of AOC
weird internationalist rhetoric
Yeah, it's so weird that people keep saying to stop bombing other countries for the benefit of the ruling elite
all of communism owned with one line. How will we ever recover?
As we all know, Marx said "Workers of the Global North, keep on keepin' on!, don't be weird"
Internationalism = Weird
therefore it follows that
Nationalism = Normal
Since we don't want to be weird with our socialism in order to not alienate the fascist oinking hogs, why don't we do some kind of "Normal Socialism" or "National Socialism"
I hate this country so goddamn much
don't you get it, the way to global communism to tail the most reactionary imperialists on Earth
When will the Vulcans get here 
Brace Belden was wrong. Do be weird.
I don't know how many years left I got on this Earth so I'm gonna get real weird with it
I do not have a problem with that.
I'm literally wearing a hi-vis hoodie over a bright pink Hawaiian shirt with palm trees all over it and my shoes have Hello Kitty and friends on them
That was my first audible chuckle from a comment this week. Thanks!
P.s. I bet you look great
Thank you, I do
But but but Putin Ukraine!
Iran so far away!
That's too close to be to a bug
I am so tired of the wider left movement having no critical understanding of nationalism, we can't keep having this same conversation over and over without even using the word once
The kicker of course is that AOC doesn't know a damn thing about the so-called American revolution, nor do any of these people, it's just a rhetorical armor that they think will protect them against the right-wing, who also don't understand and couldn't care less about the details or ideas surrounding the proto-fascist takeover of middle North America
The American "Revolution" was fought for the settlers' "right" to genocide Native American and enslave kidnapped Africans, after which they would get back to instilling their communities with a dozen different brands of religious mania
Same people defending AOC and saying the genocide of palestine is not a big deal also think native genocide and the enslavement of africans arent a big deal 
Coincidentally, they are also still "deeply concerned" about totally not fictional genocides taking place in China and Ukraine
all of these people, aoc included, unironically need to read settlers or something. almost none of the mythical ideals that amerikkkans project onto their founding history were ever even legally binding. a bunch of reactionary slave owners and capitalists beginning the only true amerikkkan institution of pretending to be free while strangling everyone and everything in sight.
They wont read it, they are already denouncing Gerald Horne
"Slavery wouldn't have been abolished under the Crown"
Despite the fact slavery was abolished by the British Empire decades before the United States, these people are genuinely clowns
britain lost the majority of its slave economy to the US, and when they did abolition they continued to utilize the US slave-produced materials. emancipation had lower costs to the british after US independence and emerging benefits (solidifying trade control in west africa and the carribbean).
i think it's pretty idealistic to imagine the same timetable if abolition had implicated a greater share of britain's economy in 1833. also they paid restitution to the slavers, Britain might not have even had the heap of cash to buy out 2 million more.
With executive power held firmly by Westminster, the Southern Veto wouldn't have held as much sway as it did during early US history; in fact, the American South would've likely remained a rebellious province and forced London into a hostile and combative relationship with it, likely damaging the economic prospects of the South in that timeline
Then we have to take into account the rapid industrialization of England itself, which would've mirrored the dynamic the American North had with the South, even if the South still developed into the cotton export powerhouse it was, that economic logic would still run against the imperial logic of forestalling slave revolts and advancing the industrial labor agenda
The inevitable French revolution and the inevitable slave revolts it would've triggered would still led to an explosion of abolitionist thinking in London, for the simple imperial reasons that slave revolts are expensive and the entire British Empire can't put all its eggs in a perpetually disloyal province, no matter how lucrative the commodity it exports
To say nothing of the legal precedents of Somerset and Dunmore that the Amercian abolitionists could've wielded like a bludgeon in the colonies
Althistory quibbles
But you make a mistake in identifying the Revolution as the catalyst to the heap of abolitionism in Britain, their abolitionist societies predated it and were very moderate. so they tried really hard to distance themselves from the Revolution, article I read recently talked about the 'radicals setting back' the abolitionist agenda for years. being seen to be associated with the Jacobins in the 1790s was extremely bad, and the Jacobins really highlighted it when they abolished slavery in 1794.spoiler
there's a pretty big divergence between a TL where the independence war kicks off and dunmore does the decree, and one where the yankees are pacified in some other way. the latter (which i think is the neater counterfactual) also offsets the Revolution in France without the war debt. it was extremely difficult for the british to win the war as it was so the divergence for a counterfactual needs to predate hostilities a bit. no Quebec act, giving the entire ohio valley to Virginia, shit like that
The big question which i allude to in the spoiler, is whether the integration of the 13 colonies to avoid independence gives the slavers authority and stakes in government or not. by bourgeois graft or formal sanction i think it's much more likely the planters would have grains in parliament and block the abolitionists better than the group from the Bahamas and Jamaica.
it was extremely difficult for the british to win the war
Nah, even a minor change in strategy after the capture of New York would've destroyed the Continental Army and led to a likely British victory, and after 1778 even a slight uptick in naval deployment would've forced the French out (that ridiculously narrow ass margin in the Chesapeake), the British were just being cheap
But you make a mistake in identifying the Revolution as the catalyst to the heap of abolitionism in Britain
That's not what I was saying; my point is slave revolts in the Caribbean served as a catalyst and supercharged abolitionism in Britain by giving abolition an imperial logic and elite social sanction (even if the elites were politically divided and Jacobins weren't popular in themselves); the fear of slave revolts served to sour British elites on slavery as an imperial enterprise
The French Revolution absolutely triggered slave revolts in the Caribbean, but the slave revolts themselves didn't create some grand upsurge of moralistic feeling; no, even better, it led to elite terror at the idea that slavery would generate more Jacobinistic radicalism, which in its own cynical way had a profound effect on the prospects of abolitionism everywhere
Absolutely not. the Battle of Long Island, though it could have been concluded with that heap of a douchebag Washington on a tree, was in our TL an overwhelming British victory. you don't automatically win the war by pressing that more. They still needed to take Philly.
The congress was still active and frankly, sans Washington, they would have had a better command staff.
Focusing on taking useless cities and not pursuing the reeling Continental Army to its destruction is precisely why the British lost, they treated the war as a peer-to-peer conflict and naively believed taking the capitals would end the war
If the Continental Army had disintegrated, the blow to morale and legitimacy would've been absolute, and the colonial loyalists would've won the day politically, especially in the south
You’re right that the last sentence of the first paragraph makes that claim (or rather a claim about it being abolished sooner rather than not at all). But I think that’s a bit of a non-sequitur. What’s relevant for the first two sentences (and the poster’s overall point) is the motivation of the revolutionaries, I.e. whether they perceived (irrespective of whether this perception was accurate or justified) slavery would be soon abolished such that a revolt was necessary to maintain slavery. The fact that Britain abolished slavery (in certain parts of its empire) so 60 years later is not super relevant to the underlying claim.
Not only should the ideas of the founders be abandoned the very concept of an "American" should be fundamentally abandoned as well. The "American" "culture", the "American" "history", and "American" "values" are are all nonsense concepts made to justify capitalism and hold little actual value to workers liberation. Just as China replaced their feudal culture and the Soviets replaced theirs any post revolutionary US must abolish the concept of an "American". In its place a new identity must be forged not bound by nationalistic pride but by an internationalist solidarity with all workers, an identity based upon liberation.
It is necessary that this process establishes racial equality, and a reparation and reconciliation process with the indigenous peoples of north america as well. Unfortunately that will be very uncomfortable for most settler "Americans", but it absolutely has to happen. I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.
Those poor smol bean "ordinary colonists"
send everyone on twitter to the fields. they will reap the grains and shut the fuck up about this nonsense
They're acting like AOC is representing anyone "left" in any kind of politics beyond those of self-sucking buyer's remorse.
She lost the remains of that credibility when she lectured campaigners over her staunch centrist both-sides-ism on Palestine.
9mmballpoint
this fucking guy
one of those people who assumed he was a radical commie because he got horny over the YPJ but never bothered to study any of the fucking theory beneath it all so channelled into a desperate bernie-AOC "revolutionary" fantasy
You mean the Zionist and American proxies, that YPJ?
YPJ?
Kurdish militia in the Syrian Civil War. Allied to the US and Israel. Leftists in America couldn't get enough of them for around a decade as they stole oil from Syria and sold it to Israel and hosted US airfleets. As lots of baby radlibs were radicalizing they were the one 'socialist' group it was acceptable to like/praise, so path of least resistance led to tons of them stanning YPG/YPJ even years after they were irrelevant
is it the same guy that made the comic about how "leftists in the spanish civil war didn't have pronouns and green hair and ’woke language‘ ， look at how we have fallen" ?
It must be very fun to analyze history as a contest of ideas. You've got all those cool characters like "the Founders" going down their Enlightenment skill tree or some shit and then deafeating all the bad ideas that came before. Brilliant stuff
People really do just think you choose an ideology from a list and some people just choose the Bad ones because there's something Bad about them
It must be very fun to analyze history as a contest of ideas. You've got all those cool characters like "the Founders" going down their Enlightenment skill tree or some shit and then deafeating all the bad ideas that came before.
Uh, not to be THAT guy, but wasn't this sort of Hegel's whole thing?
Hegel was a very silly man
Sorry, I completely forgot this was a Hegelian internet forum
WITH LIBERTY AND TREATS FOR ALL
Oh forgot that guy existed.