Marat

Edit:

Context: Left is Viktor Tsoi of Kino and right is Oleg Gazmanov

I tried asking my therapist about this but I don't think they understood me very well, or I just didn't explain it well. I wanted to ask if anyone here experiences a similar thing and maybe has a definition or term for it.

I feel like, from the outside, people are generally a more homogenous mixture of things. I.e, they have thoughts, opinions, actions that aren't independent of the rest of themselves but are more the "average" of their personality. They might feel conflicted about things, but that's more when they have two or more paths that diverge from their "average."

But for me I feel like my thoughts are more like oil and water. They don't really mix.

For instance, I can be really materialist [as in, Bourgeois materialism] sometimes. Like I fantasize about having things and being free and being a libertine.

Conversely I simultaneously fantasize about being a monk/nun/hermit, who's existence is devoted to teaching people and having very little possessions.

Sometimes I love having money. I sometimes I go on impulsive spending sprees. Other times I hate having money and feeling like I have wealth, and want to donate a lot (unfortunately I can't do that with my current lack of funds)

Or simultaneously lll have a very big and very small ego. Like having both a superiority complex and imposter syndrome at the same time. One minute I can be complimenting myself on my work and imagining how important I can be. Other times I'll wish I was never born and think I'm less than useless.

It's not that I don't see these thoughts as obviously contradictory, because obviously they are. It's like I'm constantly being pulled in two different directions. Like I have one personality that's high ego, highly libertine and hyper independent who doesn't want anyone, while at the same time I have another who has less than zero self esteem, wants to be a spartan or a monk or a nun, and is insanely fearful of doing anything without an authority figure's approval. It's not DID because i don't disassociate and I don't think they're literally two seperate people, but I feel like this isn't how thoughts are supposed to work...

I was expecting to have more complex feelings for him after reading Han Suyin's books on China, but nah this guy really sucked. Like did anyone besides his wife like him?

Originally from here

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAnon/s/rrslCVdTb0

I saw something about this seeing a screenshot from a different article. What would be the difference between the social security ministry and a police system?

https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2026-03-24/national/northKorea/North-Korea-moves-to-introduce-police-system-in-possible-bid-to-improve-nations-image/2552520

Obviously due to recent events [both epstein files and iran war], posts discussing why Americans haven't been more active in trying to stop all of this have been recirculating

I'm going to offer an alternative explanation given what I've seen both personally psychologically and also what makes sense. I dislike answers which are just "they're stupid lol," they're uncreative and unexplanatory.

There's this phenomenon teens can go through, which I went through, where instead of fighting back they essentially shut down into survival mode. With normal parents, or those teens perceive as normal parents, they will have a tendency to rebel, slam their doors, etc. They'll be angry and make it known, because they want the parent to change whatever is upsetting them [I know portraying the state as a parent is a common right wing point, that's not my intention in this case].

However, with emotionally abusive or negligent parents, teens will do something else. They'll essentially not do anything besides the bare minimum. As long as they aren't being actively beaten, they'll just go through their day and not interact with their parents more than they have to. They won't cry or scream or demand xyz, they simply live. It looks obedient, but they're actually just trying to keep their head down because they know that fighting back makes things worse.

So my hypothesis is that Americans are in this sort of state. I've seen a lot of people in my life like this. They don't go out and protest or try to make things change because they think nothing can or nothing will. So they stick their head down and try to live their day to day life.

I feel it makes some sense. Besides the mobilization in Minnesota, the protests against the double murders of Alex Pretti and Renee Good didn't have the numbers or intensity of the George Floyd protests in 2020. Why? It's not like Americans have better material conditions now then they did in 2020 [Besides covid, but I'm unsure if that would make it much worse than today]. So why the change? My two explanations are that the democratic party (who had a large hand in the George Floyd protests, to my knowledge) no longer works as a mobilization force as it did before, both because the leadership doesn't want to and because people have lost faith in them, and also my "survival mode" explanation above

Genuinely dont have anything to say. Not that I agree or disagree but I just wanna see everyone else's opinions first

So, my therapist is referring me to a psychiatrist who she'll work with to diagnose me, but currently she is leaning towards a social anxiety disorder with depression.

Firstly, I didn't realize SAD was an actual disorder so I hadn't considered it before.

But...I feel really crushed. I'm not trying to use SAD as an excuse or anything, but it feels like conscious brain knows what I should be doing as a communist, but my subconscious instinct over protects me and prevents me from actually being able to be social and organize and such. I just feel like such a useless sack of meat.

If anyone else here has suffered with this, could I ask for some advice, please?

I was thinking about it recently, and this is just a random thought I had it's not well developed, but I was Watching something on the uptick in separatist parties in the UK, and given the massive geographical range of the US I was wondering if separatist movements would be helpful.

This could be any separtist movement, from Chicano and African to Indigenous to Cascadian. I just feel like independence from the US is a lot more feasible in the short term rather than some form of revolution overtaking the whole country all at once. But like I said, it's an undeveloped thought (although I would prefer answers more than "i love balkanization" and "America is bad so yes." It's less a question of "is hurting america good" and more "is this the best way to do it?")

Let me tell you a story

Back in early high school, I had a big crush on this friend of mine. I really liked him. He was, in my perception at least, a big reason why I chose to stay alive. So I told him that. A lot. I thought he'd be grateful, but he wasn't and eventually cut contact with me.

Upon recent reflection, i acted this way because my mom treated me the exact same way, almost down to the letter. It damaged me and would have damaged him as well. I still haven't had a chance to apologize.

Another friend who cut contact with me (for different reasons) recently got back in touch and she apologized to me for cutting me off. I had to just straight up tell her that it was probably for the best that she cut me off because I was toxic.

Was my trauma, possible borderline disorder, and learned behavior an excuse or an explanation?

An explanation, obviously.

Maybe its something I'm taking too seriously or I'm just too literal, but an excuse is a reason why it should have happened, basically a reason for exception. Everyone is supposed to go to school, but if you're sick you're told you should stay home, and you have an excuse for missing that day, because you have a reasonable explanation for why you ought to not have.

If you miss a day of school and say "oh, it wasnt an important day," that's an explanation, the reason reflecting your character for why you didn't do something you were supposed to. You still shouldn't have done it, and maybe there should be consequences, but it's a reflection of why you made that decision.

So in my case it was an explanation for why I acted the way I did. But what does that mean exactly? Am I 100% personally to blame for how I hurt others? I'm obviously biased but I'd say no, because I had no way to know I was doing something harmful.

I still shouldnt have treated them that way, but there was a reason I did. It's something I had to learn from a deal with. No one was wrong in this situation. I was taught horribly how to be kind to people, but i was still hurting others, so they had no recourse but to cut me off. And in a way it did help me realize my problems.

I think that's my thing. There doesn't have to be a "right" or "wrong" in certain situations. I know this sounds like one of those enlightened centrist tumblr posts, but really, that's what i think.

If someone is bipolar and doesn't know it, they shouldn't be judged for what they do in manic or depressive states, but others shouldn't be judged for anything reasonable they do in response to harm from these states. Or if someone is bipolar, they should be given some sympathy for what they're going through.

If a "normal" person is having outbursts because you're not following their every word, then obviously they are in the wrong. But if someone with OCD is emotionally distressed because of the symptoms of their illness, then it's not really their fault. They're only in the wrong if they use it as an excuse for why they ought to do something. Saying something like "oh well I have ocd so you have to listen to me." Is obviously wrong.

But how many people actually do this to the extent that you need the platitude mentioned in the title? More often than not i see it used against people who literally can't control it [i.e Tourettes, people whom have that syndrome do legitimately have an excuse for their actions] rather than people who can.

If you want to be personally inflamed by someone I get it. My mother probably has mental illnesses herself, she was also treated poorly in childhood. I don't think it's healthy for me to be around her, and sometimes I really do feel like i hate her for what she did, but I'd never want to see her punished because that won't fix anything. She has her explanations, i have mine, we should focus on actually trying to be constructive rather than just saying "theyre wrong, fuck em."

I'm hoping this is coherent, if you need clarifcation on something feel free to ask.

Japan has been doubling down on it's rhetoric against China and the new PM has even started a campaign to get rid of the article 9 provisions in the constitution. This has inflamed tensions and China would have a reasonable case for war if Japan landed troops onto sovereign Chinese soil.

But...China wouldn't nuke them?

I mean I'm not saying they wouldn't fight back, obviously, but China has a no first strike policy. Unless Japan launches nuclear weapons first, China wouldn't launch them in the first place. This has been the policy ever since China first developed nuclear weapons. [I mean, the only other use case is that if China actually feels like they need to use it to prevent occupation/invasion of China. That's what the nuclear arsenal has been developed for, to make occupation too costly for imperialist powers. I guess technically you could argue a deployment onto Taiwan would count, but...its kinda just dumb? It's not like Russia nuked Ukraine after it invaded Kursk. Xi isn't sitting at his computer like "hehe yes I love nukes let's blow up people."]

Imo the most likely case would depend on escalation. I think if it's limited to just a conflict over Taiwan island China would probably just blockade Japan and force a deal. [I mean...they could try a ground invasion bit I don't think most Chinese people would actually want to do that given the immense resources required].

Sorry, I just keep seeing it said that "Japan will learn when they realize china has nukes this time," even by non-chinese communists. And honestly it's just...not funny? Like if it is a joke, I don't see the punchline. If it's not, then it's foolish mental behavior at best and outright callous at worse. I'd expect those kinda things from Han nationalists with the username "Yonglesgreatestsoldier" or something.