Jump to content

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q1961: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From LithoGraphica
← Older edit
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
15,861 edits
Moral vanguards are created by Liberal-republicanism / Only Dengism can put Trump in prison
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
15,861 edits
pigs aren't supposed to stand up
 
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Cuba blockade|User=RD|E=Q1961|Contents=y}}
{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Cuba blockade|User=RD|E=Q1961|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
== Main entry ==
<noinclude>{{HueCSS}}</noinclude><ol class="hue clean">
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">


{{li|start=y|I=Z1/LR|Q=19,61|Q2=1961}}Cuba blockade (First World countries; 1960-) / first Cuba embargo (sic) / Cuba embargo level 1
{{li|start=y|I=Z1/LR|Q=19,61|Q2=1961}}Cuba blockade (First World countries; 1960-) / first Cuba embargo (sic) / Cuba embargo level 1
Line 10: Line 10:
<ol class="hue clean">
<ol class="hue clean">


{{li|start=y|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}In 1960, foreign-aligned oil companies in Cuba refused to refine oil from the Soviet Union [https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1961/08/08.htm]
{{li|start=y|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}In 1930, the United States loaned money to its companies to gamble on Cuban sugar production


{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}In 1930, the United States loaned money to its companies to gamble on Cuban sugar production
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}In 1960, foreign-aligned oil companies in Cuba refused to refine oil from the Soviet Union [https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1961/08/08.htm]


{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}In 1960, the United States refused to buy sugar from Cuba if it was not produced by U.S. people [https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1961/08/08.htm]
{{li|I=S2/ML|Q=618}}In 1960, the United States refused to buy sugar from Cuba if it was not produced by U.S. people [https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1961/08/08.htm]
Line 22: Line 22:


{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Economics and politics are one / This is far more than an economic discussion ... it is a demonstration of the capacity of free nations [Liberal-republicanism] to meet the human and material problems of the modern world (John F. Kennedy) / Delay in accepting the responsibility ... to defend the essential values of our civilization [at the economics conference] ... would signify irreparable damage to [Liberal-republican] society and the imminent danger of the disappearance of the freedoms enjoyed today, as has occurred in Cuba
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Economics and politics are one / This is far more than an economic discussion ... it is a demonstration of the capacity of free nations [Liberal-republicanism] to meet the human and material problems of the modern world (John F. Kennedy) / Delay in accepting the responsibility ... to defend the essential values of our civilization [at the economics conference] ... would signify irreparable damage to [Liberal-republican] society and the imminent danger of the disappearance of the freedoms enjoyed today, as has occurred in Cuba
</li></ol>
=== Cuba and the transatlantic slave trade ===
<ol class="hue clean">
{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Cubans are basically Black people  ->  as written this is only an analogy, but if you think about it for a bit it really explains why the United States never actually makes any progress. Cuba as a whole is one big rebel slave plantation. part of Cuba was quite literally used to put African slaves on sugar plantations. and when Cuba created Dengism, the plantations were taken away, and Cuban exiles are still mad about that.<br/>
Cubans are basically Black people + look at that pig trying to be a human = Animal Farm is a direct insult to Black people.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}{{book|Animal Farm}} is a direct insult to Black people in the Americas  ->  this will look fairly baffling at first glance until you look into the steps of the argument and then you will be shocked.
{{li|I=S2/DX|Q=618}}Dengism is as good at ending slave plantations as Liberal-republicanism  ->  nobody admits this. when everything is about 'moral consciousness' and ending slavery it should be all over the presses, but it's not.


</li></ol>
</li></ol>
Line 28: Line 40:
<ol class="hue clean">
<ol class="hue clean">


{{li|start=y|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}international court  ->  the motif of an international body capable of hearing cases. the international body claims to not be the direct extension of a particular country's government, but in reality it probably is.
{{li|start=y|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}international court / international tribunal ->  the motif of an international body capable of hearing cases. the international body claims to not be the direct extension of a particular country's government, but in reality it probably is.
 
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}U.S. policy against Cuba violates international law {{YouTube|s101yj08x0o}}  ->  that seems like a pretty ineffective complaint when the United States can convene international courts whenever it wants. the U.S. {{em|makes}} the international judicial system.
 
{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}fixing the Cuba blockade with a lawsuit {{YouTube|QsSYFVms5LI}}  ->  wow I am so tired of these attempts to fix every historical event with after-the-fact lawsuits. I can think of like three of these. this one even {{em|found}} that the United States government caused harm and owed Cuba millions of dollars. but who is going to make it pay that money? and who is going to make it stop doing this? it's a sovereign government and the most powerful in the world.


{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}charging Raúl Castro from the United States
{{li|I=S1/LR|Q=618}}charging Raúl Castro from the United States
{{li|I=S2/MX/LR|Q=618}}Prosecutors rule the world / Miles Edgeworth rules the world / It is not presidents or representatives that have ultimate control over Liberal republics, but laws, courts and lawyers; thus, if it is possible for there to be international courts, prosecutors and judges are the people who {{i|de facto}} rule the planet as a whole (2026)
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618}}One man's crime is another man's law / Actions described by a particular legal system as "crimes" are often in fact the law enforcement actions of another population's legal system or the informal equivalent of one  ->  often not accurately understood by Stalin's Marxism, Trotskyism, Liberal-republicanism, or anarchism. one of those things you truly need [[E:Q92|meta-Marxism]] to accurately characterize.
{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618}}If corporations are people, then why are people blockaded? / If there is no embargo on Cuba, and corporations have the human rights that individuals do, and corporations are free to go to Cuba and sell things, then why are there actual legal consequences for individuals interacting with state businesses in Cuba?  ->  this genuinely doesn't make logical sense to me. it feels like the kind of thing that somebody who only knows the vantage point of corporations and talks exclusively to actual Voltrons of several people glued together thinking they're people would think of<br/>
also: this is exactly the kind of thing that makes [[RN:5c/RegenMag/ParallelEconomyWright|Wright's argument]] that socialist transition begins and ends at creating new production structures sound really dumb. if you make new production structures and the United States sufficiently dislikes them then the whole First World can ban them by interacting only with its own production structures and instantly become stronger than the entire worldwide revolution making it materially impossible.<br/>
this + ?? = Corporations are more than people.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Corporations are more than people / All the rights in the U.S. Constitution primarily apply to corporations and inherently apply less to individuals, including the individuals that comprise corporations
{{li|I=S2/DX|tradition=|Q=618}}The second Cuba blockade scared hotel owners out of Cuba {{YouTube|ZGElcwr4zkw}}  ->  ok that's really funny. the U.S. has been trying so hard to get rid of hotels owned by Cuba and its recent actions had the opposite effect


</li></ol>
</li></ol>
Line 47: Line 75:
I can't help but be outright angry at the fact anarchism is so popular at a time when simultaneously international courts are popular. it shows that anarchism is a contradictory belief system.<br/>
I can't help but be outright angry at the fact anarchism is so popular at a time when simultaneously international courts are popular. it shows that anarchism is a contradictory belief system.<br/>
in one formulation anarchism says that bordered factional groups are bad. in another more modern formulation anarchism says that domination is bad. but you can't, as a particular 'borderless and uncountable' political movement, aim to get rid of bordered factional groups just for the sake of doing it, without creating domination. international courts aim to remove domination from particular countries, but they necessarily involve a country such as the United States outright exerting domination across the borders of less powerful countries because it currently has power, just to supposedly 'remove domination'. I think the lie is that bordered factional groups "are governments", the 'Stalin principle' that sovereignty {{em|inherently}} gives a group of bureaucrats power as opposed to that happening incidentally. removing domination is closer to being a real thing, as unfortunate as it is when it sounds so abstract and the other one sounds so nearly concrete. so what you have to realize is that an army standing around China or Cuba is removing domination. domination refers to many things and you can't remove all of them at once, only a few. domination is a bit like a Rubik's cube, it's easy for one side to get mixed up when you solve the other, but that doesn't mean there isn't a complete solution.
in one formulation anarchism says that bordered factional groups are bad. in another more modern formulation anarchism says that domination is bad. but you can't, as a particular 'borderless and uncountable' political movement, aim to get rid of bordered factional groups just for the sake of doing it, without creating domination. international courts aim to remove domination from particular countries, but they necessarily involve a country such as the United States outright exerting domination across the borders of less powerful countries because it currently has power, just to supposedly 'remove domination'. I think the lie is that bordered factional groups "are governments", the 'Stalin principle' that sovereignty {{em|inherently}} gives a group of bureaucrats power as opposed to that happening incidentally. removing domination is closer to being a real thing, as unfortunate as it is when it sounds so abstract and the other one sounds so nearly concrete. so what you have to realize is that an army standing around China or Cuba is removing domination. domination refers to many things and you can't remove all of them at once, only a few. domination is a bit like a Rubik's cube, it's easy for one side to get mixed up when you solve the other, but that doesn't mean there isn't a complete solution.
{{li|I=S2/MX/DX|Q=618}}An army standing around China or Cuba is removing domination from an emerging world civilization by removing domination from international empire


</li></ol>
</li></ol>


== The United States and lies ==
== The United States and lies ==
<ol class="hue clean">
<ol class="hue clean terse">


{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Everyone within the United States who is loyal to it will lie to you  ->  'Cuba is not under a blockade, you're just an evil country'. 'the Democrats protect minorities' (domestic and foreign lie). 'Herbert Marcuse [or insert other arbitrary person] invented transgender people'. 'United States elections are not disproportionally affected by oil companies'. 'I understand that multiple countries exist'. 'I understand what Communism is'. 'I understand what a worker is'. 'I understand what a historical period is and the physical transition that separated monarchy from Liberal-republicanism'. 'I understand what being educated is'. 'I understand what the scientific method is'. 'Liberal-republicanism works, and I understand how it works'. 'Protests heighten the social cost of taking an action'. (the same person I heard say this also said it tends to stop working, which means the explanation of both what protests do and how they do it is wrong.)<br/>
{{li|start=y|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Everyone within the United States who is loyal to it will lie to you  ->  'Cuba is not under a blockade, you're just an evil country'. 'the Democrats protect minorities' (domestic and foreign lie). 'Herbert Marcuse [or insert other arbitrary person] invented transgender people'. 'United States elections are not disproportionally affected by oil companies'. 'I understand that multiple countries exist'. 'I understand what Communism is'. 'I understand what a worker is'. 'I understand what a historical period is and the physical transition that separated monarchy from Liberal-republicanism'. 'I understand what being educated is'. 'I understand what the scientific method is'. 'Liberal-republicanism works, and I understand how it works'. 'Protests heighten the social cost of taking an action'. (the same person I heard say this also said it tends to stop working, which means the explanation of both what protests do and how they do it is wrong.)<br/>
this is one of the top things I would tell anyone living in Cuba. flat out don't listen to U.S. people, because the majority of them are liars on at least one thing. {{em|they aren't honest.}} as for me? I may or may not write false statements but I always try to either mark them in red or orange to show what particular movement tends to say them and why you might expect them to be wrong, or mark the refuted statements F2. everyone else may lie, I just make mistakes.
this is one of the top things I would tell anyone living in Cuba. flat out don't listen to U.S. people, because the majority of them are liars on at least one thing. {{em|they aren't honest.}} as for me? I may or may not write false statements but I always try to either mark them in red or orange to show what particular movement tends to say them and why you might expect them to be wrong, or mark the refuted statements F2. everyone else may lie, I just make mistakes.


{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Laundering claims is lying / Refusing to explain under what conditions a statement could hypothetically be wrong is equivalent to lying  ->  you really need this strong a definition of "lying" if you want to catch United States "historians", or even early Trotskyism.
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618|h4= Laundering claims is lying }} / Refusing to explain under what conditions a statement could hypothetically be wrong is equivalent to lying  ->  you really need this strong a definition of "lying" if you want to catch United States "historians", or even early Trotskyism.
 
{{li|I=S2/MX|tradition=|Q=618|h4= Anticommunism belies Habermas }} / Anticommunism is [[E:does not promote freedom (truth value)|Prejudice]] / The continued presence of anticommunism in the world shows that the world still contains some unknown kind of bigotry and all critical-theorists and anarchists will continue to be [[E:Society is the progression of moral consciousness|bigots]] as opposed to [[E:moral vanguard theory|progressives]] until they figure out what it is


</li></ol>
</li></ol>
Line 67: Line 99:
{{li|I=S2/MX/DX|Q=618}}Only Dengism can put Trump in prison / The United States should transition to a Deng Xiaoping state because it is the only way to put Trump in prison (2026)  ->  I've been meditating on the concept of "international courts" and how currently they don't really make any sense, and seem like a side effect of Liberal-republicanism really being Liberal-imperialism; globalization puts a net of capitalists all over the world (technically neutral) and then the network puts courts all over the world and takes over every country (bad). this led me to the question of whether all Communist parties in the Americas are required to protect China and Cuba purely to take away the power of the United States, and in turn, whether the United States transitioning to Deng Xiaoping Thought would help China. on that I'm not sure. but I think I'm more confident that it would help {{em|the United States}}.<br/>
{{li|I=S2/MX/DX|Q=618}}Only Dengism can put Trump in prison / The United States should transition to a Deng Xiaoping state because it is the only way to put Trump in prison (2026)  ->  I've been meditating on the concept of "international courts" and how currently they don't really make any sense, and seem like a side effect of Liberal-republicanism really being Liberal-imperialism; globalization puts a net of capitalists all over the world (technically neutral) and then the network puts courts all over the world and takes over every country (bad). this led me to the question of whether all Communist parties in the Americas are required to protect China and Cuba purely to take away the power of the United States, and in turn, whether the United States transitioning to Deng Xiaoping Thought would help China. on that I'm not sure. but I think I'm more confident that it would help {{em|the United States}}.<br/>
here's why. the United States conceptualizes everything in terms of laws and adherence to abstract legal statements. this is why international courts supposedly make sense: if you can conceptualize an abstract legal statement applying to multiple countries, then a court can be convened and arbitrary officials in an arbitrary country can be put away. so basically, [[E:Miles Edgeworth rules the world|Miles Edgeworth rules the world]]. but in theory, there is a way to turn that around. if the United States transitioned to Deng Xiaoping Thought and formed a Communist party just to have one as opposed to in order to have any real principles, the new United States code or United States constitution could require by law that all representatives cooperate on a decision or the worst offenders will automatically be recalled, by force of the central state and not requiring any extra effort from the people. with this kind of legal foundation, it would become possible for the country to identify someone like Donald Trump who might be continuously resisting the new legal system at the time as committing crimes against the constitution and put him into an international court where he can't retreat inside his own country to get out of the charges. start appealing the very worst cases in recent history from the US supreme court up to the international court.
here's why. the United States conceptualizes everything in terms of laws and adherence to abstract legal statements. this is why international courts supposedly make sense: if you can conceptualize an abstract legal statement applying to multiple countries, then a court can be convened and arbitrary officials in an arbitrary country can be put away. so basically, [[E:Miles Edgeworth rules the world|Miles Edgeworth rules the world]]. but in theory, there is a way to turn that around. if the United States transitioned to Deng Xiaoping Thought and formed a Communist party just to have one as opposed to in order to have any real principles, the new United States code or United States constitution could require by law that all representatives cooperate on a decision or the worst offenders will automatically be recalled, by force of the central state and not requiring any extra effort from the people. with this kind of legal foundation, it would become possible for the country to identify someone like Donald Trump who might be continuously resisting the new legal system at the time as committing crimes against the constitution and put him into an international court where he can't retreat inside his own country to get out of the charges. start appealing the very worst cases in recent history from the US supreme court up to the international court.
{{li|I=S2/LR|Q=618}}Filming {{book|Call of the Wild}} with computer-generated dogs squashes The Subject  ->  thylacines ... natural law ...<br/>
gosh this just really makes me wonder what it would be like if {{book|Animal Farm}} was set in Australia and also for no particular reason the characters were furries. it would make it so much more disturbing that people apparently keep them as slaves. but it would make it way easier to tell the story of Cuba where people constantly deny that the argument is over slave plantations and the Confederacy realistically extended over two whole country regions. we've had this whole argument about trying to delete slavery from history books and yet there's one part of it the Confederacy solidly won that nobody even talks about.
{{li|I=S1/Fy|Q=618}}pigs aren't supposed to stand / pigs aren't supposed to stand up  ->  why is this a motif both in {{book|Animal Farm}} and in Pokémon news discourse. it really is, and it's like, weirdly the same. only small connotations are different.


</li></ol>
</li></ol>

Latest revision as of 02:23, 19 June 2026

Main entry

  1. Cuba blockade (First World countries; 1960-) / first Cuba embargo (sic) / Cuba embargo level 1

Prior history

  1. In 1930, the United States loaned money to its companies to gamble on Cuban sugar production
  2. In 1960, foreign-aligned oil companies in Cuba refused to refine oil from the Soviet Union [1]
  3. In 1960, the United States refused to buy sugar from Cuba if it was not produced by U.S. people [2]
  4. American-made in Cuba / American-made in Vietnam / American-made in Cambodia -> the motif of efforts to "make things in the United States" being inherently connected to efforts to put down United States corporations and corporate owners in Third-World countries.
    thankfully "American-made in China" is something of a thing of the past, but there are a ton of countries that haven't escaped that fate yet.
  5. Economics and politics are one / Economics cannot be separated from politics (Che Guevara 1961) [3]
  6. Economics and politics are one / This is far more than an economic discussion ... it is a demonstration of the capacity of free nations [Liberal-republicanism] to meet the human and material problems of the modern world (John F. Kennedy) / Delay in accepting the responsibility ... to defend the essential values of our civilization [at the economics conference] ... would signify irreparable damage to [Liberal-republican] society and the imminent danger of the disappearance of the freedoms enjoyed today, as has occurred in Cuba

Cuba and the transatlantic slave trade

  1. Cubans are basically Black people -> as written this is only an analogy, but if you think about it for a bit it really explains why the United States never actually makes any progress. Cuba as a whole is one big rebel slave plantation. part of Cuba was quite literally used to put African slaves on sugar plantations. and when Cuba created Dengism, the plantations were taken away, and Cuban exiles are still mad about that.
    Cubans are basically Black people + look at that pig trying to be a human = Animal Farm is a direct insult to Black people.
  2. Animal Farm is a direct insult to Black people in the Americas -> this will look fairly baffling at first glance until you look into the steps of the argument and then you will be shocked.
  3. Dengism is as good at ending slave plantations as Liberal-republicanism -> nobody admits this. when everything is about 'moral consciousness' and ending slavery it should be all over the presses, but it's not.

Second Cuba blockade

  1. international court / international tribunal -> the motif of an international body capable of hearing cases. the international body claims to not be the direct extension of a particular country's government, but in reality it probably is.
  2. U.S. policy against Cuba violates international law [4] -> that seems like a pretty ineffective complaint when the United States can convene international courts whenever it wants. the U.S. makes the international judicial system.
  3. fixing the Cuba blockade with a lawsuit [5] -> wow I am so tired of these attempts to fix every historical event with after-the-fact lawsuits. I can think of like three of these. this one even found that the United States government caused harm and owed Cuba millions of dollars. but who is going to make it pay that money? and who is going to make it stop doing this? it's a sovereign government and the most powerful in the world.
  4. charging Raúl Castro from the United States
  5. Prosecutors rule the world / Miles Edgeworth rules the world / It is not presidents or representatives that have ultimate control over Liberal republics, but laws, courts and lawyers; thus, if it is possible for there to be international courts, prosecutors and judges are the people who de facto rule the planet as a whole (2026)
  6. One man's crime is another man's law / Actions described by a particular legal system as "crimes" are often in fact the law enforcement actions of another population's legal system or the informal equivalent of one -> often not accurately understood by Stalin's Marxism, Trotskyism, Liberal-republicanism, or anarchism. one of those things you truly need meta-Marxism to accurately characterize.
  7. If corporations are people, then why are people blockaded? / If there is no embargo on Cuba, and corporations have the human rights that individuals do, and corporations are free to go to Cuba and sell things, then why are there actual legal consequences for individuals interacting with state businesses in Cuba? -> this genuinely doesn't make logical sense to me. it feels like the kind of thing that somebody who only knows the vantage point of corporations and talks exclusively to actual Voltrons of several people glued together thinking they're people would think of
    also: this is exactly the kind of thing that makes Wright's argument that socialist transition begins and ends at creating new production structures sound really dumb. if you make new production structures and the United States sufficiently dislikes them then the whole First World can ban them by interacting only with its own production structures and instantly become stronger than the entire worldwide revolution making it materially impossible.
    this + ?? = Corporations are more than people.
  8. Corporations are more than people / All the rights in the U.S. Constitution primarily apply to corporations and inherently apply less to individuals, including the individuals that comprise corporations
  9. The second Cuba blockade scared hotel owners out of Cuba [6] -> ok that's really funny. the U.S. has been trying so hard to get rid of hotels owned by Cuba and its recent actions had the opposite effect

Cuba versus anarchy

  1. Sanctions can be anarchic / International sanctions do not require law of any kind nor formal government of any kind; they can happen in an anhierarchic environment or in select cases in things which can be termed blue anarchies -> this is an observed fact which is concrete, making it a Z2 Statement. if you wish to change the Ontology entry, change the proposition itself to the observation that is accurate rather than marking it false. case of: Q49 real-world observation.
  2. Anarchy is not anhierarchy / (9k)
  3. Anarchy can be anhierarchy / (9k) -> Cuba is one of the best examples. anarchists go around trying to say that the negative effects that occur during Government or a locus of conjoined patriots happen because of Government, but what they don't realize is that there can be any number of cases where similar negative effects occur from decentralized processes in which people come together as equals and nobody rules anybody else, all the un-governed equals in the process who fairly agreed with each other to enter the process as a matter of peace and friendship just spontaneously all collect onto a decision that's really terrible, and somewhat literally a bunch of equal people simply decide to be more equal than other groups of equals.
    something can totally, almost indisputably be an anarchy and yet do horrible things to other groups of people on the level of Bellegarrigue's concept of "civil war" (warring states periods, violent global empire).
  4. Moral vanguards are created by Liberal-republicanism / The concept of a moral vanguard is specifically a product of Liberal-republicanism, and is correlated with the fact Liberal-republicanism has been trending toward creating global bourgeois courts where sovereignty can be suspended if countries are charged with violating "planetary laws", which is to say abstract Idealist propositions some unclear group of people subjectively agreed on ->
    I can't help but be outright angry at the fact anarchism is so popular at a time when simultaneously international courts are popular. it shows that anarchism is a contradictory belief system.
    in one formulation anarchism says that bordered factional groups are bad. in another more modern formulation anarchism says that domination is bad. but you can't, as a particular 'borderless and uncountable' political movement, aim to get rid of bordered factional groups just for the sake of doing it, without creating domination. international courts aim to remove domination from particular countries, but they necessarily involve a country such as the United States outright exerting domination across the borders of less powerful countries because it currently has power, just to supposedly 'remove domination'. I think the lie is that bordered factional groups "are governments", the 'Stalin principle' that sovereignty inherently gives a group of bureaucrats power as opposed to that happening incidentally. removing domination is closer to being a real thing, as unfortunate as it is when it sounds so abstract and the other one sounds so nearly concrete. so what you have to realize is that an army standing around China or Cuba is removing domination. domination refers to many things and you can't remove all of them at once, only a few. domination is a bit like a Rubik's cube, it's easy for one side to get mixed up when you solve the other, but that doesn't mean there isn't a complete solution.
  5. An army standing around China or Cuba is removing domination from an emerging world civilization by removing domination from international empire

The United States and lies

  1. Everyone within the United States who is loyal to it will lie to you -> 'Cuba is not under a blockade, you're just an evil country'. 'the Democrats protect minorities' (domestic and foreign lie). 'Herbert Marcuse [or insert other arbitrary person] invented transgender people'. 'United States elections are not disproportionally affected by oil companies'. 'I understand that multiple countries exist'. 'I understand what Communism is'. 'I understand what a worker is'. 'I understand what a historical period is and the physical transition that separated monarchy from Liberal-republicanism'. 'I understand what being educated is'. 'I understand what the scientific method is'. 'Liberal-republicanism works, and I understand how it works'. 'Protests heighten the social cost of taking an action'. (the same person I heard say this also said it tends to stop working, which means the explanation of both what protests do and how they do it is wrong.)
    this is one of the top things I would tell anyone living in Cuba. flat out don't listen to U.S. people, because the majority of them are liars on at least one thing. they aren't honest. as for me? I may or may not write false statements but I always try to either mark them in red or orange to show what particular movement tends to say them and why you might expect them to be wrong, or mark the refuted statements F2. everyone else may lie, I just make mistakes.

  2. Laundering claims is lying

    / Refusing to explain under what conditions a statement could hypothetically be wrong is equivalent to lying -> you really need this strong a definition of "lying" if you want to catch United States "historians", or even early Trotskyism.

  3. Anticommunism belies Habermas

    / Anticommunism is Prejudice / The continued presence of anticommunism in the world shows that the world still contains some unknown kind of bigotry and all critical-theorists and anarchists will continue to be bigots as opposed to progressives until they figure out what it is

Related

  1. "one lies, one tells the truth" puzzle
  2. Only Dengism can put Trump in prison / The United States should transition to a Deng Xiaoping state because it is the only way to put Trump in prison (2026) -> I've been meditating on the concept of "international courts" and how currently they don't really make any sense, and seem like a side effect of Liberal-republicanism really being Liberal-imperialism; globalization puts a net of capitalists all over the world (technically neutral) and then the network puts courts all over the world and takes over every country (bad). this led me to the question of whether all Communist parties in the Americas are required to protect China and Cuba purely to take away the power of the United States, and in turn, whether the United States transitioning to Deng Xiaoping Thought would help China. on that I'm not sure. but I think I'm more confident that it would help the United States.
    here's why. the United States conceptualizes everything in terms of laws and adherence to abstract legal statements. this is why international courts supposedly make sense: if you can conceptualize an abstract legal statement applying to multiple countries, then a court can be convened and arbitrary officials in an arbitrary country can be put away. so basically, Miles Edgeworth rules the world. but in theory, there is a way to turn that around. if the United States transitioned to Deng Xiaoping Thought and formed a Communist party just to have one as opposed to in order to have any real principles, the new United States code or United States constitution could require by law that all representatives cooperate on a decision or the worst offenders will automatically be recalled, by force of the central state and not requiring any extra effort from the people. with this kind of legal foundation, it would become possible for the country to identify someone like Donald Trump who might be continuously resisting the new legal system at the time as committing crimes against the constitution and put him into an international court where he can't retreat inside his own country to get out of the charges. start appealing the very worst cases in recent history from the US supreme court up to the international court.
  3. Filming Call of the Wild with computer-generated dogs squashes The Subject -> thylacines ... natural law ...
    gosh this just really makes me wonder what it would be like if Animal Farm was set in Australia and also for no particular reason the characters were furries. it would make it so much more disturbing that people apparently keep them as slaves. but it would make it way easier to tell the story of Cuba where people constantly deny that the argument is over slave plantations and the Confederacy realistically extended over two whole country regions. we've had this whole argument about trying to delete slavery from history books and yet there's one part of it the Confederacy solidly won that nobody even talks about.
  4. pigs aren't supposed to stand / pigs aren't supposed to stand up -> why is this a motif both in Animal Farm and in Pokémon news discourse. it really is, and it's like, weirdly the same. only small connotations are different.

Ideologies or fields

  • LR / Liberal-republicanism
  • PT / Toryism
  • STM / health services
  • STM / populational health
  • HAS / community services
  • MX / meta-Marxism
Retrieved from "https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q1961&oldid=44105"