Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q1961

Main entry

1961. Q1961/Q19,61 Cuba blockade (First World countries; 1960-) / first Cuba embargo (sic) / Cuba embargo level 1

Prior history

618. In 1930, the United States loaned money to its companies to gamble on Cuban sugar production
618. In 1960, foreign-aligned oil companies in Cuba refused to refine oil from the Soviet Union [1]
618. In 1960, the United States refused to buy sugar from Cuba if it was not produced by U.S. people [2]
618. 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.
618. Economics and politics are one / Economics cannot be separated from politics (Che Guevara 1961) [3]
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

Second Cuba blockade

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.
618. 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.
618. 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.
618. charging Raúl Castro from the United States
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 de facto rule the planet as a whole (2026)
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 meta-Marxism to accurately characterize.

Cuba versus anarchy

618. 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.
5054. Q5054/Q50,54 Anarchy is not anhierarchy / (9k)
5054. Q5054/Q50,54 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).
618. 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.
618. 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

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.)
     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.
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.

Related

618. "one lies, one tells the truth" puzzle
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 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.

Ideologies or fields

• LR / Liberal-republicanism
• PT / Toryism
• STM / health services
• STM / populational health
• HAS / community services
• MX / meta-Marxism