I only knew this one from him, prior to Lemmy(, even if i still haven’t seriously read any of his essays), worth a look[1] : https://dessalines.github.io/essays/us_atrocities.html

edit( post-@Blursty@lemmygrad.ml’s answer) :
[1] : What sucks is that i’m certain we could live in peace, help each other, etc.
Is it simply that capitalists fear to disappear if they allow communism to survive ? Then they should strictly restrict communist ideologies if they don’t entertain the thought of fusing both ideologies to keep the best in each(, e.g., by only allowing capital’s revenues for enterprises in order to keep this organic distribution, which is obviously not the solution, just an idea, theses need antitheses to evolve).
So, if we agree to stop spreading capitalist ideals(, and even more our covert operations[2]), and other countries agree to never spread communist idea(l)s, as well as (c)overt operations ; and we’re adding that, e.g., citizens who want to change the ideology of their country will have to leave, they’re not allowed to be in politics ; then we’ll have found/searched ways to enforce a long-lasting diversity.
But even if we’ve found these rules we’d also need for them to be strictly followed, supra-national institutions would have to be able to protect (from )(non-)westerners, with national armies gradually evolving towards a world army(, e.g., for natural disasters), and a support for countries to help them prove that foreign powers are interfering, and obviously a thousand more things, with as many “stress tests” before being adopted, etc.
We’re not even trying to walk this path, yet cooperation/assistance is the path, we’re in it together.

It’s also important to note that the current world would need to have much more diversity than currently, we would indeed preserve and be proud of our diversity/uniqueness while not trying to convert the others, but we’d need at least 5-6 different ideologies, and even thousands if we’re hoping for local variations.
At most, we’ve currently got 3 of them(, free-market capitalism, communism, and theocracy/islamism), i suppose that royalism, republics, and direct democracy could be three more, and the kind of south-american indigenous movement that tries to revive its past a seventh one, but we’re still too homogeneous/‘close to hegemony’ on Earth, Africa has to carve its own path, and South America is too similar to the western world, Europe is also too similar to the u.s.a., and Australia&New-Zealand as well. And there’s obviously many more ideologies that have to exist, and also on other planes than socio-economy//‘political representation’//‘importance given to God/religion’.
In comparison to westerners, Russia is more different from China, itself different from India, but it could/should still go further, and i’m not going to cite every country you got the point.
If we reach a state where every “zone” has the same standard of living because we couldn’t fear anymore to help a future enemy, if we jealously preserve our own particularity, and once again can’t possibly fear to be attacked by anyone, then we would focus on something else than military expenses, (war )propaganda, … It’s not perfect but it gets closer, we simply need to get rid of every possibility of fearing something, from ideas to missiles. We’d first have to accept the possibility of definitely protecting ourselves&others, and then actively research how to do that.
Kinda out of topic with @dessalines(, but not with u.s. atrocities)

God(&gods)( in the material world, but also) in the world of Idea(l)s(, and probably other worlds inaccessible to humans as well) :

The title isn’t exact :

Moreover, their relations were only re-instaured after the western-supported coup by J.Añez :

(Here’s Colombia’s president 6 hours ago b.t.w., among other examples)

(no need to point out that it would be safer for them not to take position for//against any side. The article also spoke of Argentina, here’s an interesting 2mn-long point of view)

deleted by creator

I take it as a natural reaction to overload of stress/emotion/pain. Being able to cry is physiologically beneficial (you get rid of cortisol) and psychologically it can help you process the things you’re going through more quickly. Trying to appear though by not crying seems counterproductive to me, but I understand in some cultures it is not socially acceptable to cry, especially for men.

To me, if you’re crying you’re admitting that something is stronger than you, that you’re powerless, and i still find it useless, i guess that i just have a bad image of it(, it can be beautiful though, like tears of joy, or of an emotion which isn’t defeat). But i clearly(, and subconsciously,) don’t treat men, women, or children, in the same point of view in regard to crying, i’d never think of saying “man up” to a woman hurt to the point of tears, yet i find it admirable when a man swallow his pain, and straighten his profile in order to act after whatever happened, that’s the common thinking, i’m not the weird one here(, even if my descriptions are very imperfect), but since modernity changed so many things they may end up suppressing the differences between men and women, or not, w/e.

If I suppressed my emotions, I would still be influenced by them, but I would have no conscious control over them, which would again result in limiting my rationality

On the contrary, suppressing your emotions helps to act rationally without being overwhelmed by them, and i.m.o. there’s no real difference between emotions and reason, since our feelings can be explained rationally, we’re often saying that “reason ignore the heart’s own reasons”, but that’s not true, we are indeed influenced by subconscious feelings that we would be unable to analyse, but that’s a minor side and i don’t make a distinction between the cold reasoning and the hot emotions, i’m deciding with both a’d i think almost everyone does the same.

I find the terms inner strength and beauty to be also very vague.

100%, i realized it when i was writing the examples, and the example you gave me is another very good one, you can indeed find effeminate/weak persons who are “tough motherf*ckers”, i didn’t give enough thought behind what “internally strong” may mean, and it also depends on the situation, it’s not because you’re weak or ugly internally at one time of the time that you can’t act beautifully or strongly at another time.

I agree with you that it’s reductive to stop on two adjectives.

Well, it doesn’t come from me and i have a story and some good memories from it. But in a few words, i asked someone special(, ~9 years ago,) if he had a motto, and he told me that the masonic triangle is “Strength · Beauty · Wisdom”, i still haven’t checked if it’s true(, but discovered a few years later that it’s in the Kabbalah). It stayed in my mind and i naturally decided to apply it to men and women and divide it in internally//externally. Just to say that somewhere.
While reductive, i think it has a lot of truth in it.

I don’t see any reason to propagate just one way for men and one way for women.

Men have testosterone, have sexual fantasy when they touch women, and read comics when they imagine themselves fighting.
Women have estrogens, in their fantasy they imagine themselves being touched, and read romantic novels when they’re preparing themselves for the unavoidable desire they’ll attract.

Yeah, i’ll need to edit this message, if you’re reading this line give me 30-40mn i want to do something first.

Not that i care but i’m sure that your comment made sense in your mind, would you mind sharing it with me ?

Do you interpret relieving your emotions by crying as being weak ?

Yeah, obviously, would you say that it’s a sign of strength ?

Or perhaps feeling emotions as being weak ?

“Emotion” is a vague term. Some emotions like bravery(, often a borderline foolishness,) are assimilated with strength. Some emotions like the feeling of defeat, self-pity, the lack of resilience, the fear of authority/punishment that makes you betray others/ideals, that’s weak. Always interesting to see how Chelsea Manning is stronger than a lot of men in this regard. Men love to fight, so kinda appreciate to be hurt in a way, and are proud of their scars.
Some emotions are beautiful, such as the one expressed in poetry, others are ugly and you don’t need examples to get what i mean.

It’s easier to exclude men from external beauty and women from external strength than it is to exclude them from internal beauty and strength, respectively.

And do you find women more flawed, because they’re physically weaker than men ?

We have our qualities and flaws, some women are stronger than some men and some men are more beautiful( inside&outside) than women, and it’s reductive to stop at these two adjectives, as well as obviously erroneous to draw conclusion on an individual from generalities.
Here’s what i answered to a previous comment if you’re interested :
Admittedly, beauty is more useful in times of peace than strength, if i count the benefits(, women can give birth and that’s the most important thing in Nature), women have more of them than men, but if we can keep some of our qualities i won’t say no.

Why would it be better if there were no distinction between men and women ? Or between countries, or citizens ?
What’s the use of showing your vulnerability, is that something that others like to see ? And it’s not difficult, what’s difficult is to take upon yourself and desire the struggle.
We’re men, alike rocks, people/life hit us and we don’t move, this has advantages and inconvenients, we generally appreciate women’s sensibility, and i suppose that most of them appreciate to be able to rely on men when they’re needed.
Admittedly, beauty is more useful in times of peace than strength, if i count the benefits(, women can give birth and that’s the most important thing in Nature), women have more of them than men, but if we can keep some of our qualities i won’t say ‘no’.

That’s how things are in general.
Diversity is good, but cry if you want to, i won’t support weakness on my part, and i will keep being annoyed if i encounter a weak man(, just as women may be annoyed by “ugly” women, i.d.k.).

Lol no, you can be both, and both can be wise/smart, etc.
But in general, women are more beautiful than men and men are stronger than women, perhaps that people nowadays see egality as uniformity, i.d.k.
But weakness(, inside and outside,) is a flaw/defect, as is (internal&external )ugliness, and other flaws.

As a general “rule” : women are beautiful(inside&outside), while men are strong(inside&outside).
Promoting weak men is a mistake in my opinion.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Hordes of drones flying over the city in order to find any possible infraction, don’t you want to feel safe ? (/s obv.)

In any case, we don’t get to decide, it’s our so-called representatives who’ll take the decision, with or without campaigns of communication.
At least in a real democracy, if the whole population agree to it, then i’d conform more readily to our choice even if i personally disagreed, but we’re not in a democracy, in which the demos has the cratos.
We’re in a constitutional republic, and our representatives are democratically elected, once they take the power from the people to decide in their stake it’s not a democracy, such as the one that once existed in Athens(, only for citizens, but the logic is the same).
Having the possibility to cancel any decision with a strong enough popular petition would be a first step, yet it’d be unimaginable for our “democratic” leaders, because the population needs to be directed, and shouldn’t be listened to. We’re ignorant while they know(, whose fault is it since we follow ? we obtain the population we deserve), people are stupid(, but we never include ourselves, we all have the same potential), we have to trust our leaders, etc.
In truth, we know what’s desirable, and anyone is apt to debate on whether or not this aim is indeed desirable. We only need to have experts and do experiments to test their predictions, because we don’t know anything about the technical details, almost as much as our leaders who trust these experts without obtaining the promised results sometimes(, preliminary experiments won’t prevent all mistakes, but at least it’d be our mistake, not theirs, we rarely can’t go back on our decisions).
Well, whatever, just to say that the decision isn’t up to us(, and consent is manufactured).

Because fighting against disinformation has always been about fighting for the control of the narrative
Big up to all the bots in the comments.

I’ve never read that one, it’s much better than the communist manifesto i.m.h.o., even if it’s a bit too short to take into account any counter-argument, and it’d need an update almost 200 years later. I remember know that there’s obviously a difference between the bourgeoisie and the nobility, but there must exist some kind of word encompassing both the nobles from the past and the modern bourgeoisie/capitalists. Anyway, here’s a relevant quote i liked :

The bourgeoisie annihilated the power of the aristocracy, the nobility, by abolishing the entailment of estates – in other words, by making landed property subject to purchase and sale, and by doing away with the special privileges of the nobility. It destroyed the power of the guildmasters by abolishing guilds and handicraft privileges. In their place, it put competition – that is, a state of society in which everyone has the right to enter into any branch of industry, the only obstacle being a lack of the necessary capital.

And, unrelated :

** — 14 — What will this new social order have to be like ?**
Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society.
It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association.
Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods.
In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry – and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.

— 15 — Was not the abolition of private property possible at an earlier time ?
No. Every change in the social order, every revolution in property relations, is the necessary consequence of the creation of new forces of production which no longer fit into the old property relations.
Private property has not always existed.
When, towards the end of the Middle Ages, there arose a new mode of production which could not be carried on under the then existing feudal and guild forms of property, this manufacture, which had outgrown the old property relations, created a new property form, private property. And for manufacture and the earliest stage of development of big industry, private property was the only possible property form; the social order based on it was the only possible social order.
So long as it is not possible to produce so much that there is enough for all, with more left over for expanding the social capital and extending the forces of production – so long as this is not possible, there must always be a ruling class directing the use of society’s productive forces, and a poor, oppressed class. How these classes are constituted depends on the stage of development.
The agrarian Middle Ages give us the baron and the serf; the cities of the later Middle Ages show us the guildmaster and the journeyman and the day laborer; the 17th century has its manufacturing workers; the 19th has big factory owners and proletarians.
It is clear that, up to now, the forces of production have never been developed to the point where enough could be developed for all, and that private property has become a fetter and a barrier in relation to the further development of the forces of production.
Now, however, the development of big industry has ushered in a new period. Capital and the forces of production have been expanded to an unprecedented extent, and the means are at hand to multiply them without limit in the near future. Moreover, the forces of production have been concentrated in the hands of a few bourgeois, while the great mass of the people are more and more falling into the proletariat, their situation becoming more wretched and intolerable in proportion to the increase of wealth of the bourgeoisie. And finally, these mighty and easily extended forces of production have so far outgrown private property and the bourgeoisie, that they threaten at any moment to unleash the most violent disturbances of the social order. Now, under these conditions, the abolition of private property has become not only possible but absolutely necessary.

As well as :

Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat.
(…)
The general co-operation of all members of society for the purpose of planned exploitation of the forces of production, the expansion of production to the point where it will satisfy the needs of all, the abolition of a situation in which the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the needs of others, the complete liquidation of classes and their conflicts, the rounded development of the capacities of all members of society through the elimination of the present division of labor, through industrial education, through engaging in varying activities, through the participation by all in the enjoyments produced by all, through the combination of city and country – these are the main consequences of the abolition of private property.