I think he’s the same guy. I used to try to bust him up but he just kept multiplying into more pieces and then coming back whole every time I saw a new mirror, so I eventually gave up

I added the part about voting for the Democrats, as a joke. He said “you are in the belly of the beast”.

“You North Americans are very lucky. You are fighting the most important fight of all. You get to vote for the Democrats.”

• Ernesto “Che” Guevara

I checked with that other gorilla who lives in the bathroom and he says you’re wrong

They probably stopped steam-opening letters, so the mail is probably more secure than any kind of electronic communication. But basically, no, unless you have advanced encryption and state-level equipment produced with secure supply chains (i.e. you’re a member of the Chinese MSS using a ministry-issued device), you have to assume that anything electronic is compromised. The internet is a tool of the enemy and must be treated as insecure.

That isn’t to say you can’t criticize the government online. You can (and should!) call them Nazi pedophiles all day long and they won’t do anything about it. Unless you’re leaking classified information or plotting to overthrow the state, the worst thing that could happen is that you’ll be put on a list of people to be rounded up in the event of severe civil unrest.

Which part, Tracer Tong, or the MKULTRA total control panopticon?

Tracer Tong is just a character from the 2000 computer game Deus Ex. He encourages the player to overload the reactor and destroy the facility at Area 51, taking with it the infrastructure supporting the Aquinas net and ending global communication. This frees people from control by the secret government, but brings the world into a new dark age.

As for the rest, MKULTRA is probably a stretch, but there’s a lot of evidence that the internet was intended for mass surveillance right from the start. It’s common knowledge that the internet originated as a distributed communication network that could survive many nodes being knocked out in a nuclear attack, but Surveillance Valley (2018) convincingly makes the case that the real origin was gathering and structuring intelligence - computer systems used in the Vietnam war to compile data gathered from sensors deployed in the Ho Chi Minh trail to track VC and PAVN movements, and computer systems used in the US proper to compile data on dissidents.

No matter the origin, it’s obvious that the internet is used as a surveillance tool. Even just on the commercial side, you have data brokers buying up user data from sites and apps, all of whom build detailed profiles on users. All of this information is compiled to build marketing profiles. Naturally, the state also has access to all of this information, and they work hand-in-glove with the tech companies. They also have access to everything on the “internet-of-things”, so every smart speaker, or just anything internet-connected with a microphone in it is a listening device; every suburban street has a network of surveillance cameras in the form of smart doorbells. Almost everyone on earth carries an internet-connected camera and microphone on them at all times.

At the same time, we all give our opinions freely on public forums, all of which can be correlated by IP, e-mail address, or associated accounts with a specific person. Sifting through all this data is no longer a problem now that they have sophisticated machine learning algorithms - dossiers can be compiled and updated automatically.

So, the state knows who you are, where you are, what you think, and can listen in on any conversation you have unless you’re far away from any phone or internet-connected device. Algorithms can be adjusted to subtly shift beliefs and behaviours. It’s a machine for total surveillance and control, and it’s important to remember in light of recent revelations regarding the Epstein files, that it’s controlled by Nazi pedophiles.

Tracer Tong knew the way. We have to destroy the MKULTRA total control panopticon known as the internet.

Hard not to look at Peter Thiel or Alex Karp and think they belong anywhere more pleasant than a forced labour camp

I’d actually be all for just keeping this current system, put in Norway style socialism for taking care of sick poor and old, tax billionaires 99%, and make money in politics illegal. Oh and outlaw controlled centralized social media while we’re at it.

Well they’re not going to do that. At this point you would need a revolution to get it done, so why not just go all the way and actually overthrow them rather than just asking concessions?

There was an interesting tidbit in the Epstein files released recently. It was from a third person to Epstein, referencing a conversation Epstein had with Bill Gates about “how to get rid of poor people as a whole.” Given that the only other interpretation of that is “how to ensure all the poor people have a good standard of living and are therefore no longer poor”, and that’s the least likely thing that Epstein would be talking to Bill Gates about, it’s pretty obvious what it means. They certainly aren’t doing much about global warming, and it’s poised to kill an awful lot of people, but I strongly suspect there’s more to it than that.

You say that communism is “easily harnessed by a small power group to starve everyone and have them live terrible lives.” The USSR had its last famine in 1947, and China had its last famine in 1961. They also both had massive increases to the standard of living. Compare that to the capitalist world order, which I will remind you is run by Nazi pedophiles - 10 million people die of hunger every year, and they’ve been supporting Israel’s genocidal bombing and starvation campaign against Gaza. I don’t see how some theoretical communist tyranny could be any worse than this.

Simple, you replace it with socialism. That doesn’t mean history just ends and there’s nothing else to worry about in the future. Suppose “human nature” just exploits the system and ends up with a few party elites benefiting - so? Is it worse than what we have? Will the new elite be able to hold on to power permanently without offering the mass of the people concessions?

The first real liberal revolution ended with an empire, but the empire was still better than the old regime that the revolution overthrew, and it spread liberal ideas throughout Europe. Then Napoleon was defeated and there was a reactionary monarchist restoration, which was overthrown and replaced with a constitutional monarchy in under 20 years. The constitutional monarchy was itself overthrown and replaced with a second republic less than 20 years after that. Then there was an imperial restoration under a lesser Napoleon, who went on to lose a war and get overthrown, replaced with a third Republic. They’re on the fourth Republic now, but they haven’t had a monarch since 1870 or a king since 1848. I would say the chances of France undergoing a monarchist restoration at this point are very low.

At no point in this process was “it” over. It’s not over now. Maybe something is over, but that something stopped being “it”, and was replaced by a new “it”.

It’s a “yes, but” kind of situation. Israel absolutely funded and promoted Hamas with the idea that it would be a counterbalance to the secular PLO and cause infighting, but what ended up happening is Fatah and the Palestinian Authority became (by and large) willing compradors, while Hamas not only remained a resistance movement, but moderated their views over time.

The original Hamas charter was basically boilerplate antisemitism, blaming the Jews for the French Revolution, the Freemasons, and so-on, and stated explicitly that their fight was with the Jews. The updated charter of 2017 is completely different, in form and content the charter of a secular national liberation movement. The new charter rejects the idea that their struggle is with the Jewish people, but with the Zionist project. They still maintain Islamic framing, of course (“In the name of Allah, the most merciful”, etc.), but the actual content of their rhetoric is that of secular national liberation. They’re likewise allied with and have the support of secular resistance groups.

No bodies, nothing to count. The death toll therefore doesn’t increase.

It’s cheaper, easier on logistics, and it does its job fine. The Ukraine war has proved, once again, that no tank is invincible, and the greatest danger to tanks is from dedicated antitank weapons rather than other tanks.

Permabanned for “harassment”

It’s ammo’s job to detonate, you just don’t want it detonating too early, or in the wrong place.

This is the correct answer. The autoloader also enabled them to remove one crew member, thus reducing interior space and increasing armor thickness for the same weight. Contemporary western tanks like the M60 didn’t have blowout panels either, so the argument that ‘the Bolshevik hordes have no regard for the lives of their peasant conscripts, while the enlightened west spares no expense to protect its precious troops’ holds no water

Overblown. Leopard 2s also throw their turrets when the ammo gets hit. Abrams have the blowout panels in the turret, improving survivability, but there is no tank in which having your ammunition detonate is going to be a good time.

The T-72 (the T-90 is just a highly upgraded T-72) remains an effective tank that can be produced in large numbers and has lower logistical requirements than the 70-ton Western heavy MBTs. It’s the same distinction as in WW2 between Shermans and T-34s vs. the German heavies - yes, at the immediate tactical level, the heavier tank is better, but at the operational and strategic levels, the lighter tank that’s available in large numbers and has a lower logistical requirement is superior

Europe has a lot of good food, but the tendency is that it’s concentrated towards the south - Italy, France, Greece, etc. The food generally gets worse the further north you get, but every national cuisine usually has at least one good thing. Even Sweden probably has a good dish.

Free Sheng-Ji Yang

I have proposed, in the past, that the JDPON should disperse the Amerikkkans throughout the Third World instead of allowing them to remain in occupied North America. Here are some of my reasons:

1. A geographic concentration of Amerikkkans would facilitate counterrevolution. It would also be difficult to exercise proletarian dictatorship over hundreds of millions of enemies: we would need to import a huge unproductive sector of police and such from the Third World. As a practical matter, it would be better to thin the Amerikkkans out, making them minorities in the Third World, where they could easily be controlled and supervised by the international proletariat.

2. Amerikkkans will need to undergo re-education. It would be very difficult to re-educate them in their own kkkountry. They need to be in a proletarian environment where they can learn from the masses.

3. There are land claims to settle, mainly for the First Nations, but also for Aztlán [occupied Mexico – MSH) and perhaps the Black nation. Conceivably some other nations could be moved to North America if they wished to be, such as Nauru or the small nations in Ghana whose land has been ruined by imperialist corporations. Amerikkkans are going to have to move out of much of North America and make room for other nations.

4. Amerikkkan kkkulture is almost totally reactionary. There is little worth saving in Amerikkkan kkkulture. It would be better to force Amerikkkans to assimilate to the more culturally and politically advanced peoples of the Third World. There is also historic justice in forcing Amerikkkans to assimilate, just as they destroyed so many other nations and cultures.

5. In the early stages of socialism, the Third World will require skilled workers and technicians of various kinds, including medical personnel. These persyns are disproportionately concentrated in the First World. Moving them to the Third World will be a practical way to address an urgent need.

6. The Third World is also owed big reparations. An excellent way to make those reparations is to put Amerikkkans to work building infrastructure in the Third World: roads, housing, water supplies, sewage, electricity, telecommunications, schools. Amerikkkans can also work in Third World factories and fields to expand production for the benefit of the Third World.

7. Part of the process of civilizing and proletarianizing Amerikkkans will be putting them to productive work–for a change. Amerikkka has so little productive capacity that there may not be many ways to put all those people to work in occupied North America. They may have to go to the factories and fields of the Third World.

8 ) Amerikkkans will need to be reduced to a Third World standard of living. If they stay in occupied North Amerikkka, they will benefit from the vastly better infrastructure and all the stolen wealth that they currently hold. It would be better to move them to the Third World as a way of accelerating the process of re-education.

9. There are historical precedents for relocating large numbers of enemies. Millions of Germans were forced to move after the Soviet victory over fascism in World War II. Even enemies like the united $nakes and the “united” KKKingdom agreed that it was necessary to move Germans off land that was needed for Poles, Czechs, and others. Again, this is related to the national question of the First Nations, Aztlán [occupied Mexico – MSH], and the Black nation.

Is this a good idea? What are its advantages and disadvantages? How can we improve upon it?