robinn2 [he/him]

I agree, face the wall

In any event, the US didn’t need an excuse to join the war. Germany was giving us plenty already.

When the US declared war on Japan in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor, it did not declare war on Germany; Germany declared war on the US three days after the US declared war on Japan. The U.S. was the ideological predecessor to Nazism [1] [2], and only joined the war when they were threatened.

Uphold the Communist Party of China and Marxism-Leninism-MZT; Amerikkka inspired Nazism and will, like its child, die in a bunker with a gun to its head

Xi Jinping was re-elected as GenSec in 2022 (third term), so the Central Committee would foreseeably be doing a new election in 2027 (for the SC of the Poliburo as well).

Or rather, politics should be above sports.

Isn’t the CCP given explicit power and privilege in the Chinese government

The CPC (not CCP) is the guiding force of the government, and adapts to the will of the people through the mass line/being comprised of 10% of eligible persons. The highest level of the CPC (after the various levels of party committees/congresses) is the SC of the Politburo of the Central Committee, which is comprised of members elected through all levels and with terms of five years, and the highest individual position is the General Secretary (also terms of five years), elected by the Central Committee. Provided the persons in these positions are fit to serve, there are no definite term limits (one can be elected for a term of five years indefinitely until they are too old to serve (age limit), wish not to in which case a subordinate would the replace them, or are voted out by the CC) although I fail to see how a term limit can be justified when it is merely an undemocratic method of preventing the election of someone regardless of their success/the will of the population.

List the conspiracy theories you think are “crazy”

I suspect they avoid linking directly because GZ articles are usually well sourced and have nuances that don’t support the wiki author’s bs.

This is exactly it, but not directly. Grayzone is forbidden from being used as a source on Wikipedia for this reason.

I would love for a nonviolent approach to a different path. The PCI tried that in Indonesia and the US backed a massacre of over a million people and secretly bombed Indonesian territory under the pretext of popular discontent (see The Jakarta Method); Allende tried that in Chile, and the US backed a bloody coup, replacing him with the dictator Pinochet; this was tried in Afghanistan, in return for which the US backed terrorism with the express purpose of undermining reform, and with the result of worsening women’s and underprivileged rights and eventually returning to bomb the country and kill hundreds of thousands; Sankara was killed in. US-backed coup, so on and so forth, read Frantz Fanon “On Violence.” Instead of this critique being leveled at the US and their military apparatus, it is slyly redirected, and then the claim is put forward that the revolutionary only understands violence, can only operate through it. We see no peaceful road to liberating the third world from imperialism, not because this is what we wish but because any attempt is met with terror and bombs. I am not afraid to say that as a consolation the rabble will get on top by other means. Fuck America.

Death. To. America. Every one of your soldiers will be spit on and shot.

Bad

Edit: for all of the people praising “Taiwanese independence”, read this. Also, status quo is not “static” quo; we exist in the status quo where people are under the illusion of capitalism, of the propaganda of the capitalists and in this case of the US, which is continually provoking separatism, and which originally backed the KMT (for the continuation of semi-colonialism/feudalism) from which separatism stems (with the KMT performing numerous massacres against opposition); the visage of Chiang Kai-shek sits on physical Taiwan currency. Still, “臺灣民眾統獨立場趨勢分佈”, conducted by Taiwan’s National Chengchi University, an explicitly anti-CPC source, in 2022, showed the following results with regards to the perspective of Taiwanese citizens on independence and reunification: (Status Quo as Autonomous Part of China and Complete Unification Compiled [part of PRC] : 63.4%) (General Support for Independence Including Status Quo Moving Towards Independence [not part of PRC]: 30.3%) (Non-Response: 6.3%). Here we can see that in public opinion, remaining a part of the PRC has over double the support to becoming independent or pursuing independence at a later date, although support for total reunification is low, hence the policy of two systems being maintained to an even greater extent than with regards to Hong Kong, although accusations of military provocations by the mainland of China are alleged despite there being no examples of this.