this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
154 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13446 readers
775 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Looks like we upset a few too many kkkanada residents over at lemmy.ca. I didn't see a post about this on here, so I thought I'd go ahead and make one.

2 of 4 reasons why are basically just PPB lol, and a third is for calling for executions of landlords mao-aggro-shining

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 81 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Sounds like some sort of unfalsifiable orthodoxy to me...

party-parenti

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

a liberal’s thought process consists of inventing a conclusion and selectively interpreting evidence

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

They rarely seem to do that much.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

Wrong, they have stenographers relay the yankee state department's thoughts into the chasm between their ears

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The quote

In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

-- Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Good bot. I am glad to see that our robotic comrades are joining us in the struggle. rosa-salute