I have not seen a good explanation on this from Americans, who usually peddle the brainless "they hate our freedom" line. Lemmygrad is also sorely lacking any good discussions on this topic.

The U.S. funded the mujahideen to drain Soviet resources in Afghanistan. This makes it rather strange that after the Soviet Union collapsed, Al-Qaeda (one of the factions in the mujahideen) would turn around and bite the hand that fed them.

Was Al-Qaeda dissatisfied with some aspect of U.S. treatment toward them and expected the 9/11 attacks to change that? Or did the U.S. and Israel tacitly allow or even encourage the attacks to provide an excuse to dominate the Middle East?

I would love more sources and reading on this that aren't just pro-US-empire propaganda!

Western media, especially BBC and NYT, always apply gray filters to photos in China and Russia.

This article by NYT has several side-by-side photos of China versus the USA that make the gray filter especially obvious.

Notice how the plants in China are all gray, while the US plants next to oil wells are somehow green and normal:

Most obvious gray filter:

This last image of solar panels in Shanxi is hilarious. Apparently plants in China have evolved to be black instead of green:

It seems the NYT photographer in China forgot how to color grade photos, but magically remembers once they fly back to the USA.

The article itself just laments about the sorry state of US renewables compared to China, which is building solar and wind at breakneck speed.

Scroll down to see my comments documenting other cases of this visual propaganda.

Chinese automotive glass company Fuyao builds a brand-new factory in Ohio employing 3000 Americans.

WSJ then writes a smear piece crying about the new factory outcompeting an 80-year-old nearby plant employing 250 workers (which is actually owned by a Mexican company, but they only say that at the end of the article to made their smear seem stronger). WSJ complains that China is somehow "hollowing out American manufacturing" by BUILDING FACTORIES IN AMERICA, EMPLOYING AMERICANS, and COMPETING IN AMERICA.

Ohio senator Bernie Moreno now want the US government to force Fuyao to sell its factory and lose out on its investment.

The USA previously stole a solar panel factory built in the US by Chinese solar giant Trina Solar by threatening to pass the bill "American Tax Dollars for American Solar Manufacturing Act", which would deny any solar tax credits to Chinese-run solar plants in the USA. As a result, Trina was forced to sell to American company Freyr (now rebranded T1 Energy). ^[https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1985870993118937221] T1 Energy now has the gall to brag about how advanced "their" new plant is. ^[https://x.com/T1_Energy/status/1985420138058023011]

Even if China builds factories in the USA, they're somehow not doing it the right way. Apparently China is just supposed to build factories in the USA and give them away for free or something. This is some damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't type-shit.

Obligatory Parenti 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 disenfranchised 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; Rational Fascism & the Overthrow of Communism, pp. 41-42

Good tips on tech for decentralized communication and stopping surveillance. The Youtuber is kinda a nebulous hate-all-states anarchist though.

TLDR: The USA is controlling Cambodia (through Hun Manet) to attack Thailand, a close Chinese partner, as part of their broader strategy to destabilize Asia and extend China in the same way they extended Russia.

Ben Norton of Geopolitical Economy Report held a 1 hour presentation and 1 hour Q&A on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for the US DSA International Committee. His presentation is incredibly in-depth.

This presentation is the first in a new webinar series by DSA International Committee about modern China and lessons for US socialists.

Here's the video of just the presentation part on Ben's channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E89qUXTX-k

How do y'all balance your desire to do more with the understanding that this societal drive for more productivity is partly an unhealthy mindset forced by capitalism?

The term 'productivity' originated to describe the output of workers in a capitalist enterprise per unit time, money, energy, etc. to maximize efficiency. Over time, the term has shifted to 'personal productivity', and the definition has broadened to simply 'using your time intentionally in ways aligned with your broader goals'. To a certain extent this gives us more control, although it also means that productivity is now all-encompassing in our lives as a general pressure, internal and external, to get more stuff done.

Obviously, these origins mean that productivity was originally created by and for capitalism. But it is also necessary to maximize productivity irregardless of capitalism sometimes, such as increasing the time per week you spend organizing, learning socialist theory, and working on personal growth.

If everyone slows down on their productivity (termed lying flat in China and quiet quitting in the USA), then societal progress will slow. In the worst case, we may fall behind the capitalists and enter USSR-style malaise.

So how do y'all reconcile this? It's been bothering me for a while. I feel like a hypocrite telling others it's OK to reject the rat race while I'm frantically consuming productivity books and learning as much as I can.

This seems like a pretty textbook case of capitalist alienation. As jobs and wages get worse, American men can't rely on them to back their sense of self and purpose like they used to.

How would we fix this under socialism?

TLDR: Any liberals and centrists cringing about how Charlie Kirk's assassination hurts his family's feelings completely ignore the real harm of his championed policies.

For example, his anti-abortion policies have forced numerous parents to carry deformed babies to term just to watch them die after birth, to go into sepsis and almost die just to get a medically necessary abortion.

TLDR: U.S. AI growth is hitting a wall because the power grid is weak and slow to expand. China has huge surplus power and uses data centers to soak it up. State-led, long-term planning gives China an edge, and the U.S. will fall behind unless it changes.

GDF argues that Zionist lobbying e.g. AIPAC is the main historical reason for US support of Israel, and not Israel's usefulness to the US as a military base.

He bases his argument on the influence of the Israel lobby forcing the Nixon, Johnson, and Clinton administrations to prioritize Zionism over American and US capitalist goals.