Or the Boeing whistleblowers who keep being unalived

Murdered. The word is murdered.

If your message is not getting censored, do not hold back in how you describe it.

This meme was taken from R*ddit the same way Kim Il-Sung took one thousand Volvo cars from Sweden: shamelessly stolen.

Never hire a maoist as a babysitter.

The average weight of a Chinese person (average between male and female) is of 64’3 kg, which multiplied by 850 million makes 54.655.000.000 kg. If one were to lift the weight of 850 million Chinese people in the form of 3-plate squats, one would have to do around 390 million reps.

Imagine those quads.

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

I am completely sure that China is indeed spending god knows how many millions in building more solar farms in a year than the US has built in their entire history so people like Jake from Minnesota can be convinced that China is actually a pretty cool place.

Do you people ever listen to yourselves?

They were attempting to regain lost territory.

Ah sure, the brave and noble Finnish warriors would have never taken anything else other than what was theirs in 1939. The very righteous cause of Finland can be seen over the fact that they never engaged in any acts such as assisting in the slaughter of one million Soviet citizens or putting and starving Russians living in land that had always been Russian, most of them elderly and children, in concentration camps.

bourgeois dictatorship

democracy with universal suffrage

What lack of knowledge on marxist concepts and terminology does to a mfer

Ah, Simo Häyhä. The Ghost of Kyiv of snipers, and that is not a compliment.

China’s fault.

Agreed. It is one of the reasons why I find Hazbin Hotel to be considerably superior in quality in comparison to Helluva Boss.

I was already wondering how long it would take for the local Hazbin Hotel connoisseur to grace my post with his presence.

What can I say. It’s a good show.

There is also this one:

“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. […] 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

It is disappointing however that we have none from the great comrade Wisconson as we used to.

“I think we’re gonna have to kill this guy, Charlie.”

Mike please let me talk with Gus please I promise I will deliver the newspapers please just let me talk with him I promise there will be no more problems Mike I swear

Would you like it to be one

Is this a copypasta

one side wants to quit NATO

Exactly. In their eyes, the instant a person opposes liberal interests, anything and everything against them, including tools of systemic oppression such as homophobia, racism and sexism, is fair game, and that won’t make you a reactionary unless you use those only against “deserving” people.

A full 8 hours of an internet tough guy being racist, ableist and homophobic while insisting that they’re not any of those things because they feel like they aren’t those things, despite ample evidence to the contrary from their comments.

This phenomenon fascinates me. As far as I have managed to understand it, it is because while a marxist will identify the use of perjorative language that attempts to brand someone else as homosexual, disabled, etc. in order to denigrate them as inherently reactionary due to how it implies that all of those things are negative, a liberal will not consider such an act to be homophobic, ableist, sexist and so on as long as you do not maintain that behaviour with most people of said group. In their mind, being ok with most people of the LGBT community makes you not homophobic despite frequently using the word “c-cksucker” against men they don’t like, being ok with most women makes them not sexist despite calling women they don’t like “b-tches”, and so on.