Alaskaball [comrade/them]

Why are you profile stalking like a creep?

  • 286 Posts
Joined 4 years ago
Cake day: July 28th, 2020


  • Alaskaball [comrade/them]"Radicalized"
    24 hours ago

    What we want isn’t radical, it’s common sense human rights. It’s just that the denial of those common sense human rights in the permitted stages of political theater leads to us pursuing radical solutions.

    If you didn’t want to end up a pretty bit of paintwork on the wall you should’ve allowed us a democratic workplace alongside a democratic government and chose to join us on the working line instead of insisting on keeping our wealth through illegitimate power.

  • I’m currently trying to investigate this. It doesn’t make sense to me for there to make concessions to zionists when the Jewish Autonomous Oblast existed and Soviet Jews were well-integrated into Soviet society.

    It makes even less sense concidering Stalin’s writings on the matter in his pamphlet on the national question, Stalin’s anti-zionist but pro-jewish position through out his life, the sudden pivot towards the creation of a zionist state then another sudden pivot quickly after of the perceived “antisemitism” heaped onto him shortly after in the final stretch of his life.

    In a memorandum dated 27 July 1945, from M.M.Litvinov, titled ‘The Palestine Question’”, to Stalin, Molotov and the Deputy Ministers of Foreign Affairs. Its conclusion read:

    1. No matter how hard the British may try to prove that their present policy in Palestine conforms to the Balfour Declaration, it is obvious that they have failed to live up to the mandate entrusted to them. This was admitted in the… statements by high-ranking British statesmen. This is sufficient justification for taking the Palestine mandate away from the British.

    2. The Palestine question cannot be duly settled without impinging upon the wishes and rights of Jews or Arabs, or perhaps both. The British government is in equal measure subject to the influence of the Arab states and world Jewry. Hence its difficulties in choosing the correct means to settle the Palestine problem.

    3. The US government is subject to the same influences. While British Palestine policy is necessarily affected mainly by orientation towards Arab interests, the American government is subject in the first place to the influence of the powerful US Jewry. It should be recalled that at the latest presidential elections both the Democratic and the Republican parties felt compelled to issue declarations on their attitude to Palestine, demanding unrestricted immigration of Jews and unrestricted rights for Jews to their own land. At the same time, the US government would hardly choose to quarrel with the Arabs, in view of the fact that the oil pipeline from Saudi Arabia in which they have a stake will run through hundreds of kilometres of Arab territory. That would put the US government in as difficult a position regarding Palestine as the British government.

    4. The USSR, free from either Arab or Jewish influence, would be in a better position to tackle the Palestine issue. This at least entitles it to request a temporary trusteeship over Palestine until a more radical solution is found.

    5. The British attach to Palestine, which guards the approaches to the Suez Canal and has an outlet for Iraqi oil on its territory, too much importance for us to expect them to consent even to a temporary transfer of Palestine to the hands of another state, particularly, the USSR.

    6. In the event that the Soviet request is rejected the following solution suggests itself: transfer of Palestine to the collective trusteeship of three states – the USSR, USA and Britain. These three powers will be able to take the requisite decisions collectively, paying less tribute to the opinion of the Arab or the Jewish population than either the American or British government acting on its own would feel obliged to do.

    7. The provisions of collective trusteeship shall be bound neither by the Balfour Declaration nor by any promises Britain has earlier given as the mandatary power, so that the new collective administration could tackle the Palestine problem in all fairness, in accordance with the interests of the entire population and the new imperatives of political realities and general security.”

    Source: Strizhov I;:” The Soviet Position on the Establishment of the State of Israel”; Op Cit; p.304-305; Citing 5.Arkhiv vneshnei politiki MID SSSR (AVP),fond (f.) . 07,opis’ (op.) 12a, papka (pk.) 42, delo (d.) 6, pp. 36-8

    Something had to have happened between this period and when Gromyko went to the U.N to advocate for the creation of an Israeli state in 1947, and that’s what I’m trying to research now in my own personal time.

  • If you were pointing at literally any of the western nations I would agree, especially with regards to their naked hypocrisy in the fact that they’ve been further expanding their emmitive energy sources these past few years. But pointing out that China, while having large emissions due to both its large population and due to international Capital moving massive amounts of manufacturing to China over the past few decades, has not only been making its internationally promised goals towards decoupling from emmitive energy sources and switching to a green energy network but has been rapidly surpassing them to the point its leaving the entirety of the G7 nations in the dust.

    The fact is that currently it is very difficult for China to lower its emissions as doing so effects not only its own country’s economic productivity but the productivity of nations around the world. We saw an economic slump during covid due to China’s anti-covid measures disrupting the production of commodities across all industries. Performing premature theatrical gestures would objectively harm more people than it would help, therefor holding such a criteria is ultimately idealistic and ethereally utopian in its logical process