Compare news coverage. Spot media bias. Avoid algorithms. Try Ground News today and get 30% off your subscription by visiting https://ground.news/secondthoug...
A video explaining modern monetary theory and how with a little Marxism it can benefit everyone.
The speech has problems, but so does your characterization of the position.
No denial was made that Russia invaded Ukraine, or that the invasion is unacceptable.
The speech is asking those in NATO-aligned states, particularly the United States, to reconsider the narrative fed to them by the media and government in their countries. The narrative largely projects the national ambitions of such countries as benevolent, and enemy countries and their rulers as evil, and emphasizes the moral and practical necessity of US-led militarism, to keep the world safe for everyone.
The speech is presenting an alternative narrative to challenge the one familiar to Americans.
Particularly, it is asking those in NATO-aligned countries to consider the issues more broadly, in terms of the harmful ramifications of NATO and its expansion. It is asking us to consider whether NATO makes the world safer, or rather more dangerous. It is asking us to consider whether NATO supports the safety of all, or the power of the few.
The general historic background and analysis may support the case that NATO is not helpful to most common people around the world, as much as it is a vehicle for preserving and expanding the wealth and power of a few oligarchs.
Ukraine is characterized in the speech as a puppet to the West in order to emphasize that the leaders in Ukraine cater to certain demands, favoring the preservation of their own positions of power, more than acting according the interests of the mass of the population, and because support for Ukraine by Western nations is guided more by geopolitical ambitions than by humane concern for the people of Ukraine.
If NATO were seeking contraction not expansion, then harmful people like Putin would still exist, but overall tension across the world may be reduced. The US would have less power as a nation, but such is not the same as the world being more dangerous for most of the population.
Unfortunately, the ideology promulgated from within the US and similar countries would never concede that less military power for such countries could ever lead to greater overall safety for the world.
The US government of course is not open to diplomatic solutions such as one including an agreement to contract NATO. The US is not against war, rather only against wars started by other countries.
There are many strategies for building a counternarrative. I am not defending the strategies chosen by JT or the CPUSA, but I am asking you and others to be less hasty and less harsh in your judgments.
No denial was made that Russia invaded Ukraine, or that the invasion is unacceptable.
Invasion is pre supposed, ruzzia is barely mentioned at all. All blame is placed on the myth of NATO expansion, which I touch on later below.
The speech is asking those in NATO-aligned states, particularly the United States, to reconsider the narrative fed to them by the media and government in their countries. The narrative largely projects the national ambitions of such countries as benevolent, and enemy countries and their rulers as evil, and emphasizes the moral and practical necessity of US-led militarism, to keep the world safe for everyone.
The speech is presenting an alternative narrative to challenge the one familiar to Americans.
While this is true and USA and West has many, MANY problems, compared to dictatorships like Ruzzia or China, the West is much better off.
People don’t get arrested for speaking out against their government, people are free to move from country to country, given they are wealthy enough (that is is of course bad IMO, I don’t like Borders too much and wish it was much freeer).
I do not like capitalism, but China and Ruzzia are still capitalist countries, even though they love to call themselves otherwise.
Don’t get me even started on stuff like LGBTQ+ right, rights of minorities and other issues. While the west can be bad in those sorts of issues, it is incomparable to the either ignorance or even malice to those issues in before mentioned countries.
Particularly, it is asking those in NATO-aligned countries to consider the issues more broadly, in terms of the harmful ramifications of NATO and its expansion. It is asking us to consider whether NATO makes the world safer, or rather more dangerous. It is asking us to consider whether NATO supports the safety of all, or the power of the few.
NATO expansions, just as any other kremlin propaganda, is a myth based on truth.
NATO is expanding, of course, but not by itself. NATO itself does not force upon countries. Countries themselves WANT to be part of NATO and most for simple reason: to protect themselves from Ruzzia.
Some countries like Poland didn’t ask to be part of NATO, they bullied the US into joining themselves because they had such a bad time with the USSR.
The general historic background and analysis may support the case that NATO is not helpful to most common people around the world, as much as it is a vehicle for preserving and expanding the wealth and power of a few oligarchs.
Not sure what kind of historic analysis you have done, but it must have been inspired by kremlin.
If NATO was not a thing, countries bordering ruzzia like Latvia or Estonia would have been in the same situation, if not worse than Ukraine. If you do an actual historical analysis you see the long history of threats of invasion and nuclear annihilation made by the ruzzians.
They have of rich history of staging false flags attacks, lying, completely ignoring treaties and attacking sovreign nations having either of these as justificiation. US has done this in the past in the middle east, don’t get me wrong, but that fact alone does not make any nation less willing to join NATO.
NATO is a defensive pact, not an offensive pact.
And its to defend itself from dictators like Putin.
Ukraine is characterized in the speech as a puppet to the West in order to emphasize that the leaders in Ukraine cater to certain demands, favoring the preservation of their own positions of power, more than acting according the interests of the mass of the population, and because support for Ukraine by Western nations is guided more by geopolitical ambitions than by humane concern for the people of Ukraine.
The leaders of Ukraine cater to the demands of their people! Do you know why euromaidan happened? Because Yanakovic promised to make bigger ties with the west but lied and tried to collude with ruzzia.
While its true that western nations have geopolitical goals with helping Ukraine, why would they do so much and not the bare minimum? Not only that, perhaps you have forgotten that its not that long ago that a fascist regime was appeased so far until they have taken over the whole of Europe? It almost happened again, not the taking over europe, but the appeasment part yes.
NATO is finally taking stand against a fascist regime and I don’t see how that is harmful, rather then helpful for democracy as a whole.
If NATO were seeking contraction, not expansion, then harmful people like Putin would still exist, but overall tension across the world may be reduced. The US would have less power as a nation, but such is not the same as the world being more dangerous for most of the population.
It wouldn’t. Simply no, tensions would be much higher, as countries like Estonia and Latvia would be in the same boat as Ukraine.
USA is not the danger for most of the population. Please remind me: who has invaded Ukraine? Who has made all the nuclear threats?
Who is constantly pushing for more and more? Is taiwan threatening to invade China or is it other way around?
Ruzzia and China are infinitely more dangerous for the world than USA ever will be.
Unfortunately, the ideology promulgated from within the US and similar countries would never concede that less military power for such countries could ever lead to greater overall safety for the world.
Its not about less military power, what the fuck are you talking about?
That military power and NATO article 5 is protecting nations that have no hope of defending themselves from dictatorships from being invaded.
The US government of course is not open to diplomatic solutions such as one including an agreement to contract NATO. The US is not against war, rather only against wars started by other countries.
ITS. NOT. ABOUT. US. GOVERNMENT.
The nations, which you are treating as some kind of puppets that were forced to be part of NATO, CHOSE to, by their own people.
If NATO contracted it would mean more war, much more war, not less.
If Ukraine was part of NATO, we would not be talking right now (at this point is becoming tiring having to say pretty much the same shit all over again) as Ruzzia would have never invaded.
There are many strategies for building a counternarrative. I am not defending the strategies chosen by JT or the CPUSA, but I am asking you and others to be less hasty and less harsh in your judgments.
I am harsh because JT and people like you love to hide behind layers of obfuscation to hide the fact that you either have no idea what you are talking about, are lying or bit of both.
I offered perspective on the speech, because you urged me to watch it.
Yet, as before, you continue to be more interested in arguing than engaging, acting as though you hold a special truth superior to any other contribution. As before, you misunderstand the position being presented, not even seeking to broaden understanding.
As before, you express a grievance about a perceived failure to condemn Russia.
It serves no purpose for an American to explain to other Americans that Russia invading Ukraine is unacceptable. Everyone already agrees. Even CPUSA has clarified as much in writing.
Please take a few days or weeks to reflect, and then review the perspectives offered to you.
In case you have concerns, I am certain that many will be willing to discuss with you in good faith.
Please try to avoid ranting insults whenever someone fails to affirm a position identical to yours. Such behavior sows division and discord, and it damages movements and relationships. You are not obligated to agree with anyone, or to consider anyone your ally, but please seek to understand others more strongly than you seek to condemn them.
Who are you to give me advice? All you have done is defend people who support brutal dictatorships.
I was not looking for a perspective on the speech nor the video. It was created in bad faith with the purpose of affirming already held false beliefs or to confuse those that don’t know any better.
I will throw insults at tankies. They deserve nothing but. I am not looking to make them my friends. I understand what tankies believe, and it disgusts me to no end.
I don’t need reflection. You need to reflect on who you are actually defending.
That is not a problem
Problem is, JT lies, throughout the whole video.
There is almost not a single fact during his 5 minute rant, that wasnt ripped straight out of kremlin propaganda.
The speech has problems, but so does your characterization of the position.
No denial was made that Russia invaded Ukraine, or that the invasion is unacceptable.
The speech is asking those in NATO-aligned states, particularly the United States, to reconsider the narrative fed to them by the media and government in their countries. The narrative largely projects the national ambitions of such countries as benevolent, and enemy countries and their rulers as evil, and emphasizes the moral and practical necessity of US-led militarism, to keep the world safe for everyone.
The speech is presenting an alternative narrative to challenge the one familiar to Americans.
Particularly, it is asking those in NATO-aligned countries to consider the issues more broadly, in terms of the harmful ramifications of NATO and its expansion. It is asking us to consider whether NATO makes the world safer, or rather more dangerous. It is asking us to consider whether NATO supports the safety of all, or the power of the few.
The general historic background and analysis may support the case that NATO is not helpful to most common people around the world, as much as it is a vehicle for preserving and expanding the wealth and power of a few oligarchs.
Ukraine is characterized in the speech as a puppet to the West in order to emphasize that the leaders in Ukraine cater to certain demands, favoring the preservation of their own positions of power, more than acting according the interests of the mass of the population, and because support for Ukraine by Western nations is guided more by geopolitical ambitions than by humane concern for the people of Ukraine.
If NATO were seeking contraction not expansion, then harmful people like Putin would still exist, but overall tension across the world may be reduced. The US would have less power as a nation, but such is not the same as the world being more dangerous for most of the population.
Unfortunately, the ideology promulgated from within the US and similar countries would never concede that less military power for such countries could ever lead to greater overall safety for the world.
The US government of course is not open to diplomatic solutions such as one including an agreement to contract NATO. The US is not against war, rather only against wars started by other countries.
There are many strategies for building a counternarrative. I am not defending the strategies chosen by JT or the CPUSA, but I am asking you and others to be less hasty and less harsh in your judgments.
Invasion is pre supposed, ruzzia is barely mentioned at all. All blame is placed on the myth of NATO expansion, which I touch on later below.
While this is true and USA and West has many, MANY problems, compared to dictatorships like Ruzzia or China, the West is much better off. People don’t get arrested for speaking out against their government, people are free to move from country to country, given they are wealthy enough (that is is of course bad IMO, I don’t like Borders too much and wish it was much freeer). I do not like capitalism, but China and Ruzzia are still capitalist countries, even though they love to call themselves otherwise. Don’t get me even started on stuff like LGBTQ+ right, rights of minorities and other issues. While the west can be bad in those sorts of issues, it is incomparable to the either ignorance or even malice to those issues in before mentioned countries.
NATO expansions, just as any other kremlin propaganda, is a myth based on truth. NATO is expanding, of course, but not by itself. NATO itself does not force upon countries. Countries themselves WANT to be part of NATO and most for simple reason: to protect themselves from Ruzzia. Some countries like Poland didn’t ask to be part of NATO, they bullied the US into joining themselves because they had such a bad time with the USSR.
I am linking a video that explains this much more eloquently than I can: https://youtu.be/FVmmASrAL-Q?si=qiCZbZi6kdgdyJ4Thttps://youtu.be/FVmmASrAL-Q?si=qiCZbZi6kdgdyJ4T
Not sure what kind of historic analysis you have done, but it must have been inspired by kremlin. If NATO was not a thing, countries bordering ruzzia like Latvia or Estonia would have been in the same situation, if not worse than Ukraine. If you do an actual historical analysis you see the long history of threats of invasion and nuclear annihilation made by the ruzzians. They have of rich history of staging false flags attacks, lying, completely ignoring treaties and attacking sovreign nations having either of these as justificiation. US has done this in the past in the middle east, don’t get me wrong, but that fact alone does not make any nation less willing to join NATO.
NATO is a defensive pact, not an offensive pact. And its to defend itself from dictators like Putin.
The leaders of Ukraine cater to the demands of their people! Do you know why euromaidan happened? Because Yanakovic promised to make bigger ties with the west but lied and tried to collude with ruzzia.
While its true that western nations have geopolitical goals with helping Ukraine, why would they do so much and not the bare minimum? Not only that, perhaps you have forgotten that its not that long ago that a fascist regime was appeased so far until they have taken over the whole of Europe? It almost happened again, not the taking over europe, but the appeasment part yes. NATO is finally taking stand against a fascist regime and I don’t see how that is harmful, rather then helpful for democracy as a whole.
It wouldn’t. Simply no, tensions would be much higher, as countries like Estonia and Latvia would be in the same boat as Ukraine.
USA is not the danger for most of the population. Please remind me: who has invaded Ukraine? Who has made all the nuclear threats? Who is constantly pushing for more and more? Is taiwan threatening to invade China or is it other way around?
Ruzzia and China are infinitely more dangerous for the world than USA ever will be.
Its not about less military power, what the fuck are you talking about? That military power and NATO article 5 is protecting nations that have no hope of defending themselves from dictatorships from being invaded.
ITS. NOT. ABOUT. US. GOVERNMENT.
The nations, which you are treating as some kind of puppets that were forced to be part of NATO, CHOSE to, by their own people.
If NATO contracted it would mean more war, much more war, not less.
If Ukraine was part of NATO, we would not be talking right now (at this point is becoming tiring having to say pretty much the same shit all over again) as Ruzzia would have never invaded.
I am harsh because JT and people like you love to hide behind layers of obfuscation to hide the fact that you either have no idea what you are talking about, are lying or bit of both.
I am not debating you.
I offered perspective on the speech, because you urged me to watch it.
Yet, as before, you continue to be more interested in arguing than engaging, acting as though you hold a special truth superior to any other contribution. As before, you misunderstand the position being presented, not even seeking to broaden understanding.
As before, you express a grievance about a perceived failure to condemn Russia.
It serves no purpose for an American to explain to other Americans that Russia invading Ukraine is unacceptable. Everyone already agrees. Even CPUSA has clarified as much in writing.
Please take a few days or weeks to reflect, and then review the perspectives offered to you.
In case you have concerns, I am certain that many will be willing to discuss with you in good faith.
Please try to avoid ranting insults whenever someone fails to affirm a position identical to yours. Such behavior sows division and discord, and it damages movements and relationships. You are not obligated to agree with anyone, or to consider anyone your ally, but please seek to understand others more strongly than you seek to condemn them.
Who are you to give me advice? All you have done is defend people who support brutal dictatorships.
I was not looking for a perspective on the speech nor the video. It was created in bad faith with the purpose of affirming already held false beliefs or to confuse those that don’t know any better.
I will throw insults at tankies. They deserve nothing but. I am not looking to make them my friends. I understand what tankies believe, and it disgusts me to no end.
I don’t need reflection. You need to reflect on who you are actually defending.