Why are you profile stalking like a creep?
ask if they remember these
Thanks, I hate this.
More like they’re in the general staff and strategic command!
I’m talking primarily ideological issues
Any substantial criticism that could be levied against them would’ve been during the earlier parts of their historical existence, which they corrected as they matured as a political organization.
Almost like we should focus on making the US better / competitive instead of trying to succeed by blocking others.
That’s against the interests of the u.s capitalists.
Don’t we get a ton of components and raw materials required for EVs from China already?
Yes but they get shoved into dogshit u.s cars who’s prices are raised many times more than the cost it was to make the damn things to scalp the average American of more of their dwindling wealth
Well shit where can I get one?
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
yeah those are pretty niche. though we do have a sort of shitposting called ‘badposting’ but that unto itself is niche as well
What kind of communities?
Lmao those fucking losers “preemptively” defederated from hexbear, every one of those hypocritical libs can eat my ass
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
I would hardly call creating measured plans then executing the key steps towards making a stable jump to green energy propaganda, unless you’re of the mind that risking severe damage an entire country’s energy grid and in turn threatening possibly the lives of millions in premature actions is much more preferable. But I’m sure you’re smarter than advocating for that
which many of the major players involved including the USA and China still don’t seem to care much about even now.
I’m going out on a limb and say the way that “AI” kills us all is the U.S government decides to modernize its nuclear arsenal by putting that shitty AI chatbot in its software and some hacker accidentally convinces the bot to bypass all its security measures and nuke the world.
You’re anti-democratic.
Fairly positive they’re also legal in Saudi Arabia
Actually, Iranian courts put a moratorium on stoning to death over 20 years ago, and the practice is still legal in American-allied Saudi Arabia.
Not only did Marky mark buy the world’s largest ruby gemstone because he’s fucking rich, he also fucking never actually sold it and kept the shit-shaped gem
Not only is he a racist, he’s one of dumbass uber-rich.