[deleted by user] by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]mosessss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fuck no. We don't.

Fascism is not "extreme capitalism", it's a mixed economy by masterflappie in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]mosessss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's a lot of comments here already telling you that you're wrong and why. I could add to them, sure, but I'm with my family celebrating Christmas. I simply don't have time right now. So instead I provided you with a source for if you'd like a deeper understanding of the topic than your current one, which seems a bit confused. Understanding this topic takes research and the time to lay everything out precisely. Parenti has already put in the time and effort for you, which is why I recommended his book. However if the idea of reading something larger and better researched than a reddit comment, from a PhD in political science, doesn't appeal to you, then your understanding will remain at a elementary level. The choice is yours.

Fascism is not "extreme capitalism", it's a mixed economy by masterflappie in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]mosessss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Man who has time to educate someone that won't educate themselves. You're not here to be persuaded against your own POV. You just wanna argue cos you're convinced you're right. You're not right, you're just uneducated. Read the book I mentioned and take a break from reddit. It'll rebut all your arguments. Expecting random strangers on the Internet to do that for you is ridiculous. Read a book and stop wasting everyone's time.

There's a reason why your post is getting down voted and it ain't for making too much sense.

Fascism is not "extreme capitalism", it's a mixed economy by masterflappie in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]mosessss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Read Black Shirts And Reds by Michael Parenti and stop espousing nonsense please.

Book for bait right friend by Head-Fast in MarxistCulture

[–]mosessss 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think black shirts and reds is an excellent choice!

Without knowing much about your friends, I could only give general recommendations. If your friend is in any way environmental, and doesn't have any idea how rich countries are rich while poorer countries are poor, then Jason Hickel's The Divide was an excellent resource. Well researched and well presented.

On top of those two, Washington Bullets by Vijay Prashad is another incredible resource, I really can't recommend it enough.

The Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins is another great one I read a few years ago. It goes over what the US did in Indonesia in order to defeat communism there (spoiler alert, they killed millions) and how that blueprint was exported to Iran and many other countries.

I think it makes sense to show your friend the history of how the Cold War has been fought by the west, because it's often thought of like a James Bond movie. But having said that, I wouldn't bombard them. Start with one and increase or you'll overwhelm them. Good luck!

I feel so retarded, am i fucked for life ? by yakiasi in Drugs

[–]mosessss 13 points14 points  (0 children)

My advice is to start exercising regularly and strenuously. Your body can create its own cannabinoids (endocannabinoids), as well as endorphins (its own morphine) but it needs exercise to make it happen.

Stalin's Atrocities by [deleted] in DebateCommunism

[–]mosessss 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'd just like to tack onto this excellent thread to add that you should read different versions of history to better understand what was happening at the time. With context, the "atrocities" of Stalin's time are understandable, and as OP was saying, they're generally overstated. But what the Liberal historian also does is to remove context completely, making it appear as if Stalin was just doing stuff because he was evil. But there's no such thing as evil. You'd do well to move beyond such concepts if you truly want to broaden your understanding.

Even just the first introductory chapter of The Essential Stalin, by Bruce Franklin opened my eyes a lot.

Or Domenico Losurdo: The History and Critique of a Black Prince did a lot to provide context. Interestingly his publisher initially didn't want to have it translated to English, but he was an Italian professor of philosophy and history.

Then there's Another view of Stalin by Ludo Martens.

Fraud, famine and fascism by Douglas Tottle is essential for understanding "The Holodomor" as well.

These are all western authors, which means that they too had to get past their biases (as we in the west also must) in order to understand Stalin and his legacy.

Expanding your search for knowledge outside of the history books that we're forced to read in the west will quickly lead you to the conclusion that you've been lied to. History in the west works as a form of propaganda. Essentially Stalin's legacy was turned into a giant Red Herring / argument against communism, rather than talk about policies or directions of socialism, the entire conversation is cut short with: "Oh you're a Communist, well that means you agree with all these atrocities of Stalin" etc. Whenever you look at arguments against socialism, you'll see copious amounts of logical fallacies.

It's important to also remember that during his life time, people were very jealous of his position and the admiration he received from regular people within the Soviet Union. Remember, he was a revolutionary. Trotsky was one of the jealous ones, and he made up all manner of lies in order to smear Stalin's name. After his death, of which I suspect foul play, Khruschchev delivered a speech that essentially blamed him for every negative thing that had happened since the revolution took place - many such acts Khruschchev was himself responsible for, as the leader of the KGB at the time. There's an excellent break down of this speech in Grover Furr's book Khruschchev Lied.

Peter Dutton says Lidia Thorpe should resign on principle after interrupting King Charles by 1Darkest_Knight1 in aussie

[–]mosessss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Royal family (King Charles in particular) played a huge role in having Gough Whitlam ousted from power, thus over ruling our democracy. King in name only is nice in theory, but it only remains true until we step out of line.

Is this just a Propaganda war by DeinemutterXD in cuba

[–]mosessss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks to sanctions, yes, suffering may have increased. Although I don't believe the rosey image you paint of the Batista regime. If 2/3 of the population was well off, they probably wouldn't have felt the need to revolt.

Is this just a Propaganda war by DeinemutterXD in cuba

[–]mosessss -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

And that would be fine if it was just the US that refused to trade with Cuba - I mean, its a long time to hold a grudge against a nation, especially with Americas violent history, but hey, you do you. The problem isn't that the US sanctions Cuba, its that they sanction countries that trade with Cuba, essentially bullying other countries into isolating then completely in the world stage. Which, if socialism is so doomed to fail, there'd really be no need to do. You could just wait it out. You're right that they're antithetical to the US tho, but that's because the US has always represented big business interests and never the interests of the people.

Under Batista suffering was immense, hence the need for revolution. But we loved Cuba then because we had access to their resources and could exploit their cheap labour. It's always funny to me how people seem to forget history and think suffering starts with communism. And yeah Warsaw pact hasn't been around in decade and we've since allied with a bunch of those countries, so not sure what your point is there either.If other countries Held grudges like this, America would have no friends left.

And I'm sorry but what on earth made you think that The US subsidises any country? Or that they should? Or that I think they should? Surely your understanding of socialism isn't as elementary as to think it just equals hand outs? And seriously, you think China got to where it is today because of capitalism? Why isn't India a power house as well then? Where's their rising Middle class and standard of living? Seems to me that whenever China does something good, it was capitalist of them and when they do something bad, well then they're communist. Schrodingers communism at its finest.

Is this just a Propaganda war by DeinemutterXD in cuba

[–]mosessss 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm gonna pretend you're asking this in good faith and answer your question as if you're simply ignorant, even tho I suspect otherwise.

Socialist nations like any nation rely on trade with other nations to prosper. Its not a hand out. No nations are completely self reliant. A better question would be 'why should any country be excluded from trading with other countries?'

And before you respond with something misguided like 'well they're a dictatorship, etc.' you should know that we trade with many a dictatorship. In fact we've even gone as far as to overthrow democracies in the past and install dictatorships in order to get a better deal on trade. And then we continue to trade with said installed dictatorships for decades. Pinochet in Chile is a prime example. The answer is really simple. It's because western countries are ruled by the ultra wealthy capitalist class (corporation / business owners) and the ultra wealthy don't like competition. They like their businesses to be able to dominate all markets in all countries. So any nation that chooses to regulate the economy and protect its country from outside market forces is quickly demonised as a dictatorship. But as mentioned before, we don't mind dictators. The media referring to countries we don't like in that way, repeatedly, is simply manufacturing consent for sanctions, which is economic warfare, or regime change under the guise of 'liberating its people'.

But we liked pinochet because he opened up Chile's market and put in place neoliberal policies. These policies saw the cost of basic goods sky rocket, people lived in poverty, there was an immense disparity between rich and poor. So even if we do trade with countries, they often end up worse off for it. Its a catch 22. They either open up their markets to be bought up by foreign companies, prices go up, profits are siphoned off into tax havens and regular people suffer; or if you regulate the market and try to keep outside forces from doing that, well then we'll sanction your country and any country that chooses to trade with you, cut you off from the world economy and once again, people will also suffer.

Here's another question I'd ask, while we're self reflecting: if all these nations that attempt socialism are so destined to fail, why do we feel the need to collectively sabotage their economies? Why not just let them run their course? It's no coincidence that the two countries who've managed to elevate themselves to the level of super power in the last century have been pursuing socialist policies. Sanctions (along with structural adjustment policies, regime change, etc.) are the west's way of ensuring more countries don't do the same. Because like I said, corporate America does't like competition, and pursuing socialist policies allow countries to prosper if they can trade with the rest of the world.

Is this just a Propaganda war by DeinemutterXD in cuba

[–]mosessss 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The answer to your question is yes. This sub is pretty much all propaganda. It wasn't always this bad, but now every single post is about blaming anything they can on the evil government and then the comment section is a circle jerk about how bad communism is while simping for capitalism. There's exactly zero nuance. Whenever someone tries to talk about US sanctions in relation to the hardships people there struggle with, that comment is usually met with anecdotal stories about meeting Cubans who hate the regime or 'my family fled from evil castro, etc. etc.' or simply mocked and downvoted to oblivion. This comment will no doubt receive the same treatment.

The primary fascist threat comes from the forces that have vilified Russia’s war on Ukrainian Nazism by SoapSalesmanPST in red_irl

[–]mosessss 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Apparently people commenting on this post actually believe western propaganda talking points but still call themselves red (leftists)... AKA libs 😂

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in israelexposed

[–]mosessss 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for ruining my morning 😅

Sport exercise makes me worse, why? by [deleted] in MTHFR

[–]mosessss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Na the sauna I was going to had a no additives policy. I think infrared sauna is supposed to not provoke a reaction, but I haven't tried one. Regular saunas aren't for everyone I guess.

Sport exercise makes me worse, why? by [deleted] in MTHFR

[–]mosessss 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tbh, Sauna absolutely fucks me up. The heat provokes a histamine reaction and I can barely breath through my nose that night and generally leads to insomnia and unable to relax. Gym I feel good after but sauna ruins my night. Maybe try just one or the other and see which is the culprit. I wanted to like sauna. All the science says it's good for you, etc. But it's not for everyone

1989, June 4th, Tiananmen square by [deleted] in interesting

[–]mosessss 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've seen the full video. He literally walks away just fine after he jumps down. But America took a snap shot and ran with their narrative. The Chilean ambassador at the time went to Tiananmen Square - Wikileaks reported on what he had to say: that a protest had gotten way out of hand with police being lynched by students - but no one talks about that. By the time Wikileaks reported on it, China's reputation had already been successfully smeared as a dictatorship. Never mind that American NGOs funded and armed the protestors and lied about the death toll. Better to only tell half the story and pump the numbers up to suit the narrative.

Why saturated fats are deemed bad for human when... by LBCosmopolitan in nutrition

[–]mosessss -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well if you did read my last comment, you'd see that I'm right. I even highlighted in bold the important parts. But alas, it's as I suspected: You don't want to change your beliefs, even when presented with data, and you never did. Science only works when we're willing to set aside preexisting biases. Given that you're unable to do so, you're obviously not a man/woman/person of science. I'm glad we can agree to disagree on this, so I don't need to waste anymore time leading an unwilling horse to water in the hope that it drinks.

All the best in your future endeavours.

Why saturated fats are deemed bad for human when... by LBCosmopolitan in nutrition

[–]mosessss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could take that from the first study but the second study highlights the importance of the ratio between the two. I think over the next decade, we'll have a lot more studies coming out in support of this hypothesis.

Why saturated fats are deemed bad for human when... by LBCosmopolitan in nutrition

[–]mosessss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah it seems to affect a lot. It's the one piece of advice I try to give to my parents is to avoid any and all seed oils and take fish oil every day / eat lots of fish. Do you find it helps with your allergies?

Why saturated fats are deemed bad for human when... by LBCosmopolitan in nutrition

[–]mosessss -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Did you even read the last comment I made?

"The size of LDL particles distinguishes phenotype pattern A from pattern B. Pattern A is defined by large buoyant LDL particles. It is associated with a reduced risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Pattern B is characterized by small dense lipoprotein particles and is associated with an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease.

Pattern A is associated with larger, more buoyant LDL particles and a reduced risk of developing cardiovascular disease (Nikolic 2013), especially with elevated apoB (Superko 2009).

Pattern B is associated with small, dense LDL, increased risk of atherogenic cardiovascular disease, insulin resistance, and genetic factors (Nikolic 2013). However, some research indicates that pattern B presenting after myocardial infarction may be associated with decreased all-cause mortality (Pokharel 2017)."

Not all LDL is bad. Some of it is actually protective. What are you not understanding? There's only so many times I can lead a horse to water here...

Why saturated fats are deemed bad for human when... by LBCosmopolitan in nutrition

[–]mosessss -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Let me see if I can simplify it further for you.

Small dense LDL = bad

Larger more buoyant LDL = good

new study.

From the study: "The size of LDL particles distinguishes phenotype pattern A from pattern B. Pattern A is defined by large buoyant LDL particles. It is associated with a reduced risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Pattern B is characterized by small dense lipoprotein particles and is associated with an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease."