Even though we had a little bit of warning about federation, I think we’re off to a rocky start. Maybe we should have compiled a list of things we think that may make other people very upset. That way they can quickly get to know what we’re about and go hide in a social media bubble if it scares them.
I figure I’d start with a good one. America deserved 9/11. I’m burying the lede a bit with that one. I don’t think random acts of violence really accomplish much and I don’t think randos, albeit imperial core randos, should die. But this wasn’t a random act of violence, was it?
There’s a little something called Foucault’s Boomerang. Basically it’s the tools, means, and experiments carried out by imperial countries tend to make their way back home one way or another. Military gear gets tried out on the battlefield then next thing you know cops at home have the same equipment. It also works for cause and effect. America did 9/11 to itself.
After WWII America courted the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, who had some really “interesting” religious ideas at the time, to ensure a source of oil. Oil was very important to American manufacturing and the war effort. Our domestic reserves helped us get through WWII. We needed more. So the US decided to look the other way on Saudi foreign policy while they ensured us first dibs on the oil. The UK also made deals on building their infrastructure and finance needs, to which the US eventually pushed them of the back rooms where such deals were made. But that’s another story.
The US also backed anti-Soviet/anti-Communist groups in the Middle-East as they had in other parts of the world. This meant giving aide and weapons and training to those groups. In exchange they would beat up all the communists and pro-soviet people in their country and keep the borders open for US trade.
Not to “yadda yadda yadda” through a lot of interesting history but the US made a lot of enemies and ruined former alliances in these places because we valued the exploitation of their resources more than the actual relationships formed. Once the Soviets were gone, we could just do what we wanted to them and there was nobody left to oppose us.
So our former (and some current) friends stabbed us in the back. The imperialism boomeranged back home and we got a terrorist attack on US soil.
The people who died didn’t particularly deserve it but people die when an imperial power does imperialism. That’s part of why it’s bad. Imperialism will never benefit the common person, it will only hurt us in the end. You best believe all this funding, weapons, and shit going into Ukraine will come back on us too.
What are some other real-ass takes for our visitors who need disillusioning?
deleted by creator
Based take and should be added to the rotating header message list.
“It’s not a genocide when WE do it!” Is all the USA has to say about it.
I’m pretty sure blockades are also illegal under international law. I think unilateral sanction regimes are, too.
deleted by creator
The sovereign is he who decides the exception- Carl SchmittThe term in the German original is not exception, but Ausnahmezustand, which means “state of emergency” or “martial law”. Schmitt is ultimately going for what you are implying there, but the translation still seems off to me.
Sorry for being the smug asshole doing the “in the original German” bit, just felt it’s kinda worth mentioning.
Man these Germans really have a word for anything.
In typical German fashion, that word for “martial law” literally translates to “state of exception”
True. Thanks for the correction comrade, tho in my head I was indeed understanding it as ‘state of exception’ being synonymous with ‘state of emergency’. But yes thanks for noting the better translation.
The difference really isn’t that huge, ultimately declaring martial law is just a codified way of saying “i just altered the deal, pray i do not alter it further.” The sovereign is the one who can force anybody to play by the rules while declaring the very same rules to be void when they see fit.
There hasn’t been a blockade since the Cuban missile crisis.
I should explain what I mean. I was using the terminology in a way that’s somewhat of a stretch.
There’s an argument to be made that economic embargo serves the same purpose as blockade, and that the only meaningful difference is not having actual warships present. And moreover that it should be treated as similar to blockade because it inflicts many of the same harms.