I appreciate the explanation. It’s important people know the difference. My understanding of communism is that it requires the complete abolition of private property while under a socialism private property and corporations are still permitted.

Cold war era propaganda led to civilizational programming that broke the minds of boomers on this subject. Boomers tend to lean hypercapitalist with a very “boot strappy” mindset ie. they did it all on their own. Collectivism is generally not a part of their worldview. It’s the rugged individual or bust. We’re all crabs in a bucket and the ones that get out are just inherently better. Out of many, comes one. It’s all bullshit.

America is the least socialist advanced economy Western nation but yes you can argue programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are socialist.

Perhaps being targetted by ICE could qualify. Being brown could help in this scenario.

It’s a very optimistic outlook. I hope you’re right.

What’s uncomfortable for countries in the Western hemisphere is that upon shifting to a multipolar or “spheres of influence” model of the world (which was the norm preglobalization), America will continue its imperialistic tendencies to claim some form of dominion over Canada Mexico and South America. The latest foreign policy strategy document from the Trump administration seems to harken to the Monroe Doctrine (which was a warning that colonization of any further territory in the Western hemisphere by European powers would be viewed as a threat to U.S. security). It seems like Trump sees the Western hemisphere as “belonging” to America on some level.

I also don’t see the US competely discarding neoliberalism when it comes to tech / services, where it still dominates. That requires some type of openness to the world otherwise they won’t be able to continue to enforce their IP rights. When someone makes a Doordash order in Kathmandu, they want some portion of that transaction flowing through both Silicon Valley and their payment processors (Visa, Mastercard etc). How will the US respond when socialism spreads and those countries make their own versions of these services? Hard to imagine they would respond reasonably, especially since their approach to any resistance up until now has been to stage a coup. Old habits die hard.

The US was isolationist during much of world war 2 and had a “cash and carry” approach towards selling arms to US allies during the initial part of the war. After much deliberation this became a laxer lend-lease arrangement that had been against the desires of the American people, who did not want to be a creditor in a conflict that had its center stage in Europe and were worried the Brits wouldn’t be able to pay back. These financial arrangements made the US incredibly wealthy, essentially extracting centuries of colonial and slavery based loot from the Brits, which allowed it to become the global hegimon it is today (for now) and brought an end to the British Empire. It took the Brits sixty years to settle the loan.

“To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal”

While the US came out as clear winners, many postcolonial nations are grateful that the war absolutely decimated the British Empire financially. Every seven days, a nation celebrates its independence from the British Empire. Though it was their inability to continue administrative operations in the colonies (due to financial decimation) that led to some very questionably drawn borders that have played a role in many present day conflicts.

In an asylum scenario definitely can be considered but for migration in general we need to stabilize the housing and cost of living situation before we start inviting people over in my opinion. The population is also skewing more elderly (with immigration there being the only balancing factor) there and here so need go make sure our healthcare system is ready for such a migration without causing any institutional shocks.

Yes, I’m afraid she comes from this planet.

India US relations have gone cold since Trump. Particularly with the +25% tariff for buying Russian oil which they perceive as unfair since

1. India followed the US in sanctioning Iran in 2019 which is why they increased purchases of Russian oil.

2. The West had set a price cap on Russian oil after the Ukraine war as everyone understood that completely banning its purchase would drive oil prices up undesirably.

3. The Biden administration was explicit in acknowledging and accepting that India buy Russian oil. It was seen as necessary to stabilize the market.

4. China buys more oil than India from Russia and faces no specific additional tariff.

5. The EU continues to buy gas and the US buys uranium from Russia (which also allows them to continue to finance the war).

6. The IMF (which is seen as an American/Western institution) continues to bail out Pakistan and the peception in India is that some of those funds will reach non-state actors who will perpetuate violence in India.

There are actually more reasons but India recently hosted Putin for a state visit and rolled out the red carpet for him. India and Russia have historically had good relations (the Soviet Union used its UN security council position to support India against postcolonial Western interference on several occasions) but this was friendlier than many were expecting and it is in large part due to the current US administration being inconsistent on trade policy and incompetent at diplomacy.

India’s official stance is ‘strategic autonomy’ or multialignment but at least right now it seems to have more friends in the East than in the West.

Middle East/Africa would likely become its own sphere just based on geography. I assume Europe would be in Russia’s sphere.

So I see where this post is coming from. Many people use travel as a sort of status symbol or don’t actually learn anything about the places they go to and are simply there for personal enjoyment. It can be superficial.

But that’s ok. I think the douchebag here is the person questioning the value in travel (likely assuming this woman took a superficial approach). That’s not fair, people should be given the benefit of the doubt. For all we know she may have connected to her heritage and learned some key life lessons.

In this case if the person is of Europoid heritage (sometimes referred to as European) it might be a good opportunity to learn more about why they travelled and where they may originally be from.

Needs?

People’s needs are things like food, water, air and Costco rotisserie chicken.

In fact this ‘need’ could be easily fulfilled by two Costco rotisserie chickens taped to the chest and that way meals would be covered too.

Is it though? People hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe. No one wants to believe that their privileges are predicated on suffering elsewhere.

Westerners in particularly have always been very “heads in the sand” when it comes to modern history but it’s not surprising. Every nation struggles with the darker aspects of their history.

Never related to hookup culture.

Growing up there was very much a mantra of you don’t know how to fuck unless you’ve fucked a bunch of random people.

Which could be true if using another body to masturbate is the same as fucking.

It turns out many women are coded to experience pleasure most when they feel safe. This doesn’t apply to every women and that doesn’t mean you can’t experiment consensually but a ONS is really not conducive to immersive pleasure in my opinion.

There was a lot of we need to confirm sexual chemistry before a relationship too. I personally find building something with a person (from as little as a small commitment to life itself) to be a force multiplier behind intimacy, elevating it from hopeful ember to an all consuming flame of passion, satisfaction and fulfillment.

I prefer building a relationship, exploring affection and intimacy and then sexual exploration. Is it masculine? Depends who you ask. But if it isn’t then the problem lies in how we define masculinity in my view.

As the oldest denomination mysticism is bound to be present and in some cases persist.

We call that extortion in our part of the world. I assume the British call it that today too.

Where I’d say Friedman is arguing in bad faith is that the obvious goal of colonialism is value extraction by force or coercion. He may argue that due to inefficiency or resistance it didn’t actually produce significant wealth for Britain but the evidence shows otherwise.

That or he may argue that the East India Company (the origin of multinational capitalism) was not colonialism which would be divergent from historical consensus.

There are several estimates. Some as high as $45 trillion.

Friedman’s take has been repeated in many Western circles.

As you’ve mentioned there were multiple members of Parliament who were directly invested in the EIC and made sizable profits. The EIC managed to extract explotative taxation during the Bengal famine of 1770 (promoting starvation) while shareholders increased their dividend from 10 to 12.5%. The massive transfer of wealth from India, the Atlantic slave trade and Opium sales to China essentially built Britain during this era. It was the seed capital of the industrial revolution.

The British Raj took over after the failed sepoy mutiny in mid 1800s. It was at this point Britain introduced the strategy of the ‘civilizing mission’, denigrating Indian culture as a justification to the British public to continue colonization. The British public accepted this. It was the independence movement in India that ultimately secured freedom (along with Nazi destruction of British infrastructure).

As we watch power and wealth slowly drift back from West to East and South, African, Indian and many other voices that speak truth on this matter will be heard more clearly.

Often times Westerners are not open to accepting voices from the global south on these matters and portray them as biased. I usual refer to the writings of historian William Dalrymple (the self admitted descendant of colonists) as a starting point to those that feel morally threatened by this history but want to learn more from someone who doesn’t feel too foreign.

For those that are open to Indian voices, Sashi Tharoor’s writings or his YouTube series ‘Imperial Receipts’ does a good job capturing the history and scale of extraction.

Didn’t know much about the guy except that he’s a Nobel laureate. Happened to come across a YouTube video where a curious college student asks him about how slavery and colonialism contributed to Western wealth. He had an elaborate answer but within it he actually said Britain did not have slaves and America did not have colonies (for the most part).

Nevermind the fact that America absolutely had slaves and Britain certainly had colonies (he was selective on who didn’t have what), Britain absolutely did profit from slavery also.

He added on that Britain spent more on administering colonies than it gained extracting their resources which may be one of the stupidest arguments I’ve ever heard. How can someone that worships at the altar of capitalism not understand that greed was the obvious motivator? Or is it only the motivator when it fits his narrative?

If this is the messaging we get from our intellectuals, what hope does truth have?

Women absolutely have a role to play in toxic masculinity. Not to take accountability away from the social conditions that men ultimately created and propagated.

Stoicism teaches us to focus on what’s in our control by either reframing or accepting our emotions based on rational judgment. The goal is emotional resilience, not emotional suppression. Pop culture has redefined it as you describe.

There is debate that Yahweh was originally conceptualized as a war God before monotheism was fully established. It would explain why the God of the old testament seems so… harsh at times.