#they should nuke russia | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

anexperimentallife · 2 days

Text

So you want leftist candidates? Here's how you get them:

First off, you have to understand that the far right didn't just wake up one day and say, "We should fuck up the country!" They have been OPENLY working for decades to fill literally every elected or appointed government position they could with Christian Dominionists and other right-wingers, and these folks show up to the polls EVERY SINGLE TIME.

When I was a kid in a far right church in the 1960s, they openly discussed how important is was to get their people into office who would help pass legislation to persecute/imprison/kill anyone who didn't follow their religion. If there's no one sufficiently right-wing running, they'll vote for whomever is closest, even if it gags them. And I cannot emphasize enough that they have long term goals that they are willing to take--and HAVE taken--generations to achieve.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade, for example, is a DIRECT RESULT of the decades-long effort by the far right to boost the most far-right-leaning candidates they could find. They've been talking for decades SPECIFICALLY about getting enough far right judges in SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Wade. And these SCOTUS appointments are for LIFE, so these judges get to set policy for your GRANDCHILDREN.

So yes, the overturning of Roe v. Wade was only made possible because Trump was able to appoint three SCOTUS judges, in addition to all the other federal judges he appointed. Amd they're talking about going after same-sex marriage, minority rights, etc.

(Hell, the judge in charge of his secret documents case is one that he appointed--she has indefinitely postponed that case,by the way.)

And you don't think local school board elections are important? Have you not seen the news about all the anti-queer policies, and all the book-bannings? This, also, has a generational effect.

Meanwhile the left refuses to turn up to the polls because none of the candidates are pure enough. So guess why things are getting worse?

If the Left turned out for the most left-leaning candidate at EVERY SINGLE ELECTION, whether local or state or whatever, including primaries, we'd start seeing more leftist candidates. Yes, that means that if there's a choice between two extreme right wing candidates, you vote for the least extreme one.

I know I keep emphasizing that this is not just about POTUS, but POTUS does figure in, of course (among other things, who do you think appoints judges for congress to approve?).

So swallow this pill: Anything shitty Biden is doing, the shitgibbon will do MORE of.

"Not gonna vote Biden because he supports genocide, so I'd rather the guy win who ALSO supports genocide, wants Russia to invade more countries, thinks it's fine if China retakes Taiwan, wants a nationwide abortion ban, removal of civil rights for minorities, wants to overturn same-sex marriage (which the right-leaning majority in SCOTUS are already talking about), to cut back the role of congress in checking executive actions (including workarounds to avoid the need for congressional confirmation for presidential appointees), to remove federal employee protections so federal personnel can be replaced with Trump loyalists, and so on! That'll teach those Dems a lesson! THEN they'll be sorry. And fuck everyone the bad guys hurt, because I'll still be PURE. So what if top GOP officials want to actually NUKE Gaza?"

That's fucking kindergartner thinking.

Yes, Biden is a piece of shit, but I am not waxing at all hyperbolic when I say that a second orange shitgibbon term, with a far-right-majority SCOTUS--especially if the GOP manages majorities in both houses of congress--may be the end of what little is left of Democracy in the US. Not gonna argue about it, because I don't waste my time with petulant children.

Look at the GOP's plans for a Republican administration, and tell me you think it sounds better than another term of Biden. Hell, they've even set up online trainings and loyalty tests to narrow down potential federal hires to those who will commit to follow Trump without question.

I repeat: If you want more leftist candidates, if you want more worker power, if you want billionaires taxed, if you want to protect minorities and the queer community, you have to adopt the strategy that the right has used, educate yourself about what candidates stand for, and show up EVERY SINGLE TIME. Again, that includes primaries.

So many of us on the left would rather sit in the basement dreaming of some magical revolution that's going to fix everything, giving ourselves and others purity tests, and proudly announcing that we're... boycotting democracy by not voting(?), "because none of the candidates are a good choice."

Yeah, the left refusing to vote--or only voting in presidential elections--while the right turns up every time is exactly how we got here.

And you have to support the most left-leaning candidate even if it makes you gag, and even if "most left-leaning" means "not as openly fascist." This is the ONLY way you can be assured of candidates getting further to the left in the future. (Note that this means learning about your local candidates.)

"But voting won't fix--" I never said it was going to fix everything. There's no rule that if you vote, you can't volunteer with Food Not Bombs, or run for school board, or demonstrate, or circulate petitions. It takes more than voting, but voting has to be PART of our strategy.

You also have to accept that it may take decades to change course, and that you're not going to like every candidate you have to vote for.

The right didn't just magically get the orange shitgibbon into office overnight. It took decades of work. And if we want decent human beings in charge, we have to be willing to do the same.

#rob gets political

95 notes · View notes

originalleftist · 1 month

Text

I wonder if those who think Israel should be destroyed, or that the US should do nothing to assist in it's defence, have ever really thought about what Israel's defeat and destruction would entail.

Because even beyond the immense loss of life, primarily to civilians, that that would entail, the reality is that Israel has nuclear weapons. And if it is ever in a position where it is desperate enough, where it's existence is imminently threatened, it will likely use those weapons. And again, this is not because Israel is uniquely destructive or genocidal- it's literally the central reason why every country that has nuclear weapons (so the US, Russia, China, UK, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) has them. As a final deterrent, and means of retaliation, against destruction.

So if Hamas or Iranian or another enemy were to successfully overrun Israel, such that Israel's existence as a nation-state was imminently threatened, those nukes would come into play. And it should go without saying, but that will not help anyone. Not Israelis. Not the US. And not Palestinians. Because you can't have your own state when you're dead.

Israel is a small nation, surrounded by enemies. The choices of it's government bear some responsibility for the latter fact, but regardless, that is the situation at present. The best guarantee that Israel will never find itself desperate enough to consider using those nukes is likely a strong guarantee of US support. No, that doesn't mean that the US has to give Israel unlimited offensive weapons for any purpose. But it does mean that whenever Israel's existence is threatened, it does not stand alone.

The alternative is not a good one. For anyone. And if you want the destruction of Israel by force, you are not supporting a "free Palestine". You have one goal- the slaughter of "Zionists" (by which is meant, Israeli and also often diaspora Jews). And are willing to see Palestine and a lot of other places turned to radioactive wastelands to get it.

Remember this as well when you see commentators and social media posts denouncing Biden for supporting Israel against Iran, accusing him of genocide, and urging people to stay home/vote third party/vote Trump on Election Day.

#Israel #Palestine #Gaza #US #Iran #Nuclear Weapons #Two State Solution #Election #2024

28 notes · View notes

pixeljade · 2 months

Text

I do keep seeing posts that say "whys Joe even funding Israel except that he loves Genocide" or "Why is there discussion of leaving NATO in the senate survey" and like. Here. Let me explain this to you. (DISCLAIMER: I hate Joe Biden I'm just doing this because understanding your opponents motivations makes it so you can more effectively fight them)

When you're President, issues are not just single simple issues. Theres a shitton of moving parts, and he cant be obvious about his awareness of all these parts for transparency's sake because that also gives his enemies (which would include those of us who want Both Parties Gone) an upper hand. Joe Biden views Israel as a necessary US base of operation in the middle east to defend the USA in case of an attack by China and (more pressing lately) Russia.

See, with Russia attacking Ukraine, Ukraine is thinking of joining NATO as a means of better defending itself. They've been talking about it for ages but really started getting the ball rolling when Putin attacked. NATO is a treaty organization which, if Ukraine does join, all the other members of NATO would be forced to come to its aid (i.e., literally all of them would be considered At War With Russia). On top of this, Russia has strong allies with a lot of anti-USA powers, including China. I wouldnt even be surprised if North Korea shows up. If this is starting to ring bells relating to the world wars in history class, good, because thats exactly what this scenario would entail. Another, open world war. Yes people scream 'world war 3' over the tiniest provocation but its just as foolish to claim its impossible. Add in that Putin has said he will gladly use nukes if he has to, and...well. you can put two and two together. It wont be a pretty picture.

Anyways, the middle east is, and has been, a central point in our proxy wars against Russia for ages. This is both because of the resources (oil) there, as well as its potential as a strong base of defense for the west against the east. Israel in particular is USA's biggest military defense resource, as they have a shit-ton of anti-ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) capabilities. Simply put, they serve as a bulwark against the forces of the east. They're also one of the biggest deterrants against all-out world war; because if anyone DOES try to send a nuke out west, we'll just blow it up before it hits us and then have Israel nuke them back, with far less time to defend.

So lets put ourselves in Joe's shoes knowing all of this. It starts to feel a bit like he HAS to keep giving Israel what they want in order to prevent world war 3 and/or nuclear holocaust, huh? This should also clarify why he said "If there were not an Israel in the middle east we would have to make one", and why he reportedly is very upset with all the Palestinean death yet still gives Israel weapons. Its a shitty appeasement tactic with an eye on global politics. (Side note: astute readers may also note that the actions regarding China are part of this, including the tik tok ban. They are correct.)

But does this make his actions correct? Fuck no. As many have noted Israel wouldnt even be able to continue existing without assistance from America, and Israel would likely be the first place to be destroyed by Russia if they seek to win, if it were weakened sufficiently. Meaning Joe could EASILY turn the tables on Israel and threaten to (or actually) cut them off and say "Fine, if you want to go that way then enjoy the hellfire that comes for us all, chuck." He could also decide to start rebuilding relations with China despite our differences, and therefore deprive Russia of allies in the world war 3 scenario. He could also build up these same defense systems in another middle eastern allied country (which I'd be against because colonialism is part of the problem). And that's simply taking it from the perspective of Joe, I, personally, do not think that America should remain in its current form. It has far more blood on its hands than just the Palestinean blood, and its destruction (preferably without nukes) could allow better things to take root.

Anyways, like I said, this is so that we might better defeat our enemies, so if you're wondering what the implications here are, I'd say start getting involved in politics at a local level. Not just protests, go to city council meetings! Its mostly boring stuff but once you get a hold on what it all means (and you will!) You'll start to see ways to shift the American culture away from this war-dependent fascistic society which has been surging so terrifyingly. You will start to see the glimmers of hope which shine through the sludge that it is American Politics.

Anyways if someone says this is a pro-Biden post im going to stab you with a million knives.

#politics #anti israel #anti zionism #anti joe biden #cw nuclear holocaust #cw war #anarchism

23 notes · View notes

paradoxcase · 3 months

Text

John 5:1

THE TOWER HAS REA

Honestly, if regular necromancers had this ability to stop bodies/meat from rotting like this, that would be something that like fundamentally changed some aspects of society, like feeding people becomes much easier, you don't necessarily even need things like salting or refrigeration or freezers if you have a necromancer on hand, and maybe necromancers wield power in society because without them there's no fresh food? But I don't get the idea that that's the case in the Nine Houses, Ianthe didn't learn how to stop apples from rotting until after she became a Lyctor, and she's actually a flesh magician, unlike Harrow who we can expect probably knew very little about anything to do with meat

I've been thinking throughout these segments that this is starting to sound more and more like the story of how John became the Unabomber, and this is making me think that even more. Come to think of it, Kaczynski also had an advanced degree, didn't he?

Apparently that's a NZ secondary school qualification, I guess he's talking about Pyrrha's level of education here?

It really all keeps coming back to Weekend at Bernie's with this story, doesn't it? And yeah, like someone pointed out, John should know about that movie, I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned it at all

This can't be foreshadowing, because that part of the book already happened, but it's like, I dunno, aftershadowing or something of how Mercy and Augustine also teamed up to kill John even though they hated each other

I think there's a limited number of nations this can actually be for John to be able to recognize the head of state and also for this to be a "big political conspiracy". I think maybe just the US, UK, Russia, China? It has to be one of those, right? Maybe John would recognize politicians from Australia, too, but I don't think anyone would really care all that much if one of them died. And at least in the US, there's a designated line of succession precisely so that if the president dies it doesn't cause political turmoil like they seem to think would happen here, and I bet the same is true in the UK, and I don't think there would be any political turmoil if the actual king of England died, either. So probably it has to be Russia or China, right?

It's kind of funny that this is like, exactly precisely all the right-wing conspiracy theories about how Biden is secretly dead and they're just parading around a fake or a body double or something

I mean, we're already in the middle of an extinction event, like, right now in the real world, and have been for a while now, humans have been causing extinctions ever since we hunted the megafauna to extinction back in the stone age

I don't get why they argued for this. Isn't this to get funding for the cryo project? What could they possibly need more than actual cash? Wasn't the point to just get money? What do they actually need a nuke for? Is this just because of Pyrrha encouraging John to become the Unabomber?

#the locked tomb #nona the ninth

21 notes · View notes

vesperione · 5 months

Text

It’s 00:37 am gmt rn meaning wigglys 5. As a (new) 5 year old, wiggly had already nuked Russia and convinced a teenager to kill off her life interest. When I was 5 I was rolling around on the floor and other stupid things like that. What I mean to say is that wiggly will forever be better than every single one of us, and we should all wish him a happy bday

#starkid #consjderthecoconut #Black Friday musical #tickle me wiggly #Jon matteson #Hatchetfield

29 notes · View notes

theconstitutionisgayculture · 6 months

Note

Weird how supporting Ukraine in Russia's war of aggression is an NPC move and not really worth supporting (with many right-wingers actually supporting Russia) but supporting Israel is totally based and the only right thing to do.

Thank you anon, I've been waiting for some idiot to try and compare these two things. So let's list some of the ways the two situations are different.

Ukraine is not our ally. Israel is.

Ukraine provoked Russia by trying to join NATO, which was specifically forbidden by an agreement NATO had with Russia. Israel did nothing to provoke Hamas other than refuse to be genocided by religious fanatics.

Ukranian independence means nothing for the United States. Our situation is exactly the same no matter who wins that war. Israel is the only democracy in the middle east. It's the only country that has nukes in the middle east. Its existence draws the attention of terrorist states that would otherwise turn their violence back towards us. Its existence gives the various Islamic factions, many of which hate each other almost as much as they hate Jews or America, something to focus on instead of having the fundamentalists immediately go to war with the arab nations that are slowly westernizing. I can't overstate how much a stable, westernized middle east would benefit the US, and Israel's existence is important for that goal.

Russia is a legit government that declared war on another legit government. Hamas is a terrorist organization pretending to be a government that raided Israel, kidnapped and raped hundreds of people, murdered civilians, slaughtered babies, and stole children.

Russia has nukes. Hamas doesn't. If Putin is backed into a corner there's a decent chance he'll use those nukes. If Russia loses the war and that leads to Putin being ousted and a fight for power in Russia, those nukes could be stolen or sold to foreign powers that want to destroy the US and the west. If Russia collapses, then the chances of those nukes going outside of Russia increases drastically.

Those are just a few ways the two situations are different, and why any comparison between the two is stupid and ignorant. Now, if you want to know my personal thoughts, since I know people like you love to pretend that all right wingers have the exact same opinions on everything and demand we prostrate ourselves and self-flagellate over things we've never said, I'll readily admit that I have a deep sympathy for the historic, and modern, plight of the Jews that I don't have for Ukrainians. I'm much more emotionally invested in Israel than I am in Ukraine. But I do hope Ukraine wins. I think every country and every culture should be free to govern itself. I don't support Putin, I don't support Russia, and I think it's hilarious that what used to be the second most powerful military in the world is having so much trouble conquering a tiny country they should have, on paper at least, steamrolled in a few weeks.

But I also don't support the US getting involved in foreign conflicts unless there's something tangible to be gained for us, either economically, strategically, or diplomatically. We get nothing for our investment in Ukraine. We get a lot for our investment in Israel.

27 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 2 years

Text

When New York City recently released a grotesque “public service announcement” video explaining that you should stay indoors during a nuclear war, the corporate media reaction was principally not outrage at the acceptance of such a fate or the stupidity of telling people “You’ve got this!” as if they could survive the apocalypse by cocooning with Netflix, but rather mockery of the very idea that a nuclear war might happen. U.S. polling on people’s top concerns find 1% of people most concerned about the climate and 0% most concerned about nuclear war.

Yet, the U.S. just illegally put nukes into a 6th nation (and virtually nobody in the U.S. can name either it or the other five that the U.S. already illegally had nukes in), while Russia is talking about putting nukes into another nation too, and the two governments with most of the nukes increasingly talk — publicly and privately — about nuclear war. The scientists who keep the doomsday clock think the risk is greater than ever. There’s a general consensus that shipping weapons to Ukraine at the risk of nuclear war is worth it — whatever “it” may be. And, at least within the head of U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, voices are unanimous that a trip to Taiwan is worth it too.

Trump tore up the Iran agreement, and Biden has done everything possible to keep it that way. When Trump proposed talking with North Korea, the U.S. media went insane. But it’s the administration that hit the height of inflation-adjusted military spending, set the record for number of nations simultaneously bombed, and invented robot-plane warfare (that of Barack Obama) for which one must painfully now long, as he did the ridiculous-but-better-than-war Iran deal, refused to arm Ukraine, and didn’t have time to get a war going with China. The arming of Ukraine by Trump and Biden has done more for the chances of vaporizing you than anything else, and anything short of all-out bellicosity by Biden has been greeted with blood-thirsty howls by your friendly corporate U.S. news outlets.

Meanwhile, exactly like the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the guinea-pigged human residents of the much larger Pacific island nuclear experiments, and the downwinders everywhere, nobody sees it coming. And, even more so, people have been trained to be absolutely convinced that there’s nothing they could possibly do to change things if they did become aware of any sort of problem. So, it’s remarkable the efforts those paying any attention are putting up, for example:

Cease Fire and Negotiate Peace in Ukraine

Don’t Get Yanked into War With China

Global Appeal to Nine Nuclear Governments

Say No to Nancy Pelosi’s Dangerous Taiwan Trip

VIDEO: Abolishing Nuclear Weapons Globally & Locally — A Webinar

June 12th Anti-Nuclear Legacy Videos

Defuse Nuclear War

August 2: Webinar: What could trigger nuclear war with Russia and China?

August 5: 77 Years Later: Eliminate Nukes, Not Life on Earth

August 6: “The Day After” film screening and discussion

August 9: Hiroshima-Nagasaki Day 77th Anniversary Commemoration

Seattle to Rally for Nuclear Abolition

A little background on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

The nukes did not save lives. They took lives, possibly 200,000 of them. They were not intended to save lives or to end the war. And they didn’t end the war. The Russian invasion did that. But the war was going to end anyway, without either of those things. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that, “… certainly prior to 31 December, 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November, 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

One dissenter who had expressed this same view to the Secretary of War and, by his own account, to President Truman, prior to the bombings was General Dwight Eisenhower. Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bard, prior to the bombings, urged that Japan be given a warning. Lewis Strauss, Advisor to the Secretary of the Navy, also prior to the bombings, recommended blowing up a forest rather than a city. General George Marshall apparently agreed with that idea. Atomic scientist Leo Szilard organized scientists to petition the president against using the bomb. Atomic scientist James Franck organized scientists who advocated treating atomic weapons as a civilian policy issue, not just a military decision. Another scientist, Joseph Rotblat, demanded an end to the Manhattan Project, and resigned when it was not ended. A poll of the U.S. scientists who had developed the bombs, taken prior to their use, found that 83% wanted a nuclear bomb publicly demonstrated prior to dropping one on Japan. The U.S. military kept that poll secret. General Douglas MacArthur held a press conference on August 6, 1945, prior to the bombing of Hiroshima, to announce that Japan was already beaten.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral William D. Leahy said angrily in 1949 that Truman had assured him only military targets would be nuked, not civilians. “The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender,” Leahy said. Top military officials who said just after the war that the Japanese would have quickly surrendered without the nuclear bombings included General Douglas MacArthur, General Henry “Hap” Arnold, General Curtis LeMay, General Carl “Tooey” Spaatz, Admiral Ernest King, Admiral Chester Nimitz, Admiral William “Bull” Halsey, and Brigadier General Carter Clarke. As Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick summarize, seven of the United States’ eight five-star officers who received their final star in World War II or just after — Generals MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Arnold, and Admirals Leahy, King, Nimitz, and Halsey — in 1945 rejected the idea that the atomic bombs were needed to end the war. “Sadly, though, there is little evidence that they pressed their case with Truman before the fact.”

On August 6, 1945, President Truman lied on the radio that a nuclear bomb had been dropped on an army base, rather than on a city. And he justified it, not as speeding the end of the war, but as revenge against Japanese offenses. “Mr. Truman was jubilant,” wrote Dorothy Day. Weeks before the first bomb was dropped, on July 13, 1945, Japan had sent a telegram to the Soviet Union expressing its desire to surrender and end the war. The United States had broken Japan’s codes and read the telegram. Truman referred in his diary to “the telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.” President Truman had been informed through Swiss and Portuguese channels of Japanese peace overtures as early as three months before Hiroshima. Japan objected only to surrendering unconditionally and giving up its emperor, but the United States insisted on those terms until after the bombs fell, at which point it allowed Japan to keep its emperor. So, the desire to drop the bombs may have lengthened the war. The bombs did not shorten the war.

Presidential advisor James Byrnes had told Truman that dropping the bombs would allow the United States to “dictate the terms of ending the war.” Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal wrote in his diary that Byrnes was “most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in.” Truman wrote in his diary that the Soviets were preparing to march against Japan and “Fini Japs when that comes about.” The Soviet invasion was planned prior to the bombs, not decided by them. The United States had no plans to invade for months, and no plans on the scale to risk the numbers of lives that U.S. school teachers will tell you were saved. The idea that a massive U.S. invasion was imminent and the only alternative to nuking cities, so that nuking cities saved huge numbers of U.S. lives, is a myth. Historians know this, just as they know that George Washington didn’t have wooden teeth or always tell the truth, and Paul Revere didn’t ride alone, and slave-owning Patrick Henry’s speech about liberty was written decades after he died, and Molly Pitcher didn’t exist. But the myths have their own power. Lives, by the way, are not the unique property of U.S. soldiers. Japanese people also had lives.

Truman ordered the bombs dropped, one on Hiroshima on August 6th and another type of bomb, a plutonium bomb, which the military also wanted to test and demonstrate, on Nagasaki on August 9th. The Nagasaki bombing was moved up from the 11th to the 9th to decrease the likelihood of Japan surrendering first. Also on August 9th, the Soviets attacked the Japanese. During the next two weeks, the Soviets killed 84,000 Japanese while losing 12,000 of their own soldiers, and the United States continued bombing Japan with non-nuclear weapons — burning Japanese cities, as it had done to so much of Japan prior to August 6th that, when it came time to pick two cities to nuke, there hadn’t been many left to choose from. Then the Japanese surrendered.

That there was cause to use nuclear weapons is a myth. That there could again be cause to use nuclear weapons is a myth. That we can survive significant further use of nuclear weapons is a myth — NOT a “public service announcement.” That there is cause to produce nuclear weapons even though you’ll never use them is too stupid even to be a myth. And that we can forever survive possessing and proliferating nuclear weapons without someone intentionally or accidentally using them is pure insanity.

Why do U.S. history teachers in U.S. elementary schools today — in 2022! — tell children that nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan to save lives — or rather “the bomb” (singular) to avoid mentioning Nagasaki? Researchers and professors have poured over the evidence for 75 years. They know that Truman knew that the war was over, that Japan wanted to surrender, that the Soviet Union was about to invade. They’ve documented all the resistance to the bombing within the U.S. military and government and scientific community, as well as the motivation to test bombs that so much work and expense had gone into, as well as the motivation to intimidate the world and in particular the Soviets, as well as the open and shameless placing of zero value on Japanese lives. How were such powerful myths generated that the facts are treated like skunks at a picnic?

In Greg Mitchell’s 2020 book, The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood — and America — Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, we have an account of the making of the 1947 MGM film, The Beginning or the End, which was carefully shaped by the U.S. government to promote falsehoods. The film bombed. It lost money. The ideal for a member of the U.S. public was clearly not to watch a really bad and boring pseudo-documentary with actors playing the scientists and warmongers who had produced a new form of mass-murder. The ideal action was to avoid any thought of the matter. But those who couldn’t avoid it were handed a glossy big-screen myth. You can watch it online for free, and as Mark Twain would have said, it’s worth every penny.

The film opens with what Mitchell describes as giving credit to the UK and Canada for their roles in producing the death machine — supposedly a cynical if falsified means of appealing to a larger market for the movie. But it really appears to be more blaming than crediting. This is an effort to spread the guilt. The film jumps quickly to blaming Germany for an imminent threat of nuking the world if the United States didn’t nuke it first. (You can actually have difficulty today getting young people to believe that Germany had surrendered prior to Hiroshima, or that the U.S. government knew in 1944 that Germany had abandoned atomic bomb research in 1942.) Then an actor doing a bad Einstein impression blames a long list of scientists from all over the world. Then some other personage suggests that the good guys are losing the war and had better hurry up and invent new bombs if they want to win it.

Over and over we’re told that bigger bombs will bring peace and end war. A Franklin Roosevelt impersonator even puts on a Woodrow Wilson act, claiming the atom bomb might end all war (something a surprising number of people actually believe it did, even in the face of the past 75 years of wars, which some U.S. professors describe as the Great Peace). We’re told and shown completely fabricated nonsense, such as that the U.S. dropped leaflets on Hiroshima to warn people (and for 10 days — “That’s 10 days more warning than they gave us at Pearl Harbor,” a character pronounces) and that the Japanese fired at the plane as it approached its target. In reality, the U.S. never dropped a single leaflet on Hiroshima but did — in good SNAFU fashion — drop tons of leaflets on Nagasaki the day after Nagasaki was bombed. Also, the hero of the movie dies from an accident while fiddling with the bomb to get it ready for use — a brave sacrifice for humanity on behalf of the war’s real victims — the members of the U.S. military. The film also claims that the people bombed “will never know what hit them,” despite the film makers knowing of the agonizing suffering of those who died slowly.

One communication from the movie makers to their consultant and editor, General Leslie Groves, included these words: “Any implication tending to make the Army look foolish will be eliminated.”

The main reason the movie is deadly boring, I think, is not that movies have sped up their action sequences every year for 75 years, added color, and devised all kinds of shock devices, but simply that the reason anybody should think the bomb that the characters all talk about for the entire length of the film is a big deal is left out. We don’t see what it does, not from the ground, only from the sky.

Mitchell’s book is a bit like watching sausage made, but also a bit like reading the transcripts from a committee that cobbled together some section of the Bible. This is an origin myth of the Global Policeman in the making. And it’s ugly. It’s even tragic. The very idea for the film came from a scientist who wanted people to understand the danger, not glorify the destruction. This scientist wrote to Donna Reed, that nice lady who gets married to Jimmy Stewart in It’s a Wonderful Life, and she got the ball rolling. Then it rolled around an oozing wound for 15 months and voilà, a cinematic turd emerged.

There was never any question of telling the truth. It’s a movie. You make stuff up. And you make it all up in one direction. The script for this movie contained at times all sorts of nonsense that didn’t last, such as the Nazis giving the Japanese the atomic bomb — and the Japanese setting up a laboratory for Nazi scientists, exactly as back in the real world at this very time the U.S. military was setting up laboratories for Nazi scientists (not to mention making use of Japanese scientists). None of this is more ludicrous than The Man in the High Castle, to take a recent example of 75 years of this stuff, but this was early, this was seminal. Nonsense that didn’t make it into this film, everybody didn’t end up believing and teaching to students for decades, but easily could have. The movie makers gave final editing control to the U.S. military and the White House, and not to the scientists who had qualms. Many good bits as well as crazy bits were temporarily in the script, but excised for the sake of proper propaganda.

If it’s any consolation, it could have been worse. Paramount was in a nuclear arms film race with MGM and employed Ayn Rand to draft the hyper-patriotic-capitalist script. Her closing line was “Man can harness the universe — but nobody can harness man.” Fortunately for all of us, it didn’t work out. Unfortunately, despite John Hersey’s A Bell for Adano being a better movie than The Beginning or the End, his best-selling book on Hiroshima didn’t appeal to any studios as a good story for movie production. Unfortunately, Dr. Strangelove would not appear until 1964, by which point many were ready to question future use of “the bomb” but not past use, making all questioning of future use rather weak. This relationship to nuclear weapons parallels that to wars in general. The U.S. public can question all future wars, and even those wars it’s heard of from the past 75 years, but not WWII, rendering all questioning of future wars weak. In fact, recent polling finds horrific willingness to support future nuclear war by the U.S. public.

At the time The Beginning or the End was being scripted and filmed, the U.S. government was seizing and hiding away every scrap it could find of actual photographic or filmed documentation of the bomb sites. Henry Stimson was having his Colin Powell moment, being pushed forward to publicly make the case in writing for having dropped the bombs. More bombs were rapidly being built and developed, and whole populations evicted from their island homes, lied to, and used as props for newsreels in which they are depicted as happy participants in their destruction.

Mitchell writes that one reason Hollywood deferred to the military was in order to use its airplanes, etc., in the production, as well as in order to use the real names of characters in the story. I find it very hard to believe these factors were terribly important. With the unlimited budget it was dumping into this thing — including paying the people it was giving veto power to — MGM could have created its own quite unimpressive props and its own mushroom cloud. It’s fun to fantasize that someday those who oppose mass murder could take over something like the unique building of the U.S. Institute of “Peace” and require that Hollywood meet peace movement standards in order to film there. But of course the peace movement has no money, Hollywood has no interest, and any building can be simulated elsewhere. Hiroshima could have been simulated elsewhere, and in the movie wasn’t shown at all. The main problem here was ideology and habits of subservience.

There were reasons to fear the government. The FBI was spying on people involved, including wishy-washy scientists like J. Robert Oppenheimer who kept consulting on the film, lamenting its awfulness, but never daring to oppose it. A new Red Scare was just kicking in. The powerful were exercising their power through the usual variety of means.

As the production of The Beginning or the End winds toward completion, it builds the same momentum the bomb did. After so many scripts and bills and revisions, and so much work and ass-kissing, there was no way the studio wouldn’t release it. When it finally came out, the audiences were small and the reviews mixed. The New York daily PM found the film “reassuring,” which I think was the basic point. Mission accomplished.

Mitchell’s conclusion is that the Hiroshima bomb was a “first strike,” and that the United States should abolish its first-strike policy. But of course it was no such thing. It was an only strike, a first-and-last strike. There were no other nuclear bombs that would come flying back as a “second strike.” Now, today, the danger is of accidental as much as intentional use, whether first, second, or third, and the need is to at long last join the bulk of the world’s governments that are seeking to abolish nuclear weapons all together — which, of course, sounds crazy to anyone who has internalized the mythology of WWII.

There are far better works of art than The Beginning or the End that we could turn to for myth busting. For example, The Golden Age, a novel published by Gore Vidal in 2000 with glowing endorsements by the Washington Post, and New York Times Book Review, has never been made into a movie, but tells a story much closer to the truth. In The Golden Age, we follow along behind all the closed doors, as the British push for U.S. involvement in World War II, as President Roosevelt makes a commitment to Prime Minister Churchill, as the warmongers manipulate the Republican convention to make sure that both parties nominate candidates in 1940 ready to campaign on peace while planning war, as Roosevelt longs to run for an unprecedented third term as a wartime president but must content himself with beginning a draft and campaigning as a drafttime president in a time of supposed national danger, and as Roosevelt works to provoke Japan into attacking on his desired schedule.

Then there’s historian and WWII veteran Howard Zinn’s 2010 book, The Bomb. Zinn describes the U.S. military making its first use of napalm by dropping it all over a French town, burning anyone and anything it touched. Zinn was in one of the planes, taking part in this horrendous crime. In mid-April 1945, the war in Europe was essentially over. Everyone knew it was ending. There was no military reason (if that’s not an oxymoron) to attack the Germans stationed near Royan, France, much less to burn the French men, women, and children in the town to death. The British had already destroyed the town in January, similarly bombing it because of its vicinity to German troops, in what was widely called a tragic mistake. This tragic mistake was rationalized as an inevitable part of war, just as were the horrific firebombings that successfully reached German targets, just as was the later bombing of Royan with napalm. Zinn blames the Supreme Allied Command for seeking to add a “victory” in the final weeks of a war already won. He blames the local military commanders’ ambitions. He blames the American Air Force’s desire to test a new weapon. And he blames everyone involved — which must include himself — for “the most powerful motive of all: the habit of obedience, the universal teaching of all cultures, not to get out of line, not even to think about that which one has not been assigned to think about, the negative motive of not having either a reason or a will to intercede.”

When Zinn returned from the war in Europe, he expected to be sent to the war in the Pacific, until he saw and rejoiced at seeing the news of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Only years later did Zinn come to understand the inexcusable crime of enormous proportions that was the dropping of nuclear bombs in Japan, actions similar in some ways to the final bombing of Royan. The war with Japan was already over, the Japanese seeking peace and willing to surrender. Japan asked only that it be permitted to keep its emperor, a request that was later granted. But, like napalm, the nuclear bombs were weapons that needed testing.

Zinn also goes back to dismantle the mythical reasons the United States was in the war to begin with. The United States, England, and France were imperial powers supporting each other’s international aggressions in places like the Philippines. They opposed the same from Germany and Japan, but not aggression itself. Most of America’s tin and rubber came from the Southwest Pacific. The United States made clear for years its lack of concern for the Jews being attacked in Germany. It also demonstrated its lack of opposition to racism through its treatment of African Americans and Japanese Americans. Franklin Roosevelt described fascist bombing campaigns over civilian areas as “inhuman barbarity” but then did the same on a much larger scale to German cities, which was followed up by the destruction on an unprecedented scale of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — actions that came after years of dehumanizing the Japanese. Aware that the war could end without any more bombing, and aware that U.S. prisoners of war would be killed by the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, the U.S. military went ahead and dropped the bombs.

Uniting and strengthening all of the WWII myths is the overarching myth that Ted Grimsrud, following Walter Wink, calls “the myth of redemptive violence,” or “the quasi-religious belief that we may gain ‘salvation’ through violence.” As a result of this myth, writes Grimsrud, “People in the modern world (as in the ancient world), and not least people in the United States of America, put tremendous faith in instruments of violence to provide security and the possibility of victory over their enemies. The amount of trust people put in such instruments may be seen perhaps most clearly in the amount of resources they devote to preparation for war.”

People aren’t consciously choosing to believe in the myths of WWII and violence. Grimsrud explains: “Part of the effectiveness of this myth stems from its invisibility as a myth. We tend to assume that violence is simply part of the nature of things; we see acceptance of violence to be factual, not based on belief. So we are not self-aware about the faith-dimension of our acceptance of violence. We think we know as a simple fact that violence works, that violence is necessary, that violence is inevitable. We don’t realize that instead, we operate in the realm of belief, of mythology, of religion, in relation to the acceptance of violence.”

It takes an effort to escape the myth of redemptive violence, because it’s been there since childhood: “Children hear a simple story in cartoons, video games, movies, and books: we are good, our enemies are evil, the only way to deal with evil is to defeat it with violence, let’s roll.

The myth of redemptive violence links directly with the centrality of the nation-state. The welfare of the nation, as defined by its leaders, stands as the highest value for life here on earth. There can be no gods before the nation. This myth not only established a patriotic religion at the heart of the state, but also gives the nation’s imperialistic imperative divine sanction. . . . World War II and its direct aftermath greatly accelerated the evolution of the United States into a militarized society and . . . this militarization relies on the myth of redemptive violence for its sustenance. Americans continue to embrace the myth of redemptive violence even in face of mounting evidence that its resulting militarization has corrupted American democracy and is destroying the country’s economy and physical environment. . . . As recently as the late 1930s, American military spending was minimal and powerful political forces opposed involvement in ‘foreign entanglements’.”

Prior to WWII, Grimsrud notes, “when America engaged in military conflict . . . at the end of the conflict the nation demobilized . . . . Since World War II, there has been no full demobilization because we have moved directly from World War II to the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. That is, we have moved into a situation where ‘all times are times of war.’ . . . Why would non-elites, who bear terrible costs by living in a permanent war society, submit to this arrangement, even in many cases offering intense support? . . . The answer is quite simple: the promise of salvation.”

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is executive director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio.He is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and was awarded the 2018 Peace Prize by the U.S. Peace Memorial Foundation. Longer bio and photos and videos here. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook, and sign up for:

#nuclear war #nuclear weapons #world war 2 #ukraine conflict #united states #russia #china #us history #world history #imperialism

401 notes · View notes

jessiarts · 1 year

Text

Look I hate the tiktokifocation of social media as much as everyone else, but I hope we can all still agree the US trying to ban TikTok here is a problem.

TikTok, for all its problems, been a great help in raising awareness for various causes. The news of the train derailment in Ohio spread there way before the mainstream news. There was barely a peep of the protests going on in Iran anywhere else before it started taking off on TikTok. Same for the general strike happening in France. It's provided a place for people to organize much easier than other platforms for activism and causes like protesting the pipelines, the BLM protests, bringing awareness to ICWA and the StopWIllowProject, etc.

Obviously, no one should get all their news from any social media. I'm not implying that at all.

No one is immune to propaganda, and it exists everywhere, even here, regardless if you wish to acknowledge it.

But we still can't deny that this proposed ban isn't about privacy. Sure, I'll give them wanting to ban it on Federal/government devices, whatever. But they really couldn't care less about everyone else's data privacy. Hell, they let FB, Google, Apple, Twitter, etc, gobble up as much of our data as they want and use it, even sell it, all with no fuss.

It's really about control. They don't like that people are hearing about these events and causes in real time on TikTok faster than any other social media or even most news media. They don't like that the increased awareness is inspiring people to organize and pressure the powers at be and corporations to do better. They don't like that they don't have the power to suppress coverage they don't like or push any coverage they do. (I'm not saying it's great that ByteDance has that power either, but I hope you get my point)

But my main point is this, if they succeed in banning TikTok, a place that's helped bring awareness to so many important causes, it sets a precedent that they can ban any other social media they deem a threat too.

And because I know half of you are incapable of caring unless presented with an example that directly affects you, say tumblr manages to gather similar success to TikTok at becoming a platform to raise awareness. They can find a reason to nuke this place too. One day they could just decide too many people are wanting to organize for change over on the blue fandom cringe site. Then it's bye-bye tumblr.

Idk if you've been paying attention, but they've already turned back Roe v Wade, with some states (SC, KY, TX, OK, AR) now pushing bills to make seeking an abortion punishable by the death penalty, with vague enough wording to potentially include miscarriages. They're trying to eradicate trans people- some (36) states are pushing anti-trans bills, with some wanting to ban gender-affirming care, force detransition, or even take children from homes just for having a trans parent or sibling. They're trying to overturn ICWA, which would allow them to take Native American children from their families and place them in white Christian homes. There's so much more.

What I'm saying is fascism is already here, and what do fascists also do? Cut off citizens' access to the outside world.

Unless you want the US to join the list of countries like China, Russia, and North Korea, who block the outside world from their citizens by censoring their internet/news and cutting off access to certain social medias, then you should care about this.

Let's not let this slide just because it's happening to TikTok and it's fun to hate on whatever is popular at the moment.

#tiktok #tiktok ban #united states #tiktok news #social media #politics #china #trans rights #stop willow #icwa #save icwa #protect icwa #row v wade #anti trans bills #fascisim #anti fascism #abortion #abortion rights #fuck facebook

60 notes · View notes

lnsfawwi · 3 months

Text

Sokovia Accords as Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: the political implications

In reality, NPT is a good thing. HOWEVER, Sokovia Accords isn't framed as an NPT, it's a Registration Act aimed at drafting (mostly) non-government actors. With this knowledge in mind, let's talk about what interpreting it as a NPT means.

NPT exists because the world collectively agree we don't want to blow up the planet in ten seconds in case WW 3 happens, and because nuclear powers and those who can never realistically develop nukes don't want those who could to have them. Some non-nuclear weapons states (NNWS) have criticised the inherent power inbalance (ie. super power competition) NPT enforces. In the MCU, the Avengers were the only canon superheroes who existed in the entire universe at that time, the members were either Americans (was Nat a citizen? likely.) - three of which were high-ranking current or former US servicemen- or hold some kind of refugee status (Wanda) in America. Others aren't even humans and one of them is still technically American (Vision). Then, America would, by the logic of a non-proliferation treaty, continue to hold the only nukes in the world because no where does a NTP say you surrender your nukes to the collective supervision and use of the UN. This power inbalance will have repurcussions and it goes against the American hegemony the Accords is trying to address. Or is it the plan all along? You can never be certain in politcs.

Futhermore, unlike the real NPT, America is the only country that is giving up power thus far. In exhange for this power dissemination, the US will want some sort of compansation, for instance, a permanant seat in the committee that makes decisions about whether and when to deploy the Acengers. This again grants them an unofficial but significant influence over the deployment of the weapons. Not to be a realist but if the US is on the committee, there is no way Russia and China aren't. And given the reality of international relations, there is no way it doesn't end up a political power move that could end disasterly. We will likely get another dysfunctional UN organ like the UNSC. [also can you imagine Captain America following Russia's orders? LMAO]

Not to mention a nuclear weapon has to be made by the state, a process that require years of dedication of a large amount of resouces, which means it will come out sooner or later. But look at the Avengers, only Steve and Nat techinically can be characterized as a nuclear weapon in this sense. Even if the state wishes to honor the treaty, they can't. There is no way a state can control individuals from gaining superpower through birth, alien matters, or just being smart, therefore there is no way the treaty can prevent the proliferation. At best it offers a guideline for states to follow should they discover they actually have nuclear weapon. which is kind of funny. In addition, there is no guarentee that other countries, if they have super powered individuals, will willingly surrender them to the UN. Russia canonly has other supersoldier which they hide from the public cus their super soldiers are insane and they have no control over them. Also, does anyone remember Wakanda? This brings me to my next point.

It has to be remineded that the Avengers are, in fact, not nuclear weapons, despite what Tony Stark so crudely referred to regarding Wanda. They are humans (most of them anyway) capable of making evaluations and desicions (again, most of them). The nuclear weapons aren't going to launch themselves when they get unhappy with, say, p*tin. Team Ironman likes to throw around the word 'accountability', but whose accountability? The Avengers have proven to not follow orders/protocols when it counts. What if they disobey orders? If Vision went rougue and ended up killing a Syrian citizen in Lebanon, who would take responsibility for it? The sitting memebers of the committee? Himself? What if the original mission mandate was wrong, Vision could've caused hundreds of deaths instead if he had listened? And do you really think there wouldn't be serious consequences just because there is a treaty that says the Avengers are common propoerty so it should be considered friendly fire?

Another crucial issue is that NPT is built on the promise that nuclear powers will not use nuclear weapons, but the Accords is basically trying to give everyone a chance to deploy WMD, which is in direct conflict with the purpose of NPT.

We are not even talking about non-state actors (SHIELD/HYDRA) and non-signatories.

To summerize, the Accords first and foremost isn't, and cannot be a NPT; even if seen as NPT it simply will not work because 1. America monolopy over the 'nuclear weapons' that exacerbates existing power inbalance, 2. Canon evidence that states won't adhere to the rules, 3. States have no control over the emergence of superpowered individuals, 4. No effective regulatory power and accountability mechanism.

Even in real life we can see countries breaking the treaties. Not saying we shouldn't try, because we should, but the situation with super powered people is different as stated above. The fundimental difference between the Accords and NPT is that NPT is a result of arms race among countries, and is a practical solution to avoid nuclear disater, the Accords is a result of a mix of governmental and individual and celestrial incidents, most of them are not within the power of human control or are the result of the corruption of the exact political body that's trying to regulate them now. The former is a security issue therefore can be resolved via politics & policy, the latter is not. The Accords as a NPT is a pipe dream with extremely undesirable consequences.

#cacw #anti sokovia accords #sokovia accords #anti teamironman #team cap #captain america civil war #I'm not even talking about how dehumanization can lead to other kinds of disaster

7 notes · View notes