/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

The ironic part is that neo-cons/neo-libs sell themselves as the competent, somber, grown ups who really under stand how the world works.

As they lose grip on imperial power and global influence, it's going to become rapidly clear that this isn't the case.

They're just smart enough to make us miserable and avoid any consequences. It's all they need to be.

I don't know anyone who actually likes these people. They get all of their uncritical support from people who learned to follow what the news man said on the TV, and they don't get much of that because they're so fucking odious. Just about everyone voting for them has this cynical plan where they think they're totally making the smart choice by getting one up on the others and sucking up to the Bush family. It's a combination of natural born cuckoldry and the same sort of low cunning the neocons themselves embody.

They really got drunk off the Blackest Reaction and thought they were actually becoming gods. It's some freaky BDSM shit but with a rightoid flavor.

Anyway, there were reasons for everything the neocons did. They could get away with it, so they did. They're horrifically unpopular, but the plan they represent is winning and they'll tear down anyone in their path. As far as they're concerned, they're better than freerolling. The worse they are, the better they are paid and the stronger their position. Any check that would have sobered them has been neutralized, and that is a first in human history.

>>467815
>They're just smart enough to make us miserable and avoid any consequences.
I'm not sure, they are clever enough. They are attacking the interests of almost everybody in the world, including powerful interests. While the great masses of people may at present still be insufficiently organized to retaliate, that isn't true for those capitalist interests they have attacked. I can't imagine that they have carefully calibrated their actions enough to avoid retaliation.

They're also growing more reckless as the US empire declines, like for example that high ranking US politician that got into a plane that baited the PRC to shoot it down. Or these personal vendettas against Russian state officials. Given the prevailing trends there comes a time when the US's power falls below the threshold where this doesn't have consequences. Considering that this type of antagonism is strategically useless, it doesn't look like carefully calibrated actions that serve a goal.

>They're horrifically unpopular, but the plan they represent is winning and they'll tear down anyone in their path.
To me this sounds like they are accumulating enemies until there's enough quantity to lead to a change in quality. Lets not forget that they aren't winning, they are operating on pissing away legacy power. And their political power is based on a promise to the big bourgeoisie that they can make the imperial super-profits "go brrrr" by re-subjugating Russia and China to US Hegemony. It's extremely unlikely that they can deliver on this.

At the moment the neocons are raiding the armories of the US and Europe, which will leave both very vulnerable, and they are promising that this is worth the risk because it will exhaust the Russian war-machine. If that doesn't happen (a.t.m. there is no sign that it will), they will make a lot of enemies in those military organizations. It will look like sabotaging the military by disarming them. If either the US or Europe is confronted with military challenges before the armories can be replenished, it will look like treason. Lets not forget all the capitalists that aren't getting a piece of the "Russia-cake" they were promised.

You are basically telling me that these people will remain in power.
But i don't understand how. To me it sounds like you are predicting that all the capitalists will behave like gamblers in a casino, committing the sunken cost fallacy by doubling down on a loosing game until they go broke.

There's still money to be made by trading with Russia and China on an equal footing, you're telling me all the capitalists will ignore that and leave those billions laying around ?. Continuing with the losing strategy of attempting to bring back an imperial order that no longer can exist, will lead to break down of western state institutions. If that happens it means that it's possible that what ever comes after originates from one of the legion of interest groups they are trampling on now.

>>467817
I don't see anything dislodging the beast Bush created. They can survive the fall of the legal United States and have levers controlling anything that would be useful.

You have to get over the idea that there is an opposition to the Empire. It's a global operation now. We're seeing the dissolution of the nation-state system and its replacement with regional HR departments managing the slaves. There is already a world state, but we ain't in it. We're national serfs, or at least I am.

So far as there is opposition, it is for people who want a seat at the table, not some struggle of civilizations with entirely different interets that must fight. No one wants a serious fight which is why Putin is pulling back. There is this idea that Ukraine can be localized and no one wants that to turn into a general war.

>>467807
No, they're ruthless psychopaths who are the only people in Western politics playing the very long game. Remember Neocon movement is the demon hell spawn love child of Trotskyism and Hawk Liberalism.
Their long march through the institutions has led them to completely dominating Western Foreign Policy, Western media and Western Narrative. Look at Iraq, it was a disaster for the world, but it made the Neocons and their friends trillions of dollars and not a single one of them fell out of power. The PNAC ghouls still the US State Department.
Weirdly the group that seems to disagree with the Neocons the most are the Pentagon, but I think this is simply because Pentagon is actually directly responsible for the lives of soldiers and often Glowie/Neocon shit puts US forces at extreme risk.

>>467917
>they're ruthless psychopaths
maybe, but it could also be ideological derangement, maybe they think they're the good guys.

>the only people in Western politics playing the very long game
playing the long game ?

The neocons are destroying their own base of power. They have greatly damaged western economic power and that directly resulted in China (which they identify as their primary opponent) in gaining a huge advantage. And now the Neo-cons are even destabilizing western finance. The 2008-finance-crash bail-out was only possible because China shouldered about a third of the cost. After what they have done to China in recent years, that ain't gonna happen again.

They also have made a fuck ton of enemies by recklessly stepping on nearly every toe they could find, and then they do stuff that destabilizes western governments, which is probably the only thing that's keeping them alive. How is that long term thinking ?

Keep in mind that they suck ass at managing imperialism, they're shit isn't working, they aren't bringing in the super-profits, the only big-porky constituency they are serving is a few arms dealers and the fracking gas industry.

>Weirdly the group that seems to disagree with the Neocons the most are the Pentagon, but I think this is simply because Pentagon is actually directly responsible for the lives of soldiers and often Glowie/Neocon shit puts US forces at extreme risk.
This is the only thing that you said that seems correct.

I think you are greatly overestimating their strength. A big part of their strategy is to create the illusion of omnipotence.

>>467928
Everyone thinks they're the good guys

>>467928
>They have greatly damaged western economic power
tf you talking about?

>>467930
They're killing the industrial sector in Europe and they're killing US's financial power over global trade. The Neocons singlehandedly catapulted a bunch of alternative financial structures into prominence, that would otherwise have been relegated to indefinite obscurity.

>>467933
>They're killing the industrial sector in Europe and they're killing US's financial power over global trade.
You give them too much credit.

>>467934
Well ok

neo-liberal economics did kill off a lot of the industrial power that Europe once had
https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=H6VHT7rXuEQ
But the neocons sanction warfare and of course blowing that pipeline did further damage.

You're also correct that the dollar-hegemony was in decline before but the Neocons accelerated it

>I'm not looking for cheap shots, like proving they never achieve their stated goals like "winning the war on terror". Just assume it's part of their strategy to lie about their true goals.
This is correct. The purpose of the war on terror was not to defeat fundamentalism, but to create an enemy that justifies the existence of the neocons. We see the same attitude with the anti-fascism of liberals. One's existence is presupposed by the other.
>I used to think that they were both effective at generating profits for the arms industry and also furthering US imperial power. But I don't think that anymore.
The idea that war is waged simply for the sake of profit is pseudo-Marxism. Obviously there is an economic component to war, but such is means to sustain war and empire, not an end. War is really a political failure, a consequence of a political entity being unable to achieve their goals by political means. Empire is what emerges from such a state of affairs. When the empire is strong, there is less war; when the empire is weak, there is more war. Economic concerns are brought to attention when not doing so threatens the empire's integrity.
>The rest of OP
This was not the purpose of the wars in western Asia. Once again, it was a political failure - either fit in with the empire's vision or die. The war in Ukraine is ultimately little more than the Russians failing politically and going on to ape the Americans. Of course, only the Americans are allowed to play empire.
Otherwise, the Americans and the Russians might even be allies. Russia can be stabilizing force in west Asia. Russia can be an ally with the Americans against the Chinese (a constant tension which communists conveniently ignore all the time). This strategy is what Trump administration originally intended, hence the Democrats' propaganda campaign about Russian interference in the election and collusion with the Republicans. But what we're seeing in Ukraine is the end result of a strategy set in motion by elites with a different geopolitical vision.

>>467944
>to create an enemy that justifies the existence of the neocons.
This is true to an extend, but it can't be the only purpose, why would the big bourgeoisie go along with this if they didn't expect to gain from it ?

All in all it's a valuable insight, and the conclusion is that effective anti-imperialism needs to be expanded into the domain of dealing with those "justification enemies".

>War is really a political failure, a consequence of a political entity being unable to achieve their goals by political means. Empire is what emerges from such a state of affairs. When the empire is strong, there is less war; when the empire is weak, there is more war. Economic concerns are brought to attention when not doing so threatens the empire's integrity.
This is a total inversion of Lenin's theory of imperialism as a stage of capitalism where financialized monopoly capital instigates wars.
Sorry but Lenin's theory has stood the test of time. A strong empire creating order and peace, that's just what emperor palpatine says in star wars.

>This was not the purpose of the wars in western Asia. Once again, it was a political failure - either fit in with the empire's vision or die.
I don't understand plenty countries are not "fitting in with the empire", and they're not dying.

>the Americans and the Russians might even be allies. Russia can be a stabilizing force in west Asia. Russia can be an ally with the Americans against the Chinese (a constant tension which communists conveniently ignore all the time)
Maybe that possibility theoretically existed roughly 20 years ago when Putin tried to join NATO in 2000. But that ship probably has sailed. Turning Russia and China against each other is now very unlikely.
>This strategy is what Trump administration originally intended
I think the Russians would jump at the opportunity to make peace with the US if a US president would offer, but not at the cost of worsening relations with China.

>But what we're seeing in Ukraine is the end result of a strategy set in motion by elites with a different geopolitical vision.
I get what you mean, the Ukraine war was the plan of another faction, but i would seriously doubt they intended what this has turned into.

You had a good case with Iraq and Afghanistan, and I'll address that first because what you say after that really doesn't support what you're trying to argue.

The short answer is yes - that's oversimplifying it a bit, though. The neocons, and the broader neolib "movement" they were a part of, are competent in a sense, but that sense is maximizing short-term gains. Massive deregulation was a competent move for the short-term gains of the financial class, "outsourcing" jobs was competent service of the same class. When it comes to Iraq… wrt Bush himself, I honestly think his motivations were, at least in part, genuinely stupid - he saw a war he thought his father left unfinished. Although there were absolutely other interests at play here, I think it's true that Dubya included idiotic personal stuff in the mix. On top of that, you had the powermad CIA interests, you obviously had oil interests represented in the administration, and tying into the oil interests you had the interests of the Saudis & others who needed the US to blame anyone-but-them for 9/11.

Essentially, their goal was coming in and looting the US government, as well as strengthening the "security" state. If it doesn't seem like these guys have a great long-term plan for American economic hegemony… well, they don't. Iraq was genuinely a bad move, but a move which people so insulated from the wellbeing of Americans in general could justify.

So were they incompetent? By my metrics, yes, but you have to understand that they aren't working by my metrics. People look at the actions of nations like this and try to back-rationalize it, like "oh, America maintains its power by doing so-and-so, oh America doing this particular thing is just a way for them to keep their influence," not realizing that there are guys running this machine who just want to get rich or consolidate power within their bureaucratic positions.

Now onto Ukraine - nah. I'm not "NAFO" or whatever, but that was a dumb move on Russia's part, and it's resulted in more countries near Russia getting more scared of Russia. In the entire time I've been alive, Ukraine hasn't been a part of Russia. Russia wasn't about to be "greeted as liberators" for invading this country full of grown men who had never lived in the Federation. If it's bringing Russia and China closer, then ok… but it's also positioning European govt's more against Russia. China would win playing either side in this scenario, but Russia's fucking itself, and in this case I think Putin is being entirely up front when he says he doesn't recognize Ukraine's sovereignty - he thinks it's Russia's rightful land, and this is the impulse which motivates his backing of Russian separatists in Crimea & Donbas.

As for America? America didn't invade that one. I think we should send it less weapons, but not because I think it's our fault Russia sent its army over the border of a country it refused to acknowledge the existence of. I think the money spent on weapons would be better spent on Americans - I sympathize with Ukraine, they didn't ask to be invaded, and they didn't ask to be used in this idiotic tug-of-war between Russia and the EU. Their autonomy should be respected… but there are Americans living under bridges, and I think that should take priority than this fight between these 2 despotic countries. Why can't Europeans, who actually are directly threatened by this, carry more weight?

>>468103
>Now onto Ukraine - nah. I'm not "NAFO" or whatever, but that was a dumb move on Russia's part, and it's resulted in more countries near Russia getting more scared of Russia. In the entire time I've been alive, Ukraine hasn't been a part of Russia. Russia wasn't about to be "greeted as liberators" for invading this country full of grown men who had never lived in the Federation. If it's bringing Russia and China closer, then ok… but it's also positioning European govt's more against Russia. China would win playing either side in this scenario, but Russia's fucking itself, and in this case I think Putin is being entirely up front when he says he doesn't recognize Ukraine's sovereignty - he thinks it's Russia's rightful land, and this is the impulse which motivates his backing of Russian separatists in Crimea & Donbas.
Yup this part is entirely composed "NAFO" talking points, and every single one of which is wrong. I don't want to derail this thread so if you want argue this go to the Ukraine thread and repost it there.
https://leftychan.net/leftypol/res/457563.html

>this idiotic tug-of-war between Russia and the EU
The EU certainly is a culprit as well, but it's primarily a tug-of-war between the US and Russia. Only a few EU countries actually wanted this war, like the 3 Baltic states, Poland and perhaps Norway, but the 2 big EU powers like France and Germany probably didn't.

>>468103
>The short answer is yes - that's oversimplifying it a bit, though. The neocons, and the broader neolib "movement" they were a part of, are competent in a sense, but that sense is maximizing short-term gains. Massive deregulation was a competent move for the short-term gains of the financial class, "outsourcing" jobs was competent service of the same class

But the result of these politics have created negative consequences for that same class. The US ruling class is loosing power on the global stage. That translates into real and significant material losses. So even with that myopic view of the most narrow self interest, this was not a competent move.

>>468103
>As for America? America didn't invade that one.
The CIA has intensely meddled in Ukraine for decades, that's just covert warfare. It's not morally better than overt warfare, because it causes a similar amount of death and destruction. The difference is that it's slower and it uses mostly structural violence to destroy people and infrastructure, instead of kinetic violence. It's just a different type of invasion and method of combat.

You can't give them a pass for this type of shit.

Normal spy operations that don't count as covert-war are limited to stuff like espionage, ie stealing secrets. And it can include acts of sabotage like preventing other countries from building powerful weapons. For example the US wrecking Iran's nuclear centrifuges (though that one is borderline because it's dual-use stuff, where it can be military or civilian, purely civilian nuclear enrichment for example is not a legit target, like when there is effective international oversight, or technical limitations preventing weaponization) . And it can also mean spy on spy violence, like secret agents murdering spys. All that stuff is not a type of war-fare. However when it's fucking with institutions of a country to the point that it affects their citizens in a negative way, that makes it a type of warfare.

>>468108
>The CIA has intensely meddled in Ukraine for decades
As did Russia, nazoid.
Just look at Donbass, classic CIA-style meddling with arming the "noble rebels".

>>468109
this is the thread for bitching about the neocons, if you want to bitch about the Russians go to
>>>457563

>>467994
The point is you have to ask why capital starts wars. Yes, of course there are economic reasons for war, and an economic analysis of war is valuable. But Lenin was not an idiot. He understood that war is first and foremost a politically relevant act. He did not hesitate to quote Clausewitz on this matter, nor to use him to beat Kautsky and Plekhanov over the head.
What the bourgeoisie gains from war is the opportunity of economic hegemony. What their chosen servants gain from war is the opportunity of political hegemony. It's hope not too hard to grasp how the two interests intertwine. Indeed, a strong empire does create peace…from the perspective of the empire.
Anti-imperialists does not solve this because they fall into the same trap as the neocons, mainly that their existence depends on the existence of the opposite (empire). There is a reason why the best and brightest communists were never mere anti-capitalists, anti-fascists, anti-imperialists, etc. They understood that something which is purely negative creates nothing, and that the goal of their movement is everything - to abolish the conditions by which imperialism, among other things, might continue to exist, by overcoming capitalism.
The demand that mere anti-imperialism makes is impossible to fulfill, another trap it shares with the neocons. You can never get rid of empire through anti-imperialism alone. Yet, this trap is how anti-imperialism can maintain its existence. It is therefore ideologically valuable. Likewise the empire makes impossible demands of its subjects that can never be fulfilled. The neocons will never be able to achieve total security or hegemony, their thirst can never be sated, and their existence depends on such.
Ultimately, the blunders that the American empire made in their impossible quest should be unsurprising. The American bourgeoisie and its servants have forgotten how to rule, and as time passes they become more incompentent and governed by delusions. At least the bourgeoisie in the past could be be somewhat useful and sweep away the old world! Now they are little more than degenerates, depraved and utterly void of vision.
The Reagan revolution was successful because it was crafted to specifically to destroy the international left, but now that the left is dead, they are totally lost. The glorified gang warfare mistakenly called "politics" in the American empire is a perfect representation of such. This truly is the end of history, as far as liberals are concerned.

>>468332 (me)
One more thing, since it's relevant to the current geopolitical context
Russia is not exempt from any of this. Its leadership is also incompetent, they have made numerous blunders and its own bourgeoisie is not only degenerate but confused and stupid as well. Just like the Americans, their military is a joke and their aggressive posturing is a sign of weakness. Similar things can be said about the Chinese military too but that's another story.
Indeed, the conflict in Ukraine can be succinctly described as a comedy of errors. It's a disaster born from a decades long geopolitical farce where useless and pathetic oligarchs can't help but bungle their every move. The only thing that is absolutely certain here is that we will see many more Ukraines in the future.

>>468332
>foreign conquest never occured under pre capitalist conditions
t. brainlet

>>468337
>I CAN'T READ
If anything I've been saying the opposite. Yes I acknowledge that wars under capitalism might be different from past wars, but war itself fundamentally remains the same:
War is a political failure.
War is a continuation of policy by other means.

How many times do I need to repeat this basic point?

>brightest communists were never mere anti-capitalists, anti-fascists, anti-imperialists

do you have a single fact to back that up

>>468342
The New Economic Policy

>>468343
that was considered temporary anyway

>>468344
Cope

>>468332
You basically have retracted your point and agree with Lenin's analysis now ?
>Indeed, a strong empire does create peace…from the perspective of the empire.
Well that's not an objective perspective, soooo…. Yeah it's useless for considerations of peace.

>Anti-imperialists are the same as neocons
Yeah that's really bullshit, the anti-imperialists of the 20th century completely killed off colonialism. You can to an extent criticize them for not foreseeing the rise of post-collonial financial imperialism, but anti-imperialists did not try to create new enemies to justify perpetual anti-imperialism, they just missed a spot.

>Ultimately, the blunders that the American empire made in their impossible quest should be unsurprising. The American bourgeoisie and its servants have forgotten how to rule, and as time passes they become more incompentent and governed by delusions. At least the bourgeoisie in the past could be be somewhat useful and sweep away the old world! Now they are little more than degenerates, depraved and utterly void of vision.
You are saying that the current imperialism no longer causes progress, but the implication is that you think it could be if the Bourgeoisie and it's servants were less shit. I agree that they suck, but i'm not sure how imperialism still could serve a progressive (in the classical meaning of the word) role.

>>468336
>Russia Shit
>China Shit
>America Shit

Aside from the superficial judgement, the underlying message is that of equating all of these countries as the same. Which is obviously incorrect.

>>468354
My definition of war and empire never changed, I don't know what you're talking about. Also I didn't say that anti-imperialism is the same as neoconservatism, I simply compared the two to make a point about how anti-imperialism can be ideologically abused and is thus problematic as an end rather than a means. Finally, I didn't claim that imperialism per se can be or once was progressive, rather my point was just that the recent failures of contemporary empires is mostly the result of the bourgeoisie funneling into unproductive industries and delegating political power to oligarchs.

But yes the bourgeoisie once did have a progressive role, in relation to the presence of regressive modes of production. However I didn't mean to imply that this meant that imperialism was once progressive too.

>>468354
>the underlying message is that of equating all of these countries as the same
No, they certainly are different. But the politics of each country is still politics under the conditions of global capitalism, so there is bound to be similarities, but Russia and the US much more so. I only feel compelled to mention China because they are a great power as well.
Yes, China does share similar weak points with regard to their military at present. But China is nowhere near as degenerated as Russia or the US and has enough productive capacity to win any long-term conflict so long as their leadership remains competent. Their geopolitical strategy so far has been relatively successful despite some issues within the leadership such as corruption.

>>467807
Neocons are just an part of the Military-Intelligence Deep State. The concept of a 'neocon' is dubious, the only way you can arguably distinguish them is their inclination to Zionism. Also, many natsec ghouls labeled neocons aren't actually neocons the way the label was originally used.

>>469319
Itt anons learn that the meanings of words evolve

>>468107

Not in the long term, no.

>>469336
The only strategical win the neo-cons pulled off was separating the Germans and Russian economy, but those economic relations will get mended in the long term, after-all the Germans and the Russians managed to do that after being mortal enemies in WW2.

All the other effects this war had, like boosting the alternate trade and finance infrastructure that by-passes the US dominated systems, that's not going to be reversed, that's influence, power and access the US ruling class has lost for the foreseeable future.

The US used to be able to control Saudi-Arabia and tell them how much oil they had to produce, and they lost that as well. As US influence in the middle east wanes China was able to swoop in and undo the Yemen-war with great speed and ease. It's even somewhat plausible that China may end up playing a role in brokering a peace-deal in the Ukraine conflict. The US influence on global affairs has receded dramatically.

All of this will impact the US ruling class as well. Because more trade bypasses the US dominated finance, Wall street will become a less influential node in global finance, that will reduce their command on power and wealth, they will also loose leverage they could use to give US companies privilege access to economic resources.

In the medium to long turn this will benefit the US workers because when the US bourgeoisie can't extract super-profits as easily from the rest of the world, bargaining power of US labor will increase.

The neocons told Taiwan they were thinking about blowing up TSMC to prevent China from getting access, and the Taiwanese government responded that the Taiwanese military would defend TSMC against the US.

That's the dumbest Neocon scheme I've heard about so far. In that scenario China could offer to help Taiwan to defend TSMC. Unifying Taiwan with mainland China over a common enemy that wants to take away their micro chips.

https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=Acwvq9uQTlY

i think the closest analogy we get is 'religious' wars in europe (some lasted 100 years, and were series of conflicts)

and that was partly based on schizophrenia and even often schizo rulers and mass psychosis

if you read about that would sound like neocon, only that capital was less valuable / important and people worshipped money and banks less (if banks existed they mostly served their role)

but religion was literal bonkers

>>469482
and state was often ruled by religion as well; it was religion+money

Putin says Russia and North Korea will expand bilateral relations

<Russian President Vladimir Putin told North Korean leader Kim Jong Un the two countries will "expand the comprehensive and constructive bilateral relations with common efforts," Pyongyang's state media reported on Monday.

<In a letter to Kim for Korea's liberation day, Putin said closer ties would be in both countries' interests, and would help strengthen the security and stability of the Korean peninsula and the Northeastern Asian region, North Korea's KCNA news agency said.

So another unintended side effect of the neocon's ukro-campaign is the rapprochement of Russia and the DPRK.

>>469482
>>469483
Utterly ideological nonsense. The rulers of Europe and the rest of the world have always acted in their base material interests first, religion was simply a vehicle for manufacturing consent from their underclass. You'd be very hard-pressed to find a genuinely pious ruler who got there without violating all sorts of basic moralities of the religion they claimed to espouse.

>>473140
>The rulers have always acted in their base material interests first, religion was simply a vehicle for manufacturing consent from their underclass. You'd be very hard-pressed to find a genuinely pious ruler

I would say mostly true, but some rulers probably had self-serving piousness. Like "God wants me to have power"

>>473160
The few rulers who really believed in religion understood it was a vehicle for worldly power, and most of the truths they cared about were esoteric. Christianity is a very violent and vicious religion when you see what it really is.

Even then, most rulers are fickle and venal creatures who default to an essentially Satanic view of the world. They don't appreciate how religion is really effective and leave that to their priests and advisors. Because such rulers allowed the Church to maintain its privilege and position, the Church had every reason to encourage the nobility's Satanic and predatory world-view and facilitate excuses for it. Priests are really cynical bastards and a lot of them are the few who really would be atheists in that society, not counting the multitude who only paid lip service and endured life with whatever bitter comfort they could find outside of polite society.

Religion was never about mollifying the masses with ideology in that way. Most of the time, religion was what counted as social services, charity, and so on that dealt with the homeless and the lowest class. Religious leaders really had little interest in moral probity, at times encouraging the vice of parishoners so long as it conformed to the overall goals they intended for society. The religions are all nasty and disgusting, working overtime to strip out the decency humans might have possessed in a better world, and replacing it with dogmas that make them more effective killers and plunderers. The working classes were ruled primarily by fear rather than faith, and the bourgeois were long contemptuous of religion and didn't like having to pay tithes for charity. The bourgeois hated the homeless and wanted to whip them for failure to work, and so the Poor Laws happened and Christianity was slowly dismantled.

Really, religion only had appeal to priests who saw it correctly as a vehicle to command peoples' minds and souls. They'll tell you outright you're not actually supposed to believe it literally, and interpret the metaphors correctly to figure out it's a system of mental cheating.

It must be remembered that for a long time, the working class were left to their own devices, and never had that much faith in religion. Most people only attended churches because it was obligatory, and without any concept of free speech or assembly, anyone who proclaimed it was bullshit was punished. Privately, workers and peasants disdained all of it, often returning to folk religion or stories they told themselves for generations. The inroad to invade their lives was not possible beyond threats, and because religion presented some social stability and typically counted as whatever education they were going to get, the religion could be abided. Priests, like any aristocracy, hold their flock in utter contempt, and this is especially pronounced in Christianity. It wasn't released until the Reformation that the priests believed the whole time their flock were damned to hell and deserved to suffer. How Christianity survived the Reformation, I don't know, and in a lot of ways it didn't. The Protestants were almost eager to either become outright Satanists or took on the interests of the bourgeois and eventually technology. A lot of people who really weren't Christian could go through the motions, and eventually secularization. It was a religion with a very flimsy foundation, seeing how Christianity is structurally a death cult that got really big and could conquer the world.

>>473169
>>473170
Have you taken your meds recently? Now would be a good time.

Here is a massive article going into great depth of the geopolitical ramification of the neocon's recent foreign policy, highly recommended

From Strategic Dilemma to Strategic Disaster, Part 1

<Western officials and analysts are fond of noting that ‘Putin’s war on Ukraine’ has damaged rather than strengthened Russia’s strategic position. Rather than neutralizing the threat NATO poses, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has increased that threat, so the analysis goes. Putting aside the obvious contradiction with most of these observers’ position that neither NATO nor its expansion presented a security threat to Russia, one needs to look at the reverse side of all this. Have Western security, NATO countries’ security, American national security been enhanced by NATO expansion, the refusal to negotiate with Moscow a new security architecture for Europe, and the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War and its ongoing escalations? The fact is that the Russo-Western relationship proper as a security dilemma is now virtually a zero-sum game; when one side undertakes a measure to ensure its security vis-à-vis the other, the other responds with measures at least as deleterious to the former as the former’s were for the latter. This has proceeded now for decades, beginning with the first round of post-Cold War NATO expansion, though Russia originally was slow on the uptake in response to this challenge as a result of her temporary weakness.

<In this mutual security dilemma’s most recent episode – the NATO-Russia Ukrainian war – the West’ security position also has been weakened, given the bolstering of the Russian military through increases in numbers, budget resources, battle experience, and mobilization of the Russia’s military-industrial complex. Far from being ‘isolated internationally’, Russia has been able in tandem with China to forge a new pole of power in the international system’s structure, dealing a perhaps deadly blow to Western, in particular American global hegemony. It is doubtful that enhances Western and American security, particularly as much of the alternative pole-formation is taking on an increasingly anti-American tone as opposed to one of creating a more or less neutral, simple alternative pole or center of global power. Moreover, NATO’s newest ally, prospective member, and bulwark against ‘Russian expansionism’ – Maidan Ukraine – is at high risk of being hollowed out to nearly nothing. Let us take a look at the larger Western, then the more local Ukrainian security decline being induced by the NATO-Russia Ukrainian war and the factors that generated it.

<The Growing NATO Threat

<NATO and Russian officials agree now that the NATO threat to Russia has grown. As was highlighted by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu in a Kommersant’s August 10th interview, the “collective West” now has deployed in direct proximity to Russia some 360,000 troops, 8,000 pieces of armor, and 650 planes and helicopters. Shoigu emphasized that since February 2022 Ukraine has received hundreds of tanks, more than 4,000 armored fighting vehicles, more than 1,100 pieces of field artillery, and tens of artillery and rocket systems—all amounting to more than $160 billion in military assistance. The US and Britain, Shoigu noted, are escalating in terms of the increasing the range and brutality of the weapons they supply, pointing to the British Storm Shadow missiles and US cluster munitions. All this “creates serious risks of further escalation of the conflict,” according to Shoigu. The Russian defense minister also called “a destabilizing factor” the entry of Sweden and Finland to NATO. Finland’s entry, he noted, nearly doubles Russia’s land border with NATO. On Finnish territory, he added, it can be expected that “additional military contingents and attack weapons of NATO will be depoloyed capable of destroying criticall important objects in significant depth in Russia’s northwestern regions.” Additional risks were posed by the “militarization of Poland” and its into “the main instrument of the USA’s anti-Russian policy,” with Warsaw intent to create the most powerful army in Europe (the status Ukraine enjoyed before the war, one might add). Shoigu also noted Poland’s intent to merge with Ukraine and “in essence occupy” western Ukraine, about which I wrote many konths ago (Yurii Gavrilov, “Zapad vedet protiv Rossii oposredstvannuyu voinu,” Kommersant, 10 August 2023, p. 4). In an adjacent article, Vladislav Shurygin argued for a major Russian offensive in order to preempt the arrival of US ATACAMs and additional Haimars, which would allow mass strikes on targets on Russian territory of 30-50 missiles by September and 100 by November (Vladislav Shurygin, “Osen’ stanet reshayushchim spetsoperatsii,” Kommersant, 10 August 2023, p. 4). One can add in the F-16s that are being promised to Ukraine now and that Kiev with help from NATO has acquired 17,000 drones and 10-20,000 drone operators for use in its ths far failing counteroffensive (www.ng.ru/armies/2023-08-01/1_8788_kiev.html). Drone warfare is an additional destabilizing factor – as is any new military technology’s mass deployment, especially in war time – that deepens the security dilemma for both sides. What Shoigu did not discuss was that NATO has become a de facto participant in the war by supplying Kiev with military training, intelligence, including for targeting and hitting Russian arms and men, and tactical and strategic advice and planning.

<Russia has been and will be responding to this intensifying threat environment as it mobilizes to meet the demands of winning the NATO-Russia Ukrainian war, and this cannot but lead to a deterioration of the Western security position.

https://gordonhahn.com/2023/09/12/from-strategic-dilemma-to-strategic-disaster-part-1/

The neocons are planning to seize the frozen Russian assets in order to continue funding the Ukraine proxy war.

Western finance went REEEEEE DON'T, this will trash our reputation and spook the investors

The Unintended Consequences of Seizing Russian Assets
https://internationalbanker.com/news/why-attempts-to-divert-frozen-russian-assets-could-seriously-damage-the-wests-credibility/
<the West is persisting in its endeavours, with a proposal to use frozen public Russian assets to finance Ukraine
<For many other countries, however, freezing Russian assets is widely perceived as a method the US-led West employs to weaponise its primary currencies. The European Central Bank warned in June that using interest-rate proceeds from the frozen assets could prompt other central banks to “turn their backs” on the euro,
<“The implications could be substantial: it may lead to a diversification of reserves away from euro-denominated assets, increase financing costs for European sovereigns and lead to trade diversification,” the note added. And Bank of America analysts led by Michael Hartnett recently noted in a report that “US dollar debasement is the ultimate outcome as the dollar is weaponized in a new era of sanctions.”
<Such fears are thus expediting not only the ongoing global trend of de-dollarisation but also the construction of viable alternative financial systems by China or even Russia.
<nations and regions have accelerated efforts in recent months towards arrangements aimed at reducing their dependence on the dollar. At the heart of these de-dollarisation initiatives is the fear in many capitals that the US could someday use the power of its currency to target them the way it has sanctioned Russia
<Indeed, central banks are already calling back their offshore gold assets to domestic storage facilities in increasing quantities over such fears.
<According to the results, a substantial percentage of central banks are concerned about the precedent set by the US freezing Russian reserves, with the majority (58 percent) agreeing that the event has made gold more attractive.
<Roughly half of the total Russian central bank assets held abroad have been frozen by the EU and other Western countries and they now sit in Belgium’s clearinghouse, Euroclear.

tldr
Dollar debased
Euro financing fucked
Belgium burned holding the hot potato
BRICS alt-finance boosted

How are the neocons able to stomp the interests of western finance ? and why are they doing it ?

It looks like the neocons are single minded buffoons pursuing funding to continue their crusade, un-able/willing to consider secondary effects. Or are they aware of all the detrimental consequences and this is the outcome they want ? Like Chaos daemons that wreck the economies of the US and EU in order to create political turmoil that they can exploit to instigate more wars and crusades.