Carguacountii

I think Vijay Prashad wrote something about Russia like its viewed in the West as either the Vatican or hell... not hell, he uses a different word, its a much better phrase than I'm able to remember. But the point being that dichotomy between the source of moral authority, or the opposite (I guess alluding to Moscow as the fourth Rome).

On this particular topic, my own view is that Russia is restricting the rights/priviledges of what they term the 'international' LGBTQ movement, because I think the west uses wealthy urbanite associations of that kind in Russia (particularly St Petersberg/Moscow) for spying activities. At the same time, Putin has said (though ofc its necessary to examine what is done, not just what is said) that the LGBTQ community is part of Russian society, and shouldn't be attacked or victimised - this is probably because as a legalist ruler he wants to be in compliance with various legal obligations, and also doesn't want internal conflict. I think he isn't particularly opposed to the restrictions, because of the support it wins from the Orthodox church.

I wonder also with this particular topic, how much of the impetus for these kind of anti-progressive movements is to do with political kompromat. Certainly I don't think most of the elite, like aristos or capitalists for example, really care about sexual preferences, but rather its a useful political tool if the masses (are persuaded to) consider it immoral. Like with the 'Lavender Scare' in the US, but then I've also seen a CIA testimony saying that they (I paraphrase) 'like homosexuals because they're useful' referring I think to the usefulness of having something over someone. I suppose I mean, I wonder how much (alongside other factors) the passage of anti or pro LGBTQ laws is to do with wanting a political weapon, or alternatively as a kind of disarmemant treaty among the ruling classes.

I don't think there is anything 'unserious' about an armed conflict with a state, and I don't think you can be serious about portraying it that way - its a flippant thing to say.

Again, I don't think its true that they didn't have support from the peasants. Certainly that's been claimed by the anti-communists, but they always say that about their enemies.

I don't think conflicts occur on somebody's whims, there is always a reason. A long (and ongoing) conflict of this kind could not have occured without there being a good reason for it, and also a possibility of victory.

Perhaps - personally, I support many independence movements even if they're not socialist or communist, because often its impossible to progress while occupied or colonised, so its a necessary first step. Afghanistan is a good example of this - its objectively better having the Taliban back in control than the US occupation and their pet warlords.

I see what you mean in a strategic sense - its not a good idea to fight against too many opponents at once. I'm not sure that Shining Path did attack those who they should have allied with however - all the sources I can find are dubious, and I wasn't there, so I can't really make a good judgement about who did what and the types of people they are alleged to have killed, only apply the usual rubric that if the US says one thing about communists, the opposite is probably the case.

From what I've read, it seems like they did have a lot of support (and what they did achieve would be frankly impossible without that). The difference I can see between them and the Maoist case, is that Peru wasn't being occupied by another power at the time, and the urban centres didn't like them so much (except in the very poor areas). But then Peru isn't/wasn't particularly industrialised, being a resource extraction colony, so I wonder if there was even a significant urban proletariat to really bother trying with.

Well conservative Islam seems to have worked for the Taliban. I think its more that national liberation movements align themselves with what will gain them the most or the best foriegn and domestic support.

What options would you say Peru had but didn't take? Castillo dressed up like a western cowboy but that still wasn't good enough - do you think those recent events vindicate somewhat the armed struggle?

I doubt the communists there were completely alienated from the people, or else the conflict would have been over very fast - in fact it is still ongoing. Its difficult to assess however, being illegal to show support for them there.

How do you feel about the Palestinian resistance groups, and their strategies? Failed, stalled, indeterminate after nearly 100 years? Are there better strategies that they're opting not to take, given the circumstances?

maybe they (in the west) yearn to be in a position to do more than they're able or is wise to do in their circumstances. Some people are desperate or eager and impetuous and don't have much faith in, or find their circumstances too pressing for a slow approach the fruits of which they'll never personally see, the Unionise/organise/electoralism/protest stuff that has also of course manifestly failed in the west.

it'll come down to armed conflict in the end, there's no other way, so I guess some people just kind of jump the gun.

its just far easier & also encouraged to punch down rather than up

people jealously guard their own welfare (tax credits, subsidies, tariffs, art grants, copyrights, pensions, etc etc) and complain bitterly about other's priviledges. But really every state ever to exist has had some form of welfare or another, the alternative is much more expensive for the state, as the UK discovered its easier and cheaper to pay vagabonds off than any alternative, hence the Poor Laws.

but generally try to ignore the social pressure/shaming, most people don't care (most people aren't wealthy so can empathise more), just the loudest yap a lot and are encouraged by the state in order to keep the payments as low as possible.

whenever i think about it, I picture some crazy drunk guy screaming and slashing himself with a knife then running at people in a crowd of horrified onlookers, theres something really primitive about it, despite the cold calculation involved. But then when has the US cared about its own people, or anyone really, except as a means to an end.

idk what the consensus is and can only speak for myself, but I'm convinced it was the US, with some level of collaberation with Israel, Saudis, Pakistan, UK, or factions therein. False flags are the US's go-to for starting wars - its difficult to get a good casus beli like a border dispute when you're miles away from everyone on a separate landmass.

Its not particularly centralised, more like a franchise system, so they vary a lot. There's thousands of lodges still in the UK, like one in almost every town of a certain size, multiple in cities. They're very secretive so membership is a guess.

A lot of them still don't accept women in their cult. A lot of them have ties with Unions (as well as political parties/figures, and other power structures and institutions, mostly in the protestant world), including infamously police Unions.

I suppose a proto-union thing (there being a lot of stone building particularly in the gothic/European Imperial era like victorian/georgian times in the UK), with a somewhat absurd claim to be descendents of or inheritors of the secrets of the builders of Solomon's Temple. But not too different from other guilds, like the Worshipful Company of Haberdashers for example, the sort of pirates, scammers, merchants, artisans, and monopolists who founded the East India Company and built the British Empire.

They might seem nice, and some probably are, but I don't trust them at all - like I wouldn't trust a Scientologist. Religion needs to be conducted in the open and publically by the masses, not in the shadows by cabals and cults or else they get up to all sorts of mischief.

edit: the builders of Solomon's Temple incidentally were according to most accounts demons/devils/jinn, so its not a particularly endearing claim to most christians.

I always think of that place as Wallenberg Inc.

Well its likely that the rothschilds for example will continue to 'win' for the foreseeable future, they're not wrong. In my country, the descendents of rulers of 1000 years ago still largely rule. One person of this kind I met told me 'we've been fucked since the Pharoahs, we're just slaves' and I can see his point. What good is communism to a western peasant, its kind of 'pie in the sky' to someone who's never seen, or been decived about, a tangible victory.

I guess from the point of view of a 'peasant', I can see why they think that way - for example, it does look like collusion when China trades with and signs deals with the US, or Russia does the same, or when countries participate together in international bodies, despite their differing interests and conflicts. Of course, as you say, its a narrow focus and lacks a kind of context & analysis that is more kind of big picture. But its the education system and propaganda at fault, not them so much.

Power is kind of mana, its just money, laws & the more abstract 'influence', and of course guns and such, and money is spent like mana and granted by a higher power (social relations). I think the 'evil esoteric arcane means' is just code for legal systems - 'fairy tales' talk a lot about this kind of thing in metaphor, like these conspiracy theories, because its a way of communicating knowledge and getting it past censors. Simultaneously, a lot of these theorists use a religious framework to talk about this stuff, coming from that kind of upbringing, hence the constant references to demons (amusingly, also how Iran refers to the west in terms of Satan).

But I think they're talking about the same things, usually, and in fact its kind of like 'esoteric anarchism' in the sense of anti-archon ism. I think the constant 'they're dividing us' ignores the material reality that people are divided (and often fails to question and criticise those divisions and how they can be resolved), but it also idealistically displays a yearning for people not to be divided by for example, race, which is a laudible goal or wish.

I don't mean to write an apologia for them so much, but I'm not sure about this kind of reaction against them being particularly useful, its the kind of orthodox reaction against heresy, and our current orthodoxy is capitalist, aristocratic, and so on. If someone is shitting on the Rothschilds or Freemasons, I don't see much of an issue. But I can understand the frustration, but I think its also important to understand them too, and why they think like that, and also not to take what they say entirely literally.