How’s that relevant? Do you have counter evidence for any of the points I made or are you just desperately trying to prove you’re not a dupe?

I do check out RFE/RL and its sister outlets from time to time. It’s pretty obvious that their agenda aligns 1 for 1 with American foreign policy objectives. To be fair though, the US wouldn’t fund RFE/RL if it didn’t effectively dupe people into believing it was an unbiased source.

I think you mean it’s designed to prevent partisan interference. RFE/RL’s purpose is to support US foreign policy which makes it inherently political. It is undeniably a propaganda outlet and therefore comparable in function to RT. You may trust American propaganda over Russian propaganda but that doesn’t mean the former is not propaganda.

What an absurd response. This is akin to saying RT isn’t Russian state propaganda.

I doubt the person you’re replying to would disagree that the advent of capitalism is in fact what brought liberal democracy into existence. The point though is that such progress is unsustainable under a capitalist system and that it will result in various crises, war, and fascism. Therefore we do need to find a way to move past capitalism if we want even the possibility of creating a better world.

Growth isn’t a problem when it’s sustainable. However, there are natural limits to how far and how fast technological development and resource extraction will allow us to grow the economy.

Additionally, competition within capitalism forces the wealthy to seek out any and all means of growth. If they do not they actually risk all of their wealth becoming devalued. This drives innovation but it also is the driver of imperialism, exploitation, environmental degradation, all of which grow the economy.

When growth because less attainable due to various natural constrains, the wealthy start to cannibalize the systems that keep society stable. Again, they can’t help themselves. If they don’t their class position is threatened as some other capital owner beats them to the limited profits that come from privatization and austerity.

This usually results in mass unrest across all the various classes in society. That includes some of the middle classes who also rely on exploitation to maintain their standard of living. In response to threat of social unrest, the wealthy usually align themselves with right wing authoritarians that claim to be able to bring order to the chaos and renew growth through imperial expansion. This kind of politics is often supported by some of the downwardly mobile middle classes. That’s how we get fascism.

At some point people do not actually become happier from additional wealth. If you create a system where people are allowed more than that you are just giving them power over vast quantities of resources for no particular reason. It becomes an incentive only for those whose lust for more cannot be satiated and is anti democratic by it’s very nature.

The die was cast long before that when the US decided to fund the mujahideen to fight the Soviets. That destroyed the possibility of a secular Afghani state. The US later found that the easiest way to pacify the country was to simply bribe Taliban aligned warlords. Once the money spigot was turned off, a Taliban resurgence was inevitable. Every administration from Reagan to Biden shares some blame in what is happening today.

I don’t think China is in such a bind. That’s not to say they don’t face any challenges. However, their interests just aren’t as contradictory as this article suggests.

China can undermine US power and attract US investors by continuing its rapid economic growth. That of course is not easy. They need to transition away from an economy based on large scale infrastructure development towards growth sectors such as green energy and high tech. They also need to develop better trade relationships with their international suppliers. As of right now it’s clear they’re trying to do both of those things and there are early signs of success.

That said, the US is aware that a more economically powerful China threatens the unique advantages US investors currently enjoy on the international stage. That’s why the US is specifically trying to undermine China’s trade relationships and sanction its high growth sectors.

Honestly though, I think the US is taking a huge risk here that could easily backfire. While sanctioning Chinese high tech might slow China’s growth in the short term, China developing its own independent supply chains may allow it to come back with a vengeance. Additionally, trying to cut China out of international trade deals may cause China to pursue more advantageous relationships that cut out the US entirely.

Exactly how is a slow genocide any better than a quick one?

In all likelihood, Biden is starting to pay lip service to the call for a ceasefire as the people around him realize his support for Israel’s genocide may hurt his chances of reelection. I’m not holding my breath for him to actually do anything about it. Words are cheap.

Biden gave material support to Israel’s genocidal campaign which has killed over 30,000 people. You’re delusional if you think paying lip service to a ceasefire while still actively supporting the genocide is going to satisfy anyone.

Sure but it’s always like one small step forward and two large steps back. Abortion was made illegal in many states. US domestic surveillance of its own citizens has increased dramatically and gone unchallenged. Housing and healthcare costs have continued to outpace wage growth. Inequality has increased unabated. Green energy remains woefully underfunded. I could go on.

Well that’s exactly the problem. If people use AI generated images for commercial purposes they may accidentally infringe on someone else’s copyright. Since AI models are a black box there isn’t really a good way to avoid this.

The Korean War never actually ended. It’s a frozen conflict with the demilitarized zone serving as a defacto border. Because of this, both the south and the north never demilitarized. The US and South Korea still to this day conduct massive military exercises which, from North Koreas perspective, could be used as cover for an invasion. While Americans have largely forgotten about the war, it still plays a large role in Korean policy decisions on both sides of the divide.

The Houthis are still not representative of Yemen and still are not the government of Yemen.

For all intents and purposes they do and they are.

A silly comment. You’re aware George Bush or Andrew Jackson or Truman or Reagan or Nixon exist right? Presidents with body counts in the millions. Damn those American leaders put a whole lot of wage labor into those kill counts. A whole lot of value. Hardly compares.

You’re acting as if the US just has to bomb people like it’s a law of nature. So absurd lol

I’m not? The US is using an incoherent notion of sovereignty that just so happens to align with their geopolitical interests. Sorry if that’s a hard truth for you to accept.

Your analogy falls flat because, while powerful, cartels are rarely looking to supplant state control. Instead they seek state complicity which is a different thing altogether.

Ansar Allah on the other hand has set up its own governance structures. As I said, most of the populated regions of Yemen are governed under these structures. That’s despite a US backed campaign to bomb and starve them out over most of the last decade.

If the US doesn’t want to recognize the sovereignty of the Ansar Allah led Yemeni government then the US concept of sovereignty is effectively meaningless.