After that, things get more complicated.

Hey, what accent is that?

All of them

I don’t think I explained it very well.

They dont look to own the country when they overthrow it. Thats old school colonialism. Its expensive to maintain and people will dislike you for it. Neo colonialism has them pay for their colonisation from the start.

It’ll be for access to specific resources. Say they had, oh I dunno, oil. You install a puppet government thats 100% dependent on you, who knows they’ll be killed if they lost US backing, and you force them sell you their oil fields for a fraction of their worth.

Then, any revolution or even democratic vote that tries to take them back, despite how wrong and unlawfully they were obtained, would be seen as breaking international law and have them cut off from the rest of the world. Cuba was and still is meant as a warning to the rest of the Americas.

You don’t need the rest of the country to be prosperous for that. In fact, that would just push up the labour costs.

I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying. However, I think the reason it’s not sitting right with you is your assumption of good faith on their part.

What if they never cared if the country is more profitable generally and they just wanted to rip them off as much as possible before they realise what’s going on?

To me, their actions make far more sense if I presume that was what they really intended to do. More so, any assumption of good faith, as you point out, makes their behaviour seem, at best, bizzare.

100%. People only think them failures or the CIA as incompetent as they presume the CIAs illegal actions, in those instances, to have been done in good faith, despite the contradiction.

As always, the intended outcome was access to that particular country’s resources, for a very small group of wildly wealthy people, at regime-change prices.

When it comes to that, the CIA are amazing at what they do.

Its funny that people dying of starvation, in the USSR, is seen as a crime of communism but the exact same people will refuse to accept, by their own “logic”, that would make the rest of ALL the starvation in the world a crime of capitalism.

How do you even start to deconstruct that kind of indoctrination?

Its so mad that we have such a literal example of exactly what happens, due to prohibition, yet society refuses to see like for like. The mafia simply used the exact same routes to smuggle heroin. They didn’t disappear or die out, due to alcohol prohibition ending. They got into bed with the CIA, under operation gladio. What they did with crack wasn’t the first or the biggest example.

Like you said, you can’t people abusing substances. They remain illegal because somewhere some very powerful people are making too much money from them remaining so.

I want to live in a world where “stop cutting bits of babies dicks off” doesn’t require any further explanation.

“No, actually, its you who needs to justify cutting bits of babies dicks off. Not the other way round. Unless its hair, nails or connected to the mum, the default position is actually not to cut bits of the baby off.”

Https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOfoJH4WoAAeM-K?format=jpg&name=small

Careful mate

It also doesn’t account for corporate price gouging or the fact that the only reason people go hungry in the world is because letting them starve is more profitable than feeding them even the leftovers and about-to-go-off.

As well as what you said, theres also no reason not the presume the number could be much lower too.

Theres also god who is “both but neither.” You know, non binary. Well, he was biologically a man with a giant, oversized novelty penis but came out as non binary to mosses.

Remember everyone, CEOs do this stuff at the behest of capital. The shareholders want you to be annoyed at the CEO whos simply acting on their orders. Its part of the reason they pay CEOs so much.

They want us to be annoyed at everyone but the shareholders. Capital has always been the problem.

Na, his policies were nothing close to definitive on any positions. Honestly, that part of the left has been fighting the far right so long that they’ve lost track of where the lines are supposed to be and just lie as policy.

Thats quite the lack of empathy and social intelligence you have there. You do you but, personally, I would choose not trying to compensate for that by claiming to know better than the vast majority of doctors and scientists. Not to tell you what to do but I’d aim for something with a bit more self awareness, myself.

Well known by who? Where are these people? Are they in the room with us right now?

There isn’t anything to corroborate that he was ever either one of those, let alone switched. The people who didn’t want him to win the leadership simply declared it to be thus and such. Despite their claims, that not the same thing as it being true.

The “he switch after he won the leadership” is the part they made up. You have to realise that the label of neoliberal was given to him not only by his enemies within the party but by people who also don’t actually know anything at all about neoclassical economics and simply use the term as a slur to throw at anyone right of the socialist campaign group that they dont like. In fact, the term has all but lost its meaning due to them.

You’d have thought that there was something in-between being a socialist and a neoliberal but, Apparently, were to beleive thats not the case.

The problem is presuming someone needs incentive or malice to do that. The guy was soft-left and known to be so for years, right up until the very second he ran in the leadership election against corbyns heir Rebecca Long Bailey. At that exact moment, as if by magic, he became a neoliberal.

Its almost as if people made it up.

Its missleading to bass too much on that analysis. The parties don’t compete for the popular vote but to concentrate votes within seats they feel they can win.

No one was aiming to win the popular vote. I agree that’s a problem but we can’t really read to much into the split imo.

Crypto bros who follow ultra distorted stoicism (the only good philosophy is the ones made when slavery was normalised) that believe everyone else is unaware of what very basic knowledge they world they just learned that day.

It cant be usury, if I call it interest.

Not only is their god all powerful and all knowing, apparently, they also beleive their god to be an idiot.

taking care of junkies or lowlifes for the duration of their lifespan .

They prefer the term shareholders or landlords, thank you very much!