GenZedong

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/9286237

As many of you know, between the end of 2024 and few first months of 2025, a few events involving China shook the western internet: The release of Black myth: wukong, the red note/xiahongshu debacle, the release of Deepseek, the release of Ne Zha 2 and IShowSpeed's live-streamed visit to China.

Since then, the attitude of western social media users toward China seems to have shifted. There are still the omnipresent propaganda of course, but now there is a pushback against it that just didn't exist before.

A consequence of that has been the rise of pro-China content on social medias, notably youtube and tiktok. The peoples who went on red note and got outraged by how bad their standards of living are in comparison to China are not falling for the authoritarian surveillance credit score scare tactics anymore. I've straight up seen multiple peoples say that censorship and cameras are acceptable if it mean having cheap healthcare, groceries and rent, safe streets and high standards of living and that the US had surveillance and censorship too anyway.

Here are youtube channels that do compilations of pro-China tiktok videos and commentaries related to them: global impulse Comfort for life Unique

This is especially interesting because it is a new pipeline for us to exploit. Peoples having good opinion of how China is managed will make peoples look at how it is governed, which seeing as China is explicitly governed by a communist party, will inevitably translate to interest about communism. In fact, it's already starting to happen in the case of some of the Channels I talked about: Unique published a pretty good video about Chinese socialist democracy and Comfort for life just a few hours ago, out of the blue, published a video straight up promoting communism.

And the funny thing is that the US state accidentally opened this new pipeline for us pretty much all by itself.

“I decided to make this video to explain my intentions behind those Palestine videos again and show why the pro-Israel YouTuber's arguments—and a lot of his viewers’ comments— about my videos are inaccurate and misleading, while referring to reliable sources. I don’t know how many of his fans will actually watch this, but I hope this video not only shares accurate information but also highlights the importance of verifying facts before attacking someone—especially on a topic as important as this🙏”

Share everywhere, let's begin building a new way to use the internet

Is China really failing Palestine? In this episode, we ask KJ Noh and Carl Zha to respond to critics who argue that China is not doing enough on Gaza and the Israel–Palestine conflict. Watch their in-depth answers on China’s role, U.S. power, and the global struggle for justice.

Used to be a very big fan of this guys videos but this one is a huge miss in my opinion. Blames the rising fascism in the US on leftists being too woke, goes on a weird rant about being able to being able to watch “Normal Basketball” (cancel culture talk) and over all just gives really greasy vibes.

Lot of people agreeing with it though so while it seems to me like a white dude deeming he’s “woke enough” for not being a nazi and getting fed up with people expecting better than that, maybe I’m wrong and the Left needs better recruitment processes since this guy seems to represent at least some part of Gen Z men.

Curious to hear your guys’ thoughts on this

Bad video from How Money Works; says that poverty is down across the world but that's just not true, only in Asia. I agree the news is sensationalist, but the person uses slides for leaders such as Putin and Xi Jinping when it comes to saying that "These leaders have nothing to lose when they leave the Earth" but what about the Western leaders?

Very poor video. Doesn't mention the two genocides happening in Gaza and Papau New Guinea. Or the other ethnic cleansings.

Debunking a common far-right argument, spread it and help deprogram people from this lie

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/9251545

Excerpt:

---

Corporate media expressed either surprise or, in some cases, downright glee after it was reported this week that Trump “switched sides” and now says Ukraine can win back all the territories taken by Russia during the ongoing war there.

Trump is suddenly praising Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for “putting up a helluva” fight against Russia and proving Ukraine can reclaim all the land the Russians have taken from them during three-and-a-half years of war.

Even when U.S. military aid to Ukraine was at its highest levels, Russia still made slow but steady gains in battle after battle. So, it makes little sense to expect that the Ukrainian army will suddenly be able to turn things around now given that U.S. battlefield support has been drastically curtailed under Trump and War Secretary Pete Hegseth.

MSNBC and other media outlets have reported that Ukraine is the “big beneficiary” of the president’s reversal. And President Volodymyr Zelensky is now praising Trump for “understanding the realities Ukraine faces.” The truth, however, could be something entirely different.

Under both Trump and Biden before him, the people of Ukraine—as a result of U.S. policy in the war—have known only suffering, death, and destruction as the U.S. and its European allies pursued a course of fighting a proxy war against Russia to, seemingly, the very last Ukrainian.

It’s true enough that Trump would like to see a Ukrainian victory so that U.S. corporations could grab the country’s mineral wealth and Russia would be knocked out as a potential ally to China. But there is something else entirely behind his flip-flop, and it’s not a sudden change of heart concerning the fate of the embattled Ukrainian people.

It should also come as no surprise that Trump has ended up in essentially the same place vis-a-vis the war in Ukraine that was occupied by former President Joe Biden. As the head of the world’s most powerful imperialist country, the American president commands a military machine spread around the globe, with over 800 bases surrounding not just Russia but also China, the primary long-term target of U.S. imperialism.

Tactics change, but the ultimate strategy under both Biden and Trump is the same: Weaken Russia and clear out obstacles on the U.S. imperialist path to challenging China—economically and militarily.

Part of that strategy necessitated the installation and maintenance of a government in Ukraine that is compliant with that strategy. It started with the expansion of NATO right up to the borders of Russia, followed by the U.S.-backed coup in 2014 that installed an unelected anti-Russian government, and continued with U.S. support for Zelensky.

The latter’s hold on power in Kiev has depended on continued U.S. patronage, not to mention on his tossing out almost every remnant of democracy in the country, including canceling elections, curbing freedom of the press, ending independent trade unions, banning most opposition political parties, and more.

The problem with the U.S. plan to fight a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, however, is that Russia was never going to allow Ukraine to be used as yet another NATO outpost on its borders, with more weapons and missiles positioned only minutes from Moscow.

Trump’s description of Russia, the world’s second nuclear power, this week as a “paper tiger” is, therefore, as absurd as it sounds. One need not be a fan of Vladimir Putin to recognize the Russian military’s capabilities.

U.S. imperialism has been able to keep Russian troops bogged down in a prolonged war somewhat akin to the situation the Soviet Union found itself in the 1980s, when it was fighting CIA-backed Islamist militants in Afghanistan. But as it turns out, the Russian military has not been fatally weakened in the Ukraine war in the way that U.S. strategists had hoped; they didn’t get the Afghanistan rerun they wanted.

The recent gains by Russia on the battlefield may have brought closer the day that U.S. imperialism will finally lose the war against Russia that it is fighting on Ukrainian soil. The alternative path the U.S could have taken, the curbing of NATO and cooperation and trade amongst the U.S., Europe, and Russia would have benefitted the people of the entire world. Unfortunately, U.S. imperialism followed a course of militarism and war.

Trump’s supposed change in perspective on the war, highlighted by his statement that Ukraine is now winning and can finally score victory—with the help of Europe, but not the U.S.—is nothing more than an excuse to wash his hands of what is, for the U.S., a losing proposition.

Unfortunately, the people of Ukraine have paid an unacceptably heavy price for the use of their country as a staging ground for greedy weapons makers. As for the people of the U.S., they have paid for the war with massive cuts in the essential services they need. The days in which the U.S. can win every single military adventure in which it engages are long over.

---

More of the article in the link above.

(mods pls remove post if it violates rules)

TL;DR:

My 19 yo little brother who had a rough childhood (which I unfortunately contributed to) is convinced that Israel's actions and impunity is because "modern jews run the Western world". I've tried countering this with a materialist explanation of Israel's role in US imperialism to no avail. I suspect my treatment of him in the past may be an obstacle here, and that the key to changing his mind might require an emotional rather than logical approach. Please advise.

Pre-October 7th:

We live in the West and grew up in a conservative Muslim family, both male, I'm 24 and he's 19. We have been pro-palestine since birth. Some channels he watches are Gattsu, Geopold, GDF and Badempanada, doesn't like Hasan much. He's not really into socialist politics/history like me but I think he sympathizes, although he has edgy humor which is sometimes borderline centrist/center-right.

He's a lot better now but as a kid he was really difficult, and my dad and I handled this extremely poorly. I was never physical (unlike sometimes my dad), but I said some putrid shit to him throughout my teens. Regretful shit that makes me stay up at night and breakdown from guilt if I think about too much.

5-6 years ago I mellowed out and thought "man, what the fuck am I doing" and asked him if he wanted to be normal brothers again, to which he enthusiastically agreed. Since then we've had a decent relationship and talk about shows, politics, history, movies, uni stuff, etc. We seldom talk about our feelings, and we never processed that traumatic 10 year period when I was a shitty older brother. Despite going through all this he turned out relatively fine, mostly well-adjusted all things considered.

Post October 7th

At some point in the past 2 years of genocide, he started believing in ZOG (zionist occupied government), which quickly morphed into "jews run the world". According to him, "90% of Israeli and US Jews are pedophile rapist murderers"

1. He thinks that in modern times, Jews control western nations including US through the media, banks, legal institutions etc.
2. He knows that Zionists != Jews, but says it doesn't matter to him at this point
3. Despite my best efforts to explain Israel's role in US imperialism, he still thinks "the middle east wouldnt be as bad" if not for Israel
4. I've tried explaining that its a symbiosis for US and Israel, and that Israel can't do anything without green light from US, but he thinks Israel can do whatever they want because they're blackmailing US politicians with Epstein
5. He sends me reels of Israeli rabbis saying crazy shit with Havah Nagilah playing in the background
6. sent me an Amin al-Husseini x Hitler edit (he joked saying how husseini saw the future and wanted to save his people, and that maybe Hitler was right)
7. His "evidence" includes verses from the talmud condoning pedophilia and other insane things that many religions also say
8. He thinks Nick Fuentes is funny, and likes that he is "one of the only far-right people who doesn't utterly despise Muslims/Arabs"

Potential solutions

Basically I've tried explaining with logic why he's wrong but he won't budge. I suspect part of it is because I was shitty to him during his formative years so maybe that's causing some friction. I think the solution will hinge on an emotional approach rather than logical, but I'm not sure what to do.

(Archive link here:https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.88346/page/n50/mode/1up)

I had to read C.S Lewis's "Abolition of Man" for an ethics class and I tried just getting through it without getting annoyed, but I couldn't and wanted to share my thoughts

I'm not expecting anyone here to really like the work (it's idealistic nonsense), but I would like a second pair of eyes to go over it and see if there's something ive missed from my analysis.

1.Im really bugged by his use of one Dao definition while not acknowledging the other. Basically (to my knowledge) there are two conceptions of the Dao. One is the confucian Dao, which is somewhat close to how Lewis uses it, in that it's the traditional and "ideal" set of values ypu base your morals off of. The Daoist conception is that the true (unnamed) Tao is the way of the universe, and cannot be described but rather experienced. [This is the broad generalization. I know that this is not exhaustive, I just wanted to point out the difference since i was confused the first time I read it]

It would be like if a Chinese philosopher refered to the English conception of the "State of Nature," while only conceiving of the Hobbsian definition and not the Lockian one. It'd be somewhat insulting, no?

2. There is a rational conception for selflessness though. I'm not rationalist/liberal humanist or whatever, but there is a pretty simple logic.

I need society to survive

Society is good for me

I should work to preserve society

maybe this doesn't cover the selfless actions of going to war and such (although, whether that's a good thing really depends on the war), but its pretty basic to point out that soldiers do get many boons for going to war, and surviving. There hasn't been a single society where you're not promised benefits for this (whether they come to fruition is another thing). I don't even believe in the rationalist line of reasoning here, but it bugs me that he dismisses it without much thought.

3. There's kind of a chicken and egg problem with the "Tao" here. It is, apparently, so natural that basically every society on earth follows the same values with minor differences. However, conversely, the Tao must always be taught and never is instinctual or comes naturally to children who are not taught the "tao."

Obviously human society survived long enough for people like Plato and Confucious to write about it, so it's not like they originated the "tao." So where did it come from? If it's natural than it must come from somewhere originally and ergo doesn't have to be taught. If it's not, then it's unexplained how it appeared. Of course you should teach children these things [to use an analogy, you wouldn't wait for teens to figure out the method of calculating a derivative instead of just teaching them how to], but it comes into question why his criticism of these English books matter. If these values are so natural, they have to originate from somewhere within the human mind without being taught, no? [Of course, class society and Hegemony explains this, but I've given up hope that British people can understand any of that]

4.The entire third chapter kinda kills the book for me. It feels like reading Orwell again. It has this banal Kantian view of government and coercive state power and just really pathetic. "Uh oh, better follow these traditional values or these scary conditioners are going to get you." Why these conditioners are here, and why people put up with them, is never answered really. They just are. It's never questioned if these traditional values are moral either. Was every genocide committed by the Roman's, british, etc. all caused by supposed "moral innovators?"

5.He has a wierd obsession with contraceptives. He claims that "the conditioners" will essentially control what humanity will be through eugenics via contraceptives. This would be wierd normally, but this was written in 1947. The nazis didn't use condoms and birth control to do eugenics...they killed people. And even when eugenical regimes aren't committing genocide with guns and gas chambers, they still sterilize undesirables and disabled people, and forbid intermarriage between them. Eugenics isn't some thing where nebulous people in control try to make humanity better because muh authorarianism. Eugenics is something spawned out of 18th century "scientific" racism. It's not just controlling who gets to sire children by giving people IUDS, it's murder, deportation, castration and sterilization.

Edit: Forgot to add this point. It's a really odd idea that conditioners just control "humanity." Eugenics isn't just something where a bunch if technocrats want to make humanity better or whatever. Most (if not all eugenicists) believe that their group is inherently superior. So the point is that these eugencists want there to only be their group of people (usually, white germanic capitalist/aristocrats). The problem is not some nebulous wishy washy idealism about "oh what about the power we hold over future generations." The problem is the erasure of entire groups of people, ethnic, disabled, etc.