You’re lumping me in with a group I don’t identity with

You might not voluntarily identify with the other people who are just supporting yet another group that conveniently serves NATO’s interests, but so far there isn’t a good case for your favourite groups attempting to improve the living conditions in the Global South.

Hell, you actually admit that Mossad using such groups to (re-)subjugate countries in the Global South (and, thus, worsen the living conditions there) isn’t enough for you to drop support for them.

I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t support the war and that I oppose imperialism and yet you keep arguing as if I am in support of it.

You can’t claim that you do not support the war, and that you oppose imperialism (and, I assume, you also want to claim to oppose colonialism) while also supporting pro-colonial efforts that would only advance the imperialist and colonialist goals of NATO and opposing Global South states defending themselves against your empire.

You speak about Iranians as if they are hapless pawns unable to think for themselves

Where did I say that?
In fact, the people of Iran have been struggling against you with a significant degree of success.
If you meant that I do not support wannabe-compradors, then that’s not an issue of thinking that people can’t “think for themselves”. The issue is that I do not support those wannabe-compradors.

insisting that the only reason they would protest against their government is if foreign intelligence agencies directed them to

Nowhere did I say that. I even pointed out that even in the cases where such groups do genuinely want to achieve better living conditions for the Global South, their efforts will be utilised by NATO to actually worsen those living conditions.

The people I support are the Iranian people themselves

You (plural) say this, but every time it is some CIA/NED-backed group. And inevitably it turns out that the only reasons you (plural) do so, is because your empire told you that those are the “good ones”.

Even if the goal of Mossad’s support for the protests was to destabilize Iran in preparation for the US invasion, that does not make the protesters “pro-NATO forces,”

Yes, it does. They are literally used by NATO to maintain or strengthen colonial subjugation of the Global South.

nor does it mean women’s rights are nothing but a pretense.

For these groups, it is. Their actual goals are not to improve living conditions, but bring their countries under the heel of Washington.

While that’s certainly the case for Mossad, the protests were undeniably carried out by the Iranian people themselves to advance the cause of women’s liberation.

As in, the low-level members of the group thought that those were the group’s goals?

I never said I supported the invasion

You do support pro-NATO forces subjugating Iran for the benefit of invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan simply because of the pretense of “women’s rights”. The people that you support in this case do not care about women’s rights.

I said women’s liberation is a good reason for people to rise up against their government, which is what an insurrection is.

These people claiming that they just want women’s rights doesn’t mean that that is what they actually struggle for.

You are buying another round of Nayirah testimony/Iraq WMD and other such cases of propaganda.

What is needed first and foremost right now is liberation from NATO, as it is the most major barrier for improving, as whichever group will try to sabotage the Iranian government - even if it will genuinely want things like women’s rights - they will be used by NATO to just further (re-)subjugate Iran and wooden their living conditions.

Apparently this thread is being brigaded by the Russian/Chinese/Iranian bots

“Love” the racist dehumanisation from people who support invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan, the genocidaires of Palestine.

NATO: does the most NATO thing ever
NATO liberals: “what are we? A bunch of <insert current designated enemy ethnicity>?”

What evil shit did he do for the world (specifically US allies)

So, you think that the world begins and ends with the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan?

They weren’t a reason. They were an excuse.

What you are actually supporting is invading and subjugating Iran.

Also, it is amusing how you (plural) keep speaking about women’s rights when as supposedly a valid reason to invade other countries (a la the white supremacist fairy tale of “civilising savages”) while your empire actually died stuff like the overthrow of the socialist government of Afghanistan that did improve women’s rights.

The chances are that you represent the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan, i.e. NATO.

If you think that Piton is trying to reform the USSR, you are unaware about what the USSR was, and/or about what contemporary Russia is.

Ok. What are the other sources?
So far, I am not aware of any, other than a meeting where they admitted to having been unable to verify their own sources.

There are plenty of capitalist nations providing favorable conditions to people having children, most of them in Europe. It doesn’t work because people don’t have a dozen children if they don’t need them as a retirement plan.

Evidently not, especially if we don’t disregard the fact that those states never provided good living standards for the people they colonised.

Children are becoming much more of an economic burden, and people are being provided fewer and fewer resources to raise them.

The problem behind homelessness in Finland, a nation that actually wants to do something about it, is the same as the problem behind retirement ages rising across Europe, etc.

If retirement age was the sole barrier to providing guaranteed housing under capitalism, we would have witnessed capitalist guaranteed housing before. We didn’t.

You’re talking about a nation that taxes the wealthy quite dearly.

And yet, it still maintains a class of people whose existence is based on making the rest of society poorer.

A planned economy shuffles things around, but it doesn’t make these workers appear out of thin air.

And yet, planned economies have always featured long-term guaranteed housing, while no capitalist economies seem to have.

No economic system fixes the fact that with every passing year, there are more people whose upkeep needs to be provided by yet fewer people.

Are you saying that, for example, 200 years ago, there were more working-class people that were able to work than there are now? Or are low birth-rates something that can be avoided?

I do not find them trustworthy, no.

Okay, what agreements did they break, and/or what countries did they invade this century, then?

I don’t like you putting words in my mouth

What words did I put in your mouth?

nor do I like you assuming where my information comes from

There are claims (and opinions) that you are making that have very few sources and those sources are the same where one would get stuff like Iraq having WMDs, so you definitely do need to engage in some reflection.

especially when you’re not even informed about the straight up WMF-level financial colonialism going on in the Congo

Considering that all of the claims about the PRC supposedly engaging in financial entrapment of other governments have been false, I have a good reason to disbelieve this claim unless I see a trustworthy source. (No, Adrian Zenz is not one, and neither is RFA.)

along with many other recipients of Belt and Road funding

Ah, so, it is just Zenz/RFA stuff, again.

To answer your questions: yes, yes, and set up defensive measures.

Defensive measures like what?

Let me remind you that the problem in question was homelessness. Planned economy solve that problem by making it so that all economic agents (in this case we only care about one - the state) are interested in providing guaranteed housing.

As for running out of working-age people, planned economies have been able to provide favorable conditions to people having children and universal healthcare and guaranteed housing so that people don’t die simply because that would make some rich guy even richer.

So, you do find those governments trustworthy, and you do understand why the rest of the world does, as well, you just have criticism of some of their policies (in some cases, it is understandable, but, in other cases, it’s just old pieces of your empire’s propaganda that you’re leadership doesn’t even bother with trying to substantiate anymore - I recommend you reevaluate what the people that previously sold you on Iraq’s WMDs say about their enemies instead of blindly believing them). Not sure what you mean about the PRC doing something bad to Congo.

Also, considering that you seem to find Belarus and the DPRK’s help to Russia, I have a couple of questions for you:

1. Do you, in that case, condemn Ukraine helping NATO invade Iraq, Syria, Iran, and elsewhere?
2. Do you concern NATO self-admittedly pushing for war with Russia (including prior to 2022)?
3. What should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world - NATO - starts amassing troops on that state’s border?

What are your arguments for Iran, the PRC, the DPRK, and Belarus being untrustworthy?
What agreements did they betray and what invasions did they participate in this century?

When?

If you mean that the USSR militarily intervened in your invasion of Afghanistan at the request of the government of Afghanistan (reluctantly - after several such requests), then you are just being silly.

Considering that the living standards in (among many other places) Ukraine fell massively as a result of the fall of the USSR, and that the other states that you mentioned are invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of relevant complaints are serious.

If somebody hates the USSR but not, for example, the current Hungary and Poland, that somebody supports things like colonialism and worse.

That’s a rather silly claim, considering that plenty of people’s lives did get worse after the undemocratic dismantlement of the USSR (which most of these supposed USSR-haters voted against), and the rest are now beneficiaries of things like invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s not really surprising that people who join gangs of robbers, murderers and torturers hate not being beneficiaries of such and will claim that they were oppressed even when their living standards were demonstrably some of the best in the world.

Also, you do understand that the USSR was one of the most significant forces behind the decolonization of Africa and Asia, and that it helped liberation movements there, right? And you do understand what that means with regards to what sort of people would hate it, don’t you?

Really not sure what you could disagree with in my comment in good faith.

Considering that those governments are now puppet governments of the US, it does seem fair to talk about occupation, given that you consider the USSR’s liberation of that part of Europe from the original nazis to be ‘occupation’.

Also, if you want to talk about how people ‘democratically’ chose to join the most prolific invader in the world (, you do have to admit that they should bear responsibility for invasions of Iran, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other places.

Ah, I misread what you meant, in that case.