Zuzak

Many abolitionists have complained to me that, as a traveling performer, I have not spoken to my audiences on the issue of slavery. I have received many angry letters attacking me based on assumptions about what my silence means.

Allow me to make my position clear: I oppose the institution of slavery. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, I believe it is a "moral depravity." I feel that way about other things as well.

After the raid on Harper's Ferry, the mood among Southern leaders was an existential panic and unstoppable lust for revenge. It reminded me of the Alamo. There was no reasoning with those leaders, nor could action be taken by congress. It would have required replacing most of congress and overturning decades of bipartisan negotiation and compromises. Even in the best case, it would have taken years.

But even worse, the abolitionist, pro-Negro movement quickly decided that their primary goal was not merely opposition to the reprisals or specifically cruel owners, but opposition to the entire institution of slavery, that is, opposition to the entire way of life of Southern plantation owners. And here they decided to draw the line between decent people and oppressive tyrants, which had the following consequences:

It shrunk the coalition. Most southerners support slavery. Anyone who supports the solution of having slave states and free states supports slavery.

It was politically infeasible. What is the pathway that takes us from the present situation to the abolition of slavery as an institution? I do not see how it could happen without a total collapse of the union. As usual, these Jacobins have championed a doomed cause.

The abolitionists have been distributing hundreds of pamphlets about the horrid conditions of slaves. The main effect of this has been to create a population of people in a constant state of bloodboiling rage with no consequential political outlet.

I fear this may be worse than useless. Yes, there are disingenuous proponents of slavery dismissing and censoring all criticism of slavery on the pretext of "states' rights." But there's also valid fear of historical government overreach and that fear gives power to pro-slavery leaders who say that only they can protect Southern culture.

Does this mean slavery should not be criticized? Absolutely not. But it's something I do not wish to contribute to unless if not outweighed by tangible benefits.

Many abolitionists have been single-mindedly focused on slavery, and the willingness of the Republicans to compromise on the issue, and that focus has had the following effects:

Not a single slave was freed by their efforts. Not one fewer lash was delivered by the owners.

It may have slightly contributed to the election of James Buchanan, ensuring that nothing can be done to stop the expansion of slavery into new states. Buchanan also does not support giving women like me the right to vote. A perfectly enlightened being would feel no bitterness about this, but I do.

None of this is the fault of slaves, of course, who are overwhelmingly the victims here.

But if women like me are ever going to get anywhere in this country, we need a broad movement that stands up for the rights of ALL women, REGARDLESS of their views on slavery.

(Every blank is a different nation or nationality)

In 1972, three (1) _______ radicals smuggled (2) _______-made assault rifles in violin cases into an airport in (3) _______, where the security ignored them because they were on the lookout for (4) _______ threats. The radicals opened fire and 28 people were killed in the ensuing firefight, including two attackers.

The sole surviving radical plead guilty, saying, "It was my duty as a soldier of the revolution." He was given a life sentence, but was released in a prisoner exchange after 13 years. Upon release, he became the only person to ever claim political asylum in (5) ______, which does not have an extradition treaty with his home country (where he's still wanted). He is still alive, at 77, and resides there to this day, reportedly watching cartoons like Tom and Jerry.

In 2008, (6) _______ (ethnicity) families of victims of the attack sued the government of (7) _______ for allegedly supporting the attacks and (8) _______ ordered that country to pay $378 million to the families.

Points awarded for either getting correct guesses or coming up with something that feels more like a game of Mad Libs than the correct answers do. I'll be especially impressed if anyone guesses (1) correctly.

1. Japanese

2. Czech

3. Israel

4. Palestinian

5. Lebanon

6. Puerto Rican

7. DPRK

8. United States

The Japanese Red Army was wild

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Dz%C5%8D_Okamoto

https://www.arabnews.com/node/2094256/%7B%7B

“They can’t get stuck in a hurricane if they self-deport,” Bill Helmich, executive director of the Republican Party of Florida, said on X in response to concern that the facility is in an area of the state that is regularly affected by hurricanes.

I heard it has something to do with different interpretations of the DotP (Dictatorship of the Papacy) but idk if that's true.

I'm not the most well-read on theory, but I don't understand why the left is always purity testing and fighting over little differences like this.

You never see this sort of thing on the right, even when they seem to have wildly different ideologies. Look at the level of coordination between right-wing countries like China (anarcho-capitalist), DPRK (neoliberal), and Cuba (white nationalist). If the left could figure out how to get along that well, I feel like we could've already achieved MAGAcommunism by now.

Never knew who the institute was named after

https://hexbear.net/post/4477139

[emoji not found]

Probably the least interesting and least talked about Soviet leader (not counting the ones who were only there for <2 years), I don't really know much about him myself but I was feeling randomly curious so I skimmed NATOpedia to get a rough impression.

It seems like the Brezhnev-era would be the best time to be alive in the USSR, though that has to do more with external circumstances - he didn't have to deal with a lack of industrialization or invasions either during the revolution or WWII. However, economic growth was slow, despite the government investing in basic necessities and in agricultural production. In terms of technology, during this time, the USSR made the poor decision to use IBM's designs rather than investing in domestic computer development, which may have set them back and contributed to brain drain.

In terms of foreign policy, Brezhnev deviated from Khrushchev's focus on missiles by focusing more on strengthening conventional military forces, increasing spending eightfold to 12% of GNP by the time of his death. He continued the policy of detente, and (perhaps because of the military investment) negotiated and signed the SALT treaties, reducing the past nuclear brinkmanship. At the same time, he resumed support for the Vietnamese communists who Khrushchev had abandoned due to their refusal to negotiate a partition. However, he also made the disastrous decision to invade Afghanistan. He also sent troops into Czechoslovakia to suppress what I assume was a color revolution.

Did his uninspiring leadership and failure to address economic stagnation contribute to Gorbachev's dismantling of the USSR? Or perhaps that was already set in motion from Kruschev, (or caused afterward by Gorby), and the take is that he did a decent job steering the country through a relatively peaceful era, prioritizing human needs like housing over consumer goods?

For that matter, I'm kind of puzzled as to why his policies weren't more effective, I would expect providing things like housing would stimulate the economy by providing more consumer consumption (though perhaps the problem was supply not keeping up with demand?), and the USSR still had to rely on food imports despite pretty substantial investments in agriculture. For a critical take on him, I'm not sure what he should've done differently.

However, I don't really have a dog in the fight - if there is a fight. Do people have strong opinions about Brezhnev? I'm mostly just curious to hear people's perspectives.

He's so shitty I don't even know where to start, but so many people on there are convinced he's some kind of heroic anti-corruption reformer and taking on the CIA and shit.

I'm starting to sour on the platform over it, I was enjoying talking politics on there but now my feed is flooded with Musk worship 🤮

bottom text