SadArtemis

Honestly I don't see it, or at least not from this screenshot alone. I'd say the same myself, none of the "freedoms" in the west are genuine (they are but "negative liberties-" freedom from interference rather than empowerment- and are realistically treated more like suggestions only those who can afford them can fully realize, and which can and will be taken away at the drop of a hat). And "freedom" built on and sustained by countless genocides (and now industrial scale genocide in Gaza) is worse than a farce.

I don't know much about him otherwise, so maybe he is a patsoc, hell if I know.

That could work, maybe. Though considering what NATO did to the Warsaw Pact after the Soviets dissolved I'm not sure if it'd be enough.

Thanks :)

Cheers. Now hopefully things get to the point they start killing each other over it all. Frankly even if this ends with the settlements irradiated wastelands and the straggling survivors resorting to cannibalism I will have no sympathy.

It's not like the word of a terrorist regime like the USA could ever be trusted anyways, but good.

I mean, I don’t want people to die

Hell, I'll just say it outright- I do (though this is no statement of intent whatsoever).

Genocidaires should die. Imperialists should die. Those who gleefully engage in war crimes of the highest order should die. No questions asked; if they get better perhaps they can be spared (though that should be entirely up to the mercy or lack thereof of the victims or the judgement of the world at large IMO- and even then it is a matter of whether sparing them, taking the time and resources to rehabilitate them and keep watch over them is a risk that can be afforded). But getting better is to be done on their own initiative, if time and humanity happens to move past them (if the consequences of their actions catch up to them before they have made such a change) then whatever happens, happens- no tears shed, no spilt milk, nothing of value lost.

That would be preferable, yes. But sadly we live in the reality where the first explicitly genocidal settler-reich, the most warlike nation in history, grew further and further in power as it rampaged across a continent before becoming the first and likely only global hegemon, as war devastated the other powers and eventually the revolution was betrayed (in the dissolution of the Soviet Union, anyways). We live in the reality where it was that regime introduced total destruction to the world, first as a show of strength and a promise of its willingness to do terror, as an unnecessary threat against its erstwhile allies, through two horrific atrocities against a broken civilian population which already was ready to surrender. We live in a world where it has used that threat, over and over again, where it constantly maneuvers to create circumstances where it can use that threat while avoiding or diminishing retaliation in kind- where that threat is used to defend genocide and apartheid (Isntreal's "Samson option," the US' fleet being sent to threaten India during Pakistan's genocidal actions in the Bangladesh liberation war, the US' floating of the idea to bring in nukes in the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, the historical acquisition of nuclear weapons by the apartheid regime of South Africa, etc).

Personally, I'm of the belief that the moment such horrible weapons were introduced into the world by its most warlike, genuinely barbaric regime (though any other imperialist western regime would likely have acted similarly), a world held hostage to the threat of MAD, and navigating and overcoming it all, was inevitable. In many ways I would go so far as to say- humanity and all its hopes and dreams collectively died when Trinity (the first nuclear bomb, American, it goes without saying) was launched, and it was revived when the Soviets launched First Lightning (the first Soviet nuclear bomb), and further revitalized as China, India, North Korea, and even perhaps debatably Pakistan acquired theirs as well.

Nuclear weapons- and not just that, but the threat of MAD (through any and all means possible) are to me, the greatest and most prominent symbol- of the potential for human cruelty, yes, but also of the human determination for equality, for justice, for prosperity and even love and community (and the willingness in turn to act on behalf of that love and community).

It would definitely be better if they did not exist. But they do, and the concept of MAD being invoked by the imperialists without their victims responding in kind is frankly even more horrifying to me than the opposite; it would be the betrayal of everything good in humanity, the abandonment of all the struggles and the dignity of those people of whom the arsenals of deterrence were meant to protect (or avenge).

I'm no Posadist, rather the opposite. But the nuclear Pandora's box has been opened and we have to work within that reality (and we should for that matter). The bomb (and the threat of even worse weapons in turn- biological, etc) is both the most horrible thing to be invented and the among the greatest threats to human existence- and conversely, the greatest proponent and champion of peace, co-operation, and a path forward for humanity from this terrible world system and towards a better future. It is both the greatest threat against the revolution (of all of humanity, but also of those primary states resisting western tyranny), and its greatest defender.

Honestly, based. The world would be a better place, if every single country (and every indigenous nation and people occupied by the western regimes) had nukes, and the capacity to use them in a second strike.

Either that, or it would be an irradiated wasteland. But we may already be on track to that, at some point there simply has to be an acceptance of the possibility- if it happens, it happens (and if it happens the imperialist devils were always going to make it happen). At least humanity would be spared much of the process leading up to it all, and justice and human dignity would be upheld.

It's the true nature of "moderates," if you ask me. She wanted to keep the system as-is, or reduce the degree to which change- however necessary- happened.

If she had actually been acting out of principles and concern while recognizing the equal dignity and necessity of the revolutionaries- she would have acted in an entirely different manner.

Looking it up and examining the motives and context (as someone who didn't know much about it beforehand)- my opinion is that Corday is a perfect example of the "bleeding heart moderate" who has infinite sympathy for capitalists and even in some degree the nobility, while sparing little in comparison to those victimized most by society, and with no true loyalty to the revolution and the dignity and self-determination of the masses- a natural backstabber, striking when and where the revolution (or specific revolutionaries, in a very literal sense in the case of Marat's assassination) was most vulnerable.

In another life, perhaps she would have been a Gorbachev, or a Yeltsin. She strikes me as exactly the kind of person who any revolution must defend itself against, a threat just as dangerous if not more so than any external enemy.

Personally I suspected it was something along those lines (of either #1 or #2). But the concept of #1 in particular is a certain kind of terroristic horror (that is exactly in character for the Isntrealis and the west in general) that would be concerning to learn of, if they have developed such a method. Both possibilities are horrifying, that said.

Whatever it is, admittedly- I hope that the end result is that the resistance (and the world at large) works to address these vulnerabilities, and that the process is reverse engineered or replicated in turn.

The hacking isn't exactly surprising- but what the hell is up with the explosions? Honestly that is the real head-scratcher for me.