Remember there is c/documentaries! You might find something good there too.

Taken for a Ride - The U.S. History of the Assault on Public Transport in the Last Century - This documentary takes a look at the old public transport system of Los Angeles and follows the step-by-step process by which it was dismantled by General Motors. IMO it’s a good one for seeing a concrete example of the actual steps that privatization can take – GM bought the streetcars after a campaign calling them inefficient/run down etc., then after buying them, let them degrade in quality and service, then replaced them with a supposedly superior bus system. Then they allowed the buses to give poor service, ultimately promoting individual cars over buses and highway expansions as the solution to traffic congestion.

Former CIA Agent John Stockwell Talks about How the CIA Worked in Vietnam and Elsewhere - This interview clip is only 15 minutes long but gives a very concise and specific example of how the CIA manipulates the media by having contacts with reporters and passing them a mixture of true and false stories, basically coming up with bullshit and fake photos that will go viral and spread CIA talking points while the “source” of the information becomes more and more obscured as the story is passed around different news agencies, as well as how the CIA have funded the production of countless books, whose authors were allowed to write whatever they wished as long as they included this or that specific point, and that these authors have gone on to have solid and respected careers in academia.

Cybersocialism: Project Cybersyn & The CIA Coup in Chile - From what I recall it gives a good overview of what happened in Chile. In my opinion, due to Chile’s case being so well-documented, it’s a case which people without a lot of background knowledge can start to learn about the process of CIA coups from and how it relates to protecting the interests of the bourgeoisie. A viewer of this documentary can then start applying that knowledge to many other cases where a similar pattern comes up (country tries to nationalize industries/resources which are in foreign imperialist hands => economic loan denial/asset freezes/sanctions are implemented by the imperialists & opposition groups and terrorists in the country are funded & coups are orchestrated by the imperialist power.)

The Human Face of Russia - Simply, lots of footage of everyday life in 1980s USSR. As I recall, it was a foreign group going there to film and fact-check about the living standards and learn about various political and social activities of the people. IIRC it was a pretty calm and positive documentary, a good one if you need some time away from more heavy and upsetting topics.

The Weight of Chains - About the breakup of Yugoslavia.

The U.S. School That Trains Dictators & Death Squads - About the School of the Americas.

Gaza Fights For Freedom - About the Great March of Return.

The Lobby - Four-part undercover investigation into Israel’s covert influence campaign in the United States.

Man I hate this dude

The history of the Middle East since 1948 shows Israel constantly striving for peace, only to be rebuffed time and again by the Arabs.

– Antony J. Blinken, “Lebanon and the Facts”, 1982

Israel is not, has never been, nor will ever be the irreproachable, perfectly moral state some of its supporters would like to see. Israelis are, after all, only human. Still, one pedestal the Jewish state can stand on–and stand on alone in the Middle East–is that of a democracy. Yes, there are tragic excesses in the occupied territories. True, the invasion of Lebanon claimed many innocent lives. The fact remains, though, that Israelis question themselves and their government openly and honestly. Eventually, as in other democracies, those responsible for wrongdoing are held accountable.

– Antony J. Blinken, “Israel’s Saving Grace”, 1982

The summer of 1982 may be remembered in history as the time Israel passed from adolescence to adulthood. The illusions of a child are left behind. But the Jewish state remains special, an oasis in a desert. Its citizens have built a working democracy from scratch in a region that has no others. Israelis must treasure that democracy, protect it with all their will. For if they don’t, the growing pains that are Lebanon, Shatila and Sabra, the repression of Arabs and the feud between Ashkenazim and Sephardim could turn into a plague.

– Antony J. Blinken, “The Danger Within”, 1983

Not sure of my favorite but check this out

Lyrebird mimics construction sounds

I just found out about this guy today, and after a cursory look into his work, I thought of your post because it seems he is potentially covering this kind of thing, Prof. Oliver Boyd-Barrett. This page lists the courses he teaches as “The Political Economy of Mass Communication”, “The Political Economy of Hollywood and the Press”, and “Media Representation and Propaganda in Times of War and Terror”. And when I looked him up he has books titled (for example) “Media Imperialism”, “Approaches to Media”, “Conflict Propaganda in Syria: Narrative Battles”, “Western Mainstream Media and the Ukraine Crisis: A Study in Conflict Propaganda”.

Considering that I only just now found out about him, I can’t exactly vouch for his work, but he wrote this 2021 article about Ukraine which is how I found him.

The New Atlas touches on and reads some quotes from this paper a bit in this video: https://www.yewtu.be/watch?v=MWzF5NvFdOs&t=2507s (@41:54)

A very normal quote from the paper:

…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

An example of what’s discussed in the New Atlas video:

[Brian Berletic speaking about the paper] They also laid out the the whole Iran nuclear deal, they didn’t mention it by name, but they were talking about a deal they would propose to Iran, deliberately sabotage, blame its failure on Iran, and then use that as a pretext for military aggression. So it says, “in a similar vein any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper International context both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to and minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support, however grudging or covert, is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer”–and they’re talking about a widespread conviction–not an understanding of a fact, but the belief in a US fabricated lie–so they say to “strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer, one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down” because, for the wrong reasons they admit in this paper–and many other policy papers, including from the Rand corporation–that if Iran ever did have nuclear weapons they would be used solely as a deterrent.

It says, “under those circumstances the United States or Israel could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians brought it upon themselves by refusing a very good deal.” I mean remember shortly after this paper was published, under the Obama Administration the Iran nuclear deal was proposed. Eventually it was signed, it was implemented, the Iranians adhered to it, and then under the Trump Administration it was the US unilaterally withdrew from it, blaming Iran, just as the Brookings institution spelled out. And the Biden administration was supposed to reinstate it, but of course that was never going to happen because that was not the plan as laid out by the real policy makers of US foreign policy, these unelected, corporate-funded think tanks.

These think tanks produce these policy papers, teams of lawyers craft parts of these policy papers into bills, the bills go with lobbyists to Washington to be rubber stamped–many people in Washington don’t even read them–and then the bill is sent to the corporate media to sell these policies to the public. It’s very important to understand how the US really operates where foreign and domestic policy really stem from. Not your elected representatives, unfortunately. The fact that this Brookings institution ploy to propose sabotage, unilaterally withdraw from and then use a deal with Iran as a pretext for military aggression transcended the Obama, Trump, and Biden Administration. This demonstrates the continuity of US foreign policy regardless of who sits in the White House and whoever is running Congress.

Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (2019) - DPRK’s constitution on Wikisource

DPRK Socio-Economic, Demographic and Health Survey 2014. - Survey co-authored by the United Nations Population Fund and the DPRK’s Central Bureau of Statistics (Related: UNFPA summary of DPRK census population data from 2008).

North Korea’s Surprisingly Robust Healthcare System - Article in Global Asia

ProleWiki page on DPRK - ProleWiki page giving info on DPRK

I am also learning details about this so I will just share what I’ve been looking at. Some of these I haven’t fully read yet, so keep in mind I am just showing you the same things I am learning from in the moment.

How Palestine Became Colonized - Video/documentary overview by Empire Files

Palestine, Israel, and the U.S. Empire - Audiobook released by Liberation School, looks like episodes 3-9 probably deal with what you’re asking; I haven’t listened to it yet

Palestine 101 - Series of history articles by Decolonize Palestine

Deconstructing and debunking Zionism - Another article; I haven’t read it all yet, I just skipped to the section “What are the origins of Zionism?”

Similarly, the SS man Josef Blösche rode through the Warsaw ghetto at times on a rickshaw powered by a Jewish prisoner, on which occasions he would use the vehicle as a platform to test his marksmanship and shoot Jews either on the street or those standing at their windows.

What the goddamn fuck

Apparently the attacker was also their landlord:

According to the Will County sheriff’s office, the woman had called 911 to report that her landlord had attacked her with a knife, adding she then ran into a bathroom and continued to fight him off.

The Muslim civil liberties organization called the crime “our worst nightmare” and part of a disturbing spike in hate calls and emails since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war. The group cited text messages exchanged among family members that showed the attacker had made disparaging remarks about Muslims.

Transcript contains some errors, typos, and spots where I was unsure of what exactly was said, which I marked by a question mark, but should be mostly readable. Feel free to correct any problems you see.

https://paste.lcomrade.su/XVquKDWC

Edit: I’m mostly through transcribing the video, mostly just cleaning it up now. Edited since rn I don’t need what I was asking about earlier.

I suggest studying some Korean history and reading the works of DPRK’s leaders and other DPRK authors directly and over time you can form your own evaluation of what they believe and why they have implemented particular policies at various times. I don’t have time to write more on it at the moment but you can find some of Kim Jong Il’s views on Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, socialist construction, and Juche here.

The “patsoc” ideas which promote patriotism in the imperial core and reject decolonization are much different from the socialist patriotism which is anti-imperialist and decolonial. DPRK does uphold socialist patriotism, which is regarded as part of its internationalist duty of completing the Korean revolution by focusing the majority of its attention on Korea, to make sure their revolution is successfully carried out, and which is specifically against promoting national chauvinism, and rejects racism.

DPRK’s emphasis on looking inward for solving its problems and on self-reliance come from Korea’s specific conditions. Specifically, Korea has been a battleground for world powers for much of its existence and historically had strong ideological currents of subservience to larger powers influencing its politics, which posed obstacles for progressive/revolutionary movements in Korea since feudal times and into the modern era. After DPRK was formed, it also had to deal with the issue of different influential strains of thought among socialist countries, including its powerful neighbors, Russia and China, during the Sino-Soviet split. The opening of China and the fall of the Soviet Union led to further inner debates. DPRK’s emphasis on focusing on its own conditions is a necessity for it to avoid dogmatically following other states’ lines and thus committing errors in its own revolution, not a blanket rejection of foreign ideas.

I am still learning about Songun, but from what I have read so far, it seems to have its roots in the Cuban missile crisis where US aggressions were ramping up, and finally came to the fore as policy during the Arduous March, when the US was trying to use the economic upheavals after the fall of the Soviet Union, with the US attempting to end DPRK by intentionally starving its people to death. It was determined that in order for Korea to complete its revolution and defend socialism, it would be necessary to heavily prioritize defense due to DPRK being under constant mortal threat from imperialism. Edit: Also, with DPRK’s more recent nuclear developments, I believe the policy of Byungjin (parallel development of military and economy) has returned to the fore, though I may be wrong about that. I’d appreciate being corrected if someone knows.

I recommend this essay on ProleWiki, The Cleanest Farce: How “Experts” Distort the DPRK, and the page about Juche which has sections about Juche’s relationship to dialectical materialism and to Marxism-Leninism specifically. Tl;dr is that ML is seen as a correct revolutionary idea but that it, being very old by now and being formulated in the world’s first successful socialist revolution, it lacks certain concrete details about socialist construction in the present day and also (naturally) has a different context than Korea’s revolution. Therefore it is regarded as a basically correct idea for revolutionaries to follow, but that following it dogmatically is an insufficient application of it, and all countries will need to forge their own path to suit their own conditions as they are confronted with the task of socialist construction and defending the revolution in the present conditions. Juche takes the dialectical materialist view of the world, and it is just dealing more with how people can have a certain attitude and point of view to successfully carry out revolution.

As far as I understand, it’s subsidies in this case. US will subsidize elements of the Korean corporation’s production as long as they build factories in the US but the benefits will be taken away if they have over the specified amount of production going on in China. And the amount they specify for that basically amounts to not allowing them to make any more factories in China and not letting their existing ones be highly productive.

Here’s an older article about it: “South Korean companies that invested in the US to build semiconductor factories will have to limit their manufacturing capacity at their Chinese factories to 5 percent or less for 10 years in order to receive US subsidies. […] The excessive information demanded as a condition to receive subsidies from the US, runs the risk that South Korea’s advanced semiconductor technology and business secrets could be leaked. There is even one clause that requires the return of certain subsidies if companies earn more than a certain amount in profits.”

I learned Esperanto when I was pretty young. Although I wouldn’t regard it as the right candidate for the purpose of being the world’s second language, I’m definitely glad I learned it. By knowing Esperanto as a kid/teen from the imperial core, I ended up casually chatting with people from China, Iran, and central Africa (mainly Burundi, Republic of the Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo), regularly listening to radio programs from Cuba, China, and Poland, and seeing lots of Esperanto art and culture that had been made in the Soviet Union. It really did introduce me to a lot of different perspectives that, at the time, I didn’t realize were basically censored where I came from. And of course in general I met people from many countries. I would say that in any random conversation or community, I mostly met people from Europe, Brazil, and China.

The usual criticisms of it are pretty much valid in my view. However, just taking it as one language among many rather than pushing it as “the” solution for a world auxlang, I think it’s worth studying a bit if it intrigues you. I’d say another valuable thing I learned by being in the Esperanto speaking ‘sphere’ since a young age is that I really saw what kind of things it takes to get people organized to do something, what it takes to popularize an idea, and what kind of stuff absolutely does not work for getting people to believe or do something (there’s a lot of that in Esperanto communities lol). It’s also interesting to watch the development of the language, because it is a living language that grows and changes on its own at this point, while also having a regulating body, and a ton of highly opinionated idealists arguing constantly about this stuff. In that sense I find it an interesting window into how people manage and conceive of development in things. Finally I think it’s an instructive case in observing the growth and development of an auxlang, which could aid future, improved projects in that vein.

Having studied a few different languages, I will say that in my opinion, Esperanto lives up to the claim of being easy to learn. If you speak a Romance language it will be especially smooth sailing. When I have spoken with people who learned it from a completely non-European language background, they said it took a while to learn the vocabulary and that the pronunciation was difficult in some regards, but it was otherwise easy compared to natural European languages, which I would guess is owing to its lack of irregularities in grammar and spelling, its flexibility in grammar, the lack of demand that people have a particular accent, and the lack of strict collocations.

A lot of people dislike it that Esperanto lacks certain cultural things that natural languages have. IMO that kind of comes with the territory of learning a constructed language. Personally, I think it’s fun, as it creates kind of a playful/creative atmosphere. Esperanto serves as more of a tool or vehicle for sharing cultural things than as a deep well of culture in and of itself.

Like most things, the Esperanto community is full of liberals. This becomes somewhat balanced by the community itself being focused on trying to meet people from other countries and the community having a general curiosity for the world and wanting to do cultural exchange. But you will find many liberal and some reactionary opinions flying around in Esperanto communities. The idea/original “plan” behind Esperanto was pretty idealist (although I do think conlangs can have very real, useful applications worth exploring), so the community has a bit of that in its veins.

Personally, I am happy I learned it. I don’t use it frequently these days, but I do enjoy listening to a few songs, and I’ll always be happy about the friends I made, or to randomly run into someone else who speaks it and have a chat. Is it something I highly recommend? No, not really. But if it interests you, I think it’s something fun to do, and you’ll meet new people, and may find chances to travel or work using the language if you really look (you’d be most likely to find work in Europe or China using Esperanto if you managed to do so).

Final note: You can take a VR tour of an Esperanto museum in China here. I thought it was pretty cool.

Paul LaCamera

(2021) Gen. Paul LaCamera takes office as new U.S. Forces Korea chief

Combined Forces Command leadership page

Knowing how the wheel of history spins now has given us the ability to predict it and therefore the power to take our destiny into our own hands and shape history after our desire.

I’m not an expert and still in the process of learning about this, but I would say your understanding of it here more or less lines up with my understanding from what I have read so far.

As I understand, Juche dismisses the idealist world outlook as groundless and also rejects mechanical materialism, and holds that the dialectical materialist view is the scientific view of the world. However, it is considered that merely holding a dialectical materialist view does not automatically cause people to start using it as a tool to change the world to humanity’s benefit, which is the question that the Juche idea is mainly concerned with: defining and promoting humanity’s role in changing the world, and increasing peoples’ consciousness of this role. As I understand it, Juche promotes the concept that humans (as a collective whole) not only can but should center themselves in changing the world to benefit them, within the real scientific limits of the world, i.e. with the knowledge of the laws of nature and society which operate independent of human’s will. This is seen as a necessary attitude in humanity’s emancipation from oppression, as simply having a dialectical materialist view does not necessarily cause people to start acting on humanity’s behalf even if it does give them an accurate scientific view of reality’s motion.

Texts about Juche seem to primarily focus on asserting that it is correct for humans to center their own needs in how they shape the world, and also focus on discussing humanity’s historical pursuit for independence and methods of preserving that independence when it is achieved through progressive revolutions, with the primary focus now being the struggle to end imperialism and capitalism and to defend and evolve socialism, in order to remove exploitation from society and continue on humanity’s path to pursuing independence from all restrictions, both natural and social, overcoming them with a methodical and scientific understanding combined with an attitude of intentionally centering human needs and desires in the way humanity consciously shapes the world.

If someone sees something wrong with my understanding, please let me know. I am still in the process of learning about this.

Geopolitical Economy Report