Ah yes, militaries, those things that are famously non-political.
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2026
145 points (98.7% liked)
Slop.
775 readers
513 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
And the most non-political military of all, the US military
Indeed.
God, why are Americans so fucking dumb and so prone to just immediately blame communists for anything they don't like?
The Cold War, bourgeois interests, a touch of classical European antisemitism historically.
Yeah, I know that, the question was rhetorical. God, the Cold War really destroyed the entire bloody Anglosphere's political landscape, huh? And we're still trying to pick up the pieces.
Reminder that like half the American "adult" population are functionally illiterate. Most of them are some sort of climate denier and believe in angles. I think it's better if we start to referring to them as the "American peasantry" at this point, tho that might be classism idk.
It's incorrect class analysis, if we want to stick to strictly correct Marxist analysis of class structures and labor relations, though it is a useful inaccuracy and comparison in broader terms for describing certain material realities affecting the majority of the proletariat in that country.
The Red Scare played a large part in creating these problems, but a massive factor most communists are unaware of or dismissive of, is poor education and functional illiteracy. A lot of people scream about the Cold War, but don't realise that all the Red Scare residue is so sticky because these are people who just don't know any better.
Bend the military to his will? He's the fucking elected commander and chief.
photo in baghdad of american general 
non-political btw, just a tourist
Holy shit. Just zero self-awareness or shame.
This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water during world war two.
Not just a Communist, a Nazi too! This is how Trump will finally defeat Trump!
Hilariously I'm reminded of something a (right leaning admittedly) friend of mine said that at first both the British and the Nazis had a rule about not killing survivors of naval battles but rescuing them instead; it was America shooting the survivors that changed that policy (no idea if this is true or not, but easy enough to believe frankly).
I’m not super well-versed in the history and don’t know specifically about an incident where Americans shot survivors of their attack, but it’s possible they were thinking of the RMS Lanconia which was shot by a U-boat, which then attempted to coordinate a rescue of both civilian and military survivors (while flying the Red Cross) only to be attacked by American aircraft, forcing the submarines to dive and abandon the people they were attempting to rescue. This led to the Lanconia Order, which forbid rescuing survivors.
IIRC it was agreed upon international law to both make your presence known prior confronting enemy vessels (anti-piracy laws) and rescue enemy crew of the sunken vessel. Both these things went away when submarines started seeing combat because they defeat the purpose of a submarine. Being able to sink enemy ships undetected kind of made the laws moot to begin with since subs eventually could attack without surfacing.
In the Lanconia attack, my understanding is that while they of course didn’t broadcast their intention to attack, post-attack the attacking submarine surfaced for the rescue operation, broadcast their location on open radio, and was joined by other submarines in the rescue operation.
The Guardian really is terrible. Recently I saw a headline about Afghanistan's woman vice president bemoaning the loss of international interest in Afghanistan. I thought, "holy shit, the number 2 Taliban leader in Afghanistan is a woman?" Well, I srarred reading the article, and the answer is no. She's the vp in exile. In other words, a comprador, ejected from the country, and barely had a legitimate claim to her office when she was there.
Anyway, that's my limited exposure to the Guardian. It seems to be mostly unexamined liberal mythology. I'll get my news from you random weirdos instead.
Why do we have so much politics in politics!?
Only a few days ago he was Putinized. I'm calling Trump as Catherine the Great by the weekend.
Venezuela will be his Pale of Settlement
Hold your horses
I wish every American a very unlimited slaps to the face until they stop saying stupid shit like this.
The natural outcome of the executive branch being allowed to do whatever it wants with the military for like 60 years occurs
"How could Trump do this"
We need a Clausewitz emote for how often "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means" is relevant
The logo of Paradox Interactive's Clausewitz Engine could have multiple use-cases
I miss when inherently political institutions weren't political
Deep calming breaths
:aaaa:
Trust the plan. There's a lot happening behind the scenes. Trump will be using the military to fight fascism. Everything he's done leading to this moment has been a smokescreen to lull the rich into a false sense of security.
Well, he's actively destroying NATO and the EU so... critical support?
"dire long-term consequences" yeah they might even become an empire someday
Nah, it's reminiscent of George Washington who was the first American leader to politicize the US continental army against the British colonials and threatened to execute any American officer that supported the British.
Did he just call himself Trotsky? Hope you don't have a pickaxe at home...