0
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by LeninWalksTheWorld@hexbear.net to c/news@hexbear.net

A 28-year-old German student is standing trial in Dresden accused of founding a criminal organization and committing six serious attacks on neo-Nazis, in an unusual case of violent left-wing extremism in Germany.

State prosecutors say Lina E.* and her three co-defendants — Lennart A., Philipp M., and Jannis R. — carried out a series of attacks on neo-Nazis in the eastern states of Thuringia and Saxony between 2018 and 2020, including two attacks on Leon R., a notorious far-right extremist who was himself arrested for allegedly forming a far-right extremist organization.

The group around Lina E. is believed to have raided a well-known neo-Nazi bar in the town of Eisenach in late 2019 and attacked Leon R. with hammers and batons. When the initial attack failed, the group attacked him again a few weeks later outside his car. Other neo-Nazis were left with broken bones and other injuries after the attacks.

Prosecutors are asking for an  eight year prison term for Lina E., who has already spent well over two years behind bars as the long and complicated trial continued, and up to 3 years and 9 months in prison for the co-defendants. The defense called for Lina E. to be convicted only of the lesser charges of attempted bodily injury and theft.

The case has created plenty of political tension, with the defense and far-left scenes in Lina E.'s home city of Leipzig saying that she has been scapegoated as a left-wing terrorist by both the media and the authorities. Many allege that the justice system is too lenient on neo-Nazi perpetrators.

The state prosecutors say Lina E. is still extremely dangerous. Leading prosecutor Alexandra Geilhorn said the defendant had shown no remorse and had not distanced herself from her left-wing ideology. The prosecutor also described what she called the "severe violence" of the attacks, carried out with an "extraordinary extent of criminal energy," coupled with a "notable measure of callousness." 

If any German comrade knows how to support her defense, you should drop a link.

[-] LeninWalksTheWorld@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Well Gorby purged the military leadership of the "hardliners" (actual communists) before he started his reforms. He really thought the left would be a bigger threat than the radical liberal opposition.

He also drastically slashed the military budget and conditions for the soldiers were already poor in the late 80s. The conscription system had been corrupted and many conscripts were abused and used as slave labor. Cutting the budget made these problems worse, and then the Warsaw Pact collapsed and the army lost all their foreign allies.

So by the time stuff starts really falling apart, the Red Army is left disillusioned and directionless. They try to intervene a few times but accomplish little more than shooting some protesters and making everyone angrier. Gorbachev meanwhile refuses to lead, and instead focuses his attention on blaming his subordinates and firing more "hardliners". When the August Coup happens, again Gorby refuses to take leadership or even a stance on it at all, and what's left of the army isn't willing to risk a massacre on behalf of, let's be honest, a desperate last ditch attempt to regain control of the situation.

Afterwards, many soldiers could make chaos very lucrative for themselves by becoming gangsters or running drugs/arms. The death of a nation is so tragic.

[-] LeninWalksTheWorld@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Well Gorby sort of had a plan, but it was a terribly naive one. He really thought the liberals would be cool with him being a social democrat, but nope, step aside loser. All or nothing.

For Yeltsin and his cronies, the lack of planning was part of the benefit, they didn't want any of the former bureaucrats or factory directors to be part of the process at all. They just gave every citizen worthless "privatization vouchers" that would entitle you to shares in the new private enterprises but they immediately lost all value because of the economic disaster they caused. Oh and they were unlimitedly transferable, so 90% of people just sold them for cash so they could keep eating. Those who were already rich or had political connections to the new government bought them all up and volia- nearly instantaneous economic oligarchy. All the achievements of October, swept away :lenin-rage:

0
[-] LeninWalksTheWorld@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

I’ll go ahead and say it was worse in Stalin’s Russia

wow so brave. It was worse to live in a unindustrialized backwater that was recovering from invasion and civil war than it is to live 100 years later in a modern western service economy where your every want is catered to. Thank you liberalism for your insightful conclusions.

[-] LeninWalksTheWorld@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

what we consider the foundations of modern liberalism (multiculturalism acceptance of gender and sexual minorities), is seen in Eastern Europe (specifically Russia/former USSR) as a controversial "western import". It's like the culture war in America, there are two different general cultural factions: westernizers and slavophiles. The disastrous economic changes the "westernizer" liberals brought to some parts of eastern Europe really soured their reputation. The Soviet Union and nostalgia for it are firmly culturally linked to the slavophiles, which are also consistently socially conservative on other issues (they are strongly tied to the Orthodox Church). In other eastern European countries like Poland the Catholic Church is still very dominant politically.

So I guess the answer to your question is that a lot of eastern Europeans are homophobic and racist because they think these ideas are just more western attempts to destroy their culture. People who are nostalgic for the Soviet Union tend to be anti-western for obvious reasons, and unfortunately cultural conditioning pushes them towards these backwards views.

0
0
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by LeninWalksTheWorld@hexbear.net to c/the_dunk_tank@hexbear.net

"well you can still travel between states, it's not like we live in a military dictatorship"

"it's just up to the states, I think a lot of people are getting too excited"

"if you want an abortion you can still get one in America, none of the laws are changing here" [not even true here, we have pre-roe abortion ban that got struck down by roe]

"well the justices can still change their votes, it's just a draft. Altio wrote so much crazy stuff that one of them must disagree."

"I'm surprised the federal government would give away so much of their power to the states with this"

"People in Mississippi can still drive to Illinois for an abortion." "or Florida I think" (lol)

"My roommate was crying" 'oh yeah my roommate was too, I told her to calm down and everything will be fine"


Lib :cope: engine in full force

[-] LeninWalksTheWorld@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

on the positive side, ideal revolutionary conditions will arise alongside worsening material conditions. people just need to be in a position to seize the opportunity.

1
The current vibe rn (hexbear.net)

haven't even reach the resource wars part of climate change yet or the mega migrations :joker-shopping:

[-] LeninWalksTheWorld@hexbear.net 4 points 3 years ago

while I think joining an org is worthwhile and you should try, everyone should also know that not every org is worth your time and energy. Many are just lib shit door knocking for the Democrats, but even some "hard communist" ones will just make you sell stupid newspapers on the corner to teenagers. These orgs make you feel used, exploited for free labor even. Also especially with the communist orgs you run a good chance of befriending a undercover police officer who will fuck with you and the org, often undercovers get into the leadership position because it's literally their job to be there unlike everyone else. So make sure you feel like you are actually participating in something you feel is meaningful. Maybe look for mutual aid like food not bombs

1
submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by LeninWalksTheWorld@hexbear.net to c/news@hexbear.net
0
submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by LeninWalksTheWorld@hexbear.net to c/the_dunk_tank@hexbear.net

Someone do the edit I'm too lazy to get out of bed to do photoshop

1

During the late 1950s and 1960s, it is estimated that the Soviet Union had some of the highest abortion rates in the world. The abortion rate during this period is not known for sure, because the Soviet Union did not start releasing abortion statistics until perestroika. The best estimates, which are based on surveys of medical professionals during this time, say that about 6 to 7 million abortions were performed per year.

One of the few insights we have regarding abortion during the late 1950s is a survey, conducted between 1958 and 1959, of 26,000 women seeking abortions, 20,000 from urban areas and 6,000 from rural areas. Several facts can be gathered from this survey regarding what kind of women sought abortions and their reasons for doing so. First of all, an "overwhelming majority" of the women were married, though the survey results do not give an exact percentage. Second, we can learn how many children the women had. Of the urban women, 10.2% were childless, 41.2% had one child, 32.1% had two children, and 16.5% had three or more children, making the median number of children 1.47. Of the rural women, 6.2% were childless, 26.9% had one child, 30% had two children, and 36.9% had three or more children, the median number of children being 2.06. Of women seeking abortions, urban women were more likely to have fewer or no children. This may have been an effect of the lack of space faced by urban women.

The survey also examined women's reasons for seeking abortions. It divided the reasons into four categories. The first was "unconditionally removable", things that could be remedied by government action, such as material need, lack of space, no one at home, or no institution to put the child in. The second category was "conditionally removable", things that might possibly be remedied by government action, such as the absence of a husband, family troubles, or illness of one or both parents. The third category was "unremovable", things that were not caused by social conditions, such as a baby in the family or many children already. The fourth category was "unclear causes", such as one or both parents unwilling to have a child and multiple other reasons.

The results for this question were: of the reasons given by urban women, 35% were unconditionally removable, 16.5%, were conditionally removable, 10% were unremovable, and 37.9% were unclear. Of the reasons given by rural women, 26.3% were unconditionally removable, 18% were conditionally removable, 10% were unremovable, and 45.2% were unclear. The most marked different was that more urban women cited lack of space as a reason. The survey results found that abortion rates were much higher among women who work, unsurprisingly, with a rate of 105.5 abortions per thousand pregnancies, as against 41.5 per thousand in women who did not work.

If the abortion rates of this survey are taken to be representative, then during this period the number of annual abortions was higher than the number of live births. This would also mean that the abortion rates in the Soviet Union were the highest of any in the world at that time. By the end of the Brezhnev era in 1982, Soviet birthrates hovered just at or below replacement level except in the Muslim-majority Central Asian republics.

1

“We are going to allow women to work and study. We have got frameworks, of course. Women are going to be very active in the society but within the framework of Islam,” Zabihullah Mujahid, the group’s spokesman, said at a press conference in Kabul on Tuesday.

Mujahid, who had been a shadowy figure for years, said that “there will be no discrimination against women” adding that “they are going to work shoulder to shoulder with us.”

Pressed on how the new Taliban government will differ from the previous one, Mujahid said that the group has evolved and will not take the same actions they did in the past.

“There will be a difference when it comes to the actions we are going to take” compared with 20 years ago, he said.

“We are committed to the media within our cultural frameworks. Private media can continue to be free and independent. They can continue their activities,” he said.

He also said the group has no plans to enter the homes of people or carry out retaliatory attacks on anyone who served in the previous governments, worked with foreigners or were part of the Afghan National Security Forces.

There have been unconfirmed reports of Taliban fighters entering the homes of Kabul residents, but Mujahid said those were impostors who should be turned over to the Taliban and face appropriate punishment

0
1

Stable Modlist ✅

Lots of weed ✅

No gods ✅

No masters ✅

[-] LeninWalksTheWorld@hexbear.net 1 points 3 years ago

this thread: chapos who can't handle that art is sometimes made on a stage so they try to denounce an entire activity as liberal like a AM radio host ranting about video games

[-] LeninWalksTheWorld@hexbear.net 1 points 3 years ago

Yeah basically. There was already prior political pressure from the Zionist movement before WW2, and when the UK decided to get the fuck out of Mandatory Palestine they signed off on Zionists' plans there. The UN was then quite generous to Israel in the partition plan, and hoped that they could live in harmony with the Arab in an economic union with equal rights and everything. But then Israel, with it's population and army swelling from post-war immigration, realized that there would basically be no consequences if they just took more Palestinian land by force (insert "it's free real estate" meme). And well, Israel has been trying to ethnically cleanse the territory ever since.

0
submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by LeninWalksTheWorld@hexbear.net to c/history@hexbear.net

Also in the original German it wasn't socialists second it was the sozialdemokraten (social democrats)

Fourth Reich :amerikkka: :germany-cool:

[-] LeninWalksTheWorld@hexbear.net 1 points 3 years ago

I think they are arguing that Vietnam "colonized" Cambodia (and Laos too I suppose) because they had troops and fought a war there? It basically just nonsense, especially because all three of those countries used to be 1 french colony of Indochina, and the Vietnamese Communist Party used to be the Indochinese Communist Party and quite regularly operated in Laos and Cambodia.

[-] LeninWalksTheWorld@hexbear.net 1 points 3 years ago

they play this guy on the radio and it is just basic financial advice. "Pay debt because interest" level stuff. He doesn't seem completely awful but he's at least a bOoTsTraPs guy. Doesn't ever consider that people can be suck in debt situations that are mathematically impossible to get out of because of low wages (ie wage slavery).

[-] LeninWalksTheWorld@hexbear.net 1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

how do you even have full unlocked accessed to Pelosis computer and not like DO anything at all with it. Upload a virus, steal some government files, frame her in a child sex trafficking conspiracy DO SOMETHING LARPERS

[-] LeninWalksTheWorld@hexbear.net 1 points 4 years ago

Never call the police unless you want someone dead

view more: next ›

LeninWalksTheWorld

joined 4 years ago