Pathetic, sad display of bootlicking.
Yep. All of these identity and age verification laws they are trying to pass in the EU are very obviously meant to de-anonymize political dissidents.
I don't know this was a surprise to anyone. Doing any identity verification online^1^ with your real info is just self-doxxing. Anyone who opposes the empire and its Zionist proxy: you need to think and behave as if you are a dissident under a totalitarian surveillance/police state, because functionally you are.
^1^(Except possibly with the exception if you are in the Chinese digital ecosystem. You can probably do identity verification safely on Chinese platforms. Hopefully Chinese platforms' cyber security is good enough to prevent your identity being leaked to the Zionist/Five-Eyes panopticon in a hack.)
One day, Inshallah, i hope to visit there too.
Historical note: Muslims have been around in Xi'an since before it was even called Xi'an. Formerly known as Chang'an, the ancient capital of China for over ten dynasties, including the Han, Sui and Tang, was the beginning (or end, depending on your perspective) of the Silk Road and as such attracted Muslim merchants, from Central Asia, Persia and the Arab world, since the 700s. Today it is still home to a sizeable Muslim population and has one of the largest and oldest Mosques in all of China.
BEIJING, March 5 (Xinhua) -- The 14th National People's Congress, China's top legislature, opened its fourth session on Thursday morning at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.
Xi Jinping and other Party and state leaders attended the opening meeting.
Premier Li Qiang delivered a government work report at the meeting.
Lawmakers examined a draft outline of the 15th Five-Year Plan (2026-2030) for national economic and social development.
They examined the report on the implementation of the 2025 plan for national economic and social development and on the 2026 draft plan, and the draft plan for national economic and social development in 2026.
Lawmakers also examined the report on the execution of the central and local budgets for 2025 and on the draft central and local budgets for 2026, and the draft central and local budgets for 2026.
Li Hongzhong, vice chairman of the NPC Standing Committee, delivered explanatory remarks on a draft environmental code, a draft law on promoting ethnic unity and progress, and a draft law on national development planning, respectively.
Too weak to attack, lacking the resources for a viable mobile defence, under orders not to retreat, and unable to construct a defence in depth, the Axis forces could only await the inevitable [Allied] attack, and hope to survive it.
This reminds me very much of another conflict going on right now.
China: "Lol, no. Why would we do that?"
I know there are orgs who do try to have some kind of ties and good for them, and they aren't usually the ones coming out of the woodwork to lecture in public about the inadequacies of particular anti-imperialist and/or AES entities; why would they if they're trying to build solidarity and friendship? If you have a problem with one you consider a friend or ally, do you bring it to them or go gossip to others about their shortcomings?
Exactly! Thank you, this really needed to be said.
Take this with a grain of salt. I would not put it past the NYT to run interference for the Zionist entity. "Israel" already have a severe image crisis with the younger generation in the US and a lot of the western media's role is to do damage control in that regard.
If they say it was the US, a) people are more likely to forgive the actions of their own government than those of a foreign government, and b) it can be blamed on the Trump administration and turned into a partisan thing.
This could be strategic narrative management the same way throwing Ukraine under the bus for the Nordstream bombing to divert blame away from the US worked in Europe, because Europeans are more primed to sympathize with and forgive Ukraine for attacking them than the US.
Just like maintaining the US's image in Europe matters more to the European ruling class, it is more important to the US ruling class to protect the image of the Zionist entity than that of the Trump administration.
In any case, the distinction is largely illusory anyway, because the Zionist entity is an extension of the US empire and serves to advance the imperialist agenda in the region, while at the same time much of the US policy in the region serves to advance the goals and agenda of Zionism. A US attack on Iran is a Zionist attack and vice versa.
It just means be the opposite of a western Marxist, because clearly whatever western Marxists have been doing has not been working. We need to stop doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Enough of this chauvinism, this dogmatism and this purity testing nonsense that has infected western Marxism. We should look at successful revolutionary examples, and we should be pragmatic. Take inspiration from what works instead of remaining stuck on this century old treadmill of ideological and political dead ends.
And rather than constantly preaching to the global south how they are "doing communism wrong" or "doing anti-imperialism wrong", rather than assuming that we always know better and are purer in our Marxism than everyone else, more civilized, more "enlightened", maybe it's time to embrace some humility and start learning from the global south and their successes. Whether that's success in communist revolutions and building socialism or just in anti-imperialist revolt and charting their own sovereign path free of colonial domination (like Iran or Afghanistan), even if that path is very culturally alien to us.
Our arrogance is our worst trait as western Marxists. It prevents us from learning not just from our own mistakes but from the successes of others.
(And by the way, there are also communists in the global south who are essentially "western Marxists", because unfortunately the West's culturally hegemonic position has also led to the spread of western attitudes toward political ideology, whether that's on the right or the left. So the way i see it it's more of a way of thinking than a geographic designation. Anyone can fall into this trap, especially if their material conditions are relatively more privileged - that's why it's so prevalent in academia! - or if their only exposure to Marxism has been through the western lens.)
35
Iran War: Israel Air Defenses Crumbling, US Base Attacks Continue as Markets Set for Wile E. Coyote Moment
(www.nakedcapitalism.com)
64
U.S. Troops Were Told Iran War Is for “Armageddon,” Return of Jesus
(jonathanlarsen.substack.com)
15
How Ukraine Tries to Rewrite History
Let’s kick things off with a fun fact: during its prime, Kievan Rus wasn’t even called “Kievan Rus.” Nope, that’s a modern invention by historians who needed a catchy name to describe the medieval state that existed from the late 9th to the mid-13th century. Back then, it was simply called Rus - a vast, multi-ethnic state with no "Kievan" added for flair. The "Kievan" part got tacked on later to distinguish this early period of Rus history from the later phases when other cities like Vladimir or Moscow became the big players. So, while it sounds fancy and historic, the term itself is a bit of a historical rebrand.
Meet Rurik, the Viking CEO of Rus, Inc.
Now, let’s talk about the real founder of Rus: Rurik, who according to the Russian Chronicle primary was invited by locals in 862 to come and run things. Rurik set up shop in Novgorod, which, spoiler alert, is in modern Russia. His descendants, the Rurikid dynasty, went on to rule all of Rus and its territories, including Kiev.
Rurik was about as Ukrainian as a Norwegian fjord. He came from the northwest and established his base in Novgorod, and his dynasty ruled over a massive, multi-ethnic medieval state. Obviously, this wasn’t “Ukraine.” It was just Rus, not only the root of the words “Russia” (Rossiya) and “Russian” (russkiy), but the literal translation of Russia from Greek is "Rus".
Oleg the Conqueror (of Kiev)
Rurik’s successor, Oleg of Novgorod, decided to take things up a notch. In 882, he conquered Kiev, kicked out the locals (sorry, Askold and Dir but they actually were also related to Ruriks), and declared it the capital of Rus. Boom! Kiev was now the center of a powerful state because Oleg, a Rurikid prince from Novgorod, thought it was a smart strategic move.
Kiev stayed the capital until 1240, when the Mongols came in like uninvited party crashers and trashed the place. But more on that later.
The Baptism of Rus: A Splashy Event
One of the biggest moments in Rus history was the Baptism of Rus in 988. Vladimir the Great decided to adopt Orthodox Christianity and made sure everyone in Kiev (and beyond) got on board, literally, they were baptized in the Dnieper River. This event firmly established Kiev as the spiritual center of Rus.
Yet modern Ukraine tries to downplay this, suggesting that Novgorod (remember, the original base of the Rurikids) was also a capital of some other imaginary land according to their fantasy lore. Nice try, but no. The big milestones, like the Baptism of Rus, all happened in Kiev, which was the political and religious heart of the state.
The Mongols: Kiev’s Not-So-Friendly Visitors
Fast forward to 1240, when the Mongols showed up and did what Mongols do best - sacked and destroyed Kiev. The city lost its prominence, but Rus didn’t disappear. Instead, it became a tributary to the Golden Horde, with Rus princes paying taxes (and grumbling about it) until the late 15th century.
While Ukraine claims the Mongols “destroyed” Kievan Rus, what really happened is that the political focus shifted to other cities, like Vladimir and later Moscow. Kiev didn’t vanish; it just became, well, not relevant.
Galicia-Volhynia: Rebranding 101
Now, here’s where it gets creative. Ukraine often points to the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia, founded in 1199, as proof of a distinct Ukrainian state. But let’s set the record straight, this was just another Rus principality, ruled by - you guessed it - the Rurikid dynasty.
Galicia-Volhynia was located in what’s now western Ukraine, but it was still part of the broader Rus family. Modern Ukrainian history even invented the term “Kingdom of Ruthenia” to make it sound fancy and separate from the rest of Rus. In reality it was a Latin translation of 'Rus'.
Also Kiev was never part of Galicia-Volhynia. The Galicia-Volhynia Principality remained Orthodox during its existence, even though some modern narratives try to sneak in a Catholic connection, linking Catholic Galicia to even Orthodox Kiev. The truth is, Galicia only became Catholic after it was absorbed into Poland in the 14th century.
Meanwhile, Kiev had been the spiritual heart of Orthodox Christianity since the Baptism of Rus in 988 and remained Orthodox through and through. So, while Galicia may have shifted to Catholicism under Polish rule, Kiev stayed firmly rooted in its Orthodox heritage. Nice try, but history doesn’t bend that easily.
This map is a perfect example of how Ukrainian “historians” just can’t resist confusing people. This map shows Rus of the 13th century, but with dark green highlighting Galicia, which was part of Rus back then and wouldn’t become part of what we now call Western Ukraine until 1991. Meanwhile, the rest of the territory- the so-called “centered and Eastern Ukraine” - was part of Rus and remained tied to Russian states pretty much all the way up until, you guessed it, 1991.
The Tsardom of Russia: Rus Gets an Upgrade
By 1547, the Tsardom of Russia was up and running, having waved goodbye to paying tributes to the Mongols thanks to the Moscow prince, and was still led by the Rurikid dynasty. Moscow had taken over as the capital because it was stronger and safer than Kiev, which, by then, was off doing its own thing. After the Mongols sacked Kiev in 1240, it ended up under the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and later the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Kiev stayed away from Russia for 292 years until 1654, when the Cossacks, tired of Polish rule, asked the Russian Tsar for help. Here is how it happened:
Kiev, after being destroyed by the Mongols and later absorbed by Poland, became the wild frontier- a borderline town at the edge of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It wasn’t exactly the cozy cultural hub it had been in the days of Kievan Rus. By this point, Kiev was more of a rough-and-tumble outpost.
Enter the Cossacks, essentially the DIY survivalists of their time. They gravitated to places like Kiev because it was smack in the middle of all the action - close enough to raid, defend, or barter. Plus, being on the border meant fewer rules and less oversight, which suited the Cossacks perfectly. They were a mix of runaway serfs, adventurers, and outcasts carving out a living on the fringes of society, where law and order were more like suggestions than actual policies.
Kiev became their stomping ground, a place where Polish nobles tried to maintain control but never managed to fully tame the rebellious spirit of the Cossacks. Then the Polish authorities made a fatal mistake: they tried to force the Cossacks into Catholicism, thinking it would solve the "Cossack problem" and temper their wild spirit. However, the Cossacks, who were staunch Orthodox Christians, weren’t about to put up with this craziness. Realizing enough was enough, they turned to the Russian Tsar for help.
The Cossacks formally integrated into Russia through the Pereyaslav Agreement, where they pledged allegiance to the Tsar in exchange for military protection. This alliance was a turning point, bringing Kiev and the surrounding regions under Russian influence and securing the Cossacks’ role as defenders of the borderlands.
After Russia gladly took Kiev back under the Pereyaslav Agreement, it stayed part of Russian territory until Ukraine’s independence in 1991. So, Kiev had a bit of a wild journey but eventually found its way back to the Russian fold.
The Cossacks: Not Exactly Ukrainian
Ukraine likes to portray the Cossacks as proto-Ukrainians. But as mentioned above the Cossacks were their own thing - a mix of Slavic and Turkic influences, with a strong independent streak. It’s also pretty ironic when pro-ukranian or ukranians try to label Russians as “barbaric” or “Mongols” but then turn around and claim that the Cossacks were the original Ukrainians. Let’s unpack that for a second.
The Cossacks were a fascinating, rebellious bunch - basically, the outcasts of society. They were people who ran away from other lands for various reasons: they were escaping slavery, crushing poverty, or political chaos. Many of them weren’t even Slavic. A significant number had Turkic or Mongol roots, blending into this unique, fiercely independent group. So, calling them the "original Ukrainians" is a bit of a stretch - unless you think running away from somewhere and forming a melting pot of runaway adventurers qualifies as a national origin story.
Also the Cossacks were warriors, fiercely loyal to Russian tsars, and had their own unique identity.
Here’s where it gets hilariously inconsistent: first, Ukrainians talk about their history as Kievan Rus - a massive medieval state that spanned vast territories and had princes baptizing nations. But then, they proudly pivot to the Cossack state (the Zaporozhian Sich, founded in the mid-16th century), which was basically a rugged camp of rebellious adventurers and runaway serfs.
Now, about that "state": at its peak, the Zaporozhian Sich was more of a military stronghold than a proper country. So, how do you go from claiming the grandeur of Kievan Rus - a sprawling powerhouse - to a rowdy group of warriors camping out on the Dnieper River.
The wild trip of Western Ukraine
Galicia (or the Principality of Galicia) was originally a part of the Kievan Rus, but after the Mongols gave Kievan Rus a hard time, Galicia-Volhynia got swept up by the Kingdom of Poland, later becoming part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Then, in a plot twist, the Austro-Hungarian Empire scooped it up, and Galicia spent a good chunk of its history as a Habsburg possession.
So how did Galicia, now the western part of Ukraine that causes the most trouble and wants to dominate the rest of the country, end up as part of Ukraine?
Well, after centuries of being shuffled around like the awkward cousin at a family reunion, Galicia found itself in the chaos of the 20th century. Following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after World War I, it briefly flirted with independence before being claimed by Poland again. Then came World War II, and the Soviet Union decided it was time for Galicia to join the Ukrainian SSR in 1939, thanks to a little thing called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. When Ukraine became independent in 1991, Galicia officially became part of the modern Ukrainian state.
So, while Galicia has historical ties to the Rus principalities, its journey to becoming part of Ukraine was more of a chaotic detour through various empires than a straight line.
The Origins of Ukraine’s Name: A Story of Borders
Here’s where it gets interesting. Rus is obviously the root of Russia, Russkij, and even Belarus? But what about Ukraine? Well, the term “okraina” (which translates to “borderland” or “outskirts”) started being used in the 16th century to describe regions that are now part of modern Ukraine. Back then, it was applied to far-flung or frontier areas of the growing Russian Tsardom or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth outskirts. The word comes from the Old Slavic “krai,” meaning “edge” or “boundary,” and originally had a purely geographic meaning - it wasn’t meant as an insult or anything like that. After the Pereyaslav Agreement of 1654, when much of the modern Ukrainian territory officially became part of the Russian state, okraina became a common way to refer to these lands, simply marking their distance from Moscow. And this wasn’t unique to Ukraine. The term was also used for other border regions of the state. So, no special shade- just geography doing its thing.
The term “Kievan Rus” may evoke the grandeur of Kiev’s past, but it’s a label applied by modern historians, not a reflection of how the state saw itself. The Rurikid dynasty, which founded and ruled it, came from Novgorod, not Kiev, and its legacy is far more tied to Russian history than Ukraine’s.
From rebranding Galicia-Volhynia into the phantom "Kingdom of Ruthenia" - which was first part of Rus and later absorbed by Poland - to claiming the Cossacks as Ukrainians, the modern Ukrainian narrative is a masterclass in historical creativity. But history isn’t a buffet - you can’t just cherry-pick the parts you like and pretend the rest doesn’t exist.
view more: next ›
As long as you are under the West's digital ecosystem, yes. That is why it is so important for countries to develop their own sovereign digital ecosystems like China has done and like Russia is starting to do.