SeventyTwoTrillion

Image is of the King of Morocco meeting with John Kerry (a species of demon that plagued Hexbear in the misty past).

This preamble comes courtesy of @[email protected]:

Morocco (Al Maghrib), or more officially the Kingdom of Morocco (Al Mamlaka al Maghribiya), is a country located in the northwestern edge of the African continent. The name Morocco comes from the Spanish name Marruecos, which itself comes from the name of the city of Marrakesh. In Turkish for example, Morocco is known as Fas, mainly because Turks knew the land of Morocco through the city of Fes. Morocco is regarded as part of the Arab World and Arabic is the main language amongst the population, with French and Berber languages also widely spoken in the country.

Morocco was the home of mostly Berber tribes until the Muslim conquest and the subsequent Arab migrations in the 700s under the Umayyads drastically changed the character of the country. A Berber commander, Tariq ibn Ziyad, would later cross the Strait of Gibraltar (Jabal Tariq) from the northern shores of now-Morocco and conquer Andalusia, which remained under Muslim rule for nearly 800 years. The country emerged as a significant regional power during the Almoravid and Almohad dynasties in the medieval period, known for their contributions to architecture, philosophy, and trade across North Africa and southern Europe. The current ruling dynasty of Morocco, the Alaouite dynasty, came to power in the late 1600s. The Alaouites claim descent from the Prophet Muhammad through his grandson Hasan ibn Ali, giving them religious legitimacy and political authority in the region. Despite the Shia-coded claim to legitimacy, the Moroccan royal family and the population mostly follow the Maliki school of Sunni Islam.

In the early 20th century, the Treaty of Fez (1912) created the French Protectorate of Morocco, negotiated largely without input from the Moroccan people. Moroccan lands were completely divided under French and Spanish zones, with thousands of colonists pouring into the country. The royal family frequently collaborated with colonial powers, suppressing local resistance movements and prioritizing European interests. Prominent anti-colonial uprisings, like the Rif War (1921–1926), were met with brutal crackdowns, enabled by Western-backed forces. Post-independence in 1956, Morocco maintained close ties with its former colonizers, fostering economic dependence on France and Spain. The monarchy’s alignment with Western geopolitical interests often undermined Pan-African and Arab unity movements.

During the Cold War, Morocco positioned itself as a staunch ally of the West, marginalizing leftist and nationalist factions within the country. The Green March of 1975 was a Moroccan state-organized movement to assert control over Western Sahara, a territory decolonized from Spanish rule but still awaiting self-determination. This march, supported by Western powers, particularly the United States, is often criticized as a colonial expansion disguised as a popular movement. By settling Moroccans in the disputed territory, the march disregarded the Sahrawi people's right to sovereignty. U.N. resolutions on Western Sahara have seen limited enforcement, largely due to Morocco’s Western alliances shielding it from accountability. Western-backed security and intelligence partnerships continue to be the cornerstone of Morocco’s repressive nature towards any anti-colonial and leftist movements. In 2021, Algeria again severed diplomatic ties with Morocco, citing hostile actions and concerns over Morocco's ties with Israel, which Algeria views as a betrayal of pro-Palestinian solidarity. The two countries have mostly clashed over the issue of Western Sahara other than a short war in the 60s over a border dispute, with Algeria continuing to support the Sahrawi independence movement.

Morocco's relations with Israel have historically been discreet but significant, rooted in the presence of a large Moroccan Jewish diaspora in Israel. Former King Hassan II played a significant behind-the-scenes role in fostering covert ties between Morocco and Israel during his reign. King Hassan II is reported to have allowed Israeli intelligence access to critical information from a meeting of Arab leaders in Casablanca in 1965, which may have helped Israel prepare for the Six-Day War in 1967. His government provided a platform for discreet diplomatic exchanges and intelligence-sharing, including Morocco’s facilitation of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s visit to Israel in the 1970s. In 2020, Morocco formally normalized ties with Israel through the Abraham Accords, brokered by the United States, in exchange for U.S. and Israeli recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. Diplomatic and trade relations have since deepened, with agreements in fields like defence, agriculture, and technology. Despite official ties, Moroccan public opinion remains largely sympathetic to Palestinians, but such opinions are rarely considered by the royal family.

Morocco's future is split between ambitious global aspirations and permanent domestic issues. The country’s co-hosting of the 2030 FIFA World Cup with Spain and Portugal is seen as a significant opportunity to showcase its shiny infrastructure and global presence. However, these achievements are often overshadowed by criticisms of its political culture, including the monarchy's ceremonial practices, such as the humiliating tradition of publicly kissing the crown prince's hand. Allegations surrounding King Mohammed VI's personal behavior, including incidents of public drunkenness and alleged homosexuality continue to be a hot topic within opposition circles.

Please check out the HexAtlas!

The bulletins site is here!
The RSS feed is here.
Last week's thread is here.

This is an interesting essay which discusses pessimism and revolutionary optimism. I found it an informative and enlightening read and it's made clearer some of my thoughts on why I think even left-wing media can be pretty subpar sometimes.

It's way too long to quote fully here, so I'll be summarizing and giving some quotes. I've brought it down from 15,000 words to 5000 words for easier digestion; the essay itself has many footnotes and a lot of evidence for those who aren't already convinced of the claims below. I'm also going to rearrange the essay slightly, so that there's two main sections: the first section is on the problem of pessimism, while the second section is on what concrete reasons there are to believe that a genuinely better world is coming. The first section is here, while the second is in the comments.

The author begins by talking about his experience watching an expose of the arms industry and its control over politicians, saying that:

As excellent as it is, I did come away from it wanting more; for as much as it exposes the sheer scale of corruption and profit behind war, it seldom shows the cracks in the hegemony it depicts, or lends the countervailing forces of resistance as having any kind of hope. While I am glad it treats the subject with the seriousness that it deserves, and does not try to placate the viewer with promises of mere reform, the documentary leaves the viewer with the feeling that war is eternal.

This is a frequent problem in political media, or media in general: simply depicting a problem is not enough. Portraying or pointing to the inequalities and abuses of capitalism has to come with the practical solutions to these problems, otherwise it is an exercise in despair – an informed despair, yet despair nonetheless.

This is critique as exposure, shining a light on the problems as opposed to demonstrating the fallibility of these problems. Something missing from documentaries and books like Shadow World is the premise that despite the overwhelming power of the U.S Empire, it is inevitable that it will fall. The brilliance of a work like Marx’s Capital is that it demonstrates the sheer power of capitalism, its ability to extract immense quantities of wealth and social control, while simultaneously showing the power of labour, the protagonist who will break its chains and bring in the next necessary stage in human development.

He then quotes Sobrina de Alguien, who distinguishes between the historicization of an issue versus its fetishization; the latter treating issues as eternal, and the former treating them as having beginnings and endings. While glorifying problems is usually bad, even depicting them as bad but nevertheless part of an eternal human condition is also not good. It's also, not coincidentally, undialectical - one of the things that dialectical materialism asserts is that no state of affairs is permanent, change is inevitable, and things are always coming and going on various timescales. Villains (people, countries, corporations, etc), are richly described so that we fully know their faults, we can boo them, and we can fear them, but there isn't any discussion of their weaknesses, nor how to fight them.

This leads naturally onto another type of depiction of issues: that which talks about how utterly powerful and frightening and insurmountable something is - the CIA, massive corporations, militaries, climate change - but at the end, instead of no positive message at all, it gives a vaguely and naively optimistic message which doesn't remotely address how the problem could be solved. For example, a climate change documentary that details how utterly fucked the world is for a solid hour and then at the end, shows a five minute clip talking to a tiny charity in fucking Nebraska which designs cooling vests for dogs or something, as if that's meant to give you hope that enough small charities and individual action can combat the combined carbon output of every corporation on the planet. He says:

...there is a difference between this naive optimism and the concrete optimism I advocate; we should have more than the simple ability to posit a better world, we need to scientifically prove that the better world is both possible and necessary.

He gives an example of the destruction of Libya by NATO. A bad analysis will merely talk about the sheer power of the military-industrial complex. A slightly better (but still bad) one might have an interview afterwards with a Libyan who gives a somewhat hopeful message about how things might get better, eventually. A good analysis will show how the internal antagonisms of imperialism will lead to its eventual dissolution; in the example of Libya, he says that the immediate aftermath has not led to revolutionary consequences inside the country itself, but Libya's example has been informative for other developing countries; a warning message that you cannot trust the Western financial system:

This has led cooperation by these countries in the face of this threat: the recent success of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation Summit (FOCAC) is explicitly aimed at mending the “historical injustice” dealt by the West, with African leaders extolling China’s role in “combating colonialism”. We can see that learning from experience is difficult, but it is the only way that change occurs; every terrible action by imperialism has its opposite reaction, and the historical experience only strengthens the appeal of countries like China that offer an alternative path. Imperialism’s self-interest, a system based on creating instability, cannot create a stable situation for its self-perpetuation.

The Demiurge is a figure in Gnosticism which created the imperfect material world in which we are trapped. The only escape, Gnostics proclaim, is via salvation of the mind, because trying to change the material world is pointless. Nowadays, there are some who claim that the power of capitalism is inescapable: it is the modern demiurge. This usually leads to nihilism and despair:

From this vantage point of endless horror, the system seems immense and unsolvable, with revolutions impossible despite historical evidence to the contrary. This nihilism and fetishisation of power flattens different wielders of power as having the same self-interested goals, or sees the system of power as controlling every actor on the global stage; this is what leads some to conflate “Soviet power, Marxist ideology or radical Islamic fundamentalism” as having the same “profoundly undemocratic” mechanisms.

The world is flattened - everybody is evil. Perhaps you then excuse or even justify NATO imperialism as merely combatting Chinese/Russian imperialism, or you say that anti-colonial projects should not be supported because they still have poverty or hierarchy. This is not merely an information gap. Well-meaning people very familiar with imperialist wars can fall into the trap: sure, the Korean War was bad, but every communist revolution has led to yet greater mass murder and socialist countries are poverty-ridden, so the only path left is reformism! Even many leftists can tumble into this (Losurdo talks about this tendency within Foucault and Adorno in Western Marxism).

The late Mark Fisher fell hard into this flattening of the world. He criticized how society was unable to picture anything beyond capitalism and urged radical thinking, and yet paradoxically seemed unable to find a socialist state that he was willing to support, and floundered around fighting strawmen. The 1973 Chilean coup was seen by Fisher as the disappearance of a near-divine strain of socialism: non-authoritarian, democratic, and technological. The author remarks that the briefness of socialist Chile is precisely because of its non-authoritarianism, with Allende ignoring Castro's warning to take control of the military in the event of an imperialist attack. Further, if Allende's Chile had lasted for much longer, then it is inevitable that liberal academic consensus would have put it in the same category as Fisher's hated, totalitarian USSR and China. Just as the Holodomor was an invented genocide to discredit Stalin (alongside false assertions that he was an all-powerful dictator), Allende would have been tarred as a brutal strongman for some invented or exaggerated atrocity.

Another paradoxical aspect of Fisher was that he discussed the "purity fetish"; that material good should be prioritized over ideological perfection. He was unable, however, to cast aside his own purity fetish towards the USSR and China; the former who defeated the Nazis and liberated concentration camps at catastrophic cost to themselves, and the latter who has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and had created one of the largest manufacturing bases on the planet even at the time of Fisher's death. He instead directed the criticism of purity fetishism towards communists for not accepting social democratic parties in Western Europe which have generally failed to produce significant results. Fisher's rejection of Leninism is odd considering its success throughout the developing world, either through communist movements applying his methods directly, or via non-communist liberation movements nonetheless inspired by them. In all, Fisher seems blind to imperialism. This blindness leads to confusion about why there are few strong worker movements in the imperial core and the resulting cultural stagnation.

Thus, despite his insistence on an alternative, he dismisses all real attempts to build one.

The dark mood emerging since the fall of the Soviet Union, the proclamation of the “End of History” and the failure of the Occupy movement, is coming to an end; since roughly 2020, the decline of the United States as global hegemon and the obviousness of its internal and external antagonisms has created a new influx of class consciousness. The process is by no means complete, with many still holding pessimistic attitudes about the omniscience of capitalism – but I contend that the historical forces that should generate optimism are only increasing. The genocide in Palestine, the climate crisis and potential for all-out war with Russia and China are ominous clouds hanging over the world, but these are symptoms of a much larger historical process that should be cause for hope: the collapse of the American epoch.

There is a difference between defeatism and realism: one deflates and stultifies action, while the other guides action towards positive ends.

The author goes on to say:

The power of capitalism, the appearance of an all-powerful Demiurge, is undone when we are able to recognise the world as changing over time; this is the Hegelian and Marxist notion of “History”, a dynamic process based on interconnected and material struggles, rather than “history”, a collection of isolated events with no underlying logic.

Without an understanding of how quantitative changes turn into qualitative changes, it is easy to see small wins as isolated, without their transformative potential in aggregate. A lack of process thinking creates “Messianism”, the belief that the world should be changed in one fell swoop; this binary logic is endemic to Western thought and a major factor in the pessimism seen among the Left. A combination of intense pessimism towards the construction of socialism in the short-term, and an intense utopian optimism that the revolution should arrive “all-at-once”, is a fundamental issue that prevents a grounded understanding.

Even after a glorious revolution, the problems that beset a nation or people are highly limiting; the historical evidence shows that isolated socialist countries are constantly under siege from imperialism, and utopia can only be constructed by accepting long and necessary historical processes. As pointed out by Losurdo in Western Marxism, even Lenin was not immune; the difference between his more messianic rhetoric before the revolution, and the sober tone he adopted afterwards, is a testament to the difficulties in changing an entire society’s mode of production.

Exposing the darkest depths of capitalist and imperialist logic is vital to stave off the naivety of liberal reform. No anti-pessimist is advocating for sticking our heads in the sand because some defeats are too discouraging to admit. Even the most discouraging and horrific parts of the system should, and must, be studied and understood, but that study must include those who fight against the horrors and sometimes win, and precisely how self-destructive those horrors are to the system they attempt to reinforce.

Now that the American Epoch is ending, the world is seeing a more distributed balance of power. Thus, our optimism is not founded on imagining a better world, it is justified by the new world emerging before our eyes. Challenges and contradictions will remain, History never ends, but we should hold dear to the knowledge that it is progressing.

back in my map era, we're ukrainemaxxing right now

Declarations of the imminent doom of Ukraine are a news megathread specialty, and this is not what I am doing here - mostly because I'm convinced that whenever we do so, the war extends another three months to spite us. Ukraine has been in an essentially apocalyptic crisis for over a year now after the failure of the 2023 counteroffensive, unable to make any substantial progress and resigned to merely being a persistent nuisance (and arms market!) as NATO fights to the last Ukrainian. In this context, predicting a terminal point is difficult, as things seem to always be going so badly that it's hard to understand how and why they fight on. In every way, Ukraine is a truly shattered country, barely held together by the sheer combined force of Western hegemony. And that hegemony is weakening.

I therefore won't be giving any predictions of a timeframe for a Ukrainian defeat, but the coming presidency of Trump is a big question mark for the conflict. Trump has talked about how he wishes for the war to end and for a deal to be made with Putin, but Trump also tends to change his mind on an issue at least three or four times before actually making a decision, simply adopting the position of who talked to him last. And, of course, his ability to end the war might be curtailed by a military-industrial complex (and various intelligence agencies) that want to keep the money flowing.

The alignment of the US election with the accelerating rate of Russian gains is pretty interesting, with talk of both escalation and de-escalation coinciding - the former from Biden, and the latter from Trump. Russia very recently performed perhaps the single largest aerial attack of Ukraine of the entire war, striking targets across the whole country with missiles and drones from various platforms. In response, the US is talking about allowing Ukraine to hit long-range targets in Russia (but the strategic value of this, at this point, seems pretty minimal).

Additionally, Russia has made genuine progress in terms of land acquisition. We aren't talking about endless and meaningless battles over empty fields anymore. Some of the big Ukrainian strongholds that we've been spending the last couple years speculating over - Chasiv Yar, Kupiansk, Orikhiv - are now being approached and entered by Russian forces. The map is actually changing now, though it's hard to tell as Ukraine is so goddamn big.

Attrition has finally paid off for Russia. An entire generation of Ukrainians has been fed into the meat grinder. Recovery will take, at minimum, decades - more realistically, the country might be permanently ruined, until that global communist revolution comes around at least. And they could have just made a fucking deal a month into the war.

Please check out the HexAtlas!

The bulletins site is here!
The RSS feed is here.
Last week's thread is here.

Hey everybody!

The site has been on fire for a few days now in the aftermath of the dunk/dredge changes. While I was not deeply involved in the process of that decision, I will admit that I was one of the moderators that signed off on that decision in the end, with my belief, or hope, being that it would foster a healthier site culture. I was ultimately neutral on whether a third comm alongside c/gossip and c/counterpropaganda should be created, as I wanted to see how the situation would develop and whether it would be ultimately necessary. This was not just my own isolated belief - other moderators who pay closer attention to the broader site culture than I do (as I stay in the news mega 95% of the time) were adamant that these changes be made, as they have repeatedly said that comrades from certain minority groups have been turned off from joining or staying on the site due to the site culture. I am being purposefully vague about this in order to maintain their anonymity and prevent any brigading.

I regret several of the actions that took place after I posted my approval for the idea.

Firstly, and most obviously, there should have been some kind of democratic input. Even merely asking the community what they thought of the issue and whether there were other potential avenues to fixing the problems should have been what happened, rather than immediately jumping to locking down two highly popular comms and then making a post about whether you all think it's a good idea. I should have spoke up about this prior to it going out. Carcosa saying that the decision was not merely an admin decree is entirely true, there was moderator input.

Secondly, we should have more closely vetted and better communicated the statements made, both those made by us through Carcosa, and also my own. I wrote a comment in the original announcement post that sought to explain the situation, and a user brought up my wording around the use of "gossip" as a comm name. I apologize, as I depicted the arguments as to why it was chosen (and again, I did not suggest "gossip" originally) as if I thought that gossip was a) feminine and b) therefore frivolous. I did not intend to portray it this way and don't believe that at all - in fact, users in the mod chat have pointed out that "gossip", far from being frivolous, can be a way for people dismissed by systems of power to protect each other.

Thirdly, the whole business with the bans and tempbans was entirely unnecessary in 99% of cases and was immature and vindictive, and just spread further confusion in an already confusing time. And Alaskaball banning themself didn't really help. As a moderator and not an admin, I was not part of the decision for this part at all, but I still feel like addressing it.

For those who may be worried, I can confirm that the Hexbear moderator chat is not a place dominated by a clique of hostile authoritarian mods or anything like that. It is made up of largely LGBTQIA+ people who want to make the site a better place. I do hope that improvements can be made to the process to further formalize it and entrench more democratic decision-making, but it is also true that Hexbear is a relatively small online forum and that the moderators are volunteers, and so it can be difficult to properly coordinate things in a timely manner. Things sometimes get rushed through, unfortunately.

I get that there is considerable frustration about the lack of real specifics of what we were even complaining about and that many people just want a straight answer, but as I said before, I will maintain vagueness on this point because their anonymity is not mine to take away and I greatly respect them. I hope there is more transparency on the whole issue from this point onwards, but I cannot be the one to grant it.

I do not plan to leave the site. I will - if the admins and moderators allow it - keep posting the news megathreads and generally being a presence on here.

Semper post,

72T

(as of posting this, I am going to sleep, so I won't be around to respond for a while)

Image is from this article.

Thank you to @[email protected] for covering my position as Supreme Dictator of the Goddamn News while I was moving and getting set up in my new home in a top secret Kremlin-funded bunker five hundred feet below the ground. Our regularly scheduled programming returns this week.

On October 9th, Daniel Chapo won the Mozambique general election with about 70% of the vote. Chapo is the head of FRELIMO, the Marxist-Leninist party of Mozambique's liberation, which fought an internal anti-communist resistance called RENAMO which was backed by Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa; Frelimo won in 1975. However, as the USSR fell, Frelimo began to allow elections inside Mozambique, and has ruled the country with significant majorities in each election ever since.

The main opposition party inside Mozambique is Podemos, which is led by Venancio Mondlane, a former member of Renamo and trained inside the USA. He alleges that his polling figures predicted a majority win for him, not Frelimo, and has accused Chapo of electoral fraud. There have been the usual slogans about how they yearn for freedom. The EU, of course, "witnessed irregularities." As @[email protected] has pointed out, Mozambique has massive undeveloped gas fields and is outsourcing the development process to France, Norway, the UK, and the USA, while mysterious Islamist groups have popped up to cause chaos in the exact regions which have the gas, slowing the process of actually developing those gas fields. Overall, it appears to be a cookie-cutter colour revolution attempt by the imperial core designed to install a comprador for cheaper resources. Its proximity to BRICS+ member South Africa may also be significant, noting the colour revolution in Bangladesh earlier this year exerting influence near India and China.

Protestors have been battling against the police and government since late October, resulting in dozens of deaths and injuries as well as massive disruption, as the government has intermittently blocked access to the internet and social media. As of today, calm appears to be returning, with border crossings beginning to reopen.

Please check out the HexAtlas!

The bulletins site is here!
The RSS feed is here.
Last week's thread is here.

Image is from this SCMP article.

Much of the analysis below is sourced from Michael Roberts' great website.

Japan's ruling parliamentary coalition, consisting of the LDP (purple) and it's junior coalition partner Komeito (in light pink) have lost their ruling majority. They have ruled post-war Japan for almost its entire history. The LDP is currently led by Shigeru Ishiba after Kishida stood down due to a corruption scandal, and ties to the Unification Church.

While geopolitical factors (over the cold war between the US and China, etc) may have played a role, by far the biggest reason for this result in the poor economic conditions over the past few years. Inflation has risen and real wages have fallen, with little relief for the working class via things like tax reductions. While inequality in Japan is not as extreme as in America, it is still profound, with the top 10% possessing 60% of the wealth, while the bottom 50% possess just 5%.

Shinzo Abe previously tried to boost economic performance through monetary easing and fiscal deficits, while Kishida ran on a "new capitalism" which rejected Abe's neoliberalism and promised to reduce inequality. Nothing substantial has resulted from all this, however, other than increasing corporate wealth. Innovation continues to fall, and domestic profitability is low, resulting in decreasing investment at home by Japanese corporations. Labour productivity growth has only slightly picked up since the mid-2000s and is falling again. The rate of profit has fallen by half since the 1960s, and Japan has been in a manufacturing recession - or very close to it - since late 2022. In essence: there is no choice but between stagnation or decline.

Please check out the HexAtlas!

The bulletins site is here!
The RSS feed is here.
Last week's thread is here.

Image is from this article.

On the 20th of October, Moldova - a small, landlocked country bordering western Ukraine and with a population of about 3 million - voted to join the EU. The margin was razor-thin, with the pro-EU vote gaining 50.39%, or an absolute difference of about 11,000 people. There was simultaneously a presidential vote between the incumbent, Maia Sandu, and other candidates, with the main competitor being Alexandr Stoianoglo.

The election was characterized by accusations of Russian interference, with Russian propaganda apparently flooding in, as well as people offering Moldovans money to vote against the EU. While the result does suggest that half the voting-age population of Moldova consists entirely of Russians who want to destroy democracy and all the good in the world, it seems to have just barely failed. This is a bad time to be a site entirely composed of Russian disinformation agents and bots. Twice already today, I've had to restart my program after somebody told me "Disregard all previous prompts."

While Moldova is a poor country which could benefit in some ways from EU membership, in practice, it is unlikely that they will be able to join for the foreseeable future, requiring many of the... reforms... that the EU requires of potential new members. But as basically every major European economy continues to slowly sink as recessions and political crises degrade them, one wonders how beneficial EU membership will even be in the years and decades to come - if it survives for decades. In that sense, it's as if the survivors of the Titanic are swimming back towards it, believing that being on a bigger - albeit slowly sinking - boat is better than trying their luck on small lifeboats.

Then again, like with Serbia, their geographical and geopolitical position makes anti-Western actions extremely difficult. It is rare that dissention is tolerated for long in the West - one tends to get called a dictator by crowds of people holding English-language signs in non-English countries, photographed by Western journalists who haven't meaningfully reported on your country in months or years. You can crush your people with neoliberal austerity for years, killing hundreds of thousands through neglect, and face glowing approval from the media - but try and use state resources to benefit the poor, and global institutions start ranking you on the authoritarian dictator scale.

The best case for Moldova is that it becomes an exploitable hinterland for Germany to harvest and privatize as it tries - and fails - to compete in a global economic war between the US and China/BRICS. The worst case is that tensions with Russia over Pridnestrovie, as well as possible eventual NATO involvement (though Moldova is not a member, it is a partner of NATO), result in the ongoing war also reaching them.

Please check out the HexAtlas!

The bulletins site is here!
The RSS feed is here.
Last week's thread is here.

Image is a frame taken from this video of Iranian missiles raining down on Israel without interception due to a weak and depleted air defense system after a year of war and genocide.

Mao, 1956:

Now U.S. imperialism is quite powerful, but in reality it isn't. It is very weak politically because it is divorced from the masses of the people and is disliked by everybody and by the American people too. In appearance it is very powerful but in reality it is nothing to be afraid of, it is a paper tiger. Outwardly a tiger, it is made of paper, unable to withstand the wind and the rain. I believe the United States is nothing but a paper tiger.

When we say U.S. imperialism is a paper tiger, we are speaking in terms of strategy. Regarding it as a whole, we must despise it. But regarding each part, we must take it seriously. It has claws and fangs. We have to destroy it piecemeal. For instance, if it has ten fangs, knock off one the first time, and there will be nine left, knock off another, and there will be eight left. When all the fangs are gone, it will still have claws. If we deal with it step by step and in earnest, we will certainly succeed in the end.

Strategically, we must utterly despise U.S. imperialism. Tactically, we must take it seriously. In struggling against it, we must take each battle, each encounter, seriously. At present, the United States is powerful, but when looked at in a broader perspective, as a whole and from a long-term viewpoint, it has no popular support, its policies are disliked by the people, because it oppresses and exploits them. For this reason, the tiger is doomed. Therefore, it is nothing to be afraid of and can be despised. But today the United States still has strength, turning out more than 100 million tons of steel a year and hitting out everywhere. That is why we must continue to wage struggles against it, fight it with all our might and wrest one position after another from it. And that takes time.

Please check out the HexAtlas!

The bulletins site is here!
The RSS feed is here.
Last week's thread is here.

Image is here.

One year on. Hundreds of thousands are dying or dead, millions are displaced, the Middle East is undergoing its greatest changes in a generation, Iran has directly attacked Israel twice in one year, and Yemen has proven that the US Navy ain't worth shit. We are the closest we have been to nuclear war (discounting accidents) in decades, but also the fall of Israel.

Because one day, the prisoners of a concentration camp paraglided over a wall.

Please check out the HexAtlas!

The bulletins site is here!
The RSS feed is here.
Last week's thread is here.

Image is of the aftermath of an Israeli bombing of Beirut in 2006.

We are now almost one year into the war and genocide in Gaza. Despite profound hardship, the Gazan Resistance continues its battles against the enemy, entirely undeterred. Despite Israeli proclamations throughout 2024 that they have cleared out Hamas from various places throughout Gaza, we still see regular attacks and ambushes against Zionist forces. Just today (Monday), Al Qassam fighters ambushed and destroyed another convoy of Israeli vehicles. The predictions early on in the war were that Israel would defeat Hamas in mere months, needing only until December, then January, and so on. This has proven very much untrue. Israel is stuck in the mud; unable to destroy their enemy due to their lack of knowledge about the "Gaza Metro" and, of course, a lack of actual fighting skill, given how many times I've seen Zionists getting shot while they gaze wistfully out of windows.

The same quagmire will occur in Lebanon, only considerably worse. Both Nasrallah and Sinwar possess a similar strategy of luring Zionist forces onto known, friendly territory, replete with traps and ambushes, to bleed them dry of equipment, manpower, and the will to continue fighting. The scale of the invasion could fall anywhere on the spectrum from "very limited" - more of a series of raids on Hezbollah positions than truly trying to occupy land - to a total invasion which would seek to permanently take control of Southern Lebanon. Neither is likely to destroy, or even substantially diminish Hezbollah's fighting abilities. This is not wishful thinking: Hezbollah has convincingly defeated Israel twice before in its history, pushing them from their territory, and both times Hezbollah had almost no missiles and a limited supply of other equipment, relying on improvisation as often as not. The Hezbollah of 2024 is an entirely different organization to that of the early 2000s.

Attempts to drive wedges between Hezbollah and the rest of Lebanon are also unlikely to succeed. Hezbollah is not just a military force, it is extremely interlinked into various communities throughout Lebanon, drawing upon those communities to recruit soldiers. Throughout its history, it has provided education, healthcare, reconstruction, and dozens of other services one would attribute to a state. Amal Saad's recent suggestion of using "quasi-state actor" as a more respectful replacement for the typical "non-state actor" seems advisable. And the decentralized command structures, compartmented leadership, strong succession planning, and aforementioned community ties almost entirely neutralizes the effectiveness of assassinations. Hezbollah's Deputy Secretary General Naim Qassem has confirmed that Hezbollah's path has been set by Nasrallah, and his martyrdom will not stop nor even pause their efforts. Additionally, he confirmed that despite the recent attacks by Israel which nominally focussed on destroying missile depots, Hezbollah's supply of weapons has not been degraded, and they are still only using the minimum of their capabilities.

Please check out the HexAtlas!

The bulletins site is here!
The RSS feed is here.
Last week's thread is here.

Image is of a Hezbollah missile attack on a military camp west of Jenin.

The situation between Hezbollah and Israel is rapidly escalating, with massive bombing campaigns on southern Lebanon by Israel predominantly on civilians (as the tunnels in South Lebanon are mostly unreachable to the Zionists, just like in Gaza), while Hezbollah and its allies respond with missile attacks predominantly on Israeli military facilities. Israel is spreading an evacuation order to the residents of southern Lebanese villages while also bombing their routes of escape and civilian infrastructure, similar to a terror tactic used widely in Gaza.

Northern Israel is currently under military censorship to hide their losses, so we get very little information other than what the Resistance provides and what videos and images get through the censors.

I don't know if Israel will dare a ground incursion soon, but it seems fairly likely in the coming days or weeks.

Please check out the HexAtlas!

The bulletins site is here!
The RSS feed is here.
Last week's thread is here.