kiddash3r

4y

free political prisoner scratchin

SEGA GOON

4y

Sicilian Mafia was revived by the USA to fight communists in Italy after WW2 Mussolini had destroyed the mafia entirely so they had to import fellas from the USA back to restart things

deadacc

4y

im just slow and never made the connection in japan lmao

MyBallsAndMyWord

4y

why these guys gotta do Maoism like this s*** is embarrassing

SEGA GOON

4y

At the end of the they are still Yankees...with all the cultural baggage that comes with it.

deadacc

4y

knew about the first s*** but the yakuza being intimately connected to the far right fascists of japan is new to me

the implications of this are wild to me

MyBallsAndMyWord

4y

Very true

Red Guards also took an increasingly weird turn when they got taken over by mostly petite bourgeois types. The old guard used to be a lot of lumpen/semi lumpen people which was reflected in the way they were moving a lot (sometimes for better, sometimes for worse, despite how hard they tried to reject their lumpeness. Look up why their old leader is locked up lol) but there was a bit of a purge a few years ago and the PB camp took over and the nonsense just increased

Womanpuncher69

4y

got any sources about the red guard coup or anything? wanna delve deeper into what was going on there lol

SEGA GOON

4y

Japan had a very strong leftist movement in the 1950s and 1960s. The USA did their best to crack down on it, of course.

Also has a pretty cool communist party that's fairly large.

krishna bound

4y

I don't think mass shooters themselves are psy-ops but the way media covers them often is. It's a real societal issue of which is hijacked to provoke or spin-off unrelated arguments aside from the real issues that exist in the undercurrent.

However that said, there's definitely a few shootings I'm a little about - the Steven Paddock Las Vegas Shooting to me seems complete bullshit. There's also a few weird things you have pop up in the news every few years that get immediatedly memoryholed where you have to wonder like what in the world is the CIA doing. Remember when there was a "Mass Shooting Training Compound" filled with abducted children and several dead toddlers found in New Mexico and then the feds burned the entire compound down and ordered cops to stop investigating, and then afterwards just blamed muslims? this is completely real and was even covered by MSNBC, CNN, etc. it's not a weird esoteric infowars thing

Lein

4y

I should do less twitter reposting here but this s*** is so funny man

Womanpuncher69

4y

more and more i see these twitter repost i thank god i didn’t grow up on that site

Lein

4y

Been reading a lot ot Ha Joon Chang, very interesting to learn about how east asia developped/industrialized and how mainstream economists not only don't give credit to the methods they used but how they then go back in time and retcon how western europe developped itself. They all needed state intervention and heavy protectionism for decades, and onlu once their industries were safe did they start talking about "free trade". But the mainstream economists ofc just ignore the first step. Now my question is why didn't Africa get to develop the way the east asians were?

Lein

4y

Aight I give up but after a couple hundred pages worth of academic papers I have a better picture. Key takeaways:

• Japan's Colonial legacy gave Taiwan and Korea a better starting point for modernization compared to the British or demonic French Colonial legacy. Their pre-independence economies were more developped than anywhere else in the third world, and much more suited to development.

• African countries were short on the educated or professionals due to European colonialism, while those people were more present in China and Korea and their breakway anti communist neighbours got a disproptionate amount of fleeing into them after their respective civil wars.

• Massive military mobilization in both countries worked to create a disciplined and semi educated workforce. The authoritarian regimes also cracked down on labor to a degree that made it very appealing to foreign manufacturers.

• They had very strong states, both because they largely just tweaked the existing Japanese administrative state and because they had American security guarantee. When other third world countries went through periods like South Korea's 45-50 period the government just collapsed. Their repressive power also kept wages very low.

• They got a bunch of foreigners from other countries to develop institutions, especially in Taiwan. Even in Korea where anti-Japanese sentiment was stronger, the institutions and systems they developed like the EPB or chebols were similar to the MITI and Zaibatsu. These are helpful at driving development.

• Outside powers had no interest in their raw materials (which Korea and Taiwan are lacking in anyways), they were more interested in that labor force. So when they started opening up the 60s, investment flooded into light industry like textiles instead of extractive s*** like minerals. Even if they wanted to, Korea had total control over where foreign investment went so they could direct it where they wanted.

• Americans fostered and tolerated infant-industry protection by the East Asian countries for decades, and it wasn't until the 80s that they did a 180 but by that time they were all industrial powers. The compromise reached over FDI in the 60s was also very favorable to them, It could go in but they could control it. Their goods could go into the US easily but US goods had a harder time in East asian markets.

• They received two big boosts to their economies in the form of war procurements for the US, the Korean War mostly helping Japan then the Vietnam war helping everybody.

• Technology transfer happened and it went from America to Japan to Korea/Taiwan. That's very important for industrial development apparently. Japan also moved industries that lost their profitability to the two. So Korea/Taiwan didn't get stuck with the light industry, they moved it to Poorer asian countries while basically receiving Japanese heavy industry.

Out of everything I've mentioned you'll find the trend that the US mostly supported the Korean/Taiwanese development projects. They put up some resistance when they saw that East Asia was becoming too powerful but it was mostly too late. In Africa its the opposite that happened pretty much.

• Foreign investors only cared about raw materials nothing else, they had no interest in the spread out and poorly educated workforce in sub saharan africa. When investment came, and it rarely came, it was only to smooth the process of getting raw materials out the ground and on to a ship.

• This different interest made it so that the West had 0% support for protective trade and investment policies that you need for development. When Afican countries held trade talks with the EEC they couldn't get any tariffs out of them.

• The African states were much less stable than the Korean/Taiwanese states since they didn't have those favorable conditions. In fact any leader who pursued the kind of governance that was secured by the US in East Asia got overthrown in Africa.

• The economic boost that happened for the Underdeveloped third world countries (70s hike in primary commodities) served to encourage the extractive economy terrible for developmentbihstead of manufacturing like the Korean/Vietnam war did.

• Foreign aid basically subsidized the Korean government up until the 60s, nothing to that scale in Africa.

I'm getting lazy so I'll just wrap it up rn but the economies that when the 70s crisis hit the Korean/Taiwanese government didn't suffer from crashes in primary commodity prices because they were already manufacturing. Being big exporters also meant that they had large foreign exchange and they could whether the crisis easier AND didn't get captured by a demonic world bank scheme like UNPAARD. They mostly retrained financial autonomy.

Lein

4y

Aight I give up but after a couple hundred pages worth of academic papers I have a better picture. Key takeaways:

• Japan's Colonial legacy gave Taiwan and Korea a better starting point for modernization compared to the British or demonic French Colonial legacy. Their pre-independence economies were more developped than anywhere else in the third world, and much more suited to development.

• African countries were short on the educated or professionals due to European colonialism, while those people were more present in China and Korea and their breakway anti communist neighbours got a disproptionate amount of fleeing into them after their respective civil wars.

• Massive military mobilization in both countries worked to create a disciplined and semi educated workforce. The authoritarian regimes also cracked down on labor to a degree that made it very appealing to foreign manufacturers.

• They had very strong states, both because they largely just tweaked the existing Japanese administrative state and because they had American security guarantee. When other third world countries went through periods like South Korea's 45-50 period the government just collapsed. Their repressive power also kept wages very low.

• They got a bunch of foreigners from other countries to develop institutions, especially in Taiwan. Even in Korea where anti-Japanese sentiment was stronger, the institutions and systems they developed like the EPB or chebols were similar to the MITI and Zaibatsu. These are helpful at driving development.

• Outside powers had no interest in their raw materials (which Korea and Taiwan are lacking in anyways), they were more interested in that labor force. So when they started opening up the 60s, investment flooded into light industry like textiles instead of extractive s*** like minerals. Even if they wanted to, Korea had total control over where foreign investment went so they could direct it where they wanted.

• Americans fostered and tolerated infant-industry protection by the East Asian countries for decades, and it wasn't until the 80s that they did a 180 but by that time they were all industrial powers. The compromise reached over FDI in the 60s was also very favorable to them, It could go in but they could control it. Their goods could go into the US easily but US goods had a harder time in East asian markets.

• They received two big boosts to their economies in the form of war procurements for the US, the Korean War mostly helping Japan then the Vietnam war helping everybody.

• Technology transfer happened and it went from America to Japan to Korea/Taiwan. That's very important for industrial development apparently. Japan also moved industries that lost their profitability to the two. So Korea/Taiwan didn't get stuck with the light industry, they moved it to Poorer asian countries while basically receiving Japanese heavy industry.

Out of everything I've mentioned you'll find the trend that the US mostly supported the Korean/Taiwanese development projects. They put up some resistance when they saw that East Asia was becoming too powerful but it was mostly too late. In Africa its the opposite that happened pretty much.

• Foreign investors only cared about raw materials nothing else, they had no interest in the spread out and poorly educated workforce in sub saharan africa. When investment came, and it rarely came, it was only to smooth the process of getting raw materials out the ground and on to a ship.

• This different interest made it so that the West had 0% support for protective trade and investment policies that you need for development. When Afican countries held trade talks with the EEC they couldn't get any tariffs out of them.

• The African states were much less stable than the Korean/Taiwanese states since they didn't have those favorable conditions. In fact any leader who pursued the kind of governance that was secured by the US in East Asia got overthrown in Africa.

• The economic boost that happened for the Underdeveloped third world countries (70s hike in primary commodities) served to encourage the extractive economy terrible for developmentbihstead of manufacturing like the Korean/Vietnam war did.

• Foreign aid basically subsidized the Korean government up until the 60s, nothing to that scale in Africa.

I'm getting lazy so I'll just wrap it up rn but the economies that when the 70s crisis hit the Korean/Taiwanese government didn't suffer from crashes in primary commodity prices because they were already manufacturing. Being big exporters also meant that they had large foreign exchange and they could whether the crisis easier AND didn't get captured by a demonic world bank scheme like UNPAARD. They mostly retrained financial autonomy.