AuDHD cat
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 71
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 71
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
Also, why are you trying to make it sound like this is a universal thing that applies to all apps?
Because it is. This is how Tor works. Do you not understand how Tor works?
You need to connect to the tor binary to make .onions work. It doesn't just work like any other uri.
They aren't blocking tor federation, they just haven't added it. Tor federation is something they would have to explicitly add support for, since Tor only works over... Tor.
No actually, I am your alt.
- JumpDeleted
Infighting
It's interesting to read that article on sci-hub. It's giving more specific details on what happened in 1939, but is otherwise in line with The Cold War & Its Origins. You don't need access to classified documents to understand the world, you can sit there in 1961 and get shit more or less right.
Absolutely. And there is a bunch to say about the others (see Ibid), but Poland was easier because they just outright refused.
On March 17 [1939] the British Government suddenly remembered the existence of the Soviet Union and inquired what its attitude would be toward the Hitler threat in Eastern Europe. Moscow replied promptly and proposed an immediate conference between Britain, France, the U.S.S.R., Poland, Rumania and Turkey to consider how to resist German aggression. This was exactly and obviously what was urgently needed. Nothing less than a drawing together of all the threatened states could be of any avail. Rumania was under intense pressure to turn over her economy to Germany and the quickest action was needed. However, the Chamberlain clique could not make the shift. Knowing that they wanted to solve the Nazi menace on the plains of Russia, they ascribed to Russia the very same design of which they were guilty, as devious men so often do. They had a “deep seated conviction,” shared also by the French Rightists, that Russia wished to destroy the capitalist system in Europe by provoking a war from which she would remain aloof.5 The entire diplomatic record of the past five years belied this self-justifying suspicion. It showed that Russia was desperately anxious to avoid war, but also that on every occasion, without exception, she had sought to avoid war for herself by combining with others to prevent aggression or nip it in the bud. It was Russia which had incessantly pleaded that “peace is indivisible,” warning that if war came all would be engulfed in it. All this had meant nothing to conservative men bent on making terms with fascism and preserving it. Now, therefore, Chamberlain hesitated a week until Rumania capitulated and on March 18 notified Russia that her conference proposal was “premature.” This was the same rebuff given to Russia when she had proposed a conference a year earlier, at the time of Hitler’s conquest of Austria. Again there was no hurry, but this time Chamberlain did propose a substitute plan whereby Britain, France, Russia and Poland would consult if any further acts of aggression were believed to be imminent, but even this proposal was abortive, since it was at once learned, says Chamberlain’s biographer, that “Poland would refuse contact with the Soviet, which alone was enough to prevent us from taking up the Russian proposal for a six-power conference.” Chamberlain did not blame the Polish Government. He confided to his diary, on March 26: “I must confess to the most profound distrust of Russia,”6
Poland’s comfortable blocking of any liaison with Russia revealed the impossibility of stopping Hitler, at this late date, without a gigantic world war. Poland was now the prisoner of her conquests. Obsessed by delusions of grandeur, she had conquered from Russia some ten millions of White Russians and Ukrainians whom her great landlords did not dare to trust in contact with Russian troops, even if they were fighting for Poland’s very life. Poland had also aggrandized herself at the expense of Germany, Lithuania and Czechoslovakia, acting like an eager and vindictive vulture when Czechoslovakia was being dismembered. The cause and result of this attitude toward her neighbors was that the splendid Polish people were “ruled by an incompetent and purblind oligarchy who preferred government by junta rather than by parliament.”7 This oligarchy of landlords and colonels also believed itself to be a Great Power. Impressed by its conquests, it adopted the impossible policy of balancing both of its huge neighbors against each other. Colonel Beck’s slogan, “Not a millimeter nearer to Berlin than to Moscow,” would have been valid under a strong League of Nations, but it meant certain destruction in the midst of an anarchy of aggression on the loose. In this situation Poland might survive by close alliance with one of her great neighbors. Being unable to choose between her hatreds doomed her to sure destruction and in all probability to another partition.
On that date [April 15] the British Government asked Russia to give a unilateral guarantee to Poland and Rumania. What good this would do, since Poland would not accept Russian assistance, was a mystery, but if that obstacle could be overcome London was willing for Russia to do the fighting. In reply to this transparent maneuver, Russia promptly proposed, on April 17, a binding pact of mutual assistance between Britain, France and Russia, to be implemented by a military agreement, which would guarantee all of the border states from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea
The Soviet Chief-of-Staff, Marshal Voroshilov, outlined a plan to block German pincer movements through Northern Poland and Lemburg in the South. The Allies conferred with Poland and, after four months of negotiations, with German troops piling up on her borders, Poland replied that she did not need Soviet aid. According to Gafencu, Paris put the strongest pressure on Colonel Beck, but he returned a firm “No.” He believed the U.S.S.R. to be too weak militarily to be of much help, but if she were strong she would never evacuate the region occupied. He would not “admit that, in any form whatever, the use of our territory by foreign troops should be discussed.”
(Bold added by me)
The Cold War And Its Origins, 1917– 1960. Vol. I, 1917– 1950 By Denna Frank Fleming, Chapter 5
human behaviour
One word away from "human nature". I hope you understand that our behaviour changes with our environment, e.g. our economic system. The behaviour seen right now is under a system that encourages e.g. competition, and one where if a capitalist (the owner of a company) does something that is nice, but lowers profit, a more ruthless one will likely take their place.
I encourage you to read theory, see Cowbees list for recommendations.
- JumpLocked
Welcome ex-Redditors!
Despite saying Davel banned you from "everywhere he could", you haven't been permanently banned from .ml, despite the fact that clearly you should have been
- JumpLocked
Welcome ex-Redditors!
He’s a mod so he banned me from everywhere he could
Goes to check modlog
History of misgendering/trolling
It's a ban on midwest.social, not even .ml
Misgenders unapologetically
blahaj
I think Lumelore is starting of at anti-communism, and working her way from there. It leads to some weird stuff like this.
It says that anyone could propose a candidate, and that the person elected in that specific election wasn't part of the [Communist] Party, making it somewhat likely they weren't a communist.
But a better question, is why is it important that they can vote for non-communists? What else should they vote for? Fascists? Liberals that wish to destroy the Soviet system and institute capitalism, thereby making the lives of the vast majority of people worse? Chapter XVII goes over this to some extent, but I of course do recommend reading the entire book.
No mention of being able to vote for non-communists
?????
Anybody present had the right to propose a candidate, the one who was elected was not personally a member of the Party
I have, while working in the Soviet Union, participated in an election. I, too, had a right to vote, as I was a working member of the community, and nationality and citizenship is no bar to electoral rights. The procedure was extremely simple. A general meeting of all the workers in our organization was called by the trade union committee, candidates were discussed, and a vote was taken by show of hands. Anybody present had the right to propose a candidate, and the one who was elected was not personally a member of the Party. In considering the claims of the candidates their past activities were discussed, they themselves had to answer questions as to their qualifications, anybody could express an opinion, for or against them, and the basis of all the discussion was: What justification had the candidates to represent their comrades on the local Soviet? As far as the elections in the villages were concerned, these took place at open village meetings, all peasants of voting age, other than those who employed labour, having the right to vote and to stand for election. As in the towns, any organization or individual could put forward candidates, anyone could ask the candidate questions, and anybody could support or oppose the candidature. It is usual for the Communist Party to put forward a candidate, trade unions and other organizations can also do so, and there is nothing to prevent the Party’s candidate from not being elected, if he has not sufficient prestige among the voters.
The name actually came from British communists that supported the USSR sending tanks into Hungary in '56.
Horrendous take. Fuck off.
It says it isn't "supported". You are free to change the code to add socks5/tor support or make some bodge where it connects over tor and have your tor only network. Just don't complain when nobody can connect to you.