darkcalling

I mean considering the west's history of assassinations, the fact you could modify a washing machine to dispense something absorbed through the skin which kills quickly or slowly, not entirely unreasonable for someone in his position though I really doubt there is a person whose job is to just sit across from his washing machine. More than likely he has a security person responsible for securing access to various things including washing machines to prevent well all kinds of attacks.

Just want to point out this person is on a 4 hour old account.

Beware of scams that look well, like this. It’s frankly suspicious that OP gives details but not many and immediately tries to draw people to a private 1 on 1 platform. There are scammers out there sadly who will do this kind of thing, spend months even pretending to be a lover or friend and try and get money out of it that has nothing to do with leaving a bad situation.

Maybe they’re real and if so OP I’m very sorry about all you’re going through and do want you to know as a human that you have inherent value. That sadly in this day and age people do things like what you’ve described and your feelings are valid. Your pain is valid. That said, why don’t you try and interact with others online more before asking strangers for help? Get to know people in a group setting, commiserate if you need it. I think in the near term that will help a lot more than projecting hopes and desperation onto a single other person expecting the world from them. One step at a time.

I’ve looked into this before and there is no word or equivalent phrase for what you’re talking about.

Effeminization is more about men seen as too feminine so it’s not it.

Inadequacy as a woman/girl is I guess the closest. There are idealized forms you’re pushed to be like when you’re growing up and into adulthood. Breasts are probably the closest stand-in for testicles in this context but it’s not a perfect one.

They're really coming for him over this. Also please see things like this as a great example of divisions within the bourgeois. Musk is more international finance leaning whereas the thought in the US is controlled by the industrial aka military/defense/intelligence types.

He's broadly anti-decoupling with China to my knowledge. Somewhat willing to say good things about China. I mean he see's Chinese things like Ali-pay/WeChat and wants to emulate them. Being against escalation against Russia is also good actually.

He's like Trump and I'm honestly not sure how people here are not getting that was what I was saying. I mean I'm not going to trip over myself to disown him anymore than I have already. I shouldn't have to because there should be some critical thought given.

Do you have any evidence he is a hawk? Of the variety who would advocate using nuclear weapons or something to avoid giving up US hegemony (as many of the more silent bourgeoisie who control the US government and defense contractors would tend to be) as opposed to a self-serving but also self-defeating capitalist who can't stop gorging himself off the profit potential of staying linked with China. I mean I hope he and others like him are like that and continue to exist. I guess as an ML I can't help but be a bit optimistic that some of the bourgeoisie are selling us rope even in this day and age.

I mean there are degrees here. I don't know if wandering liberals have downvoted me or what but I think what I said speaks for itself and honestly I don't like Musk, so I'm not really going to compile a list of "why communists should think this guy is useful", it's just not worth my time and it was just musing. It was my hot-take. I don't believe it to be incorrect, no one has really hit me with anything that changes my view.

He’s arrogant and childish and petty which hinders him. He’s also a reactionary but his selfish pettiness so far has done some interesting things in sabotaging the evil empire.

As to getting people killed. What the fuck does that mean? You sound like a fed crowing on about the dangers of subversive thinking and commies getting people killed.

The US is grinding Ukraine’s population to grist and ironically Musk was one of the few prominent people who said that was bad, they weren’t going to win and it was pointless and dangerous to continue. All true.

I know, I know. No one must insult the nazi fascist Ukraine regime and it’s American cheered genocide of its own people for western arms manufacturer profits.

^Least fascist, most freedom espousing liberal when poked only a little.

Adventurism is not a solution. The feds, the fossil fuel industry in fact invite it. It makes it easier for them to paint the whole movement as violent, dangerous, to crack down on even peaceful types, to surveil them, to get overtime bonuses, to arrest, infiltrate, subvert, etc. To slap the whole thing with a domestic terrorism label and charge anyone near a protest. Send in fed agitators who commit violent acts, charge anyone present near them as accomplices, throw them away for a long time, repeat until it's broken up.

The problem is the widespread apathy and resignation of people. The capitalist system is not going to change it yet the people refuse to change the capitalist system. It's not an immediate danger, it's hard to understand, hypothetical. It feels hotter but by the time it becomes truly unbearable for the comfortable middle class even militant action won't reverse it and there will be a feeling of defeat and hopelessness.

Sabotage might slow them down a little but honestly the types of prison sentences people who do it face and the drop in the bucket impact it really has means even just advocating and getting an increase of taxes or costs passed onto people for use of fossil fuel is likely to be more effective in decreasing consumption and carbon emissions than sabotage. Because sabotage drives up prices too and they're happy to pass costs onto the average proletarian. It's like how refineries in California all mysteriously have problems around the same times together and prices go up.

Fundamentally it's a problem of living under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie who themselves don't care about climate change or may even welcome it for darker plans they have for humanity. Government is the one that can resolve this problem. What could actually change it would be militant labor organizing. If we could somehow organize strikes on big industries and shut the economy down, you could force the politicians to pass laws to ameliorate the worst aspects of climate change and carbon emissions, you couldn't fix the problem or address it systemically like with proletarian rule but it would be something.

They wouldn’t be concerned with Russia nuking them because Russia has shown such restraint. Their propagandists and narrative are one thing, their intelligence analysts are not so blind as to genuinely believe Putin would be coming for them next. The only real factor is how much they feel they need to put on a show so they don't look weak to their vassals but a show is not the same as inviting full nuclear war and they've already been humiliated in various ways and just ignored it or taken it.

The west would know if Russia conducted a single nuclear strike that it was not part of an opening salvo. Why? Because basic nuclear doctrine dictates if you intend to do that you strike full force with the hopes of catching your enemy with their guard down and minimizing retaliation. Once you've done that they're on high alert, they're on hair-trigger alert and Russia would most likely be smart enough to take steps to show their nuclear forces are ready, but not about to imminently launch any further attacks and the west would believe them. A pre-emptive strike against Russia would not work right now. They know this. Russia has a dead-hand system that will ensure their arsenal is launched even in the event of a successful decapitation strike. Washington would know Russia doesn't want to be eliminated and see how much it took to push them to use just one, they would know Russia won't launch full on them unless they escalate much further on their own.

Even a hypothetical escalation of tit-for-tat would have several off-ramp points for both the US and Russia and I don't think that would happen.

Excuse? Absurd. The US is the only country to have used nukes in anger. Are we talking about the same country? The one that shamelessly invents false flags for all its wars and changes the rules on the fly to suit it? That US? It's not about excuses, if they had the capability to intercept 95% of Russia's strike response they'd have launched already and obliterated them, they'd come up with an excuse after the fact and justify it. It's not about Russia giving them an excuse, they don't need one, the west operates in their own delusional sphere of justification and supremacy. It's about cold, hard, facts. Western planners know they'd be eliminated at this juncture by engaging in a nuclear war with Russia. The west doesn't need an excuse, they need an ability to do it and not be destroyed and they don't have that.

People, even here struggle to be sober and thoughtful, they knee-jerk react to nuclear war with sweeping declarations any use will automatically trigger the end of the world. This is materially false. The capitalists would have been willing to end the world rather than let the Soviet Union win, but they aren't willing to commit suicide to avenge a cannon fodder eastern vassal state in a power fight with another capitalist nation that just wants their aggressive alliance further from their borders. They may yet end the world in a fight over China rather than let it (and proletarians) win but I don't think this conflict, this issue of Ukraine or even some fodder buffer NATO state (which was engaged in de-facto hostilities against Russia and fair game) being injured is going to get their fingers on the trigger to tighten.

That's my thinking. I think it's rational, sober, but I also freely admit no one can fully understand all that goes into the thought processes of western military leadership or predict their actions, that's as true for me as it is for a Rand Corpo analyst with high security clearances or for Russian intelligence. I don't trust the west and its leadership to behave morally and their rationale can be a bit twisted at times but it's for that reason I think in many ways a small event doesn't matter. What the west intends to do, they will do, they don't really need excuses, they're happy to manufacture them when their plans demand it, that's always been the case. They're going to do what they're going to do. They navigate the road they're given, invent things, use what they can as excuses for what they wanted to do anyways.

Meh. You're silly if you think western strategic planners see eastern European NATO members as any less fodder than they see Ukrainians as. They don't want to invite a strike on NYC for the sake of avenging a military base in Estonia. They don't want to invite a strike on Guam, Pearl Harbor, or Rammstein in return for avenging Estonians.

Now could the deranged, incompetent, thoroughly senile, prone to aggression and unable to think clearly Biden do so anyways? Possibly but that's not to be taken as doctrine or strategic thought of the US so much as one angry, mentally unstable old man who bought into too many conspiracy theories (Russiagate) and vaguely hates Russians because he lived through the cold war.

In many ways the nuclear umbrella is a bluff. I mean thinking logically assuming your vassal gets wiped out by nukes, why would it make sense for you then to commit suicide by cop by attacking the same country and getting wiped out yourself just to punish them? There might be some white solidarity with western Europe and I wouldn't test it by trying to wipe out Britain or France or Germany but Poles, Estonians, Baltic fascists, most Americans don't know much about them or care. A minor retaliatory gesture maybe. Handing out nukes so countries can "defend themselves" maybe. But striking back and inviting your own demise for someone you were using as a pawn anyways? Eh. I'm just not entirely convinced.

It might have made some sense during the cold war when the Soviets had massive tank and troop divisions and could convincingly sweep into Europe and take over France, Germany, etc, where the idea was if you didn't nuke them then, it was but the opening gesture of a wider war and invasion, but with modern Russia which they know couldn't stand against NATO's combined forces without paying a terrible and too high price which they simply aren't willing to do, and which they know deep down has no intentions of trying to occupy or liberate western Europe, it makes little sense.