Alaskaball

And just a reminder. In communist China, you can be a pain in the ass by obstructing tanks trying to exist a parade, argue with the commander, then get rushed away by other normal people going "dude what the Hell's your problem"

In capitalist America if you step out of line by doing something as minor a exersizing your constitutional rights, you'll be maimed or murdered. Hell sometimes you'll get maimed and murdered because the schutzstaffel feel like it

CBS NEWS: “We saw no bodies, injured people, ambulances or medical personnel — in short, nothing to even suggest, let alone prove, that a “massacre” had occurred in [Tiananmen Square]”

BBC NEWS: “I was one of the foreign journalists who witnessed the events that night. There was no massacre on Tiananmen Square”

NY TIMES: In June 13, 1989, NY Times reporter Nicholas Kristof – who was in Beijing at that time – wrote, “State television has even shown film of students marching peacefully away from the [Tiananmen] square shortly after dawn as proof that they [protesters] were not slaughtered.” In that article, he also debunked an unidentified student protester who had claimed in a sensational article that Chinese soldiers with machine guns simply mowed down peaceful protesters in Tiananmen Square.

REUTERS: Graham Earnshaw was in the Tiananmen Square on the night of June 3. He didn’t leave the square until the morning of June 4th. He wrote in his memoir that the military came, negotiated with the students and made everyone (including himself) leave peacefully; and that nobody died in the square.

200-300 people died in clashes in various parts of Beijing, around June 4 — and about half of those who died were soldiers and cops..

A Wikileaks cable from the US Embassy in Beijing (sent in July 1989) also reveals the eyewitness accounts of a Latin American diplomat and his wife: “They were able to enter and leave the [Tiananmen] square several times and were not harassed by troops. Remaining with students … until the final withdrawal, the diplomat said there were no mass shootings in the square or the monument.”

Numerous military buses, trucks, armored vehicles, and tanks being burned by the “peaceful” protesters. Sometimes the soldiers were allowed to escape, and sometimes they were brutally killed by the protesters. Numerous protesters were armed with Molotov cocktails and even guns.

Wall Street Journal: In an article from June 5, 1989, the Wall Street Journal described some of this violence: “Dozens of soldiers were pulled from trucks, severely beaten and left for dead. At an intersection west of the square, the body of a young soldier, who had been beaten to death, was stripped naked and hung from the side of a bus.”

The official report of the Chinese government from 1989 (translated here) shows that more than 1000 military and police vehicles were burned by rioters. And 200+ soldiers and policemen were murdered. Just imagine how much restraint the military and the police had shown.

Wait, how could the protesters kill so many soldiers? Because, until the very end, Chinese soldiers were unarmed. Most of the times, they didn’t even have helmets or batons.

What exactly happened in Beijing in 1989 that lead to this bloody affair?

The answer lies with two key figures: General Secretary Hu Yaobang, and Ambassador James Lilley.

Hu Yaobang was a member of the communist party of China and was one of the three major rightist-reformers that set China on the path its on today, the other two being Zhao Ziyang, and Deng Xiaoping respectively. Hu Yaobang as a reformer was also a spokesman for the intelligentsia and by the end of his life was well-beloved by the youth of China (we're talking below 30 here, folks) therefore when he passed away the youth of China organized public grieving events with the largest occurring in Beijing. This is to say if Hu didn't die from old age that year, none of this would've happened that year. This is to also say this event had nothing to do with "freedom" or "democracy" or whatever pigshit your favorite rush limburger propagandist spoon feeds you, it was a funeral service that was hijacked to unseat the Chinese government - which so coincidentally is a speciality of the agency the second person we're talking about.

Ambassador James Lilley, the son of an american expat oil executive for Standard Oil, was a CIA agent operating in east Asia from 1951 to 1981 with little officially known about him (I know for a fact he's fucked around Korea and Laos, so it's not a stretch to say he's likely been involved with every conflict that occured during his official career). In his "post" CIA career he's acted as a diplomatic liason to the provice of Taiwan, a teacher to future state department ghouls, and "helped" South Korea end its military dicatorship by helping the military win the election "democratically", and abruptly five days after the death of General Secretary Hu Yaobang James Lilley was appointed as the US Ambassador to China by also former CIA ghoul and president of the United States George H. W. Bush. What an astounding coincidence.

In an article from Vancouver Sun (17 Sep 1992) described the role of the CIA: “The Central Intelligence Agency had sources among [Tiananmen Square] protesters” … and “For months before [the protests], the CIA had been helping student activists form the anti-government movement.”

With the division of labour, in which all these contradictions are implicit, and which in its turn is based on the natural division of labour in the family and the separation of society into individual families opposed to one another, is given simultaneously the distribution, and indeed the unequal distribution, both quantitative and qualitative, of labour and its products, hence property: the nucleus, the first form, of which lies in the family, where wife and children are the slaves of the husband. This latent slavery in the family, though still very crude, is the first property, but even at this early stage it corresponds perfectly to the definition of modern economists who call it the power of disposing of the labour-power of others. Division of labour and private property are, moreover, identical expressions: in the one the same thing is affirmed with reference to activity as is affirmed in the other with reference to the product of the activity.

Further, the division of labour implies the contradiction between the interest of the separate individual or the individual family and the communal interest of all individuals who have intercourse with one another. And indeed, this communal interest does not exist merely in the imagination, as the “general interest,” but first of all in reality, as the mutual interdependence of the individuals among whom the labour is divided. And finally, the division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now.

• Marx. The German Ideology.

Tl:DR work under capitalism fucking sucks because it's exploiting us and not fighting for your liberation is politically divisive

Lmao. The FBI: famously non-political government organization that murders activists as easily as one can breath air.

And Microsoft: famously non-political company that ~~bribes~~ lobbies the u.s government constantly to gain monopoly over their market, works hand-in-hand with federal agencies to monitor system users, and regularly influences city, state, and national politics in the pursuit of subsidies of the American worker in order to further boost their already gross profit margins.

Alright so what you need is 3 large portobello mushrooms, ¼ cup canola oil (or oil of your choice), ¼ cup balsamic vinegar, 3 tablespoons chopped onion, and 4 minced cloves garlic.

First Clean the mushrooms; remove stems, reserving them for another use. Place mushroom caps gill-side up in a shallow dish.

Then Combine oil, balsamic vinegar, onion, and garlic in a small bowl. Pour mixture evenly over mushroom caps; let marinate at room temperature for 1 hour.

Go and Preheat the grill to medium-high heat; grease the grate.

Lastly, Grill those suckers over the hot grill until caramelized and tender, about 5 minutes per side; serve warm.

Now this is a post I can get behind.

Take a hike, hug a tree, run your fingers through blades of grass, stare at nature and take it in.

Maybe even get a cheeky grill in while you're at it

Set up all the groundwork for funding the Mujahideen terrorists in Afghanistan, the funding of the dictatorship and death squads in El Salvadore, setting up the groundwork for the fuckery Reagan did with Iran-Contra.

If "on the planet" you mean primarily the U.S and secondarily the rest of the "west" while excluding the majority of humanity on the planet, then sure.

You're so brainwashed and conditioned into believing you have more in common with some ghoul billionaire that values your life insofar as much as they can extract wealth out of you than your own fellow worker.