King_Simp

I'm currently writing something criticizing Roderick Stackelberg's introduction to his textbook Hitlers Germany: Origins, Legacy, Interpretations.

I feel pretty confident that my arguments are sound, but like...idk...I'm not a historian? I don't have a history degree [I'm a STEM major], I don't have a background in it, etc. So it just feels...wrong I guess? I mean I get everyone can and should be criticized, but some of the things he says are...well I'll just save the quotes for the full article. It just makes me anxious that either I'm wrong and I just don't know it yet, or I'm right and my perception of education gets a lot worse.

I get like this criticizing people with economics degrees to.

Almonds (happy 66th anniversary)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Sade

The French revolution. It's the French revolution. [On English YT, I'm actually curious what French YT is like with it]

I mean seriously, go look up the French revolution on youtube right now. For an event that is not only important for Marxists to understand and represents an important case study of class struggle through the ages, but also has some dissenting opinions in the historical and histiographic academic sphere, basically all of the videos (save for maybe one or two documentaries) are from, at the best, an extremely Girondist perspective, if not an outright Ancien one.

I mean you can get good stuff on the Russian and Chinese revolutions by people like Finbol and Onedime*, and there's plenty of stuff on modern china and imperialism and all that [not saying that this content shouldn't be produced, just that I don't think i could add much to it].

But on English YT, you can call Robsepierre the most evil person in French history and no one bats an eye. So if I ever have the time, setup, and self loathing it'd require to make something on it, I would definitely like to.

(*I am aware that 1dime might have said something apparently Patsoc like on a podcast or something a while ago. I can't find it again [thanks to reddit nuking thedeprogram] but if that's a problem I just want to say I'm aware of it.)

Edit:People in the comments have pointed out that 1dime is not a communist, is a moralist, and a patsoc. I still reccomend his videos on the cultural revolution as decent sources not plagued by the usual garbage, but [as with anything, bit especially here] view it with a critical lense

So...idk, i guess I'm in a dilemma right now.

I made a previous post about a year ago I think, talking about how I might have adhd. Nowadays I'm pretty sure about that [I never got diagnosed though, that'll be explained shortly]. Recently I've had a couple stress related issues, including a full on mental breakdown, and decided to look around to see if there was something wrong with me Moreso than just being dysphoric and having adhd.

I think...I think I might have BPD too. I just...on the one hand, I'd like to know if my mood swings, anger issues, fear of abandonment, and identity crisises have an explanation beyond just "I suck and I'm the worst." But at the same time...I don't know if I even should get diagnosed for anything.

If I want to medically transition, bam, mental health disqualification/stonewalling

If I want to immigrate, bam, disqualified

And what does that even mean for me ideologically? Adhd is one thing, but I know how people see people with BPD. And I mean, what if thats why I'm a communist? If I was normal would I be something else?

I hate it. I hate not knowing who I am. I like to think i make decisions logically. But I don't. I'm this fucking bundle of chemicals constantly ready to explode.

And then what about medication? If I do get diagnosed do I want to medicate myself? But that's going to change me. I don't want to be changed by pharmaceuticals. I don't even drink coffee because I don't like things fucking with the chemistry in my head. But it's for the best if I don't end up hurting myself and others, right? But this is me. This is all I've known. I can't conceptualize myself without my hyperactivity, my fear of abandonment, my identity issues. I don't want the bad parts of those, but I also want the good parts. If I get medicated then am I just going to be some guy? A guy who just goes to work, comes home, focuses on stuff and who's brain is quiet? That's a functional human being. Maybe that'd be a better person than what I am. But that's not me. I want to be me...

Antonio Gramsci, Dominic Losurdo, Silvia Fredirici, etc. [Technically Michael Parenti if we go by his surname, and the fact that New York City is rightful Italian land (/s)].

Obviously there are good authors everywhere [and obviously AES states have more], but I feel like Italians get a slightly bigger proportion of non-AES originated publications compared to other places like Germany and Britain [although in the latter's case, their intellectuals are so endlessly insufferable im genuinely considering calling for a ban on all publications from the god forsaken island]

Anyway, probably just confirmation bias, but if anyone has any thoughts on it then id love to here them

I know no one here is part of the Russian government, so I'm not expecting concrete answers here.

What I'm asking is simply what will happen if [well, when, at this point] The Ukraine ends up...falling, per se?

That's a question in of itself really. Will Ukraine fight until the AFU collapses? Will there be a coup? Would a pro russian or neutral ukraine be established across all of what is currently the Ukraine, or will there be an attempt to make a "taiwan-ified" state in the west?

Tldr (go watch Angela Collier's video on him for the full story), Richard Feynmann was a really good physicist and educator, but his most popular stuff is usually him being a misogynistic asshole [going a strip club and playing bongos, speaking gibberish and saying he was simply speaking a "regional dialect" to foreigners, forcing waitresses to earn their tip by making them answer physics questions in the middle of their shift, etc.].

That really how I feel with Bad Empanada. Because his main channel is good, well sourced and does a good job at educating people on anti imperialist causes.

But I never hear about that really. All I hear from people who like him are all of his really bad takes and his constant brain rot on Twitter and bluesky.

I would much rather hear about his really well researched videos on the Iraq War and Israel's genocide. I don't want to hear about some tirade he made on twitter/Bsky about something or other.

Like, 90% of his videos on his main channel are good, and the ones I criticize are at the very least still professional. But I don't see content from those, I only constantly see content from his live channel and his Twitter. And I'm like...why? Why emphasize this part so much? Sure you can't separate the two, but there's the really, really good part of the person, and then the part where he's an abrasive asshole. Why are you emphasizing on the second part?

Sorry, this isn't some in depth debunking of him on anything. Like I said, I do like what he does and I think he is mostly correct. But for some reason people [who support him and all his views] love emphasizing the bits where he's wrong for some reason. So I just wanted to vent that out.

Edit: There's also the flipside of this, which is Hasan. I think Hasan is very friendly, pretty mature, and someone who is all round respectable. At the same time, I think his actual work is pretty meh at best, detrimental at worst. To go back to my Feynmann analogy, I might think that Neil Degrasse Tyson seems like a pretty okay guy who I would like to have a conversation with, and not as much of an ass as Feynmann. But Feynmann was definitely a much, much better physicist and educator than Tyson

Obviously intially places like the GDR and Cuba didnr immediately become bastions of lgtbq rights, but overtime they definitely developed a lot in that respect. I can understand the intial roll back of these rights right after a revolution (like on Cuba), and then gradually reexpanding over time. The idea being that homosexuality is viewed as Bourgeois decadence because the Bourgeois wouldn't be punished (as much) for that behavior, so instead of getting rid of the law they apply it equally across society. Of course this is wrong and eventually the people choose to give more rights to lgbtq people.

China and other Asian countries also kinda had this issue, but it seems to be more of a general conservatism and indifference, depending on where you are. So Vietnam is generally pretty positive, China in the middle and the DPRK closer to Russia and such.

So I'm just curious why the USSR and it's constituent states were and are so against the idea. Not in a moralist "omg I can't believe it" way, just that the incongruence confuses me. Sure, after the USSR collapse and the focus against western imperialism, I can definitely see why they're this way because of imperialist pink washing. But why was this never changed during the cold war, while in East Germany it was?

If you're a physics nerd like me I think you should check out her channel.

She's a theoretical physicist (and I think Doctorate holder) who does youtube videos on physics, famous scientists, and some other things. Personally my favorite videos of hers are her videos on anti-matter, dark matter, Richard Feynmann, and "relativistic mass."

Personally this channel is a really great breathe of fresh air. It feels like a lot of physics channels kinda fall into one of four categories which are

1.Sensationalist stuff, talking about Sci fi or random thought experiments or stuff like that. Think Kyle Hill, Thomas Mulligan, and kurgezact [I can't remember how to spell it. The stupid channel with the stupid birds and the stupid british narrator]

2. Conspiracy and "anti woke" channels like Sabine Hossfelder (yes, the same one Hakim made a video on) (no, I don't understand how you can have "conspiracy physics" either)

3. Basic educational channels (these aren't bad obviously, but they tend to just talk about high school or undergrad topics which might get dull after a while. Sensationalist channels also tend to to this sometimes)

4.Actual physics channels that are basically college courses. Not bad but absolutely crush you if you dont genuinely have a masters on physics

Collier does a really good job at presenting more novel information in a good way, while also not condesending to the viewer like a lot of other channels can do. She's also very mature while also talking about sensitive issues like how women are treated in STEM. She basically treats it as "physics is cool because it's physics," which is nice. Sensationalist and pop physics channels tend to be more along the lines of "physics is cool because it can make atoms fuse to make nuclear anti matter blackheads which create infinite energy and FTL travel." (I'm being hyperbolic, the point is that they don't care about physics, they care about what physics can do. That's not necessarily a bad thing on its own, but if you like physics for it's own sake it can be a bit draining)

That's about it. I know not everyone here is interested, but I'm guessing at least a few of us here are nerds like me so I wanted to reccomend her just in case anyone here would like her but hasn't heard of her.

Preface: I'm currently reading The Hegel Reader, edited by Stephan Houlgate. After giving it one go around I'm going to go look at interpretations and such. My first one after this will probably be Losurdo's book on the matter. I don't like just relying on interpretations, though, although I recognize their value. I want to put in my own work in trying to understand him.

Also, I rotate my books throughout the day, so I'm reading it concurrently with Capital (which im rereading with Hegel specifically to understand the dia-mat better, since the first time through i only came for the economics) and War and Peace. This actually makes it easier, because it gives me a break, while still keeping my brain in thinking mode.

Anyway

Oh my god I can't understand anything. I've gotten through his early works of

-the earliest system-programme of german idealism -love -Fragment of a system -difference between fichtes and Schellings system

And the preface to the Phrenology of Spirit.

I think I've understood like...two concepts? I recognize the unity of opposites because marxism relies heavily on it, and then I think I understand the argument he posits of needing philosophy for science (in that, to go from sensory inputs to actual understanding, you need a process for actually understanding and deriving meaning. Like how you need to know a process of turning leather into shoes and such).

There's also his stuff about the finite and infinite and the absolute and such and...I can recognize the point I think, but I couldn't describe it even if I had a gun pointed at me.

Overall im spent though. I genuinely feel like I've ran a mile just trying to understand what he's saying. I'm thankful I'm able to understand any of it at all tbh

There's actually a quote from war and peace (referring to a charecter in the book, not Hegel) that I'm thinking of right now,

"because of the self confidence with which he had spoken, no one could tell whether what he had said was very clever or very stupid."

I'm sure Hegel is leaning on the clever side here but it gave me a good chuckle when I read it