ReadFanon

This is the point where, if I was an organiser in the UK, I would start pushing really hard for raising awareness about how the watermelon is symbolic of support for Palestine and I'd start organising watermelon-based protests, including the strategic deployment of watermelons left at the entrances to Zionist organisations.

If they want to push demonstrations for Palestine underground, so be it. Getting arrested as a prisoner of conscience in the UK isn't going to serve the interests of Palestinians.

But imagine how fragile and absurd the Zionists would look if they tried to suppress the celebration of watermelons and public watermelon eating events or if people started getting brought up on terrorism charges for "accidentally" leaving a shopping bag with a watermelon on the steps of buildings.

Not only would judges be virtually forced to throw out any charges laid against people for this stuff but it would be an absolute media coup to have big Zionist organisations playing victim by cowering in terror at a watermelon left on their steps.

So American-centric you'd think there's barely any other country besides the US

Like all MPs, I had no further information than the Speaker provided

I, too, do not have a smartphone or an internet connection 😔

¡Venceremos!

Agreed.

It's stuff like this that makes me realise how much better a head of state Thomas Sankara was than I'll ever be though. Homie refused to use airconditioning in his office because it was considered a luxury in Burkina Faso.

I believe Suslov was another revolutionary figure who eschewed the privileges that he had access to on the grounds that if it was good enough for the masses then it's good enough for him.

NAFO and its consequences have been a disaster for the online discourse.

Imagine having the confidence to make ahistorical claims that are this outrageous. Either you're duped or you're an op.

Thank you, robot.

There are a few things to consider:

Mao's paper tiger

The average lifespan of an empire is 250 years

That the situation has always been desperate and hopeless, perhaps moreso in periods of history than it is today. We can look to the battle of Stalingrad or the Long March or the period around the October Revolution as examples of just how desperate things have been and how we have been able to prevail against all odds. Heck, Lenin didn't expect to see the revolution in his lifetime and then in a few short years he ended up leading it.

I'm not going to go into depth on this because I don't have the focus rn but ultimately this is a question of having a world to win and daring to invent the future. We have two propositions:

• We are in a hopeless situation with no potential for achieving revolution
• We are in a situation which has potential for achieving a revolution

The importance of revolutionary optimism cannot be overstated. (There are some good video essays out there on this topic.)

Ultimately, the choice is between an attitude of defeatism or revolutionary optimism. If we choose defeatism then we foreclose on the potential for revolution because, if an opportunity for revolution exists, we will not be in a position to seize it.

If we choose revolutionary optimism, on the other hand, we have the ability to seize the opportunity.

We cannot allow ourselves to foreclose on the opportunity for revolution because we will only ever know if something is possible by striving for it and, in achieving it, proving that it is in fact possible retrospectively.

Errr why should we? Because jungle and imaginary yankee toughs? I'm not sold on this analogy.

I mean, your interpretation is as valid as mine. But I think you haven't done my words justice in your summary of the points that I made to support my interpretation. You've either responded before reading my whole comment or you've spent too much time on Reddit.

Predator reads more like Wells' "War of the worlds" - turning the situation upside down on the colonizers. Suddenly they're the ones being hunted for sport by uncaring invader with absurd levels of technological superiority (while still acting as if it's fair and square).

An analogy is such because it's not a 1:1 representation and it never will be. If it were meant to be a perfect representation of the Vietnam war then it would be a biopic or a documentary. There's no inviolable rule that you can't invert parts of your allegory and clearly this was done to make a Hollywood blockbuster action-scifi film.

The predator wasn't a coloniser imo. There's less in the movie to support the idea that the predator was colonising the jungle than there is for the Vietnam war allegory. A foreigner in a different land doesn't amount to colonisation.

I was trying to find the quote from someone who was involved in production who said that if it were a few years earlier then Predator would have been set in Vietnam when I came across this opinion piece which makes a better case for the film being a Vietnam War allegory (while explaining the predator's high tech) than I did.

Didn't nafo already use the "I'm doing my part" bit from the movie, completely serious and missing the satire?

Maybe I'm blessed because I haven't been exposed to nearly anything from the NAFO chuds but I'd absolutely believe this from a group of people who are rapidly circling the ideological drain hole that is fascism.

If we consider the Predator movie, at least the first one, to be an allegory for the Vietnam war because it featured jungle warfare and commando bros facing off against an enemy that is virtually invisible, implacable, utterly alien and incomprehensible, and entirely determined to hunt down and kill the invaders (often in torturous ways) while the commando bros are pretty much helpless against the predator as they get picked off one by one...

Then they've kinda missed the entire message underlying the movie.

If they think "better equipment = we're like the predator" then they're failing to grasp the fact that the true terror in the film doesn't come from better technology but from an enemy which can blend seamlessly into the environment, which could be anywhere at any time, and is completely unstoppable. The technology is just window-dressing because if it were about a regiment of small Vietnamese people armed with AK-47s it wouldn't be much of a spectacle and it wouldn't play into macho power fantasies.

So, if the story is a metaphor about an enemy which is comparatively poorly armed using their skills and the terrain to their advantage, defeating what is assumed to be the best of the best, then why are they using it to brag about having better equipment again?

Next they're going to use Starship Troopers in completely the wrong way as a metaphor for the war in the Ukraine, aren't they?

[Rules-based order intensifies]