AnarchoEngineer

Rule 2 is that the shower thought must be contained in the title. The main shower thought is in the title. The extra text is an explanation of the thought.

Rule 3 is no politics, but a) everything is politics and b) the rule mentions that if one is making a potentially political post, they should avoid using political terms like “capitalism” and “communism.” I didn’t use those terms, and I didn’t explicitly state that certain actors are to blame or that they are better/worse than others. I think that satisfies the grey-area requirements of rule 3.

Rule 2 is that the shower thought must be contained in the title. The main shower thought is in the title. The extra text is an explanation of the thought.

Rule 3 is no politics, but a) everything is politics and b) the rule mentions that if one is making a potentially political post, they should avoid using political terms like “capitalism” and “communism.” I didn’t use those terms. I also didn’t explicitly state comparisons like worse/better. So I’m pretty sure I’ve met the grey-area requirements of rule 3.

Do you know who's been fueling and powering those right wing movements here? Yup, it's, again, something from burgerland: facebook, twitter... and now even tiktok. Getting rid of them would only do us good.

Actually iirc most of the right wing bots/mouthpieces exposed on twitter were not posting from the US. Now the people paying them might have been American or may desire to prop up parts of the American govt., but again, I doubt the interests behind that kind of propaganda will just disappear with the government. They’ll move to manipulating whatever country they can and keep going.

We're not that generation of people. We are much less interested in war, and proof is how many people in Europe today don't want a war with Iran. It's not "just a few".

Believe it or not the same can be said of “burgerland” There are unfortunately many people who supported Trump near me. Even those people do not want this war. Will they still enable it through inaction and apathy? Absolutely, but my guess is that applies to Europe just as much as it does to the US.

Europe only wants weapons because the world is becoming more violent since burgerland elected the pedofile.

And the collapse of the US will simply be painted as another sign or rising violence in the world.

Look I honestly hope you’re right, and I’m sorry to fight your optimism with my rather pessimistic view of humanity, but I don’t think the collapse of the US will be the miracle cure you hope for.

Regardless, in the event we do prevail, if revolution takes the US, remember it’ll be up to you and others in Europe to prevent the evils that escaped our grasp from taking root over there and starting the process all over again

Inshallah comrade

This wasnt meant to be “1984 was so right! Orwell is a prophet”

I just remembered that specific quote in the shower and realized it seems like it’s—the quote, not the book as a whole—already come true

I suppose I didn’t think about the distance, but in the past I don’t think that’s been much of an issue. WWII seems to be a good example of war literally right outside the countries involved. The isolation of the US actually seemed to discourage involvement rather than encourage it.

Now I’d imagine the immediate aftermath of the collapse would slow conflicts for a time. However, I think the collapse of the US would increase the already increasing desire for weapons production in Europe and with “defense companies” in the US dissolving, the manpower would head wherever there is pay for weapons. (Or it would stay in the US forming terrifying little weapons manufacturer feudalist states still making weapons for wars across the sea… I really shouldn’t give the universe any ideas…)

I also think the collapse of the US will fuel the already growing right wing movements in other countries as Nationalism and “protecting our country from the enemy” will become even stronger pathos in the wake of fear and insecurity caused by the upset in world order.

On your note of locality, Ive just had an interesting thought: Maybe the most effective way to end war in the east would be to have multiple simultaneous armed conflicts happen nearer to every nation. If you are dealing with a war on the home front, it is unlikely you’ll be willing to spend resources far away. And people who have seen the ravages of war first hand are probably not going to want to start new ones once the fighting finally stops. Kind of like forest fires doing less damage if they burn through a forest quickly, the world explodes with war and for once actually tires itself out.

Not to be a downer, but if the US fell, do you really think there would no longer be oil or other interests in the Middle East? Do you think Israel would simply give up and actually keep a peace treaty just because the American government fell?

I doubt it. If the US were to collapse, the rich who survive would move to other countries, as would the majority of people involved in the military industrial complex. And Israel and others would simply end up buying the same tech from new countries.

Those who profit off the war would simply pay for weapons and propaganda from new nations; the demand would not fall and the supply would rise to meet it. The players might have different names, but I think the wars would go on just the same.