I don’t think I explained it very well.

They dont look to own the country when they overthrow it. Thats old school colonialism. Its expensive to maintain and people will dislike you for it. Neo colonialism has them pay for their colonisation from the start.

It’ll be for access to specific resources. Say they had, oh I dunno, oil. You install a puppet government thats 100% dependent on you, who knows they’ll be killed if they lost US backing, and you force them sell you their oil fields for a fraction of their worth.

Then, any revolution or even democratic vote that tries to take them back, despite how wrong and unlawfully they were obtained, would be seen as breaking international law and have them cut off from the rest of the world. Cuba was and still is meant as a warning to the rest of the Americas.

You don’t need the rest of the country to be prosperous for that. In fact, that would just push up the labour costs.

I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying. However, I think the reason it’s not sitting right with you is your assumption of good faith on their part.

What if they never cared if the country is more profitable generally and they just wanted to rip them off as much as possible before they realise what’s going on?

To me, their actions make far more sense if I presume that was what they really intended to do. More so, any assumption of good faith, as you point out, makes their behaviour seem, at best, bizzare.

100%. People only think them failures or the CIA as incompetent as they presume the CIAs illegal actions, in those instances, to have been done in good faith, despite the contradiction.

As always, the intended outcome was access to that particular country’s resources, for a very small group of wildly wealthy people, at regime-change prices.

When it comes to that, the CIA are amazing at what they do.

Its so mad that we have such a literal example of exactly what happens, due to prohibition, yet society refuses to see like for like. The mafia simply used the exact same routes to smuggle heroin. They didn’t disappear or die out, due to alcohol prohibition ending. They got into bed with the CIA, under operation gladio. What they did with crack wasn’t the first or the biggest example.

Like you said, you can’t people abusing substances. They remain illegal because somewhere some very powerful people are making too much money from them remaining so.

I want to live in a world where “stop cutting bits of babies dicks off” doesn’t require any further explanation.

“No, actually, its you who needs to justify cutting bits of babies dicks off. Not the other way round. Unless its hair, nails or connected to the mum, the default position is actually not to cut bits of the baby off.”

Na, his policies were nothing close to definitive on any positions. Honestly, that part of the left has been fighting the far right so long that they’ve lost track of where the lines are supposed to be and just lie as policy.

Well known by who? Where are these people? Are they in the room with us right now?

There isn’t anything to corroborate that he was ever either one of those, let alone switched. The people who didn’t want him to win the leadership simply declared it to be thus and such. Despite their claims, that not the same thing as it being true.

The “he switch after he won the leadership” is the part they made up. You have to realise that the label of neoliberal was given to him not only by his enemies within the party but by people who also don’t actually know anything at all about neoclassical economics and simply use the term as a slur to throw at anyone right of the socialist campaign group that they dont like. In fact, the term has all but lost its meaning due to them.

You’d have thought that there was something in-between being a socialist and a neoliberal but, Apparently, were to beleive thats not the case.

The problem is presuming someone needs incentive or malice to do that. The guy was soft-left and known to be so for years, right up until the very second he ran in the leadership election against corbyns heir Rebecca Long Bailey. At that exact moment, as if by magic, he became a neoliberal.

Its almost as if people made it up.

Its missleading to bass too much on that analysis. The parties don’t compete for the popular vote but to concentrate votes within seats they feel they can win.

No one was aiming to win the popular vote. I agree that’s a problem but we can’t really read to much into the split imo.

Crypto bros who follow ultra distorted stoicism (the only good philosophy is the ones made when slavery was normalised) that believe everyone else is unaware of what very basic knowledge they world they just learned that day.

Owning something isn’t a job, even if you stamp your feet and strop about it really hard. Thats why no definition of the word defines it as a job. Stop making up meanings for words, its pathetic.

Landlord

a person or organization that owns a building or an area of land and is paid by other people for the use of it:

NOT A JOB.

No, owning something, in of itself, isn’t a job. For example, you own the device on which you’re typing you’re utter nonsense. Is you owning your device a job?

Have you ever seen a job vacancy for “landlord”?

No, of course not. Thats why “landlord” isn’t a job.

No, you can’t just make up words either. It’s deliberately misused slang, at best. Even then, I didn’t say it was or wasn’t a word. Please try and keep the sophistry to a minimum. I said it wasn’t a verb as “landlord” isn’t a job and “landlording” isn’t a doing word.

That’s recruitment, not being a landlord. Recruitment is work.

Regardless of what names they may or may not have, owning something, in of itself, isn’t a job.

You’re making this seem a lot harder than it actually is.

Again, you’re wrong. “Landlord” sn’t work.

landlord

a person or organization that owns a room, building, or piece of land that someone else pays rent to use

You can’t just make up you’re own definition of words. A landlord can outsource all of that to a management company and still be a landlord.

Maintenance is work and people should be paid for work. However, the landlord will get paid regardless of who does it. Thats because “landlord” isn’t work which is why “landlording” isn’t a verb.

Its not me who’s wrong, as owning something isn’t work.

Now, they might do some repairs or maintenance but thats actual work and not what they’re paid for.

What they’re paid for is for doing no work and they, like shareholders, are the only people who expect to be paid for doing no work.

Our society is so messed up that they even have people declaring ownership is work, on their behalf.

100% and they should swap jobs too. You hear from Christians all the time “this is the devils work” or “Satan made me do it.”

Conversely, how often do you hear this?

“What, that place? That one their? Yeah, that place is heaven on earth.”

Never

But “hell on earth” we hear all the time. You know why?

Because Satan is busy.

Imagine how much work hed do, if he got to be in charge. “Wanna know what will really piss yahweh off?”

1. they can but they’re so few and far between that they don’t need mentioning. Loads will claim to have been born poor too but experience has left me unable to trust those claims. I even reference the fact that its not literally all off them, so I’m not sure why you needed to mention it again.

2. All landlords, I was very clear about that but people making money through simply being a middle person sucks too. Nothing close to landlords though which is why I didn’t mention them and they aren’t covered by what I said.

3. Ah yes, the old “bitter or a hypocrite” trope. It has to be one or the other, as the amoral people who throw it around can’t comprehend a moral objection to exploitation, usually due to poor empathy and even poorer social skills. The only people who want something for doing no work is landlords and shareholders. Its just astral level projection from people born to wealth, who even try to moralise their explanation by claiming everyone else, not born to their privilege and opportunity, must be lazy.

It turns out, they dont care about anyone being bitter or hypothetical, let alone the morality of just about anything. They just really don’t want people talking about inequality or exploitation.

People extorting money due to the finite nature of land, for the sole reason of having been born with better access to capital.

It’s just making money, due to having money. They didn’t invent anything, they didnt discover and invest in an emerging company. They didn’t do anything innovative or clever. Anyone born to wealth could have done it. Which is why those are, by far and away, the vast majority of landlords.

Even a Conservative, union busting aristocrat like Churchill knew how bad landlordism was and landlords have been hated throughout all of human history. It’s only the current neoliberal plague who’ve attempted to moralise it with rich people worship and bootstrap paradoxes.

Yes to the first part but what do you think would happen to the American drug market if they did that?

Well, you see, rather than directly engaging the things they actually said you, instead, chose to ask them about things they didn’t say and wanting proof of things they never claimed, essentially giving them unrelated homework for a comment you seemed unduly suspicious of. They talked about very specific instances of lies.

Fascists are also right wing and the lies they’re talking about, per their comment, are the deaths that happened under fascism.

They may not know about all those things you asked but still have knowledge about the things they said.

Hope that helps.