They don’t have to be entirely mutually exclusive. Though I imagine the most consistent form is just a left-facing liberal: like one that values philanthropy.

Though I have argued that some kinds of anarchists can embody this unholy fusion by way of contributing to society by removing themselves from it. Kind of requires rural homesteading in my experience, having known a few folks that I think could be defined that way.

…Though those homesteading types are often prone to going all sov-cit or worse. Also based from experience.

They’re just past the end of the pier, those big things that aren’t seals.

The ability to disrespect UN resolutions is kind of the expected, normal outcome for any entity within America’s sphere of influence.

The industry benefits most from Israel attacking its neighbors as well as Ukraine’s defense being prolonged to the maximum extent possible.

Makes sense from that perspective to me.

The cash cow of monthly subscriptions to games really kinda poisoned game development. Too much a prize for corporate to leave the games alone.

Everything since WoW has had some income generator grafted in to compete.

Oz was clearly the worse choice in the scenario.

From my time with a county government: homeless tend to cycle between being within municipal city limits, unincorporated county, and state/federal lands like Dept of Transportation lots with highway overpasses and such.

Shuffling between jurisdictions keeps legal proceedings ever going anywhere.

.:|:;

What you end up with when all you have is ‘the other guy is worse.’

Ride the Whale.

Internet Nationalism. Brave choice.

If all of that food was prepared by noon it might not have been so suitable to eat in the back half when appetites might’ve kicked in. But please note I was a health inspector once and I fully recognize that my thought processes aren’t common.

Accepting that is like taking a leaf blower to your average normies political house of cards.

RIP Taiwanese electronic device export economy.

She is playing a post-Trump game and knows a looming power vacuum when she sees one.

I think if you’ve approached anything I have written here as a refuation of your initial premise, then yeah you probably are feeling that way. You’re trying to manufacture an argument where there isn’t actually one. If the greater context as to what led to such an absurd premise of 1931 is such a conundrum, then it should probably be left at that.

The absurdity of the KPDs position in 1931 is laughable. The context of what led to this absurdity becoming the actual policy and historical event is fascinating and worth learning about, but obviously not here nor for you.

The period of time where the KPD became Stalinist and Thalmann took over? When the Nazis became powerful with th3 support of the ebtrenched hyper right wing? That’s the context I am getting at. That period of time was the SPD hemorraging support in all directions, be it to KPD or NSDAP. Like, I am highlighting the absurdity of the 1930s KPD position here that the failings to stop the Nazis thus far led to Thallman thinking that absurd policy had a shot.

The SA 100% grew out of Freikorps.

And 1920-1928 is not the 8 years prior to 1931, or a half decade.

Being so loosey goosey with these things doesn’t mesh with the kinds of statements you keep making here.

The whole organization of the German (prussian) military was not just Freikorps. That whole machination which Ebert helped maintain is what I am explicitly referencing and including. Even so: that period of time where Freikorps effectively disbanded was when they converted into orgs like Consul or the SA starting in the 1920s. That component isn’t as fragmented or inconsequential as it may seem. There is continuity there and it isn’t insane to know about it.

KPD that had had a very productive relationship with the SPD for the past 8 or so years

They really did not. The SPD fucked up Weimar by working with all the right wing factions in the 20s and then the KPD fucked up by working with the right wing faction in the 30s. The united front collapsed in like 1922, or at least by the 1924 elections and definitely by the time Hindenburg was president from 1925.

The fraught politics of post war Germany was so chaotic that it resulted in something so crazy and insane to a modern reviewer: the KPD actively supporting Hitler like it was going to work out.

I really am more focused on the whole Prussian military organization structure and the coalition with the Freikorps, who were demonstrably anti-democratic monarchist military groups in direct coalition with the Ebert government. It is such a major component to the whole SPD-KPD relationship that was so bad it led to Thallman actively supporting Hitler.

The context as to what led Thallman’s KPD to arrive at such a disastrous policy you’re referencing here is something I think is interesting and important for people to know about. Obviously such history is offensive for this topic, and not what you were looking for.

Funny how tankies and their apologists always leave that out.

How is highlighting the aftermath of World War 1 and that context leaving it out? Specifically in the attempt to include the anarchy of post war Europe is hardly a nefarious or intentional omission. Don’t mistake calling out a truncated timeline as a call for another one. I am refrencing the roving bands of militant monarchists seeking to overthrow the nascent republic and you’re missing that?

The critical issue is Ebert (who inherited authority from the monarchy initially) made a coalition with the Freikorps to allow the Weimar republic to inherit the separate governance for the military that existed in the Reich. That was instrumental and core to the issue. The organization and governance of Germany military until, like, NATO, was extremely hostile to democracy itself, amd surprisingly also a critical barrier to german communism in any form, be it spartacist, stalinist, or whatever.

Ebert making his pact with Groener after being given power, but before elections, shouldn’t be overlooked either. Pact in November 1918, extrajudicial slayings by Freikorps a week before the January 1919 elections.

“Compromising” here meaning “If you surrender we’ll give you amnesty”. Wow, what an astounding compromise.

Yes, this is the historical context. Compare to the level of amnesty given to communists who were summarily executed.

The failure of the proletariat revolution to succeed in Europe, especially in Germany, left Russia as the only successful revolution. The shift away from permanent revolution by the trotsky wings into stalins ‘socialism in one country’ was a response to what happened primarily in Germany and Hungary. It should be of no surprise communists in Germany by the 30s were following the USSR line.