I am now convinced that universities must be defunded. At least whoever is funding writing dog vomit like that.
All the western scholars who want to write about shit like that should instead invert their tiny minds and examine why they think it was Kim who started the war and not the US/SK? Why is the significance placed on who crossed an arbitrary line on a map but no significance is placed on a supposed liberal democracy propping up the remnants of fascistic imperial Japanese rule? Why is no significance paid to the US being very aware of the desires of the Koreans (north and south) to go towards socialism with Kim as their war hero and first leader, like a Korean Stalin or Mao, and actively provoking an armed conflict and preventing the people from enacting their desires?
Because examining any of that would expose the authoritarian and imperialistic reality of the west and specifically the US. Instead let’s theorize about the machinations of the Arab and Asian brains. Get out the calipers. It’s skull measuring time.
That’s a hell of a spicy meatball of projection in the first paragraph.
I’m not gonna read that, just to be honest, but I wonder if systemic violence is even acknowledged? they bring up violence used by Mao (against literal fucking warlords… oops guess we just forgot to contextualize that…) but is the inherent violence of existence in China, Russia, etc. brought up? Ie Tsarist forces, being conscripted into the military to die as fodder, being slaughtered at the whim of a warlord or colonial army…
It’s fucking hilarious to think that Mao or Stalin or Kim (or even Hitler or Saddam) had a lower “perception” of the costs of violence THAN BUREACRATS IN WASHINGTON.
This entire bullshit is premised on “no no the US isn’t authoritarian stfu”
Also I need this author to define revisionism or revisionist because that’s a nonsensical second paragraph.
“Jackals” and wolves is an academic way of describing degrees of revisionism.
Is classifying people revisionist rats also academic level on this scale? A certain scholar in Wisconsin might have been using American academic language do describe degrees of revisionism.
There is also the strange undialectical manner of being satiated vs being insatiable. Some people have their needs met and others don’t. Those that don’t have their needs met will want to change things. Perhaps you should try to meet everyones needs as much as possible then you’ll have fewer people causing you trouble, but no that would be communism.
Every US “international relations” department is funded by NatSec ghouls. Agencies, spin-off NGOs, etc. They don’t even need to be competent (exhibit A: this article), just the right political orientation.
Case in point, this graphic of an analysis (2011) of the actual US international relations literature:
I’ll oversimplify what these mean in this note below.
Note that “non-paradigmatic” just means it combines multiple, and so it usually means a combination of liberalism (everything is about money), realism (everything is about the state), and constructivism (everything is about ideas and norms)
I am now convinced that universities must be defunded. At least whoever is funding writing dog vomit like that.
All the western scholars who want to write about shit like that should instead invert their tiny minds and examine why they think it was Kim who started the war and not the US/SK? Why is the significance placed on who crossed an arbitrary line on a map but no significance is placed on a supposed liberal democracy propping up the remnants of fascistic imperial Japanese rule? Why is no significance paid to the US being very aware of the desires of the Koreans (north and south) to go towards socialism with Kim as their war hero and first leader, like a Korean Stalin or Mao, and actively provoking an armed conflict and preventing the people from enacting their desires?
Because examining any of that would expose the authoritarian and imperialistic reality of the west and specifically the US. Instead let’s theorize about the machinations of the Arab and Asian brains. Get out the calipers. It’s skull measuring time.
Because it wouldn’t let her create this amazing graphic on the 5th page:
Edit: Forgot to mention that I left in the authorship on purpose. The article is from 2012 by Prof. Weeks of Cornell University.
Edit 2: Got to the ninth page, apparently Mao and Stalin are revisionist:
That’s a hell of a spicy meatball of projection in the first paragraph.
I’m not gonna read that, just to be honest, but I wonder if systemic violence is even acknowledged? they bring up violence used by Mao (against literal fucking warlords… oops guess we just forgot to contextualize that…) but is the inherent violence of existence in China, Russia, etc. brought up? Ie Tsarist forces, being conscripted into the military to die as fodder, being slaughtered at the whim of a warlord or colonial army…
It’s fucking hilarious to think that Mao or Stalin or Kim (or even Hitler or Saddam) had a lower “perception” of the costs of violence THAN BUREACRATS IN WASHINGTON.
This entire bullshit is premised on “no no the US isn’t authoritarian stfu”
Also I need this author to define revisionism or revisionist because that’s a nonsensical second paragraph.
No
Weeks cited Schweller’s 1994 paper in a footnote instead of defining it, so here’s that paper:
Guess “revisionist” is literally defined here as a more academic way of saying “jackals and wolves”
“Jackals” and wolves is an academic way of describing degrees of revisionism.
Is classifying people revisionist rats also academic level on this scale? A certain scholar in Wisconsin might have been using American academic language do describe degrees of revisionism.
There is also the strange undialectical manner of being satiated vs being insatiable. Some people have their needs met and others don’t. Those that don’t have their needs met will want to change things. Perhaps you should try to meet everyones needs as much as possible then you’ll have fewer people causing you trouble, but no that would be communism.
Oh yes, I do agree with you, the “more academic way” was intended to look ridiculous
Thanks for the debunking though, nice to have someone pointing out how much crap this is
large image
This shits giving me brain injury.
Every US “international relations” department is funded by NatSec ghouls. Agencies, spin-off NGOs, etc. They don’t even need to be competent (exhibit A: this article), just the right political orientation.
Case in point, this graphic of an analysis (2011) of the actual US international relations literature:
I’ll oversimplify what these mean in this note below.
Note that “non-paradigmatic” just means it combines multiple, and so it usually means a combination of liberalism (everything is about money), realism (everything is about the state), and constructivism (everything is about ideas and norms)
Source: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00653.x