The United States is an evil, hegemonic, plutocratic oligarchy. All that matters to those who control the US is power and wealth. A democratic Republic is long gone.
Correction: Constitutional Republic. The reason the word "democracy" is never seen in our Founding Documents is because a true democracy means majority rule and zero minority rights.
The thing any sane people need to pay attention to, is will the U.S. turn Cuba into another Haiti? They're already on the verge of collapse. Do we really need another humanitarian crisis in our backyard?
As Thom Hartmann just posted in the latest chapter in his new book, these so called leaders lack any empathy for other humans. Much like 90% of the criminal population. In the case of the U.S., the voters, out of desperation, were taken in by a conman in the biggest grift on history and now, they're paying the price.
It is clearly a system of nepotism and favoritism.
Cuba has functioned as a one-party authoritarian state since 1959, where political power is concentrated within a small elite and transferred without democratic competition.
Fidel Castro did not pass authority to his son, but leadership remained within his family when power shifted to his brother, Raúl Castro—an outcome made possible by personal trust, party control, and loyalty rather than popular mandate.
The logic is familiar:
in closed systems, insiders benefit first.
Just as in the Indian film industry, influence and access are inherited, outsiders face structural barriers, and merit alone is insufficient.
For a moment there I thought you were talking about the US. Who are we to interfere with economic and military violence in the affairs of other countries? Do other countries have reciprocal rights?
Violence did not begin when borders were drawn, but borders fundamentally changed what violence became. Archaeological and evolutionary evidence shows that long before agriculture, nations, or states, humans and even pre-human ancestors engaged in killing, raids, and territorial conflict. Violence is older than civilization because it is older than humanity itself. What borders did was not create violence, but transform it from episodic and situational into something permanent, organized, and justified.
The agrarian revolution marked a decisive shift because land could now be owned, stored, defended, and inherited. Once resources became fixed in place, conflict stopped being temporary and began to accumulate across generations. Violence was no longer only about immediate survival; it became about control, exclusion, and enforcement. This is when coercion turned structural, embedded in systems rather than erupting only in moments of scarcity.
With the emergence of nations and states, violence became formalized. A country is not just a cultural identity but a territorial claim that must be enforced. Borders are promises of exclusion backed by force. States did not invent violence; they centralized it, legalized it, and claimed a monopoly over when it could be used. Law does not eliminate violence; it decides whose violence is legitimate.
Ideologies such as communism do not remove this dynamic. They often reframe it. Language about equality and justice can coexist with extreme violence when power concentrates and dissent is treated as betrayal. This is not unique to communism. The same structure appears in nationalism, religion, colonialism, and even liberal democracies under pressure. Ideology justifies violence; power executes it.
Evolutionary history reminds us that states are recent inventions. Humans evolved for migration, adaptability, and flexible social bonds. For most of our existence, movement was normal and borders were fluid or symbolic. Migration was not invasion; it was survival. Borderlessness is older than nationhood. At the same time, humans also evolved instincts for group loyalty and suspicion of outsiders. States did not create these instincts; they organized and weaponized them.
Land ownership itself is not a natural fact but a story humans tell and then enforce. Claims of first discovery, historical right, legal title, or divine sanction are narratives layered over force. Land does not know who owns it. People decide, and then they defend that decision. The recent talk of Greenland captures this perfectly. Denmark says it is ours because history and law say so. The United States speaks as if it can be handed over or acquired. The land itself belongs to neither. Competing stories are simply waiting for power to choose which one prevails.
Violence, then, does not begin with weapons. Weapons are tools. Modern violence begins when ownership becomes permanent, authority becomes centralized, exclusion becomes normal, and force becomes legitimate by law. The sentence “this is mine” did not create violence, but it made violence durable, inheritable, and morally defensible. Violence predates borders, but borders ensured it would become systematic and enduring.
When did violence really begin It likely began the moment borders were drawn The moment humans said this is mine and that is yours
You can trace it back to the agrarian revolution and even earlier Once land could be owned stored defended and inherited Violence became structural
The moment you have a country or a nation You are already setting the stage for violence Because the claim itself says this land is ours and not yours
Communism in Cuba fits into this logic too At its core it is about control I come from a communist land so I understand the psychology
You can invoke equality justice and fairness And still produce immense violence Because often the language of equality becomes a cover for concentrating power This has happened repeatedly in history
I predate countries
Evolution predates countries States are recent inventions Biology is ancient
In that sense I am the son of Lucy And so are we all
We were once borderless We moved for survival not for flags Migration was not invasion it was life
That is why I do not really believe in countries They are institutionalised violence
Calling a piece of land yours even collectively is a dangerous proposition Because ownership itself demands exclusion enforcement and force
You see this clearly when Denmark says we found it first And the United States says hand it over That land belonged to nobody Then suddenly it belongs to someone
We make stories We draw lines Then we fight over what sits on top of them
The violence does not begin with weapons It begins with the sentence This is mine
I have the right within my state. That's in india.
What other country? 🧐
We all come from Africa, Dummy.
My great ancestor is Lucy, I have the right to speak about the world affairs or about the universe.
Or the violence in the affair of other country.
I didn't create the violence, what's happening in Cuba or in the United States
Who are you to question my right to speech and expression.
It's a public domain
I can speak whatever I want.
What's your problem
I have the right to express freely and I don't want my permission from state either. My state gave me absolute freedom to comment on any country in the world.
I'm pretty sure insiders benefit first in America as well. Look at how many non-millionaires come into Congress and then leave as millionaires. Speeches for many thousands of dollars. They don't blush anymore either; they think corruption is their birthright.
In case you’re not sure what a panchayat actually is, let me explain.
Think of it as a local governing body rooted right in the middle of everyday community life. People elect representatives at the village level, and those connect upward to the block and district levels. But the real key here is proximity.
These aren’t distant figures you only see on television. They are people you know, see around, and can confront directly. That closeness creates real accountability. If an elected representative isn’t doing their job, you don’t need a massive protest or media outrage—you can literally walk to their house and remind them that power comes with responsibility. That is what decentralized democracy looks like in practice.
Cuba doesn’t really have this kind of bottom-up political structure. Local bodies exist there, sure, but they function within a tightly centralized, one-party system. They administer decisions; they don’t meaningfully challenge them. The difference isn’t just ideology—it’s institutional design.
And that design has deep roots here. Kerala inherited a long intellectual culture that valued debate, reasoning, and the refinement of ideas rather than blind obedience.
Earlier thinkers like Aryabhata—and yes, if you don’t know who Aryabhata is, he’s basically one of the people who taught the world how to count 🤣—were not treated as sacred relics to be memorized. They were viewed as starting points: ideas to be questioned, extended, and improved upon. Knowledge here was something to develop, not freeze.
You see the same pattern in our social thought. Reformers like Sree Narayana Guru faced resistance from entrenched hierarchies, but their ideas eventually shaped our institutions. Education, social equality, and dignity became collective goals, not just abstract ideals.
Kerala’s communism grew out of this specific soil. It was reformist, ethical, and civilian. It relied on literacy, social movements, elections, and decentralized governance—not coercion or militarization.
But here is the uncomfortable truth.
Communism in Kerala is slowly fading. Not because it was useless, but—ironically—because it addressed a specific historical moment so well. It redistributed dignity, education, health, and opportunity. As those goals were achieved, society changed.
Kerala is now an ageing state. Many young people have money, mobility, and choice. They live individual, comfortable lives shaped more by personal aspiration than collective struggle.
And then there’s me.
Because of my family situation, there is no partner, no relationship. It’s deeply lonely. So I watch others move through life with ease, while I live something closer to a hermit’s existence 😂.
That, too, is part of the story we don’t often tell. Systems can redistribute wealth and opportunity, but they cannot fully resolve human isolation.
However, that doesn't mean the alternative is better.
Let’s be clear: Cuba is not a nice place. It might look romantic from a distance, or "structurally interesting" on paper, but in reality, it lacks the oxygen of freedom. It’s stagnant.
I might be living a difficult, solitary life here, but at least I have the space to think and speak without a state breathing down my neck. I prefer my problems to theirs. So, in my eyes? I definitely won’t be going there.
"The executive order states that Cuba poses an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security." The lies Washington DC pumps out are incredible and they don't even blush. Why I stay home during elections. We are run by the most corrupt two parties ever seen in America.
Excellent article, Lena.
The United States is an evil, hegemonic, plutocratic oligarchy. All that matters to those who control the US is power and wealth. A democratic Republic is long gone.
Correction: Constitutional Republic. The reason the word "democracy" is never seen in our Founding Documents is because a true democracy means majority rule and zero minority rights.
The thing any sane people need to pay attention to, is will the U.S. turn Cuba into another Haiti? They're already on the verge of collapse. Do we really need another humanitarian crisis in our backyard?
Funny how our "leaders" have no problem punishing innocent civilians for their own "leaders."
As Thom Hartmann just posted in the latest chapter in his new book, these so called leaders lack any empathy for other humans. Much like 90% of the criminal population. In the case of the U.S., the voters, out of desperation, were taken in by a conman in the biggest grift on history and now, they're paying the price.
Elena Petrova:
It is clearly a system of nepotism and favoritism.
Cuba has functioned as a one-party authoritarian state since 1959, where political power is concentrated within a small elite and transferred without democratic competition.
Fidel Castro did not pass authority to his son, but leadership remained within his family when power shifted to his brother, Raúl Castro—an outcome made possible by personal trust, party control, and loyalty rather than popular mandate.
The logic is familiar:
in closed systems, insiders benefit first.
Just as in the Indian film industry, influence and access are inherited, outsiders face structural barriers, and merit alone is insufficient.
Different arenas.
Same mechanism.
For a moment there I thought you were talking about the US. Who are we to interfere with economic and military violence in the affairs of other countries? Do other countries have reciprocal rights?
Violence did not begin when borders were drawn, but borders fundamentally changed what violence became. Archaeological and evolutionary evidence shows that long before agriculture, nations, or states, humans and even pre-human ancestors engaged in killing, raids, and territorial conflict. Violence is older than civilization because it is older than humanity itself. What borders did was not create violence, but transform it from episodic and situational into something permanent, organized, and justified.
The agrarian revolution marked a decisive shift because land could now be owned, stored, defended, and inherited. Once resources became fixed in place, conflict stopped being temporary and began to accumulate across generations. Violence was no longer only about immediate survival; it became about control, exclusion, and enforcement. This is when coercion turned structural, embedded in systems rather than erupting only in moments of scarcity.
With the emergence of nations and states, violence became formalized. A country is not just a cultural identity but a territorial claim that must be enforced. Borders are promises of exclusion backed by force. States did not invent violence; they centralized it, legalized it, and claimed a monopoly over when it could be used. Law does not eliminate violence; it decides whose violence is legitimate.
Ideologies such as communism do not remove this dynamic. They often reframe it. Language about equality and justice can coexist with extreme violence when power concentrates and dissent is treated as betrayal. This is not unique to communism. The same structure appears in nationalism, religion, colonialism, and even liberal democracies under pressure. Ideology justifies violence; power executes it.
Evolutionary history reminds us that states are recent inventions. Humans evolved for migration, adaptability, and flexible social bonds. For most of our existence, movement was normal and borders were fluid or symbolic. Migration was not invasion; it was survival. Borderlessness is older than nationhood. At the same time, humans also evolved instincts for group loyalty and suspicion of outsiders. States did not create these instincts; they organized and weaponized them.
Land ownership itself is not a natural fact but a story humans tell and then enforce. Claims of first discovery, historical right, legal title, or divine sanction are narratives layered over force. Land does not know who owns it. People decide, and then they defend that decision. The recent talk of Greenland captures this perfectly. Denmark says it is ours because history and law say so. The United States speaks as if it can be handed over or acquired. The land itself belongs to neither. Competing stories are simply waiting for power to choose which one prevails.
Violence, then, does not begin with weapons. Weapons are tools. Modern violence begins when ownership becomes permanent, authority becomes centralized, exclusion becomes normal, and force becomes legitimate by law. The sentence “this is mine” did not create violence, but it made violence durable, inheritable, and morally defensible. Violence predates borders, but borders ensured it would become systematic and enduring.
Violence has been around since Cain killed Abel. Mankind is evil and needs a Savior, Jesus Christ, to cleanse past sins and to lead a new life in God.
When did violence really begin It likely began the moment borders were drawn The moment humans said this is mine and that is yours
You can trace it back to the agrarian revolution and even earlier Once land could be owned stored defended and inherited Violence became structural
The moment you have a country or a nation You are already setting the stage for violence Because the claim itself says this land is ours and not yours
Communism in Cuba fits into this logic too At its core it is about control I come from a communist land so I understand the psychology
You can invoke equality justice and fairness And still produce immense violence Because often the language of equality becomes a cover for concentrating power This has happened repeatedly in history
I predate countries
Evolution predates countries States are recent inventions Biology is ancient
In that sense I am the son of Lucy And so are we all
We were once borderless We moved for survival not for flags Migration was not invasion it was life
That is why I do not really believe in countries They are institutionalised violence
Calling a piece of land yours even collectively is a dangerous proposition Because ownership itself demands exclusion enforcement and force
You see this clearly when Denmark says we found it first And the United States says hand it over That land belonged to nobody Then suddenly it belongs to someone
We make stories We draw lines Then we fight over what sits on top of them
The violence does not begin with weapons It begins with the sentence This is mine
I have the right within my state. That's in india.
What other country? 🧐
We all come from Africa, Dummy.
My great ancestor is Lucy, I have the right to speak about the world affairs or about the universe.
Or the violence in the affair of other country.
I didn't create the violence, what's happening in Cuba or in the United States
Who are you to question my right to speech and expression.
It's a public domain
I can speak whatever I want.
What's your problem
I have the right to express freely and I don't want my permission from state either. My state gave me absolute freedom to comment on any country in the world.
Get help, sir.
"We all come from Africa, Dummy."
That is under contention.
When you call people names, you lose your argument.
I'm pretty sure insiders benefit first in America as well. Look at how many non-millionaires come into Congress and then leave as millionaires. Speeches for many thousands of dollars. They don't blush anymore either; they think corruption is their birthright.
Hey Elena,
In case you’re not sure what a panchayat actually is, let me explain.
Think of it as a local governing body rooted right in the middle of everyday community life. People elect representatives at the village level, and those connect upward to the block and district levels. But the real key here is proximity.
These aren’t distant figures you only see on television. They are people you know, see around, and can confront directly. That closeness creates real accountability. If an elected representative isn’t doing their job, you don’t need a massive protest or media outrage—you can literally walk to their house and remind them that power comes with responsibility. That is what decentralized democracy looks like in practice.
Cuba doesn’t really have this kind of bottom-up political structure. Local bodies exist there, sure, but they function within a tightly centralized, one-party system. They administer decisions; they don’t meaningfully challenge them. The difference isn’t just ideology—it’s institutional design.
And that design has deep roots here. Kerala inherited a long intellectual culture that valued debate, reasoning, and the refinement of ideas rather than blind obedience.
Earlier thinkers like Aryabhata—and yes, if you don’t know who Aryabhata is, he’s basically one of the people who taught the world how to count 🤣—were not treated as sacred relics to be memorized. They were viewed as starting points: ideas to be questioned, extended, and improved upon. Knowledge here was something to develop, not freeze.
You see the same pattern in our social thought. Reformers like Sree Narayana Guru faced resistance from entrenched hierarchies, but their ideas eventually shaped our institutions. Education, social equality, and dignity became collective goals, not just abstract ideals.
Kerala’s communism grew out of this specific soil. It was reformist, ethical, and civilian. It relied on literacy, social movements, elections, and decentralized governance—not coercion or militarization.
But here is the uncomfortable truth.
Communism in Kerala is slowly fading. Not because it was useless, but—ironically—because it addressed a specific historical moment so well. It redistributed dignity, education, health, and opportunity. As those goals were achieved, society changed.
Kerala is now an ageing state. Many young people have money, mobility, and choice. They live individual, comfortable lives shaped more by personal aspiration than collective struggle.
And then there’s me.
Because of my family situation, there is no partner, no relationship. It’s deeply lonely. So I watch others move through life with ease, while I live something closer to a hermit’s existence 😂.
That, too, is part of the story we don’t often tell. Systems can redistribute wealth and opportunity, but they cannot fully resolve human isolation.
However, that doesn't mean the alternative is better.
Let’s be clear: Cuba is not a nice place. It might look romantic from a distance, or "structurally interesting" on paper, but in reality, it lacks the oxygen of freedom. It’s stagnant.
I might be living a difficult, solitary life here, but at least I have the space to think and speak without a state breathing down my neck. I prefer my problems to theirs. So, in my eyes? I definitely won’t be going there.
Elena Petrova:
At least Cuba could have done what Kerala did—lol.
Kerala was never an ordinary democracy.
We implemented communism through democracy, not through force.
We decentralised power.
We pushed authority downward—to panchayats and local governments.
Here, communists win elections and lose elections.
They accept defeat.
You can openly criticise the Chief Minister.
Nothing happens.
Here, if the Chief Minister came and sat in a military uniform, we would laugh 😂.
It would look absurd in a civilian democracy.
That reaction itself matters.
In Cuba, leaders in military uniforms are normal—
and that alone is a red flag 🚩.
Power presents itself as force, not consent.
I think Cuba needs to implement democracy.
Not cosmetic elections,
but real pluralism, civilian rule, decentralisation, and the right to dissent.
And honestly, even the United States should end its authoritarian tendencies once and for all.
Authoritarianism doesn’t always announce itself.
Sometimes it wears a uniform.
Sometimes it hides behind the language of “national security.”
Same ideals spoken.
Very different executions.
"The executive order states that Cuba poses an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security." The lies Washington DC pumps out are incredible and they don't even blush. Why I stay home during elections. We are run by the most corrupt two parties ever seen in America.
Bullsh*t
Trumps approval rating last election last was also poor and He won in the end🤣
Dude , I am not your enemy, I subscribed to your plan for 8 dollars.
I can't access the chat
Am I blocked?