#polpookapost

Language

There is a common confusion about 'Georgia'. The confusion stems from the centuries-existent country in the Caucasus and the US state founded much later sharing the exact same name in English, seemingly the lingua franca of the internet. I think the best solution to this problem is to use a name similar to the endonym for the country in the Caucasus. Not Sakartvelo, but Kartvelia, as it rolls off the tongue nicer. This means that never again will we have to distinguish between Georgia and Georgia, and the country will get the luxury of having a name much closer to its native counterpart. The best way to drive this change is to enter Kartvelia into popular usage, so from now on, in all communications, I will refer to the country by that name and that name only, as one of the drivers of this change.

Foreword

Abkhazia was subjugated under Russian rule in the 1800s during several expansionist wars in the Caucasus and following the Circassian genocide. Since then, Russia has made life for Abkhazians all the more difficult. Other than perhaps the most grave crime, the expelling of Abkhazians into the Ottoman Empire, Russia also salted the wound by banning Abkhaz as a language in church services as part of a Russification effort.

Brief respite was had during the Kartvelian Republic declared during WWI, during which Abkhazia enjoyed considerable autonomy, and it continued up til the death of Nestor Lakoba, who gave his personal protection to Abkhazia as its administrator during the early years of the USSR. After friction with the USSR's dick-tator, Stalin, Lakoba was very likely poisoned by Soviet statesman, serial killer and serial rapist, Lavrentiy Beria. A mouse didn't fart in the Union without Stalin's say-so, so while officially only up for speculation, there is no way Lakoba's murder happened without Stalin's knowledge.

What followed in Abkhazia was a process of Kartvelification, where Kartvelians settled the empty land from which Abkhazians were expelled way back when during Tsarist Russia. It is important to note that Stalin and Beria were themselves Kartvelians.

This population of Kartvelian settlers would prove to be a hot-button issue during the prelude to the USSR's collapse. It was greatly upsetting that the majority population of Abkhazia should not be Abkhazians, but settlers occupying once-Abkhazian land as forced by the totalitarian USSR.

By playing favorites with ethnic groups, the USSR had effectively made Abkhazia a powderkeg, ensuring that if the caucasus is to ever see independence, daddy Ivan can come and mediate. Since the settlers were Kartvelian and not Russian, Kartvelia became the most immediate threat to Abkhaz identity and independence.

Smaller states always flock to larger powers for protection against whatever threat is most grave at the moment. This isn't always a good thing, but it's the way things are. I don't think it's how they have to be, though. In a sad turn of historical tragedy, Abkhazia turned to its century-long oppressor for guidance. It came to Russia.

While at first independent, after more than a decade, Russia moved in to support the small country against Kartvelia during new armed conflict. Since then, Abkhazia has largely remained reluctantly dependent on Russia, while trying to function as a regular democratic country.

For Abkhazia this is an important step toward legitimacy and proper function. For Russia it is another opportunity to expand its influence and subjugate the countries of the former USSR.

The war for independence was marked by gross human rights violations against Abkhazians and Kartvelians alike. The result is thousands dead and hundreds of thousands of Kartvelians displaced.

The story of Abkhazia is a tragedy for all involved, and there are no winners. Except for Russia.

Proposal

No one chooses where they are born. For the Kartvelians who settled in Abkhazia, it is their home. It is not right to murder and expel them. If they are not allowed to return, a massive historical injustice will have been committed against them.

Yet at the same time, it is not right for Abkhazia to have its titular, native population be a minority. The settlement of Kartvelians came as part of a subjugation and assimilation policy. It was not a natural migration, but an attempt to make the indigenous inhabitants a minority in their own country. If the Kartvelians make up a majority in Abkhazia, a massive historical injustice will have been committed against Abkhazia.

Abkhazia is only partially recognized, its main supporter is Russia. Abkhazia yearns for diplomatic relations with legitimate countries, but if the position of the world at large remains that it is illegitimate itself, it will never be able to get out of the Russian sphere of influence.

I would say the best thing Kartvelia can do to help end the conflict is to extend a helping hand. If recognition and trade normalization comes, and the world at large stands behind Abkhazia, it will not have to live under a Russian boot any longer. This would come with dropping territorial claims against Abkhazia. I would say that's worth it in exchange for pushing Russia out of the region further.

Abkhazia, very clearly, wants to be independent. Once you give a population a whiff of freedom, they will never forget it, and even if you take it from them, they will forever have that memory to reminisce about. Incorporating Abkhazia into Kartvelia might be viable someday, but that cannot come by force and it cannot come today. It has to come out of love, and it can only happen once trust has been built.

It goes both ways, though. A full right of return for the Kartvelian settlers would create a demographic crisis for Abkhazia, even if fair. There are about 100k Abkhazians living in the country, with 200k displaced Kartvelians. Their return would mean a Kartvelian majority.

This crisis could be avoided were the Abkhazians deported back in the 1800s also given a right of return. The ones in Turkiye either number as little as 15k or as many as 1.5 million. Some of those are assimilated into Turkish society and are Abkhaz only by descent, but with tutoring and re-Abkhazification they would be able to get in touch with their roots and become indistinguishable from any other Abkhazian.

Were Abkhazia to receive international recognition, those same Abkhazians in the diaspora might feel safer about coming back to their ancestral home, and with financial incentive, might even stay there.

You might find yourself skeptical since the Abkhazians that were expelled in the 1800s were Muslim and the Abkhazians in the country right now are majority Christian, but in a secular state this should be no problem.

While all of this might be a difficult sell, it is worth a try. For Kartvelia's safety against Russia, for the displaced Kartvelians, for the Abkhazian diaspora, for the independence of Abkhazia.

Аиааира!

Thoughts:

The creation of art is labour in itself. It is the intersection of both mental and physical work, first requiring the creation of the mental image before the actual piece is birthed. Every single piece of art is the result of the artist toiling away at their work in the hopes of reaching some kind of satisfactory endpoint. Artists often have little to no success when it comes to their extensive efforts, due to a volatile and highly competitive market, where corporations dominate over independent auteurs. Being an artist under capitalism usually means financial instability and insecurity. You are not always fairly paid for your labour and companies find much more success and have way more money to spend and earn. Other than some creatives that make it big and become millionaires and such, most artists will never see this kind of success and will have to do the work they enjoy with no monetary achievements.

The process of labour is art in itself. Labourers also toil away at their own creations, yet the perception is different. Their endpoint is a commodity that should come to serve somebody. I would argue that the process of creation is what makes art, it is the human effort behind the product. I would say the buildings in my city, the cars roaming the streets and every other product of effort is a tapestry of the millions of unidentified hands that toiled for the comfort of people and their own security. Every single man-made object is a piece of art simply because of the effort that went into it from people we will never know by name. But you've passed them in the street, or maybe talked with them at family dinner. It is the labourers who build our society, and it is the labourers who, like artists, will often get the short end of the stick. What sense does it make for bosses to get more money just for managing the people that do all the work?

Art & Labour are linked and inseparable, from both sides. You can't have one without the other. Process and Symbolism: I decided to have the background be FF0000 in RGB, or the purest red possible according to the sliders of paint.net. This flag draws heavy inspiration from already existing leftist and working class imagery. For example, red is widely associated with with leftism as a representation of the blood spilled by the working class. I wanted the red to be the purest red imaginable, very vibrant and striking.

000000, or the blackest black, compliments the red very nicely. I added black as a symbol of anarchism. When red and black are combined they usually signal anarcho-communism, but I want this flag to be useable by any movement that advocates and fights for the working class. This flag is not explicitly anarcho-communist, the red of the working class and the black of anarchy represent the freedom of the working class and do not endorse any specific ideology besides a general libertarian leftism. So if freedom and the working class are what you fight for, this flag is for you, no matter what the specific label may be.

The whitest white, or FFFFFF, is the colour of the anarchist A. I used a common public domain punk-style A, but I changed the formerly diagonal line to be horizontal instead. This was done to distinguish the A and make it less recognizable for people who have a keen eye for the specific punk-style A. On its own, the A represents anarchy, but in this flag it's meant to show the freedom of the working class and that they belong to no state. The reason I made it white is to represent pacifism. If you read any of my other polpookaposts, you might know how I feel about civilian casualties, unconditionally. This doesn't mean that I support pacifism blindly. Once all peaceful means have been thoroughly exhausted, pacifism is no longer an option. I kept it in the flag anyway to show that the working class is non-violent unless forced, and it contrasts nicely with the other colours.

The hydra of hands represents the collective character of the working class. The hands themselves are created from photographs of my own hands. I silhouetted them and touched them up to make them look a bit smoother. There are three left hands and two right hands. The fist I chose to base on my left hand as a nod to leftism. The center fist represents worker solidarity. It is central and larger than the other hands and holds no tools as it is the most important thing, I believe.

The lower-left hand holds a fountain pen to represent the intellectual artist who mostly writes, the upper-left holds a hammer to represent the industrial labourer, the upper-right holds a brush to represent the artist who makes physical pieces and installations, and the lower-right represents the agrarian labourer.

The hammer and sickle were appropriated from the Soviet flag and the pen and brush were free-to-use, no-attribution-required clipart.

I showed the flag to some of my young and progressive-minded friends, and some of them took issue with such explicit use of symbols that have been used by totalitarian communism. Slovakia has a communist past which is still a point of discussion and much of the youth feels apprehensive toward the former regime, which I don't fault them for. Authoritarianism, capitalism, nationalism, are all plagues that need to be purged from the human populace. They are the three pillars of harmful ideology.

Despite the symbols also being associated with totalitarian communism, I feel comfortable using them because symbols of the working class belong to the working class, and not to any specific ideology. Even if the hammer and sickle are most associated with the USSR, perpetrator of many atrocities against civilians, they do not belong to communism or to the Soviet State. They belong to us and we should be able to use them without any shame. There is a lot of stigma in Slovakia about being left-wing and you have to add thirty disclaimers if you don't support authoritarianism or SMER's cultural backwardism and corruption. The best way to fight back against this perception is to not be afraid of using the symbols associated with those negative perceptions, and explicitly use them in a positive manner that is antithetical to those negative perceptions.

EDIT: I have attempted the creation of a flipped-colour variant to some success

There is at least one thing today that, ideologically, I still very much have in common with the person I was a few years ago. That thing is not feeling represented by the Slovak Republic, which claims to be the representative of the entire Slovak people. I've talked a very small bit about this, but I used to have nationalist tendencies some time ago, and though I gripped the Slovak identity dearly, I never had any love for the state that claimed to represent the people.

One of my gripes related to that feeling was the lack of an independent flag for the Slovak nation. Yes, there was the flag of the Slovak Republic which claims to be the representative of that nation, but I certainly did not feel myself aligned with that entity. The flag of the Slovak Republic in no way represented my national pride. Thus, I toyed around with the idea of creating some kind of Slovak Flag different from the flag of the Slovak Republic to represent the Slovak nation itself. I never did end up making that flag, but one of the ideas I was sure of was a centered coat of arms.

Today, I am in no way a nationalist, or even a patriot. State politics whittled down pride bit by bit until I dropped the nationalist act entirely, not just because of those state politics but also due to a more detached, objective and unbiased perspective of the world that makes national pride impossible. You can hardly feel proud of something that was out of your control, completely arbitrary, and is giving you an advantageous position in society over others (Beneš Decrees, Roma segregation, Slovakization). I feel no pride for being Slovak, I feel no shame for being Slovak. I simply am.

Back to the one thing I share with my past self: I still feel it is important to have a flag that represents the Slovak nation, pure and unfiltered. Not a polity limited to certain borders, but a flag that transcends them entirely. One that represents all Slovaks and is not used by the bloodsucking politician class to legitimize their interests.

In the end I decided not to create a whole new flag from scratch, simply centering the coat of arms does the job. I don't want the flag to be too different, so it is not written off as some kind of sole invention of mine and dismissed due to its association with me. It's close enough to the official thing that it might even be mistaken for it. I like to think that the familiarity adds bonus points. At the same time, any Slovak will certainly know that this is not the state flag, which fulfills my aims. In the end you have something official enough that it is in no way my own creation, at the same time something clearly unofficial enough that it completes the main purpose.

Concerning the actual state flag: Legend has it that when Čisárik and Vrtel were sewing together the very first prototype, the fabric got caught in the machinery while the two were gripping it, resulting in the flag getting torn in the wrong place. The coat of arms, originally meant to be centered, was now off to the left. Rather than start over and create a proper centered flag (due to a combination of laziness and a looming visit from a state official), the duo decided to present the off-center flag as the finished and intended product (to also avoid the embarrassment of admitting the truth). Everybody else, also out of a fear of looking foolish and embarrassing themselves, went along with it and assumed this design was totally fine and intentional. From the chain of command up to every single citizen born to this very day. Thus, the Slovak Republic ended up with an off-center flag.

It was a few or so months ago when I was trying out Metro 2033 (the game) for the first time. For those not in the know, the game takes place in the underground stations of Moscow after a nuclear exchange devastated the world. The specific level I was playing has you pass through a station that serves as the battleground between two rival factions, a communist faction and a Nazi faction respectively.

It was sometime around this level that another character off-handedly mentioned that the commies defeated the Nazis in a war once before, prior to the nukes falling, clearly alluding to when the USSR rolled into the rubble of what was once The Third Reich. Even back when I was playing I found this to be quite a sad piece of exposition. The people of the Moscow Metro dwindling in size, facing constant attacks from mutant beasts and radiation, yet instead of uniting in the face of these common threats, the subway tunnels are divided into political forces that feel the need to settle old historical scores. You’d think their priorities would be more sensible, maybe they’d stop trying to conquer the scraps and bones left of humanity for ideologies that popped up long before their time, and that people tried out already in what is now a nuclear wasteland. So many healthy men dying just to capture one more subway tunnel.

That’s not the only thing that stood out to me. It was how WW2 and its sides were spoken about that has stuck with me as well. They spoke of a conflict that took place in the 1940s as if it was the 2030s guys who experienced it. The dialog claimed the commies won against the Nazis back then, yet none of the people fighting on those railway tracks were the same ones who dished out or experienced that ancient defeat. This wasn’t the same people fighting each other a century later, even though the dialog implies that. It was people generations apart who identified with those past groups and saw themselves as a continuation of them. The victories of the USSR from way back are the victories of The Red Line today, even though none of the people from back then are the ones fighting in that tunnel.

I can’t help but draw parallels between how that character spoke of the two warring sides and how we speak of our own identities in real life. It’s a disturbing trend I’ve come to notice that is prevalent in seemingly every part of the world. That trend is the mistaken conflation of the self, the collective, the nation, the state and related constructs, groups and institutions. Whenever these things are spoken of, we treat them as part of us which linguistically reinforces some kind of loyalty or identification.

It happens at the deepest levels, ones that are completely subconscious and reinforce themselves simply through speech. I started noticing it in school at first. When the ancient slavs were a topic of discussion, they were always spoken about as a “we”, or an “us”. These groups of people from centuries ago that have nothing to do with us today are spoken of as if they are an inseparable part of us, the very same as us. Even though you have very little in common with those slavs from centuries ago, even though you have much more in common with the Hungarian on the opposite side of the border today, the slavs of centuries ago are “us” and the Hungarians of today are “them”. If you are a Slovak today, you are part of the same group as the slavs back then simply because you live on the same land they did. It doesn’t matter if your ancestors came from Brittany or wherever and weren’t involved in the original migrations, because today you are Slovak, which means you are the same “us” as the slavs from 600AD, no matter how little you had to do with them.

The same kind of language is used when speaking about the state, and it reinforces the unhealthy idea that the government and a people are one and the same, a monolith. It gets reinforced when in geography class you talk about what countries the republic borders, and instead of saying “The Slovak Republic borders this, this and that”, you say “We border this, this and that”. Or when speaking of Hungary bailing on Gabčíkovo and the deal that happened thirty years ago that nobody in the room had anything to do with, you still say “we made a deal with Hungary”, despite the fact the state and the people in that room are not one and the same. The same social anomaly can be observed in things such as sports teams, when you claim that “we” won a game against whoever when you had zilch to do with that match. It can also be observed whenever a war is won or lost, “we” won or lost that war, even if the front is seas or centuries away from you.

As far as the language of the nation is concerned, you are one with your ancestors, one with your government, one with your sports team and one with your military. Of course, nations themselves are on equally shaky ground as the things we attach to them.

What determines a nation’s existence is completely arbitrary and dependent on historical happenstance. The only thing keeping nations within the realm of the real is self-identification of the individual, and the language we use to talk about our nations reinforces this self-identification.

What even is a nation? Is it some kind of race or gene? Funny guy, you’re a century late to when that kind of talk was still socially acceptable.

Is it a group of people born in the state that claims to represent that nation? If so, are the Hungarians in the south Slovaks? Is somebody born to Slovak parents in Britain not Slovak now?

Is it a group of people who speak the same language? The Slovak you hear in Bratislava has much more in common with standard Czech than it does with the Slovak in Snina. Objectively, these three are all different languages, so are they all different nations? The difference between dialect and language is political anyway. One historical coinflip and today you might’ve been identifying as a Czechoslovak, or a Slovjak (deep cut).

What defines a nation is a group of people latching onto one identity that has developed from a set of historical circumstances. If it is only self-identification that keeps a nation existent, then it is a very fragile thing. Romans didn’t just blip out of existence, they stopped identifying with the label. Similarly, Slovaks didn’t spawn out of thin air. They became Slovaks once enough people said they were. They stayed Slovaks when Czechoslovakism got buried and when no new national movements took off to divide the newly formed identity.

The obvious question that now comes up is: why do we do this? Are we so starved for personal accomplishments that we take on the accomplishments of completely separate people as our own? Are we so unconfident in being able to build independent identities for ourselves we need these labels to attach ourselves to?

The answer might be a mix of all of these, but there is one good reason this behavior continues: it benefits the state.

When you and the state are indistinguishable, an attack on the state is an attack on you. This isn’t just about insecure nationalists who flock to any online post that criticizes their country. This is about the moderates as well. Those who flock to online posts about their country in general, to say how cool it is their country is being covered. Because they identify with their country, when their country is seen, they feel seen. Being seen feels nice. Similarly, you might not even be a nationalist if you go and defend your country from any legitimate criticism. However, you still identify with it, which is why when your country’s pride is bruised, so is your pride. This is how that self-identification is usually vented. Yet, there are more advantageous applications that lie dormant.

Any attack on the state is by extension an attack on you. It is why you will take up arms in pride, for the good of the country. It is why you will lie about war crimes your country is committing, or support it in attacking somebody else. The attack of the state is your attack. An attack on the state is an attack on you.

As long as you identify with your nation, you are a useful pawn in spreading the good word about it, taking up arms for it, helping it stay afloat. Once you stop identifying with your nation and begin to identify with your fellow man as a whole, the state will have no reason to exist anymore. It won’t have people who fight for it and people who do PR for it for free.

To many people I am describing something already obvious. As a side-note, there is little sadder and scarier at the same time to me than somebody who is indoctrinated, finds out they are indoctrinated, then keeps on being indoctrinated despite knowing about their own indoctrination. Since I’m exploring complicity through fiction now, this is also something I’d also like to look into.

Anyway. Any Realpolitik-assfucker might agree with the observations, but then defend the practice and argue that a “we” is necessary for the state. You must build an identity where you don’t include everybody.

I don’t have a counter-argument for this. One of the most powerful tools someone like me could use right about now is historical precedent, yet I am uncertain whether what I am arguing against has ever been meaningfully done away with.

Ethnic identities, no doubt. You have times when those were ditched in favour of religion, class, creed, race and whatnot. The constant is that an identity needs to be present. Can this identity simply be a human one?

When there is no historical precedent to look back on, I like to imagine that I can take part in shaping it for the future. That’s why I’ve been shifting to fictional prose as of late. Those polpookaposts were useful as a starting point, but now that I have defined most of what I ideologically believe, it is time to put it into practice. One of the best ways to do that is recruitment through influencing hearts and minds. Stories open us up, so that’s what I’ll be doing for the foreseeable future. The polpookaposts won’t stop, but they’ll be obscured under plotlines and characters. Think of it as sowing the seeds for convincing people into considering the same ideas. All fiction does this already, whether the author is aware of it or not. I intend to be aware, and I’m optimistic that we’ll get our historical precedent. I hope I’ll have played a small part in getting us there.

I hear you bringing up another obvious question. pookapine, do you identify as Slovak? In fact, do you identify with any labels, are they all arbitrary to you? Have you emancipated yourself of social constructs and now exist only as yourself?

Dear reader, I am delighted by your intellectual curiosity in my thought processes as well as your personal interest in me. Indeed, nothing would make me happier than being able to ditch all the things you just mentioned and simply live as another person talking to a fellow person. Unfortunately, that is impossible as of now.

When I wanted to write about this topic a few months ago, I had a different answer in mind to that question, but the Beneš Decrees have made me realize something. There is no annulling my marriage to the Slovak identity, though it was one born out of coercion and not love. One created by merging the “we” with the “I” and plastering a Slovak flag and coat of arms in each and every classroom.

Identity must be acknowledged as an objective fact due to its relationship with oppression. Lefty buzzword soup, heavy stuff, I know. Stick with me for a second.

But it is really so. As long as there is a difference in the eyes of society between a Slovak and a Hungarian, a Slovak and a Roma, a Slovak and (to a lesser extent) a Rusyn, then I must be Slovak. Simply because I benefit from that identity, because I have an advantage in society and am objectively privileged, I must acknowledge the reality that I am a Slovak man. This applies to other identities, also defined by their relationship with oppression.

I must be a man as long as women are catcalled, paid lower wages and denied abortion. I must be cis as long as trans people have to jump through hoops to have their identity recognized and respected. I must be white as long as I get less glares and better opportunities than the Roma dude my age and character. I must be a Slovak as long as Hungarians have their land taken away, their language assimilated into Slovak, framed as Slovakia’s mortal enemy throughout history simply because of a two-century long fender bender of braindead nationalism.

If the Communist Manifesto was made today, it would have been a video essay.

A majority of today's radicals did not form their opinions or worldview by reading ideological literature. If they've checked it out at all, it was probably only to complete their already formed worldview. What is much more likely to have convinced them are modern information-sharing means, at least in the West. Today's revolutionaries are not shaped by The Conquest of Bread, but by Instagram and TikTok.

In fact, paradoxically, what people today form their ideology around is not from what they support, but from what they oppose. This is what the thought leaders of today take advantage of. Exposing others to the wrongs and injustices of the world is the best tool for recruitment. This is what every ideology that wants to be successful has to do. The question is then whether those wrongs and injustices they present are fictitious or real. If reality does not align with your ideology, you have to invent something to be opposed to. That's how a good majority of nationalists and regressives recruit. The left uses the real injustices of the world as a motivator. Both lies and truth are equally effective at raising numbers. If the left wants success, easily digestible video essays and short-form content based on factual wrongs of the elites and systems has to take precedence over writing and 200-year old literature.

You might be stopping yourself at this point. "pookapine, isn't what you've been doing the past few months the same kind of less effective writing you say should not be prioritized?" Don't grieve, I am well aware. I'm figuring it out as I go along.

Another kind of recruitment strategy through video, perhaps for those who are a bit more initiated already, is a subgenre of ideological content that explains thoughts and stances in a minute or less. I stumbled across such accounts in the theme of Family Guy characters. You either know exactly what I'm talking about or you don't use your social media for radical echo-chamber dipping. I think this is also an effective strategy for ideological recruitment / reinforcement, if we suspend our disbelief about the use of AI to replicate voices being completely unethical toward the artist-labourer.

The reels in question used Family Guy characters with AI-digi-zombie voices to explain ideology, and sometimes how it relates to current events. I found an anarchist variant, and either one or more communist variants. I never kept track. It was in one of these that the puppeteered Communist Peter Griffin explained his stance on the Russo-Ukrainian War, a very divisive issue among the left.

I disagreed with the take presented. If you've read my previous polpookaposts, you might already know I lean pro-Ukraine. Surprisingly, the take from Comrade Griffin wasn't pro-Russian, like some of the left is. A chunk of the left that is (completely understandably) opposed to the imperial dominance of the capitalist United States has decided to support Russia, another capitalist and imperialist country, simply because it opposes Statesian interests. Personally, I am not one to support a capitalist expansionist empire simply because it opposes another capitalist expansionist empire I happen to like less. To that, the response might point to US support of and interests in Ukraine.

That response might be valid, but since just about the beginning of history, smaller states threatened by larger ones have gravitated into alliances, arrangements and deals with large "partners" that oppose the immediate threat. This does not have to be a good thing, it rarely is, it just is a thing that happens. In the struggle for imperial might, larger powers are happy to get a foothold as close as possible to their rivals. Ukraine is a country that has faced genocide, assimilation, domination, and most recently, invasion and war crimes against the civilian populace and POWs. If this is what Russia is doing already, even without the entire country under control, what might they move onto once it is? Purely speculation of course, but the track record so far does not make me confident.

All of this is enough to make it obvious that the Ukrainian struggle is one of defence, liberation and survival. Simply because their struggle is caught up in a proxy war of larger imperial interests does not make it any less legitimate. National liberation struggles have almost always had larger backers with their own interests. Point me to a liberation struggle today without some kind of shady foreign backer with something nefarious to gain from supporting it.

Oh, you're pointing at the brave rebel forces in Myanmar. And you'd be right. There are exceptions. But the rebels could probably fare much better if they did have some foreign backing. They should, too. If the entire world was backing the people of Myanmar and not the camo-brained government things might look much better for everybody (except for world leaders and companies but they can go suck a lemon).

Back to the point: a struggle of the oppressed is not automatically delegitimized because of who supports it. Small countries often have to make do with what they have, and it really does suck. Let's not support Russia simply because we oppose the United States.

Alright, I've been edging you long enough. The actual point made by Comrade AI Griffin used a beautiful little analogy to illustrate who to support in the conflict.

A tale of two slave plantations. Two slave plantations border each other and one attacks the other. Yet the slave-masters use the slaves from the two plantations to fight. Even though one slave plantation is the one under attack, it is still a slave plantation, it is still using slaves to fight the other, and the slavers are unharmed and get to sit back while the slaves die for them.

The tale is sound, and maybe hard to argue with if you're an anti-capitalist. That's because fundamentally it is correct, but only in such a broad sense where you have to strip away everything else. That is why it only works as an analogy. Obviously, capitalism is exploitative, and it will be the young, robbed of their future, rounded up to fight the wars of the plantation owners. But the consequences for one of the plantations are much worse if the other wins, even if it still is a plantation.

It might sound like a rehash of the prior point, because it kind of is, but a fight of defence and the right of a civilian populace (even if slaves in an analogy) to not get bombed, murdered, assimilated, kidnapped, is not delegitimized because of the economic system of the government which exploits them. Is the only kind of oppression that exists capitalist? And if not, are all other forms invalid in comparison?

We must oppose oppression whenever it comes up. We must oppose all oppressive structures, systems and entities all at once. If you only focus on one you fail to see the bigger picture. You need to see the woods for the trees. Or the plantation for the slaves. That sounds wretched, forget that one.

The plantation that attacked and the system that governs the plantation need to be fought at the same time. Anything else is a half-measure, and you remove only one of the oppressors present. Whichever you think is graver at the moment is up to you, but either way, you must admit that both are to be treated seriously and with opposition.

When Russia attacks Ukraine, I support Ukraine. When Ukraine exploits Ukrainians, I support Ukrainians. When Russia exploits Russians, I support Russians. Let's not treat such a stance like some kind of impossibility.

In the meantime, fuck the Russian Federation, fuck the United States of America. Слава Україні!

Also, don't say you're pro-worker and then jump on the AI ship. The creative industry is very volatile already thanks to hostile competition supported by capitalism, the last thing that out-of-work voice actor needs is for you to enlist the help of AI Peter Griffin. By normalizing this and not drumming up a bigger stir we make it look like we don't care all that much about the creative half of the world's proletariat, and companies love it when we don't care about one another. Workers need to stand together and support other workers. You might not agree with anti-AI labourers, but you should still listen to and support them. It's their jobs that are at stake.

A lot of the discussion around SMER and the Opposition is framed as if the voter and ideological divide is only about age. While largely true that the elderly happen to be SMER voters more often than the youth, they are certainly not the only voters.

Some seem to believe that once the older generations perish we will get a century of PS prosperity, but it is not so simple. Fico and corrupt politicians of his kind do indeed exploit the nostalgia of the country's past. Conservatives in the west are often regressive (socially conservative / socially right) and capitalist (economically right). This allows leftists in those countries to cover both problems at once, fighting against one force. Meanwhile, in Slovakia, SMER is regressive and social democratic (or economically left - well, as left as you can be in a capitalist country, and some of their policies put the SocDem label into doubt). This is because their ideology is a kind of nostalgism that adapts an image of the past. Corrupt conservatives in the west are on the economic right because that is how the economy was in the past. Corrupt conservatives in the east, or at least in Slovakia, are economically left because that is how the economy was in the past. Their policy is simply emulating the past in nostalgia as a cover for being corrupt and reactionary. The nostalgia is why so much of their voterbase is elderly. Conservatives / reactionaries (the difference is negligible by now) have one thing in common across both East and West: emulating whatever was in the past to take advantage of an older voterbase, the economic policy is dependent purely on whatever the past of the specific country was.

Regressivism and capitalism must be fought at once, otherwise well-meaning but uninformed leftists might think Fico is a swell guy simply because he is on an economic left. This also creates a situation where there is no true left party in Slovakia, both economically and socially. Our social progressives are economically on the right which creates an odd predicament and Slovak leftists are stuck voting between parties they can't support whole-heartedly. This makes for a weird situation where PS, despite being on the economic right, is the lesser evil. But we know how I feel about lesser evils. Slovakia is in dire need of a truly leftist party, one progressive socially and on the left economically. Preferably one that also supports human rights unconditionally ;)

Back to the point in the first paragraph: I know several youngsters who voted for SMER and Pellegrini, and every elderly person in my family voted PS and Korčok. The difference is not old and young, the conflict in Slovakia is regressive and progressive. While true generally, it is cheap and plain incorrect to attack the elderly as a group because of SMER.

The fight of the social left, of progressives, is not against the elderly and attacking the elderly is unproductive. The fight is against reactionary elements, against regressivism. Once the oldest generations die out, that does not mean SMER will never get into power again. They have young support. It might be hard to look beyond just Bratislava and other urban centers, but there are many youngsters who are regressive in the country. Waiting the older generations out is not the solution. The solution is to subtly promote progressive ideas. Maybe in discussions with your friends, colleagues and relatives.

If you are one of the marginalized, it is not your obligation to defend yourself in front of people who would rather you be out of sight, out of mind, not existent. But for those of us who aren't, yet who believe in progressive values and egalitarian principles, it is up to us to take this fight head on. We won't succeed immediately, but we just might lay the groundwork and plant the seeds of doubt. There are also other important tactics beyond just discussion, like influencing culture through events, television and films, raising visibility, raising voices of the marginalized, speaking of them as they really are: normal people like you and I, without putting emphasis on their identity as their defining value, but their humanity and traits that haven't been politicized by regressives.

What also makes me a bit sad is when I see progressives who are elderly adopting the same kind of mindset, that the elderly voters are the problem. An air of self-deprecation accompanies their speech about their own age, and it bums me out somewhat. So many old people attend the anti-government protests, and other protests, too. I sometimes wonder how they feel about all this. The ones I do speak with sometimes appear as if through their self-deprecating humor they are trying to apologize to me for their age. Or to appease me, a young man. Might just be humor, though, maybe not that deep. I hope it's that.

Anyway, remember: the divide is not old VS young, and the nostalgism of SMER is a cover to appeal to voters from a prior era, but their regressivism is what appeals to some youths. We gotta again normalize being woke. Progressive voters need to stop being embarrassed of woke.

"Yeah I support gay rights and all but I'm not woke about it" no, be woke. Straight up. Even if you don't personally feel yourself as what you think woke means, say you are woke. It is only by normalizing what should already be normal that we bridge the gap between inevitable social progress and current social perception.

And especially: don't over-rely on electoralism. Remember that the divide is bottom and up. It is politicians and the wealthy that are the ultimate enemy of the regular person, but the fight against oppression cannot happen when a fourth of our allies are being denied their basic rights and demonized, used as fuel for votes. Once they get them, they'll come for more of us next, just to have something to justify their existence, or something to get elected.

Authoritarianism, capitalism, regressivism, must be fought all at the same time. Your only true enemies are the people on the top, and they love all three of these to varying degrees.

You might notice that I excluded nationalism, unlike previously when I described the three plagues of harmful ideology. Nationalism can exist ethically when it is practiced by an oppressed nation, only then. The three in the above cannot exist ethically ever.

When practiced by an oppressed people, pride in your nation, no matter its irrationality, is resistance in itself. Simply being proud and nationalistic when you are being discriminated against because of your national identity is a resistance against that very oppression. Because you are proud of what they want to take away. Identity becomes a shield, a weapon. But once you are not oppressed based on a national basis, nationalism becomes pointless, and it searches around like a detached parasite for fictitious oppression to latch onto. This is what drives anti-migrant or anti-EU sentiment today. Once national oppression stops, nationalism can very easily metastasize into fascism and extremism. With nothing legitimate to fight against, it seeks out enemies that do not exist, and the nation that was oppressed often becomes the oppressor, merging with the above three plagues. Once you create a country for your nation, nationalism reaches the natural end of its lifespan and it has no legitimate reason to exist.

Aimless people will always try and find an identity for themselves, and sometimes, when they supplement it with ideology, they will find nationalism. This is why it continues to survive in some places despite having no legitimate enemies, only boogeymen. People want to feel whole and sometimes they find nationalism for that. However, for it to survive, the nation must be oppressed, and with no real oppression, narratives are invented so the identity is justified.

Anyway fuck nationalism for the most part, half the time I see it it's the stupidest shit ever, you've already got a country, now turn to the real enemies.

You must swear off nationalism. You must swear off authoritarianism. You must swear off capitalism. You must swear off regressivism. Because while the politicians and the wealthy oppress us, there is only one nation you belong to: the nation of people.

Got my wish. People are certainly talking about the Beneš Decrees now. I just wish it were different. The Slovak Republic is about to criminalize free expression about the discriminatory Decrees and their practices which violate the basic human rights of Germans and Hungarians.

First they are taking their land, now they are taking our speech. I am reminded of what Aaron Bushnell said. So many people think they would kill Hitler or resist Naziism, had they been there all those years ago. There are ten Hitlers now and fifty proto-Hitlers. Where are you? What are you doing to stop them?

If this thing is nipped in the bud before it ever starts, who knows what horrors we will have avoided. The Slovak Republic must be stopped, for all our sakes. Not just because of the Hungarians and Germans. If you can simply speak, it concerns you now too.

Six months in a cell or cowardice and eternal shame. Take your pick.

When the idea of facial-recognition AI cameras in every room and classroom of every school was floating about in Slovakia, I made a pact with myself that I would tape them over if it ever went through. Nothing came of it. So, I'm making another pact here. Let's hope nothing comes of that either.

It is necessary to clarify that none of this is a call to violence. It is a call to action. Protest, speak out, lobby your representatives. This is the phase where that is still enough. It's not too late.

A collection of polpookaposts I distributed online, either in public or in private, somewhat edited. Mostly from 2025.

The Perfect Afterlife

I think my perfect afterlife would be a unity of all people and creatures. Every single being to ever live and every single experience to ever happen as one, ushering in complete empathy and enlightenment.

The best antidote to wronging someone is to then be forced to live as them, seeing it for what it was in the moment and in the grand scheme, getting to experience both the very best and the very worst of humanity. The ultimate repentance, living as all you ever wronged and vice versa. Getting to see the pain you caused first-hand. But also all the good you ever did. And all the times you were indifferent.

It's interesting to see how connected everything is already. All the same elements, compounds, atoms. Common ancestors for humans and all species alike (possibly).

What fundamental difference is there between you and I?

Domowina Anniversary Announcement

Founded 113 years ago today, Domowina is arguably the most important organization in Sorbian history.

Despite being shut down by Nazi Germany during the years of their rule and overtaken by East German authorities during their own time, Domowina has persisted.

Through thick and thin, through the good and the bad, it has powered on and survived, just like the people the organization represents.

So may Domowina and the Sorbs persist for another century more, and may we stand by their side, side by side, brothers and sisters and all.

Happy birthday to the Domowina!

Zohran Mamdani's Victory

With capitalism becoming ever-less popular among the regular people of the US, we must make sure to guide new socialist visions into the libertarian and not the totalitarian brand. Zohran is a great example. NYC is lucky to have him.

If every politician was a Mamdani, if every cop was a Serpico, if every soldier was an Aaron Bushnell or a Hugh Thompson Jr, then I'd never have to write another post. Even these few outliers, though, are not enough to justify the entire system.

Not saying that Zohran is a Libertarian Socialist BTW. To my knowledge, he has never described himself as such, so it would be incorrect to call him that. If the two general varieties are Libertarian and Authoritarian, he certainly aligns more with the former.

Hoping he doesn't drop the ball and that Trump doesn't obstruct him at every turn.

Beneš Decrees

Just found out that the Beneš Decrees were never officially repealed, and the Slovak Republic occasionally uses them as a pretext for taking land from Hungarians. This is completely unacceptable and blatant ethnic discrimination. Nationalistic chauvinism is a core part of how this republic functions and it is a complete embarrassment.

It's strategic too. As long as the discrimination is not open and loud, then the EU, the media, nobody will ever call it out. Were it any other ethnic group the same would happen, because having a policy that allows you to confiscate land willy-nilly comes in handy no matter who it affects. A detached discrimination driven by economic benefit.

The Slovak Republic, through its conduct over the years, has shown itself as a completely illegitimate actor propped up by xenophobic laws from the 40s. I feel crazy, nobody is talking about this. Everybody should be talking about this.

What pride is there in a country that discriminates? What pride is there in a country that sends people to do hard time for marijuana, or one that allows Neo-Nazis to run in elections? One that enshrined two genders in its constitution? One that meets with Israeli and Russian officials as their countries commit war crimes?

There is no pride. State politics have tarnished any pride that could have ever existed. This country is a sham, like all other countries. And like all other countries, it needs a power transfer to the people ASAP. Too long have out of touch politicians been dictating how we should run our lives, who we should hate and how we should love. We must put our foot down before it gets worse.

If you deface Slovak national symbols you get 3 years time max. It's something straight out of Nazi Germany, not a modern democratic country. What Slovak national symbols? Slovakia doesn't exist. All there is is a sham theater performance propped up by a military.

How is it possible that it is legal for Slovakia to confiscate Hungarian land but illegal to deface national symbols? These are the priorities of the state, out in the open. Symbols that represent a state which discriminates should absolutely be defaced. Another example that legality ≠ morality.

Empathy for the Other Side of the World

I really despise the attitude of "it's so far away and doesn't concern us." All human suffering concerns us. What if it was you starving in Sudan? What if you got shot in Gaza? What if a rocket blew you up in Ukraine? It concerns all of us because we must all be concerned about each other.

But I adore the narrative that these issues are simply too complex for our little primate brains to understand, so anybody that has an actual opinion is somehow a radical. That it's better to just give up and not think about it, because we are all idiotic morons apparently.

Language

Freedom, truth, justice, liberty, equality, human rights, are all buzzwords now. Half the people who think they believe in these things work against them without remorse. Everybody believes in the words themselves but it's never the same things. We say we believe in them but few of us really do.

We must de-sloganify them and make sure there is only one of each, so we don't have every single ideology from bonkers to normal all claiming to preach these values at the same time. We must support and realize these concepts as they are in their purest forms.

Part of this is pointing out whenever they are infringed and being clasped down on. We can never let our oppressors get an edge, never let them get room to breathe. We will accept the maximum and nothing else, because it is the minimum of what we all deserve.

Israeli-Slovak Relations

I think I finally understand why so many Slovak progressives and liberals support Israel. The very real Russian threat has made the progressive crowd unquestioningly jump into the arms of the west. The west is seen as the most civilized, developed, democratic and innovative and without any faults.

Meanwhile, Slovakia is apparently the biggest shithole ever and literally every single person you know wants to leave. Israel is part of this west, "the only democracy in the middle east", and it is why they can do no wrong ever. This is why so much of the Slovak Opposition openly supports Israel.

If in the west = always good. A portion of Slovak liberals and progressives are like caricatures of what they believe their western counterparts look like. They fight for progressive ideas often not because they actually believe in them, but because they think them to be western.

You take a Slovak liberal and put him into any actually western country and he will become a conservative. I know people who are raging homophobes and transphobes and yet they support the Opposition because that is what seems western and developed, even though PS fights for LGBT rights. The fight for these things is good, but it is not coming out of an honest place.

Anyway fuck the Coalition (obviously), but fuck the Opposition, too. we deserve better than picking the least smelly turd. And happy belated 17th of November.

Since I've been giving so much flak to the Opposition, let me say that SMER is completely anti-left, hypocritical and corrupt, but this is already widely known in Slovakia. A true leftist party would raise the wages of the doctors in the country, not forbid them from leaving when the wages are shit.

Of course, raising the wages of your country's workers would mean having to hold off on buying another villa for yourself. The Coalition does not have the best interests of the workers in mind, just ask the actual workers. The Consolidation was rightly protested by our labour unions.

I remember when that clown motherfucker Korčok was parroting pro-Israeli talking points and HLAS or SMER rightly called him out, but then when in government they started buying Israeli arms and improving diplomatic ties no problem. They are not leftists, the only thing they believe in is money.

Of course, the Opposition has no problem with the Coalition improving ties with the war criminal terror state of Israel. Like I said prior, the west can do no wrong and Israel is in the west. Is it really too much to ask for a party that supports human rights unconditionally and for all?

Because a party like that does not exist in Slovakia, and I doubt it exists in much of the world's countries. Representative democracy is much better than the autocracies of the past, but it is time to let it retire. Democracy needs to be direct if the citizen is ever to have actual say in policy.

Conservative Youths

It bums me out whenever I see somebody my age pushing conservative drivel. Young people should be forward-thinking and mindful of their fellows. It makes me realize that our generation is no different from those before us. All the same ideologies, the same bickering with new set dressing. We need to stop thinking ourselves any more enlightened than those in the past.

Left Unity

Before you ever join any leftist organization, always ask about their stance on: 1. the USSR, 2. China, 3. leftist unity.

Before you ever join any rightist organization, always ask yourself what you are doing with your life.

Do Politics Always Equal Morality?

I don't think your politics inherently determine whether you're a good person or not. There are people whose beliefs can be horrid but who have a positive impact in society. Vice versa, there are people who can believe in good things but are bad people otherwise.

Your politics don't have to determine what kind of person you are. Importantly, there is a difference between belief and action. Simply believing in good things doesn't give you any free passes. Translate it into something measurable. You're not off the hook just for picking the correct side of politics (the left in case that was ever unclear).

An Allegory for Life

I like to imagine life as a fortress that you are defending. You might be under relentless attack constantly. It might seem completely hopeless at some points. But you're still hanging on as long as it doesn't collapse. And death is the only thing that can let the enemy in.

Death is the end. It's over for you, the fortress. Whether you open the doors yourself, or whether they get broken down, this is the end. Death is the only real end. Because no matter how bad it always seems otherwise, it's still standing.

Simply because you are alive, the fortress is still standing. And your fortunes can always reverse. Once the attacks weaken, when life grows calmer, you're on the offensive. But then you can get beaten back again. Just remember that as long as you draw breath, it cannot be over.

All for One, One for All

I remember when some years ago in school we were slated to write an exam from a certain subject. In preparation for the test, a classmate of mine ordered the answer sheet / teacher's guide for the specific book which our tests were always taken from. The answers to the exam were sent into a groupchat of our other classmates, and we all cheated to get a better grade once the time came to write the test.

When the results came back, the teacher immediately suspected cheating from the guy that got us the answer sheet in the first place. Only him. The subject was a linguistic one, and unlike with other subjects which you can just cram information for, everybody has a certain dynamic skill level with languages, unique to just them. His prowess in the language was rather poor, but in the test he did well.

The teacher sussed him out, but he wasn't budging. The rest of the class didn't stand up for him, even though they all cheated, too. On the contrary, they were afraid that because of this incident, from now on, the tests would be custom-made and the newly-acquired cheat sheet would become obsolete. So they tried to pressure him into confessing. If he admitted to cheating, maybe the tests wouldn't get replaced, and they could continue with their own cheating, I guess was the reasoning. They wanted him to make a sacrifice for the collective.

Whether a loud minority or the actual prevailing opinion, it quickly made the atmosphere hostile. The entire class, plus the teacher, ganged up on one guy. I advised him not to budge. In the end, nothing could be proven and the teacher let him off the hook.

During the following year when we got new study materials, I got ahold of another teacher's guide which I sent into the groupchat. This was met with groans and bitching about "learning our lesson from last time." without naming the specific person. Interestingly enough, the vocal protests came from the same people who berated the guy a year prior.

No incident of a similar nature ever occurred again. We all kept cheating in the class, and the same two individuals that were the most intense in their opposition got perfect scores on the tests since then. Not even trying to hide it. And I do mean perfect. One point away from a full score at most. But I guess it's apparently okay, since their skill level matches up with their cheating.

Another incident comes to mind, taking place years before the one I just described. This happened in a Geography class, in which cramming for the subject should be enough, especially at lower levels of education.

The way the class went, every time we had it, there would be an oral exam at the start of each lesson. I don't know if they have something akin to this in other countries, but the gist is that you get called up to the board and you have to recite the topic the class went over during the previous lesson, with the teachers sometimes budding in to quiz you about specific points.

This was standard and to be expected, yet during this one lesson in particular, nobody looked at the topic. Or, at least, nobody wanted to go up to the board and talk about it. If nobody volunteers, the teacher usually picks somebody randomly in most other classes where this kind of method is employed.

Not here. Here, the teacher felt offended at the lack of preparation from the students. So, she threatened an exam for everybody. A spontaneous exam from the topic for every person in the class, if nobody volunteered. The atmosphere was tense. Not a single person knew the topic. It would've been a bloodbath of bad grades for the entire class.

Then, someone volunteered. The kid came up to the board, and everybody else could take relief in what the class just dodged. The burden of the collective would get heaped on the individual instead. It became apparent, soon enough, that the kid knew as little as everybody else. He just stood there, in front of the board, not saying a single thing from the topic. Because he didn't know anything. Yet he still came up and took the bullet for the class.

In the end, the teacher relaxed a little and sent him to take his seat. He wouldn't get a bad grade that day, and the class continued as usual. Nobody got any grade that day.

This exact story is the one I told years later to the classmate who got accused later on, the one who obtained the teacher's guide, before the incident. He was hesitant to send pictures of it to the entire class, for fear of being found out. He sent it to just me and a couple of friends. I thought this was ludicrous. If we, as a class in that school at that time, are supposed to function as a collective, we must all look out for each other.

I brought the Geography class story up, and then I mentioned how many other times other classmates provided the answers to exams and such, and how many times it helped him out. I'm not just bark, though. I ended up sending that first sheet into the groupchat, and the classmate ended up being anonymous. He said that next time he might be up for it, but for now it was more sensible for somebody who wasn't as worried about getting caught to send it. I wonder, if they had found out it was him that got them the cheat sheet, whether they would've treated him a bit better when he got accused of cheating.

The collective and the individual are intertwined. One cannot sacrifice the other for its own benefit, they must stand together, bound like weld. When a crisis arises, the individual must make the choice to sacrifice himself. The collective can't make it for him. When the collective throws the individual under the bus, there ceases to be a collective. All that remains is disorder and selfishness.

If that collective was truly strong, they would've immediately shut those naysayers down, and stood by the side of the classmate. You can't sacrifice somebody for the greater good, that choice belongs only to them. It cannot be made for him by other people. His sacrifice was his and only his own choice, like the Geography class kid. What kind of story would that have been, had the class instead been egging him on to go up to that board?

Collectives like that aren't worth a limping dog. Make sure to choose your collective carefully. Make sure to get to know them, make sure to stand by them, make sure they stand by you. And make sure to remove bad actors who would sell you out for a few good grades in some school subject.

The Revolution

I can't help but feel like the way many leftists talk of The Revolution is the same way many Christians do about The Rapture. The two have a couple of things in common, I think. A, is that they're probably never happening, and B, is that everybody thinks they'll see them come about in their own lifetime.

Karl Marx himself probably thought he would get to see The Revolution, and it's been quite a bit since then. We all keep saying that capitalism will eventually see to its own destruction, yet all that's been happening is growth overall.

Even the times when it crashes, it always gets bailed out by states. I think that's the scariest possibility for the future. That capitalism never falls, and that it'll just keep getting bigger and bigger and whenever it fails it'll keep getting bailed out and it'll never ever end.

We can't hold out for The Revolution, for world communism. There's gotta be something else we're missing, something to focus our efforts on. You probably won't see The Revolution in your lifetime. In the meantime, spread the word, organize, join a union, amplify each others' voices.

YouTube

I swear this isn't because of the algorithm stuff with the channel.

YouTube has an indisputable monopoly on long-form video content. Anti-trust measures could never change this, though, as this monopoly wasn't acquired based on buying or merging anything. This monopoly was created by people.

Few are satisfied with the way YouTube is being run, with YouTube's goals and changes often being in direct opposition to popular demand from all sides. Changes like removing the YouTube dislike, algorithms that negatively impact auteurs and favor corpo-slop, AI summaries, unskippable and longer ads, etc.

With no real competition in the internet video market, YouTube is free to do as it pleases and make any terrible changes it desires. You're gonna move to Vimeo, or PeerTube? Yeah, right. Try having success anywhere outside of YouTube.

This is harmful to both creators and to viewers. YouTube has no incentive to change for the better, because people will keep using it no matter what. If we want to break YouTube's monopoly, it'll have to be through our own action. We need to scatter to other sites to stoke betterment and action on the part of companies, both as creators and as viewers. We must re-introduce competition into the market, or we'll be worse off. So do use Vimeo, PeerTube, whatever. This is the only way to improve the situation.

While I don't have experience with the site, I like seeing something like Nebula pop up. Creators taking matters into their own hands and breaking from YouTube's restrictive clutches. I wish them well.