The Shock Doctrine: The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism
The Divide: Global Inequality From Conquest To Free Markets
Anarchism And Its Aspirations / Anarchy Works
The ABCs Of Socialism / Socialism ... Seriously: A Brief Guide To Surviving The 21st Century
Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science And Gambles With Your Future
The Search For A Nonviolent Future (Michael N. Nagler)
Feminism For The 99%
Currently reading "Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion With Radical Islam" And "Devil's Game: How The United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam"
Time to move away from industrial agriculture and towards organic farming methods (see: polyculture, horticulture, agroforestry, permaculture, crop rotation..)
"The efficiency and productivity of industrial agriculture hides the costs of depletion of soils, exploitation of groundwater, erosion, and extinction of biodiversity. Industrial agriculture uses 10 times more energy than it produces. It uses 10 times more water than biodiverse farming with water-prudent crops and organic practices use. In fact, when assessed from nature’s economy, biodiverse, ecological farms have much higher productivity than large-scale, industrial, monoculture farms. The illusion of efficiency is produced by externalizing the ecological costs." / "..a polyculture system can produce 100 units of food from 5 units of inputs, whereas an industrial system requires 300 units of input to produce the same 100 units. The 295 units of wasted inputs could have provided 5,900 units of food. This is a recipe for starving people, not for feeding them. A common argument used to promote industrial agriculture is that only it and industrial breeding can maintain the increased food productivity needed for a growing population. However, since resources, not labor, are the limiting actor in food production, it is resource productivity, not labor productivity, which is the relevant measure. What is needed is more efficient resource use so that the same resources can feed more people. A 66-fold decrease of food producing capacity in the context of resources use is not an efficient strategy for using limited land, water, and biodiversity to feed the world." (from the book "Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, And Peace" by Vandana Shiva)
"Modern industrial farms are built as vast monocultures, with a single crop stretching from horizon to horizon, doused in chemical pesticides and herbicides designed to exterminate all other forms of life. If you’ve ever seen aerial photographs of the American Midwest, you know what this looks like: under capitalist agriculture, the land is reorganised according to a totalitarian logic with a single goal in mind: to maximise short-term extraction. This approach has turned rich topsoils into dust, releasing huge plumes of CO2 from the earth in the process. It’s caused insect and bird populations to collapse, while chemical run-off has killed whole freshwater ecosystems. Fortunately, there’s another way. Intrepid farmers around the world, from Virginia to Syria, are experimenting with more holistic methods called regenerative agroecology. They’re planting multiple crop species together to build resilient ecosystems, while using compost, organic fertilisers and crop rotation to restore life and fertility to the soils. In areas where these methods have been used, crop yields have improved, earthworms have returned, insect populations have recovered and bird species have rebounded. And perhaps best of all, as dead soils recover they are sequestering enormous quantities of CO2 out of the atmosphere. In fact, scientists believe that if we’re going to have any chance of averting climate breakdown, we’ll need to roll out regenerative methods across most of the world’s farmland and pasture. It’s more effective by far than any man-made carbon-capture technology. This is what reciprocity looks like in action. When you give back as much as you receive, it has a multiplier effect on ecosystem health. It revives life. And it’s not just in agriculture that this is happening. Regenerative approaches are being developed in forestry and fishing as well, and in many cases people are drawing on techniques that have long been used by Indigenous communities and small farmers in the global South. Large agribusinesses have been slow to adopt these methods, however – despite the fact that they have been shown to improve the quality of crops and the long-term fertility of the soils. Why? Because it requires time and labour. It requires an intimate knowledge of the local ecosystem. It requires understanding the traits and behaviours of dozens of species, and how they interact with each other. It requires care. When you treat a farm like an ecosystem instead of a factory, you begin a relationship with the land that is inimical to the short-term extractivist logic of agribusiness." (from the book "Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save The World" by Jason Hickel )
European countries including Spain have sown destruction and exploitation around the world for their own benefit. It's not surprising that marginalized people are trying to get their fair share. European countries have spread capitalism which destroys communal support systems in order to profit off of access to resources/land/cheap (or free) labor force/etc. regardless of societal/ecological consequences ("externalities").
If Europe wants to solve the refugee/migrant problem it should help communities to rise above the system that puts a price tag on human needs and which is based on a competitive struggle of everyone for themselves and their family, while an elite gets richer and more powerful above it all.
It's not good regardless of the connection to sex bots. It means classrooms would be monitored to make sure teachers and kids "behave" and don't pose any risk to the establishment by straying from the curriculum into conversations that question the status quo. And it would allow creeps to spy on kids and gather information on them.
-Access to social media is "crucial for supporting youthful political engagement in contemporary democracy", allowing young people to express their political views and be exposed to other people's views, "to experiment with their political voice and to hone it through interaction with others." (https://phys.org/news/2025-01-explores-social-media-tool-young.html)
" “We need to prosecute the perpetrators of online harm and the tech companies that allow horrible things – sextortion, image-based abuse,” [Candice Odgers] says. “It’s horrific for women and for girls – they are 80% to 90% of the victims and tech company owners and developers are 90% male, so we’ve got this fundamental problem in terms of protecting women and girls online.” " / " “The more we make it a forbidden place to spend time, the less likely they are going to tell us what’s happening in those spaces, the less likely they will be to report harms, the less likely we will be to help them...” " / " “For some people, it’s a support community. Tech isn’t really like tobacco. Its effects go in all directions.” " / "Odgers’ response to concerns about adolescents’ time and energy being wasted by addictive algorithms is that governments should be building better communities and physical spaces for children to play and learn; this could be funded, she says, “with a big old tax on tech”. " (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jul/16/psychologist-candice-odgers-kids-tech-mental-health-social-media-bans)
"For LGBTQ+ youth, foster kids, and those stuck in unsupportive home environments, [and other young people dealing with abuse/depression/alienation/isolation/etc.] social media is often the only place to find community, explore their identity, or access life-saving resources. Forcibly removing young people isolates those who need connection the most" (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/how-and-why-fight-back-against-social-media-bans)
-We should ban harmful algorithms - the ones that "are implemented, not with the goal to make us happy or healthy, but to keep us engaged and maybe sell us something" - instead of completely prevent access to platforms. (https://www.fastcompany.com/91136834/new-york-social-media-algorithm-ban)
-We need to have better moderation of harmful content, abuse, hate, harassment, etc., and have a support system to help young people deal with issues they encounter.
"Social media can foster social connections, offer support and community, and provide access to valuable information and resources that help young people gain additional emotional support.." / "Young people can take several practical steps to build resilience and maintain good mental health in the age of social media. It's crucial to promote a balanced approach, empowering them to use these tools in ways that support their wellbeing and minimise potential harm." / "For parents, carers and educators open communication, ongoing education, and a focus on building digital literacy are key to navigating this ever-changing landscape. It’s important to equip children and young people with the skills to navigate the digital world safely and responsibly. This includes teaching them about online safety, critical thinking skills, and how to manage their screen time and social media use." / "Adults can model healthy coping mechanisms and positive mental health practices. This can involve demonstrating self-care, setting boundaries with technology, and talking openly about their own day to day life.." / "In simple terms, listening is golden. It's incredibly powerful, especially for young people. In my 14+ years as a counsellor, I've seen how impactful it is to offer a safe space where children and young people feel truly heard and understood, without judgment. Reducing stigma is equally important, as it encourages young people to seek help without shame and view mental health fluidly. Showing that with the right support and care poor mental health can get better."
(https://mhfaengland.org/mhfa-centre/blog/Social-media-and-young-people-Understanding-the-impact-and-offering-support/)
-Access to social media is "crucial for supporting youthful political engagement in contemporary democracy", allowing young people to express their political views and be exposed to other people's views, "to experiment with their political voice and to hone it through interaction with others." (https://phys.org/news/2025-01-explores-social-media-tool-young.html)
" “We need to prosecute the perpetrators of online harm and the tech companies that allow horrible things – sextortion, image-based abuse,” [Candice Odgers] says. “It’s horrific for women and for girls – they are 80% to 90% of the victims and tech company owners and developers are 90% male, so we’ve got this fundamental problem in terms of protecting women and girls online.” " / " “The more we make it a forbidden place to spend time, the less likely they are going to tell us what’s happening in those spaces, the less likely they will be to report harms, the less likely we will be to help them...” " / " “For some people, it’s a support community. Tech isn’t really like tobacco. Its effects go in all directions.” " / "Odgers’ response to concerns about adolescents’ time and energy being wasted by addictive algorithms is that governments should be building better communities and physical spaces for children to play and learn; this could be funded, she says, “with a big old tax on tech”. " (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jul/16/psychologist-candice-odgers-kids-tech-mental-health-social-media-bans)
"For LGBTQ+ youth, foster kids, and those stuck in unsupportive home environments, [and other young people dealing with abuse/depression/alienation/isolation/etc.] social media is often the only place to find community, explore their identity, or access life-saving resources. Forcibly removing young people isolates those who need connection the most" (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/how-and-why-fight-back-against-social-media-bans)
-We should ban harmful algorithms - the ones that "are implemented, not with the goal to make us happy or healthy, but to keep us engaged and maybe sell us something" - instead of completely prevent access to platforms. (https://www.fastcompany.com/91136834/new-york-social-media-algorithm-ban)
-We need to have better moderation of harmful content, abuse, hate, harassment, etc., and have a support system to help young people deal with issues they encounter.
"Social media can foster social connections, offer support and community, and provide access to valuable information and resources that help young people gain additional emotional support.." / "Young people can take several practical steps to build resilience and maintain good mental health in the age of social media. It's crucial to promote a balanced approach, empowering them to use these tools in ways that support their wellbeing and minimise potential harm." / "For parents, carers and educators open communication, ongoing education, and a focus on building digital literacy are key to navigating this ever-changing landscape. It’s important to equip children and young people with the skills to navigate the digital world safely and responsibly. This includes teaching them about online safety, critical thinking skills, and how to manage their screen time and social media use." / "Adults can model healthy coping mechanisms and positive mental health practices. This can involve demonstrating self-care, setting boundaries with technology, and talking openly about their own day to day life.." / "In simple terms, listening is golden. It's incredibly powerful, especially for young people. In my 14+ years as a counsellor, I've seen how impactful it is to offer a safe space where children and young people feel truly heard and understood, without judgment. Reducing stigma is equally important, as it encourages young people to seek help without shame and view mental health fluidly. Showing that with the right support and care poor mental health can get better."
(https://mhfaengland.org/mhfa-centre/blog/Social-media-and-young-people-Understanding-the-impact-and-offering-support/)
This might be the start of the creation of my worst nightmare. A real-life version of hell, where people are imprisoned and cannot kill themselves or die of old age.
"During the 1950s and 1960s, the United States had become particularly concerned about Chile. As the home of the UN’s Economic Commission for Latin America and figures like Raúl Prebisch, Chile had become the centre of developmentalist [=Western-style internal economic development, building an independent economy not subjected to exploitation by foreign institutions/corporations] thinking in Latin America. The US feared that these ideas would spread across the rest of the continent. To counter this tendency, the US government launched Project Chile in 1956. The goal was to resist developmentalism by training Chilean economics students – around 100 of them – in the principles of neoliberal theory at the University of Chicago. A decade later, the programme was expanded to include students from across the continent, and eventually led to the formation of the Center for Latin American Economic Studies at Chicago. It was ideological warfare. The idea was to train students to scorn social safety nets, trade barriers, infant industry protection, price controls, public services and many of the other policies being promoted by progressive Latin American economists at the time. [...] Developmentalism received a promising boost when voters elected Salvador Allende – a thoughtful, unpretentious doctor with thick-rimmed spectacles who was popular for his progressive views. At the time, much of Chile’s population was still mired in extreme poverty, while a small elite controlled most of the country’s vast land and wealth. Allende [...] established a minimum wage, reduced the price of bread, rolled out free school meals, expanded low-income housing and extended public transportation to working-class neighbourhoods. He nationalised the copper mines and capped land ownership at 80 hectares (fully compensating all private owners), ending the colonial latifundia [=vast land estates] and redistributing land to peasant farmers. And it worked. Wages rose, poverty rates declined, school enrolment reached record levels. But the United States was not happy. Allende’s nationalisation and land reform programmes appeared to threaten US economic interests; after all, US corporations had $964 million invested in Chile and were earning an average return of 17.4 per cent on it. Allende pledged full compensation for anyone who would lose their property or investments as a result, but this failed to pacify the US, which feared Allende’s popularity would trigger a broader turn to the left in Latin America. At the time, 20 per cent of total US foreign investments were tied up in Latin America, and US firms had 5,436 subsidiaries in the region, with significant profits at stake; they didn’t want to see the rise of more Allende-style governments among Chile’s neighbours. At first, the United States tried to force Allende to back off his nationalisation programme by applying non-military pressure, doing everything in their power to strangle the Chilean economy. President Richard Nixon famously ordered the CIA director, Richard Helms, to ‘make the economy scream’. The US blocked government loans to Chile and encouraged private banks to do the same. They placed a moratorium on Chilean copper imports for six months, thus depleting Chile’s foreign currency reserves. And the CIA used El Mercurio, a newspaper owned by US multinational ITT, to disseminate anti-Allende propaganda. ..." (from "The Divide: Global Inequality from Conquest to Free Markets'' by Jason Hickel)
"In 2014, a team of scientists based at Harvard and Yale published a remarkable study on how people make decisions about the natural world. They were interested in whether people will choose to share finite resources with future generations. Future generations pose a problem because they cannot reciprocate with you. If you choose to forgo immediate monetary gain in order to preserve ecology for your grandchildren, they can’t offer the favour back – so you gain little from sharing. In light of this, economists expect that people will make a ‘rational’ choice to exhaust resources in the present and leave future generations with nothing. But it turns out that people don’t actually behave this way. The Harvard-Yale team put people in groups and gave them each a share of common resources to be managed across generations. They found that, on average, a full 68% of individuals chose to use their share sustainably, taking only as much as the pool could regenerate, sacrificing possible profits so that future generations could thrive. In other words, the majority of people behave exactly the opposite to how economic theory predicts. The problem is that the other 32% chose to liquidate their share of the resources for the sake of quick profits. Over time, this selfish minority ended up depleting the collective pool, leaving each successive generation with a smaller and smaller supply of resources to work with. The losses compounded quickly over time: by the fourth generation the resources were completely exhausted, leaving future generations with nothing – a striking pattern of decline that looks very similar to what’s happening to our planet today. Yet when the groups were asked to make decisions collectively, with direct democracy, something remarkable happened. The 68% were able to overrule the selfish minority and keep their destructive impulses in check. In fact, democratic decision-making encouraged the selfish types to vote for more sustainable decisions, because they realised they were all in it together. Over and over again, the scientists found that under democratic conditions, resources were sustained for future generations, at 100% capacity, indefinitely. The scientists ran the experiments for up to twelve generations, and they kept getting the same results: no net depletion. None. What’s so fascinating about this is that it shows widespread and intuitive support for what ecological economists call a ‘steady-state’ economy. A steady-state economy follows two key principles in order to stay in balance with the living world: 1) Never extract more than ecosystems can regenerate. 2) Never waste or pollute more than ecosystems can safely absorb. To get to a steady-state economy, we need to have clear caps on resource use and waste. For decades, economists have told us that such caps are impossible, because people will see them as irrational. It turns out they’re wrong. If given the chance, this is exactly the kind of policy that people want. This helps us see our ecological crisis in a new light. It’s not ‘human nature’ that’s the problem here. It’s that we have a political system that allows a few people to sabotage our collective future for their own private gain." (from the book "Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save The World" by Jason Hickel)
-
"Ownership of things in common was so universal throughout the American continent when the Europeans arrived that even the cooking pot, Columbus noted, was available to anyone who wanted to take from it, and this even in times of starvation. Two centuries later, Thomas Morton could also say of the Five Nations inhabiting New England that “although every proprietor knows his own . . . yet all things, so long as they will last, are used in common amongst them.” The idea of ownership of land was so alien among Native Americans that individuals made no effort to secure for themselves the lands they occupied, frequently moving grounds, and readily sharing them with newcomers. As Kirkpatrick Sale writes, “Owning the land, selling the land, seemed ideas as foreign as owning and selling the clouds or the wind.” William Cronon too comments, “This relaxed attitude towards personal possession was typical throughout New England.” [..] No effort was made to set permanent boundaries around a field that a family used, and fields were abandoned after some years and allowed to return to bushes. What people possessed was the use of the land and the crops; this is what was traded, and this usufruct right could not prevent trespassing. In fact, different groups of people could have claims on the same land, depending on the use they made of it, which might not be the same. Several villages could fish in the same rivers recognizing their mutual rights. And when one left the clan they left everything they had possessed. Yet, these unattached, nomadic tribes had a far deeper communion with the land and agriculture than the privatizing Europeans and so much respect for it that though “they had taken their livelihood from the land for eons, hunting, foraging, planting, fishing, building, trekking,” at the time of the Europeans’ arrival “the land of North America was still by every account without exception a lush and fertile wilderness teeming with abundant wildlife in water, woods, and air.” The result of this lack of attachment to private property among the Native peoples of America was a communal outlook that valued cooperation, group identity, and culture. [..] The dislike for individual accumulation was so strong that they invented the ritual of the potlatch, that is, a periodic redistribution of wealth, to free themselves from it." (from the book "Re-enchanting The World: Feminism And The Politics Of The Commons" by Silvia Federici & Peter Linebaugh)
We aren't programmed by nature, we were programmed by economic interests.
Adding a relevant quote (also see an additional quote in a separate reply to this one in regards to how people can protect/conserve nature if given the chance/freedom to do so)
"There was a day when the prevailing American culture was the mass marketer’s worst nightmare. Frugality and thrift were central to the famed “Puritan ethic” that the early settlers brought with them to America. The Puritans believed in hard work, participation in community, temperate living, and devotion to a spiritual life. Their basic rule of living was that one should not desire more material things than could be used effectively. They taught their children, “Use it up, wear it out, make do, or do without.” The Quakers also had a strong influence on early America and, although more tolerant and egalitarian, shared with the Puritans the values of hard work and frugality as important to one’s spiritual development. Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, both important early American writers, viewed simplicity as a path to experiencing the divine. The consumer culture emerged largely as a consequence of concerted efforts by the retailing giants of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to create an ever-growing demand for the goods they offered for sale. The American historian William Leach has documented in Land of Desire: Merchants, Power, and the Rise of a New American Culture how they successfully turned a spiritually oriented culture of frugality and thrift into a material culture of self-indulgence. Leach finds the claim that the market simply responds to consumer desires to be nothing more than a self-serving fabrication of those who make their living manipulating reality to persuade consumers to buy what corporations find it profitable to sell: Indeed, the culture of consumer capitalism may have been among the most nonconsensual public cultures ever created, and it was nonconsensual for two reasons. First, it was not produced by “the people” but by commercial groups in cooperation with other elites comfortable with and committed to making profits and to accumulating capital on an ever-ascending scale. Second, it was nonconsensual because, in its mere day-to-day conduct (but not in any conspiratorial way), it raised to the fore only one vision of the good life and pushed out all others. In this way, it diminished American public life, denying the American people access to insight into other ways of organizing and conceiving life, insight that might have endowed their consent to the dominant culture (if such consent were to be given at all) with real democracy. The populist cultures that grew out of the hearts and aspirations of ordinary people in America stressed the democratization of property and the virtues of a republic based on independent families owning their own land and tools, producing for themselves much of what they consumed, and participating in communities of sharing. Theirs was the model of a strong social economy, supplemented by involvement in the money economy at the margin of their lives." / "Gradually, the individual was surrounded by messages reinforcing the culture of desire. Advertisements, department store show windows, electric signs, fashion shows, the sumptuous environments of the leading hotels, and billboards all conveyed artfully crafted images of the good life." (from the book "When Corporations Rule The World [20th anniversary edition]" by David C. Korten)
[Onesti Hill] and other teens asked D.C. to provide more youth programming rather than simply ban group gatherings.
Yes instead of "cracking down" maybe try creating (or allowing) a non-alienating and empathic society for young people (and people in general) to participate in, with joyful and meaningful ways to spend time and energy, working together for the benefit of the community and answering people's shared needs
From the little I know he did seem relatively chill but did he actually promote peace between groups? Didn't he say he was not bringing peace but a sword?
edit: it seems that the context and interpretation of the sword (and division)/not peace thing is less bad than it first seems, but still, why would he even say anything like that which can be taken to the extreme.
edit: I forgot that he does say "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek", though I don't know how that fits with the sword thing and all the hell stuff which says that everybody who doesn't follow god's commands exactly will go to hell, and might intentionally or unintentionally cause your loved ones to sin and stray from god and suffer for eternity for that. You are basically forced morally to be a missionary or a crusader to make sure that everyone around you and the rest of the world turns to christ to save them and your loved ones from eternal torture. Not a great condition for peaceful coexistence and having empathy and acceptance of others.
The answer is that without a country capable of standing up to the US, they do not. These countries that still have socialist goverments have to hold on to power in a world where US hegemony is a fact.
Maybe a naive question but is there no way to have a country that stands strong against the US and its interference without being repressive/authoritarian against your own people? What's the point of being a socialist dictator for many years/decades if you're not allowing the people to gain collective control of the land/resources/means of production/etc. for their own benefit?
That's some Idiocracy shit
Also z-library.sk for books
Time to move away from industrial agriculture and towards organic farming methods (see: polyculture, horticulture, agroforestry, permaculture, crop rotation..)
"What the fuck are we even doing?!"
European countries including Spain have sown destruction and exploitation around the world for their own benefit. It's not surprising that marginalized people are trying to get their fair share. European countries have spread capitalism which destroys communal support systems in order to profit off of access to resources/land/cheap (or free) labor force/etc. regardless of societal/ecological consequences ("externalities").
If Europe wants to solve the refugee/migrant problem it should help communities to rise above the system that puts a price tag on human needs and which is based on a competitive struggle of everyone for themselves and their family, while an elite gets richer and more powerful above it all.
It's not good regardless of the connection to sex bots. It means classrooms would be monitored to make sure teachers and kids "behave" and don't pose any risk to the establishment by straying from the curriculum into conversations that question the status quo. And it would allow creeps to spy on kids and gather information on them.
They do not care about kids.
-Access to social media is "crucial for supporting youthful political engagement in contemporary democracy", allowing young people to express their political views and be exposed to other people's views, "to experiment with their political voice and to hone it through interaction with others." (https://phys.org/news/2025-01-explores-social-media-tool-young.html)
-We should ban harmful algorithms - the ones that "are implemented, not with the goal to make us happy or healthy, but to keep us engaged and maybe sell us something" - instead of completely prevent access to platforms. (https://www.fastcompany.com/91136834/new-york-social-media-algorithm-ban)
-We need to have better moderation of harmful content, abuse, hate, harassment, etc., and have a support system to help young people deal with issues they encounter.
They do not care about kids.
-Access to social media is "crucial for supporting youthful political engagement in contemporary democracy", allowing young people to express their political views and be exposed to other people's views, "to experiment with their political voice and to hone it through interaction with others." (https://phys.org/news/2025-01-explores-social-media-tool-young.html)
-We should ban harmful algorithms - the ones that "are implemented, not with the goal to make us happy or healthy, but to keep us engaged and maybe sell us something" - instead of completely prevent access to platforms. (https://www.fastcompany.com/91136834/new-york-social-media-algorithm-ban)
-We need to have better moderation of harmful content, abuse, hate, harassment, etc., and have a support system to help young people deal with issues they encounter.
This might be the start of the creation of my worst nightmare. A real-life version of hell, where people are imprisoned and cannot kill themselves or die of old age.
I don't have that option. Is it maybe only on mobile?
So, same old story, different century...
edit: there's also the related Aphgan textbooks https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/12/06/368452888/q-a-j-is-for-jihad
It's been a while since I've read it but Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare was an eye-opening read (it can be a bit dry but has great information)
Found through the comments (searching through the firefox addon YouTube Comment Reader) - Troubled Plains (HURRY UP.) - Dust Super Mariofell Bros. Wii: LAST BREATH
someone also mentioned "Cry for me by Ironmouse", not sure if it's sampling the music
-
We aren't programmed by nature, we were programmed by economic interests.
Adding a relevant quote (also see an additional quote in a separate reply to this one in regards to how people can protect/conserve nature if given the chance/freedom to do so)
Yes instead of "cracking down" maybe try creating (or allowing) a non-alienating and empathic society for young people (and people in general) to participate in, with joyful and meaningful ways to spend time and energy, working together for the benefit of the community and answering people's shared needs
From the little I know he did seem relatively chill but did he actually promote peace between groups? Didn't he say he was not bringing peace but a sword?
edit: it seems that the context and interpretation of the sword (and division)/not peace thing is less bad than it first seems, but still, why would he even say anything like that which can be taken to the extreme.
edit: I forgot that he does say "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek", though I don't know how that fits with the sword thing and all the hell stuff which says that everybody who doesn't follow god's commands exactly will go to hell, and might intentionally or unintentionally cause your loved ones to sin and stray from god and suffer for eternity for that. You are basically forced morally to be a missionary or a crusader to make sure that everyone around you and the rest of the world turns to christ to save them and your loved ones from eternal torture. Not a great condition for peaceful coexistence and having empathy and acceptance of others.
Which god is that? I've read parts of god's purported works and calming tensions is not one of the abilities I ran across.
Maybe a naive question but is there no way to have a country that stands strong against the US and its interference without being repressive/authoritarian against your own people? What's the point of being a socialist dictator for many years/decades if you're not allowing the people to gain collective control of the land/resources/means of production/etc. for their own benefit?