Are you trying to equate the ideology of a political regime with a minority population of South Africans?
South Africa had no right to exist as an apartheid state, and Israel has no right to exist as an apartheid state.
After apartheid ended and living conditions improved, black South Africans didn’t go and slaughter every white South African as retribution, so when Israel says freed Palestinians would slaughter all Israelites, why should we believe them?
If the occupation ended today and Palestinians were allowed to live fairly and given ample resources to rebuild, what reason would they have to seek further conflict? If treated fairly, why would Palestinians act any differently than the South Africans freed from apartheid? This conflict is ultimately the direct result of unfair treatment after all.
Maybe a disclaimer ahead: it’s absolutely atrocious what Israel is doing in Gaza. Leveling it and probably filling it with Jews when rebuilding it. The whole thing is a 911 like overreaction and I do not support any of it.
Does not matter what some court says it is or not. That piece of land will most likely be ethnically cleansed.
At the same time saying Israel has no right to exist can mean many things from not in it’s current form to all Jews in the sea. That’s the problem with dumbass slogans like this.
we have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. but the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of god and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.
Typical Stalinism/Maoism: Anyone who opposes my implementation of Marxism is an enemy of the proletariat and can be persecuted to any extent. These people agree with the mainstream idea that communism can’t be implemented democratically, but come to the conclusion that democracy must be abolished.
This meme is an open dogwhistle to tankies and thankfully meaningless to anyone who hasn’t fallen into or interacted with this small subsection of the far-left.
The kind that rails on “anti authoritarianism”? Or do you have a charitable interpretation of “authoritarianism” that is somehow compatible with democracy?
I also fail to see what any of that has to do with capitalism, which I have neither defended nor mentioned yet you brought up.
Goddam arguing with tankies and their endless litany of non-sequiturs is such a pointless exercise.
Do you have evidence of Marx and Engels, both who railed against so-called “anti-authoritarians,” saying that “Democracy must be abolished?” Do you have evidence of Marxists who followed them saying “Democracy must be abolished” either? I do not believe you will.
What I do see is Communists advocating for the destruction of Capitalism and the structures that support it, replacing them with proletarian democracy.
It isn’t a non-sequitor, your point itself was a strawman that doesn’t exist.
I love how being unable to make a coherent argument you go on bleating about tankies. If you admit that capitalism is not a democracy for the majority, then what democracy is being abolished?
Being against “anti-authoritarians” is not the same thing as being “authoritarian” as these categories are not useful in the first place. No marxist considers themselves to be either category.
Nobody has the right to exist Morpheus… You must fight for it. Rights are just a human construct and one of the greatest lies contained within the matrix.
If you’re mad that the flag of Israel is depicted next to a Nazi logo, I would remind you that Israel is not the same thing as Jewish people, nor does it represent them. Israel is representative of a Zionist nation-state, and nothing more.
Both of the ideologies depicted in this meme are centered around genocidal ethnostates, so nothing being said is untrue.
Stokes’ theorem. Almost the same thing as the high school one. It generalizes the fundamental theorem of calculus to arbitrary smooth manifolds. In the case that M is the interval [a, x] and ω is the differential 1-form f(t)dt on M, one has dω = f’(t)dt and ∂M is the oriented tuple {+x, -a}. Integrating f(t)dt over a finite set of oriented points is the same as evaluating at each point and summing, with negatively-oriented points getting a negative sign. Then Stokes’ theorem as written says that f(x) - f(a) = integral from a to x of f’(t) dt.
It’s the most general form of Stokes’ theorem that the integral of a differential form over the boundary of an volume and the integral of an exterior derivative of this form over that volume are the same. It covers a lot of classic formulas from the fundamental theorem of calculus to Green’s theorem, Gauss’ theorem and classic Stokes’ theorem.
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.