There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

freagle

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

freagle , (edited )

voting for Democrats in general elections and voting progressive in primaries is the only way this country will make any progress

Submitted without comment, without evidence, and without self-awareness. Hate to break it to you, but the only reason you say that is because you’ve been trained to say it through years of socialization in a white supremacist settler state. The actions you described have led the USA to its current position. When was the last time a Republican president won more votes than the Democrat candidate who lost? The last time was GWB in his second term by .7%, and that was 3 years after 9/11. Before that it was Public sentiment doesn’t matter. Voting doesn’t change anything. The USA hasn’t been a democracy for a long while:www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6w9CbemhVY

freagle , (edited )

Since when is Centrist defined as “I will shutdown the border as soon as you sign that bill”, “More kids in cages than the last guy”, “No prosecutions for leaders who incite a violent coup”, “More weapons for genocide”, “Let’s destroy the economy of our allies”, “We must keep the torture center at Guantanamo open”, “Who’s Epstein?”, “No I won’t pardon Peltier”, “No I won’t commute sentence of political prisoners”, “Yes, more black people in jail”, “Yes, it’s OK for prisoners to produce $11Bn in goods for private companies through slave labor”, “I swear we’ll do something about women’s health but it won’t be part of our political platform for the election”.

All of the evidence says we have the same two groups of white supremacist leaders we have always had: the plantation owners who bought the slaves, and the financiers who sold the slaves. You want to claim that the financiers are “centrist” in that formulation because they don’t personally whip people?

freagle ,

Electoral pressure is literally the only lever we have to push Biden to do better. There’s no other way.

This is correct, barring revolution.

Biden’s team is making a bet that we aren’t serious and that they can just use Trump to hold us hostage in the party.

You are incorrect. Biden’s team, under the direction of the Democrat party, have taken away your lever because they don’t want to win. The Democrats have said this, publicly. They said back in 2016 that they would rather lose to Trump than win with Bernie. The Democrat party is happy to lose, always.

freagle , (edited )

To say that they don’t want to win is to imply a secret conspiracy to lose, but that’s not what we see

It’s EXACTLY what we see. 40 years of campaigning on Roe v Wade as law, zero moves to make it happen. Spending their own fundraising on Republican opponents. Espousing positions that people want but never actually following through. Compromising before negotiating. Democrats make their money from Wall St, just like Republicans do, so they have to lie about wanting to win for progressives to vote for them, but they don’t actually want to win because then they’ll be exposed. When they have a majority, it’s always a small majority and there’s always one to three Democrats that adopt the “spoiler” role, either switching sides, going independent, pretending to be a Blue Dog, or lying about the will of their own constituents being opposed to Democrat positions.

With Hillary, they didn’t conspire to make Hillary lose.

They conspired to lose the election. Not to make Hillary lose, but to choose the person who polled terribly, to choose the positions that wouldn’t mobilize the voters, etc.

They didn’t want Bernie to win because he wasn’t a Democrat

No True Scotsman fallacy coupled with a completely ahistorical view. Bernie has been a major part of the party for a very long time. The man is an imperialist through and through. He’s very useful to them as a Democrat, specifically, he’s useful to attract progressive voters and they can always throw an election by the way they manage him. Very few people in the party are like that. Hillary is like that for them too, though less progressive and more violent. But all they have to do is treat Hillary badly and alienate a huge amount of voters.

Winning with Bernie would have fundamentally changed their shitty party

No it wouldn’t have. Because general voters don’t elect party leadership, and the president doesn’t suddenly become the head of the party. The party would have been fine ideologically. Their problem was that Bernie would hurt their donors.

If this analogy applies, if they would rather lose the election than stop doing genocide, then death to America. I won’t give a shit about who wins, hopefully whoever wins destroys this shithole.

They would rather lose than stop doing the genocide. The country is built on genocide - non-stop genocide. Just go look up how many people the USA killed in each military action after WW2. Then go look at how many indigenous people they killed here. Then try to find the numbers for how many slaves they killed. Just for comparison, the very tiny island of Haiti was replacing around 50,000 slaves (because they were being worked to death) annually. During the Haitian revolt, hundreds were gassed by the French in the bottom of slave ships. And that’s just the KILLING. Then you’ve got the erasure of language, child separation policies, which you know about now but literally follow an unbroken line all the back to before the founding of the country, because separating kids from their parents is how you kill an entire social culture, forced sterilization of 1/3 of Puerto Rico and of indigenous and Black people was happening through the 1970s. Both parties are aware. They participated. They think it’s fine. They think it’s correct. They fucking paid the slave owners for property losses but refuse to pay reparations to those enslaved or their descendants.

The USA is a genocidal settler colony that asserted its own leadership, live a cancer that broke free from its host and now lives independently. All the politicians are engaged, fully or partially, in ongoing centuries of genocide.

freagle ,

It sounds like you’re saying that Biden supports the Zionist’s genocide literally because he wants to lose. As if this is a wedge issue that Democrats inflicted on themselves intentionally because they don’t want to be in power anymore.

No no, I’m saying the genocide is more important than winning. And if he has to lose in order for the genocide to continue under Trump, then they want to lose.

freagle ,

Nah, you’re too credulous. The parties collaborate. Winning and losing is just part of the game. The small people care. The leaders golf together, vacation together, etc. They collaborate in the management of empire. No one actually cares who wins and loses. If they cared, they would behave differently.

freagle ,

Fundamentally disagree. The political theater is not showing a deep divide between agents. It is reflecting the deep divide between voters.

freagle ,

Transmission of empire happens in universities, in big business, and in the halls of power. The new guard has gone through that process just like their predecessors. That their behavior is more erratic, again, speaks to the psychology of the voters more than the psychology of the officials.

freagle ,

Even during the cold war the USA lost constantly. I don’t think it’s incompetence. I think guerilla warfare is simply superior. It’s not like the USA was effect during the cold war. The USSR was famous for it’s ability to hunt Western spies far more effectively than the reverse. The USSR defeated the most powerful Western army ever fielded while they were still trying to modernize their agriculture to stop the centuries-long cycle of famine. The USSR failed not because of the West but because of their own failures to manage reaction and revision in the party.

The cold war was colonial management. So I don’t see why you think managing empire back then made our politicians strong but managing empire now has made them weak. You’re over indexing on present-day failures and last generations successes. They were just as loony in the 70s as they are today, we just don’t keep that stuff in the forefront.

The most significant and most important difference is global financialization and the outsourcing that came with it. The politicians from the 30s to the 70s had to manage domestic industry and the business leaders did too. Since the 70s, with new economic policies allowing freer movement of capital, more financialization and abstract derivatives, and then China identifying the economic angle to kill the empire, todays politicians have never had to deal with real productive forces. I don’t think that makes them better or worse in this case. I think it makes them more prone to abstract thinking with fewer moments of contact with reality.

But both parties have that problem and it manifests not fundamentally as forgetting they are on the same team but rather deepening the contradictions inherent in the system through their domestic policy and rhetoric.

freagle ,

I must disagree. Reaction and revision in the party were consequences of Western actions taken against them.

I think this is terribly mistaken. Reaction is inherent in any society undergoing change. It’s not something imposed from the outside. There IS international reaction, but that reaction is based on the international community’s relationship to the change. Kruschev represented the reactionary forces within Russia, not Western reactionaries. Revisionism in the USSR had nothing to do with the West and everything to do with the reactionary elements within the USSR that wanted to make socialism compatible with enterprise for profit and individual enrichment. It’s completely naive to assume that all of the USSR was ideologically aligned and that the only reason the USSR went the way it did was because of the West.

It wasn’t some internal failure of the USSR that caused it to collapse

It absolutely was.

it was the Cold War and Western aggression

The Cold War was the way that the US created pressures on the USSR without engaging them in nation-state war. The USSR needed to manage these pressures, and they failed to do so. The counter-revolutionaries within the USSR outmaneuvered the revolutionaries, and Stalin had no one to pass the torch to when he died. Kruschev launched the anti-Stalin campaign and from that point forward there was an attempt to build a new world power that allowed for private wealth accumulation and would compete with the West on economic and hard power grounds instead of ideological ones.

Back then, the West was actually a formidable colonial power - they weren’t just managers, it was a shrewd and effective system of colonial conquest.

It still is. The problem isn’t that the USA got soft from it’s success. It’s that there’s no other empires to inherit from. The USA finished taking over for the others empires after WW2. That doesn’t exist anymore. So the empire has been trying to figure out what to do, but there’s no room to expand into anymore. This is the contradiction of achieving unipolarity through displacement - once you achieve it, you cannot maintain with displacement, and the only solution is for you yourself to be displaced by the next empire. The USA has been trying to figure out a new strategy for decades, and the blowback strategy (War on Terror) has been the most effective and promising it’s come up with. You can call them soft for not coming up with an answer, but there’s also the possibility that there is no answer to be found.

Yes, the West lost battles before, but today they can’t even present a unified front

I don’t think this is a mistake. The apparent divisions politically are really useful rhetorically. You can easily see this because there’s clearly continuity in the USA’s behavior, despite the appearances of lacking a united front. The way the USA prosecuted the proxy war in Ukraine is identical to how to it prosecuted other proxy wars, but this time they did while putting out an image of division. The image and the reality don’t match up. The reality belies the continuity and consistency. The only conclusion to be drawn, then, is that the image is artifice.

Now other colonial actors and capital interests act in defiance of the empire to make their own rogue moves for power

What other colonial actors and capital interests are acting in defiance of empire? The international bourgeoisie is firmly in control of the empire. There are no wars between billionaires. And just to pre-empt the obvious - Russia and China are not colonial powers.

Brexit, for example

How is this defying empire? The UK participated in a project to create a European economic union and then backed out to protect some of its interests. In no way is this a defiance of empire.

I think this shows internal divisions within the empire and that this is reflected in partisanship.

It shows contradictions within the logic of empire, not division within the empire. The partisanship is the current strategy of the owning class to manage those contradictions to avoid revolutionary conditions.

The material base has changed and this has changed the political superstructure

The political superstructure hasn’t changed at all towards polarization and partisanship. The superstructure changes that have happened have been about power projection through treaties and NGOs. The much larger superstructural changes have been the rise of BRICS, alternate currency trades, and the neutering of sanctions, all against empire.

the voters didn’t just choose to become partisan on their own

They were manipulated into it through the propaganda arm of empire. The empire chose to make them extremely partisan. It serves the interests of empire.

the voters’ partisanship is actually a reflection of the changing material interests of the ruling class coming into contradiction with each other.

You haven’t shown any subgroups of the ruling class being in contradiction with each other. You keep pointing to the partisan divide, but they all party together, they send their kids to the same schools, they live in the same neighborhoods, they get donations from the same corporations, they vote together for everything the empire actually needs to survive. The Ds fucking obviated the filibuster last year to raise the debt ceiling, FFS. You’re getting confused by the image of conflict. There’s no real conflict within the ruling class. The contradiction is between the ruling class and the working class, and that contradiction is getting harder and harder to manage due to the changing material reality, which is itself a contradiction in that the bourgeoisie needed these changes to material reality for their own interests but the changes are making it harder to manage the class basis of society. The partisanship is yet another attempt to divide the working class against itself and defuse revolutionary potential. Is this going to result in some actual politicians reifying the narrative and living in a fantasy land? Yes. But that’s not terribly important, and in fact, it would be really hard to tell the difference between someone who’s a true believer and someone who’s merely behaving in accordance with the conditions created by polarizing the working class.

freagle ,

Hong Kongers, protective of their distinct identity

The distinct identity of having lived on brutal violent British colonial rule? Fuck off, The Economist

freagle ,

Disagree. Just like marketing and government propaganda are entwined, marketing and surveillance are entwined. There’s no red herring here. It’s a multi-headed dragon.

freagle ,

Socialization

freagle ,

OK, bonehead

freagle ,

Good thing to know that private messages are fully monitored at all times

freagle ,

Wow. Just wow.

freagle ,

I love how the active noun here is the shelter. Shelter was hit. Fucking propagandists

freagle ,

You mean like how the USA include thousands of dollars of fake rent in GDP numbers for every single homeowner in America under the justification that if they didn’t own their homes they’d be paying rent? Like that kind of politicization of economic metrics publications? Or maybe you mean how the USA only counts someone as unemployed if they are pursuing their unemployment insurance but also every state has a financial incentive to deny as many unemployment claims as possible? Or maybe it’s the constant debate around whether to use a consume price index that excludes things food and rent?

freagle ,

It’s both.

freagle ,

What the fuck kind of racist jingoistic bullshit is this?

freagle ,

@mozz

freagle ,

Liberals will never be able to figure out why the first president to ever authorize weapons transfers and sales to Ukraine was Trump and the Republics.

freagle ,

If you can’t figure it out, it’s useless for me to explain it to you

freagle ,

Non ionizing radiation means it doesn’t produce free radicals through destruction of chemical bonds. Any type of radiation that interacts with a material and has a high enough ERP will heat that thing up. Cell phone spectrum is non ionizing but the high powered towers can still cook the brain inside a skull.

freagle ,

We are getting dangerously close to one of those years where decades happen

freagle ,

BuT hOw CaN tHeY sEnD aNy FoRcE wHeN tHeY aRe LoSiNg AlL tHeIr SoLdIeRs In UkRaInE aNd RuNnInG oUt Of EqUiPmEnT?!?!

freagle ,

Why is it unforunate?

freagle , (edited )

Europeans are ex-colonialist capitalist exploiters and need to be eaten alive

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Surely only immature democracies could ever make such a wrong headed decision as choosing to support Russia’s position. Mature democracies, who have spent centuries developing their ability to think critically through the creation of race science, eugenics, colonialism, and most importantly that sticky wicket known as neocolonialism, only these democracies who have struggled with such difficult thinking topics could ever come to the correct conclusion, which is that a nuclear armed transnational military without democratic accountability should be allowed to occupy the border across which 2 of those mature European democracies invaded Russia and killed millions.

freagle ,

You really need to look up the legal definition of genocide. No. I will not provide a link. Put as much effort into research as you put into writing from the perspective of ignorance. I’ll get you started. Genocide is not defined as the intent to exterminate a genotype.

freagle ,

Still not got it right:

www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  • Killing members of the group;
  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Netanyahu literally just said Israel will stretch from the river to the sea. Intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnical group by killing them, causing serious bodily and mental harm to them, deliberately imprisoning them, poisoning them, occupying them, killing them.

My hostility stems from the fact that you have no excuse for not knowing this at this late stage of the conflict if you’re on the same side of the issue as me. No investigation, no right to speak.

freagle ,

They will, just as soon as those ships stop violating their blockade. You will note that many ships pass through Yemeni waters without issue because they are abiding by the rules, as dictates by maritime law and international law. Why are you defending the criminals?

freagle ,

No, they aren’t, because a blockade has been announced and the ships are violating the blockade.

freagle ,

Sorry, are you saying it’s not in the territorial waters of Yemen?

freagle ,

During an armed conflict, to the extent that the peacetime regime of the law of the sea and the law of naval warfare are inconsistent, the law of naval warfare is lex specialis and prevails over the peacetime rules reflected in UNCLOS (Newport Manual, §§ 1.1, 4.1).

From West Point: …westpoint.edu/russia-ukraine-war-naval-blockades…

Current understanding of blockade, including its requirements, entitlements and consequences, is largely based on the London Declaration,67 and it is reflected in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea from 1994.

From www.jstor.org/stable/48710561?seq=3 a 2018 international relations journal on blockades

Highly recommended reading that journal article. It speaks of Israeli blockades, the concept of implied belligerency, and non-state actors.

Suffice to say, Article 38 appears to be in question while there is ongoing conflict, and it appears to have been abrogated by Israel in precisely the same ways that are happening now in the strait.

freagle ,

It’s definitely predicated on some presence of violent conflict. The whole act of war framing has been made really squishy post WW2. Yemen also isn’t mincing words about it, this is because they consider Israel to be a belligerent in an armed conflict that they have chosen to participate in as an ally of Palestinian people. Since so much of the world doesn’t recognize Palestine as a nation-state, definitions get even harder here.

Enjoy the reading.

freagle , (edited )

Taiwan and Hong Kong were ripped away from China by European colonists, you ignoramus. Hong Kong was occupied as a British colony after the British dominated China during the Opium Wars, you know, that century that started when China decided to ban opium since the Europeans had gotten 60% of the Chinese population addicted and Britain decided to run gun boats through the coast terrorizing and destroying until they sacked the capital, stole and destroyed priceless history, and then forced the Chinese at gun point to re-legalize the drug AND grant ALL Europeans immunity from Chinese law within the 5 major ports?

Taiwan was the last theater of the Chinese civil war until the British and US navies intervened to protect the KMT and their favored comprador, Chiang Kai Shek. They wanted to ensure another Chinese army could go back and take over from the communists eventually so they protected, funded, and armed the KMT while it prosecuted the White Terror for 40 years, killing hundreds of thousands of political dissidents and indigenous Taiwanese.

Returning Hong Kong and Taiwan to their integrated status with China is DECOLONIZATION

freagle ,

LOL, when was the last time you saw a Chinese ship near Hawaii let alone California? If you want to measure intent by naval presence, you’re just going to make the opposite point you intended

freagle ,

Even The Atlantic, voice of the colonists, wrote a deep piece debunking the Chinese debt trap. China has forgiven sooooo much debt to other nations it’s laughable you could even make this post without blushing.

freagle ,

Thank you

freagle ,

The “governed by murderous fascists until very fairly recently” mirrors Taiwan’s timeline as well.

freagle ,

Yes. You think they deployed even half of their force to Ukraine?

freagle ,

What could you possibly be implying? I have no idea what you could possibly think would happen if the USA just stopped dominating Japan.

freagle ,

Yes. They are Marxist, from their founding through today, with everyone from peasants to school children studying some of the most advanced political science developed to date. This understanding of the world concludes that global hegemony is unsustainable and leads to total social collapse. There are other ways to succeed that don’t inherently involve failure. China has no interest in failing in the exact same way Western Europe and the USA are failing. They have no interest in building an empire that will, by all analysis, collapse. They want to build something better, not equally terrible.

freagle ,

Are you implying that there’s something inherent in Japanese people that would cause them to revert back to committing atrocities and that the only thing stopping them is the USA dominating them while the USA commits atrocities? Of course that would also be coupled with the belief that the atrocities the USA commits are not inherent in the American people, right?

freagle ,

So Japan is a risk because of resource scarcity? Someone really needs to get on dominating Europe.

freagle ,

No fucking way

freagle ,

Least bloodthirsty lib

freagle ,

What the fuck sort of twisted logic produces this sort of comment. Russia and Iran are allies against the USA.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •