🗽UNITED STATES POLITICS 🦅
<Lovecraftian Loomer EditionThread for the hellish discussion related to
the scourge of the earth, the destroyer of nations, the king of coups, the sultan of sanctions, the emir of the embargo, the autocrat of austerity, the doge of deregulation, the baron of busting unions, the prince of privatization, the lord of loan sharks, the patron-saint of proxy wars, the sponsor of settlers, the guarantor of genocides, the Divided $nakkkes of Amerikkka™
🏈 💵 🌭 🍔
🛠️ Strike Tracker ⚒️https://striketracker.ilr.cornell.edu/🇺🇸 Deeds of the Burger Reich 🇺🇸https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/main/us_atrocities.md📺 Live News 📺(sponsored by USAID)
• CNN:
https://www.livenewsnow.com/american/cnn-news-usa.html• MSNBC:
https://www.livenewsnow.com/american/msnbc.html• FOX:
https://www.livenewsnow.com/american/fox-news-channel.html• Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/live/us✊ Live Protest Streams ✊https://woke.net/Epstein's Client List DOES NOT EXISThttps://epsteinsblackbook.com/Previous Threads:
>>2383099 288 posts and 63 image replies omitted.>>2384898>The fact that the guy who came up with the definition you like so muchI don't recall saying I liked it. Can you go back and read the original post where you first responded to me? I said to hell with the definition and whether it legally constitutes genocide or not and talk about the criteria itself.
>shilled for it to be applied to Israel's geopolitical enemies but not Israel itself I told you already that I wasn't aware that the guy who coined the term genocide was a Zionist. Not sure the utility in asserting he "shilled" for a broader definition of genocide when he invented the term genocide itself.
>should be a massive reconsideration point for you.A reconsideration of what? A reconsideration of ""the definition you like so much"? Again I didn't say I "liked his definition. Go back and read. All I said was that the brute force extermination of a people's culture was part of the original criteria of the term genocide itself, i.e. that there is no "cultural" genocide vs. "regular" genocide, they're both wrapped up in each other for Lemkin, the guy who coined the term "genocide." I.e. it was later thinkers who separated them. The Israelis are doing genocides of all possible definition to the Palestinians right now so I think it is perfectly possible to apply his Lemkin's criteria for what constitutes genocide to what the Israelis are doing even if he personally was a Zionist hypocrite. Where is our area of disagreement here? I don't think I understand.
>Turns out "cultural genocide" as a term was invented by a supremacist who didn't want _his_ gay little ethnic cult culled.Lemkin invented the term "genocide" itself, not just "cultural" genocide. My point was that what we now call "cultural" genocide was included in his definition of genocide, which was much broader than what ended up being ratified in international law. I was pointing out the disparity between the terms intended definition and its legal definition: A historical fact, not an opinion I have. Does that mean we shouldn't use the term genocide at all just because a Zionist hypocrite invented it? That is the conclusion of your logic. I said Lemkin invented the term genocide and "cultural genocide" was originally part of the criteria but that wasn't ratified into international law. I was stating a historical fact, not an opinion. Again, you seem to think I "like" Lemkin or that I "want" genocide to only apply when Zionists say it should. That is not what I'm saying at all so you can stop arguing with me on that basis now, please.
>>2384987>People will seemingly do anything to not engage in analysis of structures of class, labor, and political economy a la basic Marxism.
<Paradoxically, some of the most radical-sounding theory ends up being politically inert. If your revolution happens in desire or discourse, then there's no need to organize tenants, unions, or strikes. No need to analyze class composition. It's post-materialist. The ruling class is perfectly happy for people to spend their time deciphering Deleuze or burning effigies of "the State" in their heads rather than challenging property relations.
>Since the 1960s, theory has absorbed countercultural and psychoanalytic influences that treat rationalism itself as suspect. Much of this comes from academia. Their material interests don't align with the working class, so abstract theory "feels" radical without risking much. Another part of this is a sort of learned helplessness and nihilism, in that sense modern theory serves the same function as fascism in that is provides an outlet by giving the "aesthetic" of radicalism without the substance.
<TLDR:The most "radical" thing you can do today is to simply disregard the vast majority of Western Marxism/Post-Marxism i.e. Freudo-Marxism, Deleuzean neo-Kantianism, Hegelian revivals through Lukács and Adorno, postmodernism, poststructuralism, and any approach that elevates """discourse""" as the primary object of analysis, and instead return to a straightforward, rigorous conjunctural class and geopolitical analysis grounded in orthodox Marxist categories and methodology. >>2384825>Lincoln had to compromise a lot to get the emancipation declaration passed at all.It was an executive order not legislation so he didn't need to compromise on anything.
This liberal view you have of Lincoln's compromises being good comes from the book Team of Rivals. Consider why Obama loved that book and Spielberg made a 2012 movie based on it.
>>2384986The pentecostal speaking in tongues shit is a modern innovation. Yeah all religions use emotional blackmail and barter when proselytizing. turns out people want nice stuff and will say nice things about you if you give them stuff.
I'm not a Christian. At all. But I don't think their description of the doctrines were accurate. The whole point of those videos is to show you how everyone's perceptions are warped by culture, language, geography, politics, religion, and historical era. Naturally when Christianity came to Japan the Buddhists thought the Christians were talking about some weird buddha. They didn't even apparently understand the crucifixion narrative. From the description given in part 2 in the video they thought ornamental crucifixes were meant to make people feel emotion only and that there was no real world historical narrative of a guy getting crucified behind it. That's way more interesting and I think it would be a mistake to backwards project my own contemporary Atheist perspective onto feudal Japanese Buddhists. These weren't just meant to be secular "Debunks" these were declarations of the superiority of their own religion.
>>2384990>Other vaccines were about as effectiveStill, at least cuba's vacs didn't caused allegedly any Heart Problems or Vaccine injury unlike USA companies RNA vacs.
>there are new ones coming out now involving nasal sprays that might actually offer enduring protection against covidabout time, after covid it seems no one in the USA actually wanted to perfect the vaccine, after when it's stop making the shareholders of healthcare companies money.
>>2384617>They just leaflet and do charity work.I can't speak about the entire acp, but at least locally that charity work needs to be done. The western quarter of my state is still fucked up from hurricane helene, and the government isn't in any hurry to do anything about it. The only other groups doing anything similar are anarchists that either won't leave the cities or are committed only to not developing any durable solutions, or food pantries which are overstretched already and the cuts to snap are probably going to crush them.
So if it wasn't for the acp the poorest part of my state would either be abandoned to the klan and/or the most reactionary christcuck "churches" you've ever seen.
Not a day goes by that someone doesn't post what new retarded thing Haz has said here, and I'm not going to defend him. The fact that at least this one chapter of the acp seems dedicated to actually doing something for working people keeps me from writing off the entire organization though.
Lol, Trump is calling Rosie O'Donnell a threat to humanity and threatening to denaturalize her.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5398333-donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-citizenship/I mean the idea of citizenship just being revoked on some politician's whim is horrifying enough, but only Trump could also make it deeply funny by threatening celebrities he dislikes with it.
>>2385019Here is the part I was talking about.
>my second objection is this if it were true that deos created human beings why then did he not at the same time establish one religion for all the people encompassed by heaven and the four seas so now he has to face the dangers of thousands nay tens of thousands of miles all for the sake of spreading his Doctrine to this little land what a stupid Buddha he must be without anyone asking him deos created human beings and then he also created pariso and Inferno and now he lifts humans up or drops them down ruled only by his own Caprice and fancy perhaps they nailed him to the cross because of the grudge they bore him for causing this suffering at any rate this deos looks like a devil to me Actually that's a good rip too.
<Jesus deserved it for making this fucked up world and I'd do it to him again. Any any of you burgerstanis in DSA? I just read this article published by what I guess to be from the more advanced part of DSA:
<National Political Committee member Amy W gives a primer on the purpose and function of deliberative democracy and proportional voting for the socialist party.https://www.marxistunity.com/light-and-air/democracy-is-more-than-votingI got three criticisms:
1.
The article does not state that proportionality & recall are conflicting goals.<The most important role of representatives is to represent their electorate. This may sound tautological, but it’s important to keep in mind. That’s why recall is a crucial right for electors to a standing body, and why I’ll argue for proportional representation in nearly every situation.How do these two ideas fit together? With proportional elections, an elected person only needs to represent some minority within the voting population, but a recall mechanism operates on majoritarian principles. Proportionality with recall mechanism can work if you make public who votes for whom (so that the right to recall a specific person can be linked to specific voters), but do you want to do that?
2.
The article mixes up input forms with results.<Majoritarian voting methods like Approval and Score approximate a result where every elected seat represents the majority preference of the electorate (…) Voting methods designed for proportional representation like Single Transferable Vote (STV), on the other hand, are designed to represent the diversity of the electorate.Approval ballots or score ballots are not "majoritarian voting methods", they are forms for
input patterns. These patterns can be counted in a majoritarian or proportional way. See:
https://rangevoting.org/RRV.html Approval ballots with sequential reweighting are much easier to count than STV ballots:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_proportional_approval_voting3.
The article does not mention the most representative method!And that method is sortition, meaning selection by lot. If you are spooked by this, that's understandable, especially when it comes to small committee sizes. But it's easy to make it less chaotic: Instead of using a lottery over all members, you can split the population into distinct lotteries, so there are representation guarantees (for example, splitting into regions so that each of these regions is guaranteed some representation).
Unique IPs: 23