#between politicians openly calling for genocide

[elysiuminfra]

its all so shit in america for trans people right now but i will never fucking stop being trans. i will never go back in the closet. they are going to have to kill me before that happens (which they really want to do but i will not die out of sheer spite) they laugh at trans suicide statistics because they want us to die but we will fucking endure because we’ve been here the whole time and we aren’t going anywhere!!!!!!!!! since antiquity trans people have existed and we aren’t leaving anytime soon!!!!!!!!! you have to believe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ptseti]

ANTI-APARTHEID SONG THAT ANGERS MUSK

In the last few days, tech billionaire Elon Musk has shared multiple posts accusing South African politician Julius Malema of inciting gen*cide against White people. The incident comes amid tension between the US and South Africa over a newly adopted land-reform law. On Sunday, the Trump ally even called for Malema to be declared an 'international criminal' and sanctioned.

It’s not the first time Musk has taken a swipe at the pan-African opposition figure. In 2023, he claimed the EFF party leader’s chanting of an apartheid-era song - K*ll the Boer - amounted to 'openly pushing for genocide of White people' in South Africa.

However, like so many of Musk's claims, the accusation was incorrect. In 2022, South Africa's High Court ruled that the song, which emerged during the struggle against apartheid, did not amount to hate speech or call for gen*cide.

The term 'Boer' means farmer in Afrikaans, the language spoken by South Africans of Dutch descent. However, in the South African context, it loosely refers to all White people who are of Dutch origin, the group that dominated the apartheid-era government.

So when freedom fighters sang about 'shooting the Boer,' they were not talking about shooting individual Boers but about bringing down the racist, oppressive system of apartheid.

It hardly seems credible that a man who has sent people into space can fail to understand this, so Musk must know that Malema is not asking his supporters to k*ll White people. But his performative anger is understandable: as a beneficiary of apartheid-era policies, Musk won't like a song that energises young people to break the system that paved the way for him to become the world's richest man.

#FVCKMUSK..

[madamepestilence]

2024 US Election Information

We have roughly 1 year until the 2024 US election. I've put in some research, and here are my conclusions.

TLDR for those of you who don't have time or focus: Cornel West (Democratic Socialist running as People's Party -> Green Party) is the ideal candidate to vote for - normally I wouldn't advocate voting third party, but we may actually have a shot for once, and he has excellent policies. Jill Stein (Green Party) is a potential backup, though if West drops out, our best option for Democratic party is Marianne Williamson.

Please spread this information, especially to residents of Texas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Nevada. Detailed information under the cut.

Current Fascist and Republican Candidates

Donald Trump, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, Asa Hutchinson, Tim Scott, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, Ryan Binkley, and Doug Burgum.

I'm not going to entertain their details, but I will note that the information I picked up while being exposed to alt-right communities from the inside via my fascist parents earlier this year shows strong evidence that Republicans are likely going to split between Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis (viewed as a betrayal by Trump supporters), and openly fascist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (I'll cover him later).

My guess is a 6/3/1 Republican vote split between Trump/DeSantis/Kennedy, Jr..

Current Democratic Candidates

Joe Biden, Marianne Williamson, and Dean Philips.

Biden has overall failed to complete the majority of his campaign promises, and has been directly supporting Israel during the genocide of Palestine, as well as deferring to Republicans to be "bipartisan" (I don't think I have to stress enough that a bipartisan democrat is not a democrat) - do not vote for him.

Williamson is a high-school educated 71-year-old author from Los Angeles, California. She is known for being Oprah Winfrey's, "spiritual advisor," (double red flag), and dropped out during the 2020 election (another red flag).

While she supports the reinstatement of Roe v. Wade, the decriminalization of cannabis and psychedelic drugs, the reduction of CO2, and moving to 100% renewable energy by 2035, her advocacy for the outright banning of assault and semi-assault weapons for civilians without military reform of the same is a slight red flag when combined with her relationship with Oprah Winfrey (an Obama supporter, the president who authorized quite a lot of drone strikes in West Asia) and drop-out makes her not a great candidate.

Philips is a Bachelor's (Brown University) and Master's Business (University of Minnesota) educated 54-year-old three-term congressman who is noted for criticizing Biden running for a second term on account of both political moderacy and medical concerns.

Philips unfortunately wants to increase police funding for some reason, but advocated for better training, including mental health training. He also advocates for what he calls, "comprehensive immigration reform," in the form of increased border security and streamlining legal entry (this ignores the problem outlined by the UN that people seeking asylum are likely to have to enter a country illegally before they can seek support), and the only real good stance he has is giving reproductive rights to patients, rather than politicians.

Philips is essentially a moderate Republican, and is a bad candidate. Do not vote for him.

Current Independent Candidates

Fascist (not his stated political stance, but it's what he is)

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a fascist that has openly quoted Nazi propaganda in his political campaigns, is an anti-vaccine activist, and has spread anti-science conspiracy theories such as vaccines causing autism and the non-existence of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. I cannot stress this enough, do not fucking vote for Kennedy, Jr.

Democratic Socialist

Cornel West is a Bachelor's (Harvard University), Master's, and Ph.D. (both Princeton University) educated 70-year-old progressive activist that switched his running party from the People's Party to the Green Party, despite being a both public- and self-described democratic socialist.

When asked why he wasn't running as a Democrat against Biden, he stated that, "Neither party is speaking to the pressing needs of poor and working people."

His party plans are a wealth tax on the rich, a national $27 minimum wage, a federal Universal Basic Income, 6 months of paid family leave, a 4-day work week, national free Pre-K childcare, "Immediate cessation of all oil and gas leasing projects on federal lands and waters," "Federal moratorium on fracking, carbon capture, and direct air capture technologies, geoengineering, and other false climate solutions," putting abortion rights in the Constitution, and nationalized healthcare.

Here's where I want to lay out something important. I normally wouldn't advocate for voting for a third party candidate due to the Spoiler Effect, but

Considering the United States' Democratic majority, popular vote records showing a common Republican minority, the absolutely incredible policies West stands for,

The growing support for third parties in the United States, and his policies aligning with public opinion,

Cornel West is the ideal candidate to vote for. Spread this information like wildfire - we may have one shot at the first third party win in US history in the upcoming 2024 election, and

If successful the dominant parties will be Fascist vs. Socialist, denying most, if not all, future Republican wins.

Our target toss-up states are Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Nevada.

Converting Texas to third party, or even just Democrat, will throw the Republican vote entirely and all but guarantee a Democrat, or hopefully third party, 2024 election win,

Which is absolutely possible, as Texas is majority Democrat and wins Republican votes via gerrymandering despite public opinion, which is why it swings occasionally.

Democrat states also need to be switched to majority third party votes, with particular emphasis on California, New York, and Illinois.

GET PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR CORNEL WEST!

Reference map of polling for the future 2024 election:

Libertarian (slightly Conservative to alt-right, really depends on the person)

Chase Oliver is a surprisingly progressive high school educated 38-year-old anti-war Libertarian that left the Democratic party after witnessing Obama's aggressive anti-West Asian war policies who has expressed desires for criminal justice reform and ending wars abroad, though hasn't elaborated on either.

Green Party

Jill Stein is a Bachelor's (Harvard University) and Medical (Harvard Medical University) 73-year-old Jewish doctor who previously ran for and represented the Green-Rainbow Party as the governor of Massachusetts.

Stein is notable for being an activist and protestor who has both protested outside buildings and testified before legislative and other government bodies against coal plants, mercury leaks, and unclean and unsafe groundwater.

Presumably, her stances will focus on environmental protections, trans rights, and Jewish protections, making her a potential alternative should West drop out.

Conclusions:

Again, don't fucking vote for Trump, Haley, Ramaswamy, Hutchinson, Scott, DeSantis, Christie, Binkley, Burgum, Biden, Philips, or Kennedy, Jr..

Our potential backup Democratic candidate is Williamson.

The ideal candidate is West, with Stein as a viable backup.

As absurd as it sounds, I want you to vote third party for Cornel West.

If you want a wealth tax on the rich, a national $27 minimum wage, a federal Universal Basic Income,

6 months of paid family leave, a 4-day work week, national free Pre-K childcare,

"Immediate cessation of all oil and gas leasing projects on federal lands and waters," "Federal moratorium on fracking, carbon capture, and direct air capture technologies, geoengineering, and other false climate solutions,"

putting abortion rights in the Constitution, and nationalized healthcare,

VOTE FOR CORNEL WEST AND GET OTHER PEOPLE TO DO THE SAME.

WE HAVE A CHANCE AT THE FIRST THIRD PARTY WIN IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE DENIAL OF FUTURE REPUBLICAN WINS.

[thecommunalfoolboy]

"why are we put in a position where we have to choose between saving trans lives or saving Palestinian lives." that is not the choice you have.

Here's the actual choice available to you: You can protect trans lives, and give Palestinians a chance at survival with Biden who is in support of ceasefire. Or you can get rid of trans rights, endangering tans peoples' safety and lives, and cause the extermination of the Palestinians with the support of a Trump who openly wants them (and anyone who supports Palestine) all dead.

There is no way to vote in an American election that is going to guarantee Palestine is saved but there is a way to vote to guarantee they'll be killed.

Bestie Biden is not in favor of a ceasefire. I know he’s been saying a lot of things to try and get people to vote for him again but politicians are generally lying when they give campaign promises. He was the president the entire time this genocide‘s been going on, and what has he been doing? He’s been making billions off of sending Israel bombs, he’s refused to call it a genocide and instead called it an „Israel Hamas conflict,“ he’s voted against a UN ceasefire resolution CAUSING IT TO BE FULLY VETOED BECAUSE THEY NEEDED A UNANIMOUS VOTE, and even publicly admitted that Israeli citizens like him more than US citizens. In that post I was not saying Trump is for Palestine, he is obviously not; I was saying we are forced to choose between voting for Biden and killing Palestinians in the process to keep out Trump (who wants to ban HRT and endanger trans people), and risk voting third party for a candidate who supports Palestine but by doing so endangering trans people by risking Trump being in office

[palestinegenocide]

Now everyone hates Israel

This was a huge week in American Jewish political history.

First, the director of a movie about Auschwitz, the English director Jonathan Glazer, accepted an Oscar for the film by stating that his Jewishness should not be used to justify the slaughter of Gazans.

Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people. Whether the victims of October 7 in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza — all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we resist?

In saying “We,” Glazer also spoke for his producer Len Blavatnik, a billionaire who stood silently behind him and who just months ago had joined the Harvard donor revolt for alleged antisemitic — actually pro-Palestinian speech — on campus. A revolt that toppled the Harvard president.

Glazer’s speech was followed four days later by the “momentous speech” by New York Senator Chuck Schumer, speaking as a Jew and calling on Netanyahu to hold new elections because his rightwing policies are hurting Israel. “As a lifelong supporter of Israel, it has become clear to me, the Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel,” said Schumer, the most powerful Jewish politician in American history.

Here too the Gaza slaughter figured largely. Schumer fears that the massive civilian death toll in Gaza, which causes him “anguish,” will cause Israel to become a “pariah” nation.

In coalition with far-right extremists like Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, and as a result, [Netanyahu] has been too willing to tolerate the civilian toll in Gaza, which is pushing support for Israel worldwide to historic lows. Israel cannot survive if it becomes a pariah.

The first thing to observe about Schumer’s speech, and Glazer’s too, is that Palestinian lives are finally counting in American politics. The unbelievable onslaught on a captive people that caused Susan Abulhawa to somehow get in there and come back and tell us there’s a holocaust in Gaza that language cannot describe has at last registered for American politicians.

So just as Joe Biden said eight days ago that Netanyahu “cannot have another 30,000 Palestinians dead”– as if the first 30,000 were mere table stakes — those killings, now at least 31,700, are also cracking the conscience of the American Jewish community.

Schumer is at the center of the organized Jewish community. He has long put himself forward as the guardian of Israel– “a bellwether for the Jewish community, who has refrained from sharp criticism of the Israeli government” (as J Street put it)– and his speech has huge significance.

American Zionists are in complete crisis now. They know that Israel is already a pariah state in the eyes of the world. They know that you cannot destroy a territory in the genocidal manner that Israel has — and force the hand of the U.S. president in support of the genocide out of concern for his political donations, and topple Ivy League presidents who allow their students to criticize Israel — you can’t do these things without grave consequences.

Biden may lose Michigan because his hand was forced. American Jews who care about democracy in the U.S. are finally shaking loose. And Jews who see that corrupt Zionist influence is feeding antisemitic ideas about Jews are acting to openly criticize Israel.

Schumer acted out of pure desperation. He sees Biden being hurt politically if the Jewish community cannot pivot and condemn a genocide. He sees Israel becoming a “pariah” state.

There is today no difference between right-wing and left-wing Zionists inside the Democratic Party. They have all now gathered around the Schumer/Biden delusion that if you just get rid of Netanyahu, Israel will be able to curb the slaughter, pursue the two-state solution, and save the Jewish state.

So, we are seeing Zionism in an ongoing public crisis. Because Netanyahu won’t go. Or if he does go, he will be replaced by others who are equally or almost as warmongering and who will be able to do nothing to end the occupation. So Israel will just continue to be a pariah state. And the tsunami of boycotts, long predicted by Israel lovers, will really be upon us. Even Schumer said that the U.S. must restrict aid to Israel if it cannot stop slaughtering civilians.

This is a crisis of Jewish identity. Schumer again and again cited Jewish tradition and conscience as motivators for his speech. “What horrifies so many Jews especially is our sense that Israel is falling short of upholding these distinctly Jewish values that we hold so dear. We must be better than our enemies, lest we become them.”

However cynical you are about Jewish values and conscience — and I’m as cynical as they come — his speech represents a great wake-up call for Jews who care about human rights to take on the genocide-enablers in the U.S. Jewish community. Despite the love he expressed for Israel and the mythologies about its creation and supposed democracy, Schumer’s speech is historic and important on this ground.

Because as more than one critic of Schumer’s said this week, he is giving permission to others. The most powerful Jewish politician in U.S. history is saying, As a Jew I tell America, Israel is doing wrong. Yes, everyone hates Israel now!

So Schumer has opened the doors on the Jewish discussion that I and others in the American Jewish anti-Zionist community have long sought: How can we support a discriminatory, brutal state in our name as Jews over there when we absolutely oppose religious nationalism and persecution of minorities here?

This discussion will see the empowerment of a new generation of anti-Zionists, and their ultimate victory. Because the Jewish state will be unable to transform itself to suit American liberal values. And regardless of the political arrangements in coming years in Israel/Palestine — partition into two states, or one state — Israel’s transformation to pariah status is so well advanced now by its own actions that no Zionist will ultimately be able to save its racist apartheid constitution. And idealistic Jews here will help transform that land.

I’d add that in directing Israelis what to do– go have another election!– Schumer exposed a great secret of Zionism: It is an international Jewish ideology that will always cause confusion about national interest. Schumer could well argue that he was justified in directing Israelis because Israel interferes in our politics all the time, and as Netanyahu did in 2015. “Imagine if, I don’t know, some foreign leader who was ostensibly an ally of the United States, came here and gave an address before Congress that threw the American president under the bus on their key policy item of the times,” as a New York Jewish liberal Zionist put it in praising Schumer’s speech.” Can you imagine it?”

I can imagine just that because Schumer himself said after he voted against the Iran deal, he did so out of Israel’s interest not the American one.

So Zionism has always been a huge asterisk on American Jewish liberal values. This week that asterisk began to fall apart.

[mask131]

A continuation of my previous post, about how in France today the two political extremes offer a sad mirror of racism, with the far-right only wishing to kick out all Black, Muslims and Arabs, and the far-left trying to make people believe Jews and Asians are not minorities, are not discriminated upon, cannot suffer prejudice, and are in fact secret oppressors of the masses...

Because there is a very blatant demonstration of this double-standard established by the extreme-left, which is fascinating in the light of the Israel-Palestine situation today. Two mass-deaths of Muslim people, one man of the far-left, and two very different reactions: today I want to briefly explain to you Jean-Luc Mélenchon's dual view about the Israel attacks on Gaza versus the Uyghurs systematic destruction by China.

I think I said before how France is currently caught between two devils - I'll still recap it briefly. Right now, after Macron, there are two likely candidates to be the next president, the two most popular political figures of the elections today... and they are the faces of the two extremes of the political spectrum. (That's why the current extremism in politics today is called "polarization", everybody goes to the most extreme, no "medium" or "middle" ground is possible anymore).

On one side, Marine Le Pen, who is the face of the extreme-right, and the heir (politically and literaly, since she is her daughter) of Jean-Marie Le Pen, the very living caricature of the extreme-right politician (he collects all the forms of racism, discrimination and -phobe adjectives), to the point his violent excesses caused his party's downfall... But a downfall that was negated due to A) Marine Le Pen's huge "de-diabolization" campaign during which she "de-fanged" her party to "kill the father" (again, metaphorically and literaly) and B) The Le Pen figure growing a second head in the shape of Jordan Bardella, who is also a politician of the extreme-right, but who is hugely popular due to being a young pretty boy who acts as a huge influencer on social media. (Don't even get me started on Eric Zemmour's whole mess)

On the other side, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the embodiment of France's extreme-left. Mélenchon is literaly France's equivalent of Trump - if Trump was on the far-left instead of the far-right. He is this elderly, rich, white guy (which is quite ironic since his ideology is all about defending and promoting young non-white people... and yet they all follow this old white guy who refuses to let anyone else handle his party) ; he is a very rude and vulgar man who keeps insulting everybody he meets ; he encourages a general distrust of the media (that he both regularly uses and regularly disdains in a very open way) ; he encourages his party to rise up and riot whenever there is something that doesn't please him (there were literaly attacks on universities by his voting base when he wasn't elected president last elections), he is a master demagogue AND has an ego the size of a monument (he keeps comparing himself to the Gracchi brothers for example, and keeps using in a very pedantic way the notions of the Roman Republic, from Antiquity you know).

And he does carry with him the whole "Don't like Jews, don't like Asians" baggage of the extreme-left. Mind you, he is careful about it - as he never says anything too openly antisemite, for example, while making sure to not say anything too openly against antisemitism, you see the kind of trickery. But the real proof of the double-standard of the extreme-left, that strongly defends Islam and Arab people and yet considers Asian people (understand Chinese, Japanese, etc) to be "too white", "too rich" and "too powerful" to be a discriminated minority in any sort of way, is the case of the use of the word "genocide" when it comes to Palestine vs the Uyghurs.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon has been openly on the "pro-Palestine" side of the whole mediatic fight around the Israelo-Palestinian conflict. A bit too much in fact, which is all tied to the many accusations of antisemitism against him - and, as with many very virulent pro-Palestinian mediatic figures, he insists that currently Israel is purposefully causing a genocide in Palestine. Mélenchon being Mélenchon, he is not AT ALL subtle about this - in interviews, he openly says that international organizations and world-groups have recognized a genocide is taking place. When someone points out "Actually, they have opened an investigation for it / There are suspicions of it but no conclusion has been given yet / In truth no official word came out", he immediately slaps back that either the other person is misinformed, either that a suspicion or an investigation by international organization is enough of a proof. It is even more obvious when someone tells him that what is going on is Gaza seems to be more of a set of war crimes than an actual genocide - he insists that it is a genocide, and copiously insults and accuses of all things (from cowardice to racism passing by stupidity) those that refuse to use it in a blunt and non-nuanced way.

Okay... Now what about the Uyghurs?

OH BOY! Do you know what Mélenchon had to say when he was asked about qualifying the inhuman situation of the Uyghurs in China as a "genocide"? He said no. He said no, it is not a genocide, he refused to recognize it as such. We are talking about concentration camps, forced re-education, government-kidnappings, arbitrary arrests, culture-erasure, and suspicions of forced sterilization. Everybody agrees that the situation of the Uyghurs is basically a genocide - and there's none of the complex nuances and troubling factors there are in Gaza today. And yet... he refuses to call it a genocide. Even more hypocrisy on his part: he invoked the fact that international organizations had not called it at the time a "genocide" to defend the fact he himself will not call it a genocide. And even more nauseting... He said - and I quote, that's again a typical Mélenchon style: to call the situation of the Uyghurs a "genocide" would be "dévaloriser" the word "genocide". If I translated this verb, it means "devalue", or "lower the standard". Mélenchon literaly said that calling the situation of the Uyghurs a "genocide" would be "lowering the standard" of a genocide ; and yet he immediately called the situation of the Palestinians a "genocide" despite the international groups and authorities saying one had to be careful about the use of this word.

Why? What is the difference between the two situations? After all, you have the mass-death of a Muslim community in both cases... In both cases you have people confronted by a powerful goverment and crushing state... What is the difference between the Palestinians bombed by Israel and the Uyghurs imprisoned and mutilated by China? Simple! One situation is about Arabs - even better, it is Arab attacked by Jews! Of course the extreme-left would jump on this like a dog on a bone. But the Uyghurs? That's Chinese people, destroyed by the Chinese government. Aka, that's Asians versus Asians. And there, suddenly, oh what a miracle! Suddenly the fact they are Muslims (which is the big credo of Mélenchon, he presents himself as the great defendor of Muslims throughout the world) doesn't matter anymore! "It's Asians bickering with Asians - you can't call it a genocide". Despite the fact that it is a systematic discrimination and ethnic cleansing going on for a long time... But a Jewish nation declares war on an Arab state after a terrorist attacks - immediately it is a "genocide".

I am not here debating whether or not each situation is a genocide - that's not the topic here. Same way I do not want to see anyone in this post trying to pit one situation against the other - both the situations in Palestine and the one of the Uyghurs are awful and abominable in different ways, and trying to make them compete is useless. The point is simply to show how the spokesperson, how the embodiment of the extreme-left, reflects their "Pick and choose your favorite minority" mentality - by only giving all their care and concern to Arab Muslims, and literaly refusing to care for Chinese Muslims...

[moragarsia]

Russia manipulates the concept of genocide to justify its aggression

The International Court of Justice in The Haguehas resumed hearings on the lawsuit of Ukraine against the Russian Federation. Ukraine accuses Russia of deliberately destroying representatives of Ukrainian nationality and speculating on the topic of genocide. The lawsuit was filed by Kyiv with the International Court of Justice on February 27, 2022, three days after the start of the full-scale invasion of Russian troops.

Russia manipulates the concept of genocide to justify its aggression, it deliberately spread false allegations of alleged acts of genocide against the Russian-speaking population in the Donbas. The Russian Federation used this as a basis for the introduction of troops and a full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022.

Ukraine points out that the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide does not allow invasion in order to prevent it. Russia, in turn, argues that this case is beyond the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, since the Genocide Convention does not regulate the use of force between states.

The block of sessions of the International Court of Justice is devoted to preliminary objections raised by the Russian Federation. The hearings will be held in two rounds: on September 18 and 25, the floor will be given to the Russian side, and Ukraine will speak on September 19 and 27. The dispute concerns the interpretation, application and implementation of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Russia's argumentation of the reasons for the aggression is completely false. AndPutin's empire, in front of the whole planet, has been waging a genocidal war on the territory of Ukraine for almost two years.Shotsof Bucha, Irpin, Izyum and other Ukrainian cities and villages made the world shudder. Russia is trying to destroy not only the civilian population of Ukraine, but also the Ukrainian language, culture and history of Ukraine. The Russian dictator is simply obsessed with a maniacal hatred of everything Ukrainian. The evil that Russia is doing in Ukraine is aimed at exterminating the nation of Ukrainians. Putin no longer even tries to hide the true goals of his war of aggression - the genocide of the Ukrainian people. The occupation of foreign territories, the extermination of hundreds of thousands of people, the abduction of children, millions of refugees, is this not genocide? The Russian state, openly rejoicing in the troubles and grief that it was able to inflict on Ukrainians, hiding behind false slogans about the "protection" of the Russian-speaking population, broadcasts the rhetoric of hatred to the whole world.

The war of aggression unleashed by the Russian regime against Ukraine has undermined international peace and security, respect for human rights and international law. Hearings on Ukraine's lawsuit against Russia under the genocide convention will be of great international importance. The International Court of Justice announced an unprecedented decision in the history of the court to allow 32 states as third parties in the proceedings on the claim of Ukraine against Russia. These countries are parties to the Convention and are interested in its provisions being interpreted and applied correctly from the point of view of international law.

It is necessary that the entire civilized world choose a commitment to universal values and international law, resolutely opposing the criminal war that the Kremlin continues to wage. Not so long ago, some politicians called for "saving Putin's face", butthe limit of patience seems to have been exhausted. Russia will have to answer for aggression, this is obvious. Those involved in crimes against humanity must be brought to justice through appropriate international mechanisms.

The International Court of Justice is the main judicial body of the United Nations, its decisions are final and binding.

This is necessary to protect not only Ukraine, but also other countries that Russia may suddenly consider part of its empire, hiding behind an ephemeral threat to the "Russian-speaking population". For the sake of common security, it is very important that the world reacts to Russian aggression. Genocide can only be stopped by the joint efforts of all progressive humanity.

[convertgrapeling]

Why you should consider not voting - UK general election 2024

Overall, voting has limited power. You cannot vote to end capitalism or dismantle white supremacy. Nobody capable of enacting serious change will ever be given the chance to do so by party political systems.

Even within the limited scope of parliamentary politics, your vote has a limited ability to influence anything. This is partly because of the first past the post system and partly because MPs are generally compelled to vote with their party in the Commons. It's also because the options in British politics range from "centrist weirdos" to "openly fascist." There is no genuine choice here.

You should not feel compelled to vote for something you don't want out of a sense of obligation. You have every right to opt out of party politics, especially if you would rather channel your attention to more useful action like protest or direct action. Imagine if everyone who went out canvassing or posting leaflets instead decided to organise for Palestine or the NHS - these are far more useful things to do with your time.

The idea that you cannot do harm by voting is incorrect. A comfortable majority for any party is a bad thing. Labour will win this election but we shouldn't help them get a landslide.

Some people argue that if you can't choose a party you want to vote for, you should turn up anyway and spoil the ballot. Personally, I don't think there's any real difference between spoiling the ballot and simply not voting. Both are valid.

The argument about how people "fought and died for our right to vote" is irrelevant because those people wanted your vote to be meaningful. Under a capitalist system where media owners and right-wing business interests dominate the agenda, your vote is largely meaningless. Pretending otherwise only distracts us from more important actions we could be taking.

If you insist on voting, my recommendation is to vote based on whichever local independent candidate is calling for a ceasefire. It is completely legitimate to treat the genocide in Gaza as the main political issue in this election, because people who cannot be depended on to oppose a genocide cannot be trusted on anything.

"It's privileged people who are telling you not to vote." This is nonsense. Tactical voting is a behaviour predominantly associated with middle class voters, and the most marginalised people in this country are more likely to abstain from voting.

"You clearly don't care about people who will be killed by the collapsing NHS, benefit cuts, transphobic legislation, etc." I do care and that's why I don't wait for an opportunity to vote before taking action on these things. In my experience, people who are most self-righteous about voting are people who don't make an effort the rest of the time. If you feel an obligation to take action, don't wait for an election.

Voting Labour is no different from voting Tory nowadays. They have Rachel Reeves telling us she will be harsher on benefit claimants than the Tories. They have Wes Streeting telling us that he was wrong to say "trans women are women" in the past. They have Keir Starmer telling us that black people in the UK have nothing to fear from the police. Labour have turned down chances to oppose the Tories on so many major issues. They have openly said they will not reverse austerity. They have told us who they are and we should listen.

Over 230,000 people in the UK died from COVID-19 and no politician cares because the media has moved on. That should tell you all you need to know about this system: these people despise you.

Many people are still voting on the same basis they voted on decades ago, whereby they don't like Labour but they think Labour is still preferable to the Tories. This is outdated thinking. Voting for Labour now means rewarding them for their dramatic lurch to the right, ensuring that the country as a whole continues sliding to the right.

In addition to this, Labour have repeatedly said that they don't want leftists voting for them, so that's fine with me. Again: they despise you.

British politics is not going to be pushed to the left. We tried this from 2015 to 2019 and it only resulted in our political centre moving further to the right, with horrible consequences. Stop putting your energy and time into this system.

I am not participating in the pattern of continually getting absorbed in pointless discussions about which politicians are worse behaved, who is least trustworthy, what they are saying in debates, what's in the manifestos, etc. It's all irrelevant. This is all I'm saying on the issue of this election and I've already heard all the counter-arguments, so save your breath.

[darkmaga-returns]

Tel Aviv should make its own bombs, the Kentucky representative says

Oct 24, 2024

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said the U.S. should not be providing weapons to Israel if the IDF is targeting civilian targets.

Finally, a Republican in Washington has the balls to say it.

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., took to social media on Wednesday and posted a video of an apartment building in Beirut being struck by an apparent IDF missile, and wrote: “If Israel insists on destroying civilian targets in Lebanon, let them buy and build their own weapons. American taxpayers should not be funding this.”

The Biden administration has been fully supportive of Israel’s expanding war and genocide in Gaza, and the Republican Party, which is led by Evangelical extremists, wants even more support for the IDF.House Speaker Mike Johnson said providing funds for Israel was his first important mission when named speaker. He is seen as a religious extremist whom Netanyahu relies on in the U.S. for support during the genocide in Gaza.

Massie has been one of the only politicians in Washington who has not prostituted himself to AIPAC, and, in June, told Tucker Carlson about the perverse relationship between U.S. lawmakers and the Israel lobby.

He said every Republican except him has a “babysitter.”

“Your AIPAC babysitter who is always talking to you for AIPAC. They’re probably a constituent in your district, but they are, you know, firmly embedded in AIPAC,” he said.

The New Republic summed up how Massie has bucked the pro-Netanyahu Republican Party.

Massie boycotted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress in July, calling it a “war rally.” He openly criticized the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on attack ads trying to unseat him. He also voted against censuring Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib over her comments criticizing Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians.

The IDF has conducted extensive strikes across Beirut and, in many cases, claimed that Hezbollah fighters are in these buildings that have been targeted — without providing any evidence.

[rjalker]

evilgeek87 said in a youtube comment, 5 days ago (as of March 31 2024)

Paragraph breaks added for accessability.

Question, what in reality is the difference between an openly fascist threat to democracy and a spineless liberal (in the true sense of the word as in neo liberalism) who continues to maintain and expand the same policies of the open fascist, is in service to the same corporate donors and foreign influence to continue pursuing a genocidal foreign policy, and is allied with the fascists in his and his party's abject terror at the thought of truly progressive or leftist policies and politicians do much as inconveniencing the holders of capital that they will always concede to the demands of the right before putting in an iota of effort to support what was supposed to be his own policy goals if it comes from a progressive member of his own party. What's the difference when the one that supposedly isn't a fascist is literally running on the same platform as the openly fascist candidate ran in last time and lost? What's the difference when the so-called liberal supports policies that are so far to the right of Ronald Reagan that we would have called him out as a reprehensible affront to American values only a couple of decades ago? Above all else, what's the difference when both parties and candidates act as though the election is merely aesthetics, and that the will and desire of the voters don't matter. At least Trump is a buffoon, and his scandals and clowning would serve as a roadblock to any attempts to codify further authoritarian changes into law. The truth is that most of the real power lies in Congress and the Supreme Court, only one of which we have the ability to vote for directly, and fortunately it's the one place where it's possible to vote in representatives who want real change The president's powers are mostly limited to foreign policy and symbolic power. Both candidates are genocidal maniacs, so foreign policy with really change, and neither one really wields their or as a figurehead very well when it comes to actually affecting domestic policy in any impactful way.

[ahaan10723014]

Russia manipulates the concept of genocide to justify its aggression

The International Court of Justice in The Hague has resumed hearings on the lawsuit of Ukraine against the Russian Federation. Ukraine accuses Russia of deliberately destroying representatives of Ukrainian nationality and speculating on the topic of genocide. The lawsuit was filed by Kyiv with the International Court of Justice on February 27, 2022, three days after the start of the full-scale invasion of Russian troops.

Russia manipulates the concept of genocide to justify its aggression, it deliberately spread false allegations of alleged acts of genocide against the Russian-speaking population in the Donbas. The Russian Federation used this as a basis for the introduction of troops and a full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022.

Ukraine points out that the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide does not allow invasion in order to prevent it. Russia, in turn, argues that this case is beyond the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, since the Genocide Convention does not regulate the use of force between states.

The block of sessions of the International Court of Justice is devoted to preliminary objections raised by the Russian Federation. The hearings will be held in two rounds: on September 18 and 25, the floor will be given to the Russian side, and Ukraine will speak on September 19 and 27. The dispute concerns the interpretation, application and implementation of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Russia's argumentation of the reasons for the aggression is completely false. AndPutin's empire, in front of the whole planet, has been waging a genocidal war on the territory of Ukraine for almost two years. Shots of Bucha, Irpin, Izyum and other Ukrainian cities and villages made the world shudder. Russia is trying to destroy not only the civilian population of Ukraine, but also the Ukrainian language, culture and history of Ukraine. The Russian dictator is simply obsessed with a maniacal hatred of everything Ukrainian. The evil that Russia is doing in Ukraine is aimed at exterminating the nation of Ukrainians. Putin no longer even tries to hide the true goals of his war of aggression - the genocide of the Ukrainian people. The occupation of foreign territories, the extermination of hundreds of thousands of people, the abduction of children, millions of refugees, is this not genocide? The Russian state, openly rejoicing in the troubles and grief that it was able to inflict on Ukrainians, hiding behind false slogans about the "protection" of the Russian-speaking population, broadcasts the rhetoric of hatred to the whole world.

The war of aggression unleashed by the Russian regime against Ukraine has undermined international peace and security, respect for human rights and international law. Hearings on Ukraine's lawsuit against Russia under the genocide convention will be of great international importance. The International Court of Justice announced an unprecedented decision in the history of the court to allow 32 states as third parties in the proceedings on the claim of Ukraine against Russia. These countries are parties to the Convention and are interested in its provisions being interpreted and applied correctly from the point of view of international law.

It is necessary that the entire civilized world choose a commitment to universal values and international law, resolutely opposing the criminal war that the Kremlin continues to wage. Not so long ago, some politicians called for "saving Putin's face", butthe limit of patience seems to have been exhausted. Russia will have to answer for aggression, this is obvious. Those involved in crimes against humanity must be brought to justice through appropriate international mechanisms.

The International Court of Justice is the main judicial body of the United Nations, its decisions are final and binding.

This is necessary to protect not only Ukraine, but also other countries that Russia may suddenly consider part of its empire, hiding behind an ephemeral threat to the "Russian-speaking population". For the sake of common security, it is very important that the world reacts to Russian aggression. Genocide can only be stopped by the joint efforts of all progressive humanity.

[is-the-owl-video-cute]

the donkeys are complacent and just overtly virtue-signally and are in a general sense fairly conservative, but the gop has in the past decade or so been saying the quiet part much louder than they used to and just openly spouting Nazi jargon and calling for “transgenderism” to be eradicated from society completely.

Listen, kids. If it’s a choice between voting your out of touch gramps who doesn’t really understand but still supports you or the racist uncle your family cut off after learning he beats his kids and hits minorities in his car, it’s a pretty easy call.

I do think that the two party system should be broken but as counterproductive as it seems, election years aren’t the time for it. The ideal scenario would be hardcore lobbying on off years and educating people about what leftist values actually are and further lobbying for candidates who actually have a chance at winning. Even still, gerrymandering is such a severe issue that it makes it difficult for red states to be any color but red, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Texas of all places has almost flipped blue a few times.

That’s a tangent for another time though. Voting in major elections here isn’t about finding a perfect candidate because there’s a snowballs chance that any decent person is going to make it far enough in major elections to be a viable option. Yes, it’s disheartening that the presidential election is once again going to be a game of “which old perverted fart who can barely finish a thought do I hate the least”, but pretending Biden is remotely close to being as bad as trump is a very privileged and ignorant stance for anyone to take.

Biden sucks. I’d love to kick him down a flight of stairs. He’s a racist sack of long rotted lemons. He’s barely a democrat at all, not even as close to the left as a devout catholic could hope to get. I loathe the man and I find him dishonest and at best incompetent.

He’s still better than the guy who spurred on an insurrection and had to be talked down by his PR team and convinced to make a statement to his mob of cultists who wanted to execute every politician who wanted to proceed with the election. He’s still better than the guy who poses with nazis and spews hatred regarding queer folk and poc. Biden is god awful, but he’s not anywhere near as dangerous as trump. It’s not about who’s a better person it’s about who’s not going to feed into genocide.

right now it’s almost halfway through 2023, and 2024 is an election year in the US. I have started to see a growing proliferation of posts suggesting that there is no difference between the republican and democratic parties–the exact same kind of posts I saw an awful lot of before the last major election here. I am unfollowing folks who post or reblog these sort of posts, as I consider these posts to be fascist propaganda framed as leftist discourse, designed to suppress anti-fascist votes and voters. 

[androgynealienfemme]

Abt your genocide post- what country is that in? Genuinely asking

I live in the United States. For the past few months and specifically these last few weeks, republicans have been ramping up in claiming lgbt people are pedophiles and groomers, and there have been Republicans openly stating we must be wiped out by any means necessary. Republican legislators in multiple states (Florida, Texas, Ok, Alabama, Tennessee, and more) have been creating laws which makes make it illegal for trans teens to seek transition care, which sends child services after parents of trans children, and which make it illegal to discuss lgbt content in schools (this law is so vague it creates a blanket ban. That’s important). This is only the beginning of what they wish to enact. They want to make it impossible for lgbt people to exist openly. We have republicans wanting to forcibly make these laws National despite their unpopularity.

We have politicians like Marjorie Green stating “democrats are the party of pedophiles”, and you’re either against “trans and pedos” or for pedophilia. Republicans are very loudly calling lgbt adults groomers and stating teachers and parents who accept the lgbt kids in their lives are making these kids trans and gay. They’re already trying to remove trans kids from supportive parents in Texas and now Florida. The next step is to remove all lgbt kids from their parents, and to remove kids from lgbt parents. To ban lgbt teachers in schools. To force us all out of public life. Because we’re “groomers”.

We are about to lose everything with the conservative leaning Supreme Court. republicans in the senate are openly stating they want to overturn Obergefell (marriage equality). They also are talking about overturning all the civil rights cases of the past 70 years, from Roe to Griswold to fucking Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage made legal), one of these cases is Lawrence v Texas (2003) which was the elimination of sodomy laws. They want to bring back sodomy laws.

They’re ramping up their base to consider all lgbt people pedophiles again. They want to create stochastic terror. They aren’t hiding how much they want us all dead anymore.

We are on arguably in between 4-6 of the genocide chart. It only gets worse from here:

[eretzyisrael]

When Will a Stand Be Taken Against the Promotion of Murder? - by Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld

In civilized societies action should be taken against anyone who expresses the desire to commit murder. The Iranian government, Hamas, Hezbollah, various clerics, and other influential figures within the Muslim world, as well as neo-Nazis and other extreme rightists, openly proclaim their desire to commit murder or even genocide against Jews and Israel. Many in the Western world either refuse to heed these statements or actively support them. Many others relentlessly criticize Israel and remain completely silent about Palestinian promotion of the killing of Jews.

Civilized societies should not be silent when people state their intention to murder even a single person, let alone commit genocide. Many Western politicians and other prominent members of society do not seem to agree with this fundamental truth. In the non-Western world, many people have no inhibitions about saying, directly or indirectly, that they approve of murder in some cases and would personally commit it if the occasion arose. This is most easily seen when the potential victims are Jews. The leaders of Iran, for example, have spent four decades frequently and explicitly expressing their zeal to commit mass murder via the total destruction of the State of Israel. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has used familiar language to state this desire. Earlier this year he employed the phrase “final solution” on his website in yet another call for Israel’s destruction. Perhaps reminded of the phrase’s genocidal origin as the Nazi euphemism for the extermination of European Jewry, Khamenei later invoked a classic antisemitic trope by claiming that the extermination of the predominantly Jewish population of Israel would have nothing to do with Jews. “Eliminating the Zionist regime doesn’t mean eliminating Jews,” he said. “We aren’t against Jews. It means abolishing the imposed regime…Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians [would] choose their own government and expel thugs like [PM Benjamin] Netanyahu.” This Western-friendly waffling notwithstanding, Khamenei has made no attempt to conceal his true feelings. He has spoken of Israel as a cancer that must be forcibly cut out. In 2018 he tweeted: “Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor in the West Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible and it will happen.” Other leading Iranian figures have spoken out in favor of the destruction of Israel, some explicitly mentioning the leveling of Israeli cities. Yet Iran is allowed to remain an unhindered member of the United Nations. The Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas—elected as the majority party by the Palestinians in 2006—also openly and frequently discusses its desire to commit genocide against the Jews. This aspiration is clearly stated in its charter, which states: “Hamas looks forward to implementing Allah’s promise however long it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: ‘The [Day of Judgment] will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!’” Senior Hamas officials occasionally call publicly for the murder of Jews. In 2019, Fathi Hammad, a member of the Hamas Politburo, urged members of the Palestinian diaspora to kill Jews around the world. Hammad said: “You have Jews everywhere and we must attack every Jew on the globe by way of slaughter and killing if God permits.” The Palestinian Authority (PA) provides generous financial payments to terrorists and their families. It thus creates a huge incentive for Palestinians to murder Jews in Israel. Nor are these pensions limited to the murderers. If Palestinians are killed in an attempt to murder Jews, the financial benefits they would have received accrue to their families. This amounts to a “pay for slay” policy—in other words, the PA actively promotes and encourages the murder of Jews. In 2019, the PA spent 570 million shekels (about $160 million) on rewards to terrorist prisoners. By August 2019, the Palestinian terrorists who in 2001 killed 15 Israeli civilians—about half of them children—and wounded many more in the Jerusalem Sbarro restaurant bombing had received more than $900,000 from the PA. In May 2020, the leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah terror organization, Hassan Nasrallah, referred to the creation of Israel as “the establishment of this virus of an entity, this cancerous tumor amidst our umma.” He added, “Israel has no legitimacy to exist at all and must be destroyed.” Clerics and other influential figures within the Muslim world also call for the extermination of Israel and Jews. Some of these figures have a very broad and influential platform. In 2012, the cleric Futuh Abdel Nabi Mansur officiated at a nationally televised service at the Cairo Tenaim Mosque. The service was attended by then Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi. The cleric said, “O Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters; O Allah, disperse them and rend them asunder; O Allah, demonstrate your might and greatness upon them.” Morsi could be seen saying “Amen.” There is also prominent support for murderers elsewhere in the Muslim world. On November 18, 2014, two Muslim terrorists from East Jerusalem murdered six people at a Jerusalem synagogue, including a heroic Israeli Druze policeman. The terrorists were killed. The next day, Jordanian parliamentarians held a moment of silence for the murderers. They read aloud verses of the Quran “to glorify [the terrorists’] pure souls and the souls of all the martyrs in the Arab and Muslim nations.” The Jordanian PM, Abdullah Ensour, sent a condolence letter to the families of the terrorists in which he ”[asked] God to envelop [the terrorists] with mercy.” Neo-Nazis and other extreme rightists also call publicly for “death to the Jews.” Some have carried this out, as was seen in massacres at two US synagogues. In a similar case in Germany in October 2019, only a strong door stood between Jews praying inside the Halle synagogue on Yom Kippur and a man who had come to slaughter them. These murderous individuals, while very dangerous, have only local capabilities as yet and are thus not in the same criminal league as Muslim countries and major terrorist organizations that promote murder and genocide. Beyond the would-be mass murderers themselves are those who finance and promote them. Iran and Qatar make money available to Hamas that enables the group to finance its anti-Israel operations—money that it withholds from its own population to further its own ends. Several Western and other countries give money to the PA, a body that openly promotes murder. They claim their money is not being used to pay pensions to terrorists and their families, but they have no way of ascertaining this. The PA can use whatever funds it has available, including donor funds, to pay Palestinians to kill Jews. In the Western world, a variety of senior figures and bodies exhibit the opinion that when Jews are the target, the promotion of murder or genocide ceases to be objectionable. Some of them go so far as to directly promote the interests of the murderers. A striking example is former UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who welcomed representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah to the House of Commons and called them his “friends” and “brothers.” Others include former US President Jimmy Carter and Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In 2014, they co-signed an op-ed in The Guardian suggesting that Europe and the US should recognize Hamas as a political movement. They failed to mention that Hamas is an organization with genocidal aspirations. This was a showcase of senior human rights advocates promoting the interests of would-be mass murderers. The Dutch government advisory body Adviesraad Internationale Vraagstukken (AIV, or Advisory Council of Foreign Affairs) is in the same category. It issued a report in 2013 recommending contacts between the EU, the Netherlands, and Hamas. The Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) wrote to Dutch PM Mark Rutte to disband the AIV for this recommendation, which would obviously come at Israel’s expense. The AIV’s recommendations were not accepted, but the organization was not disbanded. Josep Borrell, the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, does not bother to conceal his comfort with the extermination of the State of Israel. He said in an interview: “Iran wants to wipe out Israel. Nothing new about that; you have to live with it.” Another category—a major one—is those who freely criticize Israel but never mention the criminality of the major Palestinian bodies. They certainly never acknowledge those bodies’ open promotion of murder and genocide. If they criticize the Palestinians at all, they do so superficially and focus on other issues. One influential person who does this is US Senator Bernie Sanders, a Jewish politician who was a leading contender for the US Democratic presidential nomination. When he addressed the Israeli-Palestinian problem during his campaign, he spoke of the Palestinians’ dignity and called the Israeli government “racist.” European parliamentarians regularly criticize Israel while averting their eyes from Palestinian invocations of genocide and murder. In the Netherlands, at least one-third of the 150 parliamentarians have done this. In the Swedish and Norwegian governments the percentage is probably higher. Then there are those who unintentionally help would-be genocidal murderers. In 2015, then US President Barack Obama initiated the extremely flawed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement with Iran, which enabled the Iranians to sustain their quest for nuclear weapons with impunity and intensify their subversive and terrorist activities in the Middle East. In the context of this analysis one should also look at what is often called “Holocaust inversion.” This is exhibited by people who claim Israel intends to exterminate the Palestinians and/or that Israel is like the Nazis. In 2020, the Hungarian Action and Protection League commissioned a report by Hungary’s Inspira Ltd in which interviews were held with members of the adult population between the ages of 18-75 in 16 European countries. Twenty-four percent said they believe Israelis behave like Nazis toward the Palestinians. The main representative study before Inspira was published in 2011 by the University of Bielefeld on behalf of the German Social Democratic Friedrich Ebert Foundation. Their research was undertaken in seven European countries. The interviewers polled 1,000 people per country over the age of 16 in the fall of 2008. One question was whether they agreed with the assertion that Israel is carrying out a war of extermination against the Palestinians. The lowest percentages of those who agreed were in Italy and the Netherlands, with 38% and 39% respectively. Other figures were Hungary 41%, the UK 42%, Germany 48%, and Portugal 49%. In Poland, the figure was an astonishing 63%. It is not only Europe’s leaders who have lost their moral grounding. These results reflect the profound moral decay of major segments of the population of the European continent.

[wirsindkrieg]

Before I get into this, I'm going to refer you to [this] reblog chain off of this post, and [this] ask regarding respectability politics in relation to this topic, including sundragon's comment on my response to that ask. Those two posts cover this in more detail, and I prefer not having to repeat myself.

With that out of the way, I'm going to summarize some of the important points. First, there is a very big difference between saying "I do not want to be referred to as a person," and "I am not a person." The first is a matter of labels, and isn't what I'm talking about here. The one I have issues with is complete denial of one's personhood, which I have seen many, many times within these communities.

Denial of personhood is a key component of fascist ideology, where it is used to justify atrocities against groups that fascists see as "undesirable". There are many recent examples of fascist ideology entering mainstream politics, from politicians of major political parties openly associating themselves with self-identified Nazis, to far-right parties winning elections in multiple countries. If a member of a group deemed "undesirable" by fascists willingly renounces their personhood, regardless of the reason for doing that, fascists will absolutely take that as agreement with their ideology. And I would hope that it's obvious why that's a bad thing.

If someone doesn't want a certain word being used to refer to them, that's fine. I'm a very vocal proponent of "Don't call people things they don't want to be called." (See my posts from last year regarding the application of the term "alterhuman". [link 1] [link 2]) That's not what I'm talking about in regards to denial of personhood, though. What I'm talking about is the way that these communities seem way too comfortable with making statements that encourage fascists, which isn't some hypothetical "Someone might be terrible one day, maybe." Fascism is demonstrably on the rise, and I don't think it should be controversial to say "Maybe don't enable the people who want to do genocide."

This is an issue with significant nuance to it, and my point isn't that anyone has to suddenly get comfortable with being called a person. My point is that denying one's personhood is potentially dangerous, and more thought and care needs to be put into it before making those kinds of statements in public. If my stance here needs to be summarized in as few words as possible, it's this: "Be mindful of the potential consequences of what is being said."

My goal isn't to tell anyone they're wrong. I just want to encourage more thought being put into things that seem to be getting overlooked. Especially when the thing that's getting overlooked is something that risks enabling literal fascists.

"Person" is not an Identity

The topic of nonhuman personhood came up in a conversation earlier, which led to me scrolling through the notes on the essay/rant I wrote on the topic at the end of last year [link]. While scrolling through, I saw multiple people express the view that if someone doesn't want to be referred to as a "person", that should be respected.

I would like to kindly but firmly disagree with that view.

Personhood is not a personal identity, and it should not be approached the same way that one approaches identity labels like sexuality, gender, or even species identity. Personhood is a social and legal category, which carries with it significant implications about how (and if) one is treated as a member of society.

Whether it is intended or not, a declaration like "I am not a person" is declaring that one does not see themselves as a being deserving of basic rights and safety. It is saying that they do not see themselves as deserving of dignity and basic respect as a thinking being.

The declaration that an individual (or more often, a specific group) does not have personhood has been used as the justification for all manner of atrocities, up to and including genocide. And I want to be very clear that I am not exaggerating that point. The removal of personhood is a key element of fascist ideology, and is not something to be done casually, even to oneself.

If someone tells me that they use a specific identity label, or set of pronouns, or even choose to not identify as human, I can respect that, and I will do my best to embrace their decision. On the other hand, if someone tells me that they are not a person, I consider that cause for alarm.

The important difference is that personhood is not a personal identity. It is the state of being recognized as worthy of basic dignity, rights, and respect. To deny one's personhood is to deny that you deserve basic rights like freedom from harm, the ability to own property, and the ability to make decisions about your own life and body. I would hope that it's abundantly clear why denying oneself those basic rights is a bad thing.

"Person" is not an identity. It is a fundamental trait that cannot and should not be removed from anyone, even voluntarily. The denial of one's personhood is, at best, incredibly misguided, and at worst incredibly dangerous.

So if you're someone who wants to not be called a "person", I implore you to examine why you feel that way in depth, and consider if the problem isn't being called a person, but the societal assumption that person = human. And if the problem is that societal assumption, the solution isn't to deny your personhood; it's to join the large number of people pushing for society to accept that not every person is human.

[creepingsharia]

How a Pakistani/Islamic Lobby took over Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign sabotaging his aspirations

It’s not by chance that many young Muslim politicians across America have emerged from the Bernie Sanders circuit. It’s by design. They have hijacked Bernie Sanders infrastructure, funding and ground game to win elections, knowing he won’t be around very long.

Excerpted from: “How a Pakistani/Islamic Lobby took over Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign sabotaging his aspirations”

...

While foreign policy is always Bernie's Achilles Heel, it had minimal impact in 2016 as he was focusing his domestic policies as the center of his movement.

However, there was an interesting dynamic of Arab Muslims from Michigan and Minnesota showing interest in Bernie Sanders partly because of his views on Israel-Palestine and endorsement of Keith Ellison. Qatar's state-owned media Al Jazeera did its part warning Muslims to not vote for Hillary and openly endorsing Bernie Sanders as a choice for Muslims.

After the failed campaign in 2016, the planning stages for making progressive movement permanent one and Bernie's 2020 presidential bid has begun.

Sometime in 2017, Bernie Sanders and his associates made a grave mistake of miscalculating this phenomenon as a way to consolidate all Muslim American voters to support him. This comes at a time, Saudi Wahhabi funding in the United States is in full swing and Islamic lobby is now a well-oiled machine ready for prime-time waiting for the right opportunity to seize political power in the United States. A record number of Muslim Americans ran for office in 2018 enjoying endorsement and support from Bernie Sanders, "Our Revolution" and "Justice Democrats".

With the success of 2018 midterms especially with Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib elections, the underlying sentiment that Muslim voter consolidation would help Bernie Sanders campaign gets validated. Decisions were made, campaign staffing has begun and ground-level organization is underway. The only problem is Michigan and Minnesota has highest concentration Arab Muslims and this trend would not necessarily hold true across United States. This decision later would result into shenanigans that further contributed to loss of millions of Indian American and Jewish American votes who traditionally vote democrats.

As if it's match made in heaven, Pakistan was already in full swing in hiring lobby firms in order get more influence in American politics especially with FATF decision to place Pakistan in "grey-list" with irrefutable evidence that Pakistan is harboring terrorists as a weapon against India and countering growing influence of India within the United States. Bernie Sanders campaign is the perfect vehicle to achieve its goals. Enter 2020 Bernie's Presidential campaign manager - Faiz Shakir.

The curious case of Faiz Shakir:

Jeff Weaver, 2016 Bernie Sanders presidential campaign manager did a phenomenal job of closing 60 points with Hillary Clinton. That's a great feat considering Bernie Sanders, an unknown independent senator from Vermont with virtually no name recognition. Jeff is a close friend of Bernie Sanders for decades who is also ideologically similar to Bernie Sanders.

However, Faiz Shakir was appointed as campaign manager in February 2019 to lead 2020 Bernie Sanders presidential campaign. This came as surprise as Faiz Shakir was part of the same establishment Bernie has been fighting all his life. Faiz started his career as a junior staffer for John Kerry presidential campaign in 2004. In 2005 he started working for the Center for American Progress for over a decade which is an establishment organization led by Neera Tanden. In addition to that, he was a close associate of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Faiz was also ardent supporter and part of Hillary Clinton campaign in both 2008 and 2016 primaries. So how this establishment insider has become 2020 Bernie Sanders campaign manager? A dishonest alliance between Progressive movement and Islamic/Pakistani lobby trying to achieve it's foreign policy goals.

Faiz Shakir's goal was to build to an Islamic campaign according to his own Wikileaks email. Bernie Sanders campaign was the perfect opportunity for allowing him to do so. This was further documented in another Wikileaks email below.

Faiz Shakir, a first-generation Pakistani American is a Muslim-advocate in the United States. He mostly gets positive press because he was part of establishment think-tanks like Center for American Progress and his media called ThinkProgress. He is often seen as an inspiring figure by the left referring to him as a "civil rights advocate" as he is National Political Director for ACLU. Ironically he got the job through a recommendation from John Podesta but not by merits, according to leaked Wikileaks email below.

Ironically Faiz Shakir's wife Sarah Miller is part of network of Pierre Omidyar, former eBay billionaire, media mogul, who deserves his own article. In short, he likes Neo Nazis and loves conflicts around the world.

He was also seen mocking Bernie Sanders for his ideology like -

"yeah, my favorite part is how he connects is to "billionaire families" in the Arab world. Always goes back to the billionaires. Hilarious. It sounds a bit too much like "our war in Syria and Iraq is ultimately a battle to reshape Islam". We'd lose that one. But I like the direction he's going. Maybe you could one-up him with: "ISIS is trying to behead Islam" (kidding, don't do that)"

So how was Bernie Sanders taken for a ride and fooled into hiring Faiz Shakir? The answer lies

in as much as Bernie Sanders is against lobby-ism, he was part of the game where he failed to realize lobby-ism exists in the progressive spectrum as well. Pakistan Intelligence agency secretly funnels millions of dollars to political leaders indirectly, like the shocking incident in 2018 where Federal agents took prominent Pakistani American into custody over proven illegal funneled lobbies over Kashmir policy.

Regarding Faiz Shakir's history, In 2002 he earned a bachelor’s degree in government at Harvard University, where he was a member of the Harvard Islamic Society (HIS). In 2000, Shakir served as a co-chair for HIS’s Islamic Awareness Week events, one of which was a fundraiser for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a group that acted as the fundraising arm for Hamas in the United States. HLF was later shut down by the feds, and its leaders were found guilty of sending money to Hamas, which has been designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. Department of States.

Shakir co-authored the “Fear Inc.” report, which implicitly claimed that Islamophobia was the product of a Jewish conspiracy, and wrote positively about the Tunisian Islamist Al-Nahda Party and its genocidal head, Sheikh Rashid Ghannouchi, who has engaged in blatant anti-Semitism and has said, “There are no civilians in Israel. The population—males, females, and children—are the army reserve soldiers, and thus can be killed.”

Fatal Downward spiral of Bernie's campaign:

Linda Sarsour's surrogate appointment:

The red flag of controversial Sharia Law proponent Linda Sarsour surely made several progressives scratch their heads, but her comments like "waging jihad against the United States" never raised eyebrows in Bernie's Campaign. In 2011 she famously mocked Islamic female genital mutilation victim - Ayaan Hirsi Ali that "She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away- they don’t deserve to be women". She is a strong proponent and open advocate of Sharia law. She is so controversial that even women's march cut ties with her due to her anti-semite/radical Islam views and close ties with the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

Matt Duss's foreign-policy advisor appointment:

Matt Duss like Faiz Shakir comes from the family of Center for American Progress and ThinkProgress, it is widely believed that Faiz Shakir is the reason why he was pulled into Bernie Sanders campaign.

Matt Duss is everything opposite to what Bernie Sanders stands for, he is a strong proponent for RussiaGate, a debunked theory democrats failed to materialize. Matt Duss is the reason Bernie Sanders engages in out of place narrative that Russia hacked 2016 elections which ironically used against him now. He scripted Bernie Sanders foreign policy from Venezuela to Russia.

Bernie Sanders abrupt affiliation and appearances with "Islamic Society of North America" (ISNA):

Founded by Muslim student organizations tightly linked to Muslim brotherhood in 1963, Bernie Sanders began supporting these conventions starting from 2017 and even attended for a speech in 2019.

But Karnabro, you are just being an islamophobe, what's wrong with attending Islamic convention? A normie reader might ask.

I have no problem with Islamic conventions, but Bernie Sanders being champion of LGBT rights giving validation to the organization who banned LGBT groups as recently as in 2017 on the grounds of "religious and private event" is what I have problem with. He also took the opportunity to share his second-hand ill-advised opinion on India-Pakistan Kashmir issue, sharing the stage with Pakistan's PM Imran Khan. Faiz Shakir used his connections to make the coalition of Pakistan's PM Imran Khan and Bernie Sanders happen, especially in the sensitive Kashmir Issue. Ironically the issue where Kashmir was integrated into India protecting LGBT rights and minorities by removing autonomous existing sharia law rules.

Bernie's abrupt change in foreign policy outlook regarding India and Kashmir:

Bernie Sanders. who never spoke about India-Pakistan's Kashmir issue in his entire career in started putting out narratives about how Kashmir is should be freed from India failing to understand the complex history of the issue that originated in 1947. His comments consistently criticized India's decision to integrate Kashmir under Indian law from status-quo Sharia law. This is an uncharted territory where a US presidential candidate interfering with a sovereign democratic country's internal issues which are India's, especially when they are based on flawed and misguided arguments. The final nail in the coffin for any Indian-American support happened just before Super Tuesday where Bernie Sanders weighed in violent Delhi riots which were orchestrated by Indian Muslims, where the riots led to the majority of casualties who are Indian Hindus. The grave mistake committed by Bernie Sanders is that he tweeted this below. Ironically the article he tagged doesn't mention that it's "anti-Muslim mob violence" as the fact is that it's anti-Hindu mob violence where the majority of Hindus were killed including an Indian Federal intelligence officer who was stabbed 200 times.

There is a reason why historically presidential candidates don't indulge in polarizing foreign policy, especially in the areas where they are not knowledgeable. There is a reason why Obama had bromance with Modi in 2015. Modi is a popular leader who Indian establishment/media hates, but ultimately loved majority of Indians because of his progressive policies.

Read more about Modi.

Bernie Campaign's Collusion with Pakistani establishment and government:

Bernie Sanders who indulged in Russiagate in the past, found himself to be in similar position except, the collusion is now between Bernie's campaign and Pakistan.

Bernie Sanders and Pakistan's PM Imran Khan shared the same stage in 2019 ISNA convention sharing identical views on India's internal issues like Kashmir.

During Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to Houston, Bernie Sanders personally took some time off in order to write an oped about India in Houston Chronicle, a stunt which surprised many as Bernie choose to write an oped regarding Indian Foreign Policy instead of opeds that explain his policies to American voters. This is a blunder in a presidential campaign in modern history, as Bernie who was favorite to win Texas managed to lose the primary to Joe Biden. Considering Modi's event in Houston attracted 50000 audience, probably the best way to lose hundreds of thousands of Indian American votes in order to appease a foreign government, Pakistan. Thanks to Faiz Shakir, Bernie's campaign manager getting the priorities straight.

Following is one of thousands of pro Bernie banners that one can find in Pakistan, promoted by Pakistan's government. One can understand why cash strapped Pakistani government choosing to spend on behalf of Bernie Sanders campaign in Islamabad, Pakistan. Once again, thanks to Faiz Shakir.

Bernie Sanders campaign's coordinated attack on Tulsi Gabbard:

Tulsi Gabbard was an early supporter of Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign. It came as surprise to Indian Americans as Bernie surrogates started coordinated attacks against beloved Tulsi Gabbard which are inherently Hinduphobic and false smears. This religious bigotry expressed by Bernie surrogates towards Tulsi Gabbard probably would not go well with millions of Indian Americans who support her.

Out of place anti-Indian and pro-Pakistani shenanigans within Bernie's campaign:

After the launch of Bernie's presidential campaign, there was a weird trend of campaign insiders courting fringe elements like Sameera Khan, a well known Pakistani propagandist who idolizes Stalin, Pakistan and China's fascist policies. Ironically she is popular among Bernie supporters even though she is anti-Bernie when it comes to Pakistan-China nexus.

Mehdi Hasan who was against Bernie till 2019, suddenly becomes Bernie Sanders fan. He is a great individual with some amazing views.

Ro Khanna validating a hinduphobic Khalistani troll - Pieter Friedrich. Learn more about the rising 2020 Khalistani movement here.

Ro Khanna's weird pro-Pakistan signaling by joining Congressional Pakistan Caucus even though he is not Pakistani.

Pramila Jayapal abrupt attempt to hijack a US official meeting with Indian diplomat where she was not invited regarding the issue of Kashmir.

Appointment of Khalistani terrorism sympathizer Arjun Sethi as a campaign surrogate. Learn more about Khalistani terrorist movement.

Conclusion:

While Bernie Sanders and his close associates lack the critical thinking about avoiding getting taken over by Pakistani/Islamic lobby, it is unfortunate for millions of progressives that progressive movement is dead as they know it.