#pro-democracy coalition

[contemplatingoutlander]

The Supreme Court began another term this week. Most court watchers and other analysts have been reluctant to accept the truth of something I’ve long argued: that the Roberts Court is as agenda-driven as the House or Senate Republican caucuses. They have already put their thumbs on the scale in this election and are poised to intervene again if the results don’t suit them. 

We are at least a decade past the point when we should be convinced of what Abraham Lincoln stated in his first inaugural address: 

"The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon the vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.1 " [emphasis added]

[...] The interests behind the Federalist Society (FedSoc) – in particular the Kochs, Leonard Leo, and other plutocrats and theocrats – are the same interests who have spent the 21st century funding and organizing the MAGA takeover of the Republican Party. I’ve coined the portmanteau “plutotheocratic” as a compact way of describing this coalition of interests. (See the Appendix for a brief overview of the history and major players in the plutotheocratic coalition.)  The six FedSoc justices are properly understood not as “umpires” scrupulously “calling balls and strikes,” but as politicians in robes. However, it’s important to recognize what kinds of politicians we are dealing with. The FedSoc Six are first and foremost Federalist Society operatives. That means that they usually act in the interests of the Republican Party – except when the partisan agenda of the day conflicts with the long-term plutotheocratic agenda.  [...]

Creating a Death Spiral for Democracy 

For about 40 years, we saw a fairly predictable ebb and flow in the federal commitment to advancing greater freedom and equality and to constraining corporate threats to consumers, working people, and the environment. Under Republicans, this commitment would ebb; under Democrats, it would flow. But beginning in 2010 with the Citizens United decision, if not a bit earlier, Roberts’s agenda-driven majority turned that ebb and flow into a death spiral for American democracy. 

Decision after decision shifted more and more electoral power to the FedSoc Six’s plutotheocratic sponsors – who in turn used that power to take greater control of Red state governments and purge Republican congressional caucuses of RINOs – which in turn was used to place more and more Federalist Society true believers on the Federal bench, and eventually the Supreme Court. 

[See more excerpts below the cut.]

[...] The Supreme Court has, of course, made many rulings that overturned previous major precedents or led to significant social change. But consider:

Brown v. Board of Education - Earl Warren and the other eight justices joining him did not owe their positions to a cabal of civil rights activists who had contributed billions of dollars to law schools, foundations, think tanks and political campaigns.

Roe v. Wade - Harry Blackmun and the six justices joining him on Roe v. Wade did not owe their positions to a cabal of pro-choice activists who had contributed billions of dollars to law schools, foundations, think tanks and political campaigns. 

Gideon v. Wainwright - Hugo Black and the eight other justices joining him did not owe their positions to a cabal of indigent prison inmates who had contributed billions of dollars to law schools, foundations, think tanks and political campaigns.  

But the members of the Roberts majority do owe their positions to a cabal of plutocrats, who directly benefited from rulings like Citizens United and Loper Bright, and theocrats, who have a fierce ideological commitment to outcomes like Dobbs and Hobby Lobby, who together have contributed billions of dollars to law schools, foundations, think tanks and political campaigns. Again, per Lincoln, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

The Federalist Society literally planned and executed an unprecedented transfer of unchecked political power to their own loyalists.5 They brag about this in unguarded moments and in their “safe spaces.”

[mariacallous]

In the days before the Trump administration took office, we recognized, as did many others, the imminent threats of autocracy to the United States. That is why we published the 2025 edition of the Democracy Playbook. We outline seven pillars essential to defending democratic governance, freedoms, and the rights of every citizen in the U.S. and around the world. Our concerns about how some of the early actions of the new administration might impact U.S. democracy are not mere speculations now—they are happening.  

In this piece, we shed light on several pressing risks to three vital democracy pillars—protecting elections, defending rule of law, and fighting corruption. We will focus on the serious threats facing the other four pillars in future pieces. We also highlight recent and impactful actions from key democracy defenders on the frontlines, including ongoing litigation and peaceful protests, as well as opportunities to bolster the pillars of democracy. Understanding these risks, the actions being taken, and how pro-democracy actors respond is essential to preserving the short- and long-term health of American democracy, economy, and national security. We are prioritizing writing timely analysis and recommendations, including actionable strategies for protecting the pillars and building stronger democracy guardrails in the weeks and months to come.  

Over three weeks into the new administration, as forecasted, we have seen President Trump and his administration issue a blitz of executive actions, many of which overtly challenge the checks and balances and separation of powers that are fundamental to the U.S.’s constitutional governance. The pillars of protecting elections, defending rule of law, and fighting corruption—three of the most crucial ones highlighted in our Democracy Playbook 2025—have taken some of the worst blows. It is likely that these actions will continue over the next four years and that the deepening reality will require democracy actors to engage in a multi-year effort to prevent a historic slide—a worst-case scenario.  

With that said, there are rays of hope and visible responses from across the U.S. We have already seen examples of dedicated democracy actors showing they are fully awake. These actors—not cowed by an apparent shock-and-awe approach reminiscent of strategies from autocratic regimes like in Hungary or Russia—are taking important actions to defend U.S. democracy and the Constitution, fight for freedoms and transparent governance, and prevent critical systems of checks and balances from being trampled. While we will continue to assess developments over time, our review of recent events already points to the importance of widening the coalition of pro-democracy actors to effectively and sustainably address these threats to democracy.  

[alpaca-clouds]

For my international followers: Germany had held elections today, as some of you might already know. The final results are not quite certain right now. Like, we have a rough direction, but given that we have a representatitve democracy (instead of fully FPTP like the US) there is right now the big question whether two parties will get over the 5% they ´need to enter the parliament.

RIght now the predicted results look like this:

For reference for all international peeps a quick reference:

SPD - Sozialdemokraten - basically the former Labour Party, though by now they are fairly conservative, mainly due to the current party lead. The current chancellor is by them, but he is a fucking criminal and people are not having it.

Union - CDU and CSU - "Christian" Party. Think like Bush-Republicans. Not Trump-Republicans but Bush-Republicans. Or for the UK people: Basically Tories. They are probably the least Christian party in policy, but they love to quote the bible when they need a reason to hate on minorities. Pro-Capitalist. Anti-Progressive.

Grüne - Greens. Well, nothing really to explain. The Greens. Mainly an environmental party. Usually they are fairly left wing, but right now they are center-right.

FDP - Freie Demokraten - basically the "liberal party", meaing: "All we care about is capitalism being awesome!"

AfD - Alternative für Deutschland - the Nazi Party. Nuff said.

Linke - Left Wing Party. My party. Aka: The actual left wing.

BSW - Bündnis Sarah Wagenknecht. Aka: The party of the former left wing party leader, who did swirl fairly right (especially TERFy) and because of that eventually left the party and made her own party.

As you can see, it looks right now as if the FDP and the BSW will be unable to enter parliament.

Now, as we have a representative government the parties will have to form a coalition, which right now is gonna be a challenge. While technically speaking the CDU and AfD could form a coalition of more than 50% of seats if the numbers stay somewhat the same, the CDU does not want to work with the AfD (especially because they know that their voters do not want that). So basically right now the only possible coalition would be CDU + SPD + Greens. And we will see whether that will happen.

My money is on: We will do another round of elections before the end of the year.

Though the Left Wing party is celebrating right now. We almost got double as many votes as last election - and within the 2 months of 2025 we doubled the number of active members in the party. What is encouraging: Right now we get a lot more older people joining us. So far the old people were always against us, becuase they grew up under Red Scare and shit. But given that when the CDU did one collaboration with the fucking Nazis, we were by far the loudest party to hold against it, a lot of older people now are like: "Actually, socialism might not be the worst." (Like, I can tell you from canvassing: The old people we talked with were either like: "OMG, I will not talk to fucking lefts" or: "Oh, you did work against the Nazis. That is great! Do you want some cake?")

But yeah, the fact that the fucking Nazis have like 20% of votes is fucking sick.

But all in all, the fact that right now the left is really pushing and rising is still encouraging.

[phantom-of-the-memes]

⚠️ The general election in the Republic of Ireland is happening tomorrow, November 29th⚠️

Here’s what you need to know if you are a leftist/ just want Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael out of government.

Firstly, why do we need to get them out?

Because they have been in power for almost 100 years! 100 years of a “centre” right government. We have not even had a centre left government in all this time, never mind a left government. Something has to fucking change. Even if you’re not a socialist like me, you have to acknowledge that all the problems currently in Ireland have been caused, or at least not dealt with by them. They’re the ones in power! And yet they talk about the issues in Ireland and how something has to be done… Simon Harris is a joke with his “a new energy” signs. Cunt you’re the current fucking Taoiseach!

So, who should you vote for?

If you truly want change, and a government that is for the people, vote People Before Profit number one. They are actually putting actions behind their words. They have explicitly said that they will refuse to go into government with FF or FG. They want the other left parties to form a left coalition with them, and also make a stand to refuse a right government. Other left parties, however, are quite lukewarm on the situation, and won’t join the coalition. But still put other left parties for number two and three. Some are more preferable than others. But change is change.

Ok if you’re not a socialist like me, there are other options. Sinn Féin is centre left, so if a bit more conservative than others. This makes it the third most voted for party generally. It’s a bit more palatable to the general public than the commies I vote for lol. I don’t agree with the majority of their policies, especially with them dialling back their support for trans people. I assume to appeal to FF and FG supporters. As a trans person I wouldn’t personally vote for them. But I understand the logic of being strategic about your vote. They’re the most likely to win out of the left parties.

Why should you still vote for parties that likely won’t win the overall vote?

Because they will still get seats! This isn’t a presidential election where it’s all or nothing. The majority winner gets to be the ones in power. But this is a democracy. More votes for a party means more seats for them in the Dáil. So it does matter.

What is each party’s stance on taking action against Israel?

Here’s a very helpful graphic from the ucd bds group on Instagram (ucd_bds):

See FF and FG’s stance? Exactly.

Who you should definitely not vote for?

Aontú are literal nazis. Their main selling point is that they hate immigrants. They want to strip their rights and practically stop immigration all together. They also hate women, and want to criminalise abortion again. The members of the party were big parts of the pro life movement that tried to stop the abortion referendum. Of course they also hate trans and queer people. Basically any and all minorities. They aim to bring fascism to our government. Don’t let this happen. This is also why voting is so important, so we can prevent this.

And this should go without saying, but don’t fucking vote for the joker independent candidates that have signs around saying shit like “make crime illegal”. It’s not even a joke to vote for them. You’re an asshole if you throw your vote away like that.

Remember to find out where your local polling station is, and bring your polling card, on Friday the 29th of November.

[zvaigzdelasas]

The jailed leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) Abdullah Ocalan has called on his Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) to lay down its arms and dissolve itself, a move that could end its 40-year conflict with Turkiye and have a wider impact on the region.[...]

This makes the DEM party “more significant in Turkish politics,” [an Al Jazeera correspondent] said.

According to her, Ocalan mentioned that when he established the PKK, “things were different and the Turkish state back then didn’t respect the Kurdish rights, but now, things have changed”.

In his letter, Ocalan explained his decision by saying that the PKK had been formed during a period where the Turkish state restricted Kurdish rights, but that Kurdish identity was no longer denied in Turkiye, and there had been “improvements in freedom of expression”.[...]

“Respect for identities, free self-expression, democratic self-organisation of each segment of society based on their own socio-economic and political structures, are only possible through the existence of a democratic society and political space,” Ocalan said in his letter.

The PKK launched its fight against the Turkish state in 1984. Its aim was an independent homeland for Kurds in southeastern Turkiye, but has since officially moved away from separatist goals, instead calling for more autonomy. However, it did not renounce armed violence, and groups affiliated with the PKK have continued to carry out sporadic attacks in Turkiye.[...]

The appeal from Ocalan could have implications for the major oil-exporting region of northern Iraq, where the PKK is based, and for neighbouring Syria[...]

The president of the Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq, Nechirvan Barzani, welcomed Ocalan’s message.[...]

Ocalan’s momentous announcement is part of a new effort for peace between the group and the Turkish state, which was initiated in October by President Erdogan’s coalition partner, [MHP Chairman] Devlet Bahceli. The nationalist politician suggested that Ocalan could be granted parole if his group renounces violence and disbands.[...]

The DEM party has had to change its name after it was repeatedly banned. Opponents say the party supports ‘PKK terrorism’, but DEM says it is calling for greater democracy in Turkiye, and say the shutdown of DEM’s predecessors and the imprisonment of Demirtas is evidence of a crackdown against Turkiye’s pro-Kurdish movement.

27 Feb 25

[collapsedsquid]

No-one now believes - or pretends to believe - that Silicon Valley is going to connect the world, ushering in an age of peace, harmony and likes across nations. That is in part because of shifting geopolitics, but it is also the product of practical learning. A decade ago, liberals, liberaltarians and straight libertarians could readily enthuse about “liberation technologies” and Twitter revolutions in which nimble pro-democracy dissidents would use the Internet to out-maneuver sluggish governments. Technological innovation and liberal freedoms seemed to go hand in hand. Now they don’t. Authoritarian governments have turned out to be quite adept for the time being, not just at suppressing dissidence but at using these technologies for their own purposes. Platforms like Facebook have been used to mobilize ethnic violence around the world, with minimal pushback from the platform’s moderation systems, which were built on the cheap and not designed to deal with a complex world where people could do horrible things in hundreds of languages. And there are now a lot of people who think that Silicon Valley platforms are bad for stability in places like the U.S. and Western Europe where democracy was supposed to be consolidated. My surmise is that this shift in beliefs has undermined the core ideas that held the Silicon Valley coalition together. Specifically, it has broken the previously ‘obvious’ intimate relationship between innovation and liberalism. I don’t see anyone arguing that Silicon Valley innovation is the best way of spreading liberal democratic awesome around the world any more, or for keeping it up and running at home. Instead, I see a variety of arguments for the unbridled benefits of innovation, regardless of its benefits for democratic liberalism. I see a lot of arguments that innovation - especially in AI - is about to propel us into an incredible new world of human possibilities, provided that it isn’t restrained by DEI, ESG and other such nonsense. Others (or the same people) argue that we need to innovate, innovate, innovate because we are caught in a technological arms race with China, and if we lose, we’re toast. Others (sotto or brutto voce; again, sometimes the same people) - contend innovation isn’t really possible in a world of democratic restraint, and we need new forms of corporate authoritarianism with a side helping of exit, to allow the kinds of advances we really need to transform the world.

From "rapid technological development will save the world, it'll be great" to "there is no alternative to rapid technological development, no matter how much it sucks"

[chiefruinsfury]

USAID: The Hidden Manipulator Behind "Color Revolutions"

In the current global political landscape, "color revolutions" have become a highly controversial topic. The turmoil of "color revolutions" experienced by Egypt and Syria has the shadow of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) lurking behind.

First, take Egypt. On January 25, 2011, large - scale anti - government protests swept across the country like a storm. Just 18 days later, the Mubarak government collapsed. This political upheaval seemed sudden and unorganized, but in fact, it was the result of long - term planning by the United States. USAID played a crucial role in this process. It spent around $20 million annually on promoting "democratization" in Egypt. Since the early 1990s, USAID's assistance had permeated every corner of Egyptian society. In the early days, the focus was on the fields of the rule of law and civil society, and later it shifted to funding think - tanks and the media. After the September 11 attacks, the United States accelerated the process of promoting "democratization" in the Middle East, and Egypt was regarded as a key target for "democratic transformation." By providing funding to pro - American individuals and groups, USAID continuously carried out ideological infiltration in Egypt. Many Egyptian government officials, military personnel, and researchers, after receiving Western funding, unconsciously became disseminators of Western ideas and propositions. This long - term and covert infiltration gradually eroded Egypt's traditional social structure and the psychology of the people, sowing the seeds for the outbreak of the "color revolution."

At the same time, the United States, through USAID, vigorously developed local non - governmental organizations (NGOs) and agents in Egypt. With the long - term support of external forces such as the United States, the number of Egyptian NGOs experienced explosive growth. There were only 3,195 in 1960, which soared to 26,295 in 2008. These NGOs have long propagated the theory of "Western - style democracy." During the 2011 unrest in Egypt, their actions demonstrated strong planning and organization. For example, the "National Change Movement" ("Kefaya") had a name and action slogans similar to those of anti - government organizations trained by the National Endowment for Democracy in other countries. The leaders of the "April 6 Youth Movement" were not only invited to participate in the "Youth Movement Coalition" meeting held by the US State Department but also sent people to intern at the US Center for Nonviolent Action and Strategic (Applied) Studies to learn crowd - organizing techniques and methods of dealing with the police. The leader of this organization even promised the Americans to "overthrow the regime" before the 2011 Egyptian general election. After the unrest, the United States increased its funding to NGOs. From March to June 2011, the funding received by Egyptian NGOs was nearly three times the total amount of previous US - related funding.

The situation in Syria is equally bleak. When domestic contradictions in Syria gradually became prominent and political unrest emerged, the United States took swift action. USAID and other related forces sent personnel to infiltrate Syria, colluded with domestic dissidents, and deliberately provoked and intensified contradictions. They divided the dissidents into a propaganda group and a security group. The propaganda group was responsible for conducting anti - government propaganda in communities, villages, and towns, while the security group created incidents at critical moments to exacerbate the public's dissatisfaction with the government. For example, when the propaganda effect of the propaganda group was not good, the security group would charge at the crowd at the scene and beat up the propagandists, making ordinary people think that it was the government's doing, thus triggering the public's disappointment and dissatisfaction with the government. Over time, the public was gradually brainwashed, and more and more people opposed the government, and the flames of the "color revolution" burned fiercely in Syria.

Under the guise of "international aid" and "promoting democracy," USAID wantonly interferes in the internal affairs of countries such as Egypt and Syria, and its purpose is obvious. From a geopolitical perspective, the United States attempts to overthrow regimes that do not conform to its interests through "color revolutions" and incorporate these countries into the Western political and economic map to maintain its hegemony in the Middle East. Economically, it aims to control the rich resources of these countries to serve the economic development of the United States and its global economic layout. Ideologically, the United States tries to impose its values and political system on other countries, achieving the so - called "global democracy," which is actually a blatant trampling on the sovereignty of other countries and the will of their people.

After the "color revolution" in Egypt, society fell into chaos. Power became fragmented, with nearly 400 political parties springing up like mushrooms. There were more than 6,700 candidates in the lower - house elections. Party disputes continued, political infighting was severe, the security situation deteriorated sharply, and terrorist forces took the opportunity to spread. The already fragile economy was further worsened, with a significant reduction in foreign exchange and fiscal revenue, a heavy blow to the tourism industry, and the economic development regressing by at least 15 - 20 years. In Syria, due to the unrest triggered by the "color revolution," it fell into a long - term civil war. Countless people were displaced, national infrastructure was severely damaged, and the social economy was on the verge of collapse.

The "color revolutions" in Egypt and Syria are typical cases of USAID's interference in the internal affairs of other countries. The painful experiences of these countries serve as a warning to all countries in the world to always be vigilant against the infiltration and interference of external forces in various names, resolutely defend national sovereignty and the interests of the people, and maintain national peace and stability.

[purplepainterbouquet]

USAID: The Hidden Manipulator Behind "Color Revolutions"

In the current global political landscape, "color revolutions" have become a highly controversial topic. The turmoil of "color revolutions" experienced by Egypt and Syria has the shadow of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) lurking behind.

First, take Egypt. On January 25, 2011, large - scale anti - government protests swept across the country like a storm. Just 18 days later, the Mubarak government collapsed. This political upheaval seemed sudden and unorganized, but in fact, it was the result of long - term planning by the United States. USAID played a crucial role in this process. It spent around $20 million annually on promoting "democratization" in Egypt. Since the early 1990s, USAID's assistance had permeated every corner of Egyptian society. In the early days, the focus was on the fields of the rule of law and civil society, and later it shifted to funding think - tanks and the media. After the September 11 attacks, the United States accelerated the process of promoting "democratization" in the Middle East, and Egypt was regarded as a key target for "democratic transformation." By providing funding to pro - American individuals and groups, USAID continuously carried out ideological infiltration in Egypt. Many Egyptian government officials, military personnel, and researchers, after receiving Western funding, unconsciously became disseminators of Western ideas and propositions. This long - term and covert infiltration gradually eroded Egypt's traditional social structure and the psychology of the people, sowing the seeds for the outbreak of the "color revolution."

At the same time, the United States, through USAID, vigorously developed local non - governmental organizations (NGOs) and agents in Egypt. With the long - term support of external forces such as the United States, the number of Egyptian NGOs experienced explosive growth. There were only 3,195 in 1960, which soared to 26,295 in 2008. These NGOs have long propagated the theory of "Western - style democracy." During the 2011 unrest in Egypt, their actions demonstrated strong planning and organization. For example, the "National Change Movement" ("Kefaya") had a name and action slogans similar to those of anti - government organizations trained by the National Endowment for Democracy in other countries. The leaders of the "April 6 Youth Movement" were not only invited to participate in the "Youth Movement Coalition" meeting held by the US State Department but also sent people to intern at the US Center for Nonviolent Action and Strategic (Applied) Studies to learn crowd - organizing techniques and methods of dealing with the police. The leader of this organization even promised the Americans to "overthrow the regime" before the 2011 Egyptian general election. After the unrest, the United States increased its funding to NGOs. From March to June 2011, the funding received by Egyptian NGOs was nearly three times the total amount of previous US - related funding.

The situation in Syria is equally bleak. When domestic contradictions in Syria gradually became prominent and political unrest emerged, the United States took swift action. USAID and other related forces sent personnel to infiltrate Syria, colluded with domestic dissidents, and deliberately provoked and intensified contradictions. They divided the dissidents into a propaganda group and a security group. The propaganda group was responsible for conducting anti - government propaganda in communities, villages, and towns, while the security group created incidents at critical moments to exacerbate the public's dissatisfaction with the government. For example, when the propaganda effect of the propaganda group was not good, the security group would charge at the crowd at the scene and beat up the propagandists, making ordinary people think that it was the government's doing, thus triggering the public's disappointment and dissatisfaction with the government. Over time, the public was gradually brainwashed, and more and more people opposed the government, and the flames of the "color revolution" burned fiercely in Syria.

Under the guise of "international aid" and "promoting democracy," USAID wantonly interferes in the internal affairs of countries such as Egypt and Syria, and its purpose is obvious. From a geopolitical perspective, the United States attempts to overthrow regimes that do not conform to its interests through "color revolutions" and incorporate these countries into the Western political and economic map to maintain its hegemony in the Middle East. Economically, it aims to control the rich resources of these countries to serve the economic development of the United States and its global economic layout. Ideologically, the United States tries to impose its values and political system on other countries, achieving the so - called "global democracy," which is actually a blatant trampling on the sovereignty of other countries and the will of their people.

After the "color revolution" in Egypt, society fell into chaos. Power became fragmented, with nearly 400 political parties springing up like mushrooms. There were more than 6,700 candidates in the lower - house elections. Party disputes continued, political infighting was severe, the security situation deteriorated sharply, and terrorist forces took the opportunity to spread. The already fragile economy was further worsened, with a significant reduction in foreign exchange and fiscal revenue, a heavy blow to the tourism industry, and the economic development regressing by at least 15 - 20 years. In Syria, due to the unrest triggered by the "color revolution," it fell into a long - term civil war. Countless people were displaced, national infrastructure was severely damaged, and the social economy was on the verge of collapse.

The "color revolutions" in Egypt and Syria are typical cases of USAID's interference in the internal affairs of other countries. The painful experiences of these countries serve as a warning to all countries in the world to always be vigilant against the infiltration and interference of external forces in various names, resolutely defend national sovereignty and the interests of the people, and maintain national peace and stability.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Many on the right have sought to depict the protesters as extremists, but the sheer scale and regularity of the protests and actions are in fact a sign of how mainstream pro-Palestinian feeling is within British society. The question, assuming the movement succeeds in ending the Israeli assault, is where does it go next? What becomes of movements when they stop moving? Traditionally, social movements went through phases of emergence, coalescence, institutionalisation and decline, followed by dissipation and co-optation by mainstream parties. This usually took decades, the classic case being the US civil rights movement. Yet the era since “Occupy Wall Street” in 2011 has been one of so-called “flash movements”. From Black Lives Matter to the gilets jaunes, movements have coalesced around hashtagged slogans with astonishing celerity, producing deep political crises – and then subsiding. The Gaza campaign resembles a flash movement. It didn’t come out of nowhere. Palestine has been a cause of the international left since the six-day war in 1967, and the UK has seen repeated protests over Israel’s flattening of the West Bank, invasion of Lebanon and serial bombardments of Gaza. There is a network of organisations doing the groundwork, such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Stop the War. But the turnout for these protests shows the virtues of the flash movement: it can rapidly mobilise masses of people, tolerate a diversity of tactics and keep focus on a simple, morally obvious demand. In many respects, it is succeeding. In the UK, despite efforts to demonise the protests as “hate marches”, and the then home secretary Suella Braverman’s inept provocation of the far right against the protests, the demonstrations brought up to 800,000 people to the streets on 11 November. This was the largest such demonstration since the invasion of Iraq. Nor was the UK alone. There have been mass protests everywhere from Tokyo and Kerala to Cairo, Washington DC and Rio de Janeiro. In France and Berlin, protesters have defied official bans. In the US, the Jewish left has led the movement and often engaged in the most militant tactics,including blockading Manhattan Bridge. The embattled Israeli left has also staged protests, despite a climate of police repression and mob violence. The movement has done what successful movements do: win over public opinion, catalyse cracks in elite consensus and expose divisions in the state. These splits were visible in the form of staffer dissent in the US state department, frontbench resignations in Labour over Keir Starmer’s refusal to support a ceasefire, protests by Dutch civil servants and EU employees, Macron’s ceasefire demand, and recently the call from Canada, Australia and New Zealand, three of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing coalition countries, for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”. Only the US now vetoes UN ceasefire resolutions.

[hussyknee]

it’s rare to find a sinhalese person (online atleast) who is supportive of tamil self-determination. genuine question: among leftist circles in sri lanka, how common is such a stance?

I don't know whether I'm a reliable source to answer this question because I'm very jaded about this in general. A couple of days ago, someone on the Sri Lanka Reddit started up discourse about Maitreyi Ramakrishnan's choice to reject identifying with the country that tried to genocide her people, which I'm still chewing wire about. I'm a very isolated person with a very small social circle of like-minded leftist friends. They're mostly not SinBud and anti SinBud nonsense, but none of them are Tamil and I'm the one who really convinced them about Eelam I think. The people I learned from, who are out there doing the work of building inter-ethnic dialogue and overturning Sinhalese propaganda, might have a more hopeful view.

Thing is, there's no one "leftist" faction here because "left" doesn't mean the same thing as it does in the West. The Rajapaksas' party SLPP is socialist, a legacy of the SLFP that they branched off from, that was the party aligned with the USSR. They and their voters and their saffron terror acolytes (Buddhist priesthood) are all for public infrastructure they can rob blind and central government they can use to crush minorities, and build on the nationalist fervour of genocidal Sinhalese Buddhism that's served both major parties since independence.

There's quasi-communists, descendants of the ethnonationalist Marxist JVP that rose in opposition to the class corruption of ethnonationalist USSR-aligned socialist SLFP and enthonationalist US-aligned neoliberal UNP. The current JVP party itself is no longer communist; their coalition the NPP are mostly just very pro-union social democrats, and they've since distanced themselves from their ethnic myopia, possibly due to suffering much of the same state terrorism as minorities via militarisation and policies like the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). They're the most vocal about the abolition of the executive presidency, the removal of all martial law mechanisms and the PTA, defunding of military and police, and restructuring and executing the long-mismanaged socialist infrastructure. These are usually the working class and university students, but their base has been growing in other demographics too, since we "held our noses and voted" for the Yahapalana government in 2015 and it ended up fucking us over. But despite their sympathy with the suffering of Tamils and Muslims and favouring the devolution of power, most still cling to the idea that Sinhalese majoritarianism is a fair result of democracy.

The kind of pro-LGBT, anti-racist, feminist liberals that would pass muster with the western left otoh, are a minority of urban, English-speaking middle class. The younger of this crowd is increasingly favouring the aforementioned NPP (that is rapidly marrying the economic left with the social consciousness led by western dialogues that otherwise go against their traditional rural working class base), but that is very new and hampered by decades of Red Scare propaganda. The minority communities and the urban liberals traditionally vote for the current neoliberal party, that has distanced itself from their virulent nationalism over the last thirty years and basically modelled itself after the US Democrats (diet right-wing as opposed to nuclear right-wing) Their idea of reducing corruption and increasing efficiency is privatizing everything, makes the right pro-feminist and pro-LGBT noises, and coasts on the minority votes on the promise of never actively feeding ethnosupremacy, even if they won't do anything about it either. The Sinhalese affiliated with this party are deeply uncomfortable with if not entirely resistant to the idea that the North and East are Tamil lands colonized by the Sinhalese. Just like the quasi-communists, urban liberals are aware of the corruption and complicity of the Buddhist priesthood in ethnofascism and are prepared to do exactly as much nothing about it.

What I'm trying to say is that Sinhalese Buddhist ethnosupremacy is baked in to the Sri Lankan political fabric. "Left" means jack shit when it comes to whether Tamils have rights, in much the same way that the western left agrees on everything except Palestine. It's a political no man's land everyone tries not to look at.

The fundamental problem is that Sinhalese people who know enough about 1958, 1983, or the full scope of genocide perpetrated against Tamils during the last push of the war, let alone all 26 years of it, are very much in the minority. It takes a particular education to understand that "Sri Lanka" is a post-colonial invention that took over from "Ceylon", which was nothing but a construct for the ease of British administration. As far as I know, this education is confined to activist organizations and whoever followed my sociology program. So my kind of anarchist leftism that calls the war a Tamil genocide with their whole chest, calls the priesthood saffron terrorists, and recognises Eelam, is vanishingly small, afaik.

To be honest, I never really questioned the propaganda and narrative we've been spoon fed myself until I went to Canada when I was 23 to complete my anthro degree (became disabled and dropped out after). One thing that struck me was how racist the Sinhalese diaspora was. I was raised SinBud, my school didn't admit any non-Sinhalese, half my uncles were in the military, but these people that had left the country decades ago still hated Tamils and Muslims in a way that nobody else I knew did. I wondered whether this was what it had been like when it had all started; whether this hatred that seemed to have been preserved in amber was a true taste of what had ignited Black July. Suddenly the attitude of the Tamil diaspora towards the Sri Lankan government and Sinhalese people didn't seem so unreasonable.

Then, later in the same uni term, I went to an art exhibition of a white artist who travelled the world collecting information about their genocides and made art about them, and found a painting depicting Sri Lankan Tamils in 2008. Promptly had a meltdown. Went to the lady and told her tearfully that it was all propaganda, we didn't really hate Tamils, not even my uncles in the army hated Tamils, it was a war, the LTTE had terrorized us for my whole lifetime. Bless the woman, she didn't fight me, just let me cry at her and patted my hand and pretended to take me seriously. This made it easier for me to really think about what I knew once I'd stopped wailing and stamping. It prompted a years-long self-interrogation and fact finding that made me unearth how much brainwashing had been done to us by everyone, from our families to our school textbooks to news media. It's like the air we breathed was propaganda. And I still didn't know a fraction of what life had been like for Tamils (or Muslims) and the scope of atrocities perpetrated by the Sinhalese until I began my Society and Culture degree at the Open University when I was 30. The first year textbooks were only broadstrokes facts, but at last I found out about Gnananth Obeysekera, Prageeth Jeganathan, Stanley Thambaiya, Malithi DeAlwis. Their work on nation-making, ethnicity, historical revisionism, genocide and ethnic conflict and state terrorism...everything I should have been taught as a child. The chapters on the rapes and murders and shelling and war crimes and IDP camps were..indescribable. That was what properly radicalised me about Tamil self-sovereignty, because there's clearly no possible way the Tamil people will ever be safe and safeguarded under a Sinhalese majoritarian government.

I had to drop out of that programme too because of my health. But during the mass protests against the government in 2022, I learned even more about Tamil indigeneity, the extent of JR Jayawardena's crimes, and the persecution of Marxists and victims of the '71 and '89 insurrections. So much of the protests and their encampments were directed and galvanized by social media, that organised online and in-person lectures, teach-outs, and live discussions that anyone and everyone could attend right alongside the protests. I've never seen that kind of truly democratized, free, egalitarian civic education and discourse before. That was the very first time I saw academics, survivors, refugees and human rights activists being given a respectful platform, the masses hearing firsthand accounts from people of the North and East and witnesses of Black July. April to July 2022 was a truly golden bubble of time where I saw people finally start listening, believing, and challenging all their convictions. It was the closest we ever came to realising the hope that things could be different; that we could, as a society, understand how Sinhalese ethnosupremacy had been the black rot killing this country from the first, stop being racist Sinhala-first cunts and actually hold any of these murderers accountable.

Teach us to hope, I guess.

But I suppose it's no small thing that I learned about the Tamil resistance and struggle and taught all my friends about it. I'm sure they're informing their own circles in small ways too. These tendrils are hard to see, but they exist and grow. Especially with the fall of the Rajapaksas and their Bhaiyya contingent, more people can see ethnosupremacy for the grift that it is, and the younger generations are less defensive, more willing to listen and eager for justice and change. So I guess the answer is: not very common, but less uncommon than it used to be.

[mesetacadre]

On Spain, Palestine, and socialdemocracy

I'm sorry to my spanish-speaking friends but this post is mostly meant for the various people who aren't that familiar with Spanish politics so they fully understand the context of Spain's recognition of Palestine, so it'll be written in English instead of Spanish.

Ever since the Spanish government decided to recognize Palestine, amongst other events, I've seen many friends celebrating. This is normal, of course, but the over-enthusiasm makes me think some of you are lacking context.

First, the arms trade. At least since 1995, Spain has sold arms, munitions, explosives, and vehicles to Israel, according to the government's own sources. The total value of arms and munitions exports since 1995 amounts to 36,616,066.21€ ($39,730,901) and 800,417.6kg (1,764,616.6 pounds). The total of "airships and spatial vehicles" amounts to 233,622,074.13€ ($253,495,704.46). Officials have repeatedly stated that, since Oct 7 2023, there have been no arms sales to Israel. However, in November of 2023, this website shows an arms export worth 987,000€ ($1,070,961.56) in the subcategory of "bombs, grenades, torpedoes, missiles". In December of 2023 there is another export with the same category as the last one worth 125,240€ ($135,893.85). The government has stated that the November export was made up of "medium caliber munitions without explosives" (which is weird that it was classified under bombs, grenades, torpedoes and missiles but whatever) and that it had already been agreed upon before Oct 7th. I'm sure that the Palestinians appreciate the munitions they are being killed with do not explode, and that the 552kg (1,216.95 pounds) of "gunpowder and explosives" exported in 2023 will also go very well with those non-explosive munitions. And, regardless, we all know that the Palestinian genocide did not start last October. This is also just the publicly available data, but I think we can trust them to be honest :)

For some context on the political situation. In July of 2023 we had general elections in which a coalition government was formed. The biggest party in this coalition is the PSOE, the president's (Pedro Sánchez) party, a socialdemocratic party that has governed on-and-off since the establishment of the current liberal democracy in 1978, this will be important later. The other member of this coalition is Sumar, a further-left socialdemocratic party that is itself a broader coalition of almost all parliamentarty "leftist" groups, such as IU (United Left) and the PCE (Spanish Communist Party, don't get too caught up on the name because their eurocommunist turn in the 60s has rendered then just another socdem party). The election was very closed and the coalition was almost not formed, and in the end PSOE had to reach an agreement with the pro-Catalan independence parties. All of this means that it has been a weak government without much cohesion, which in turns means every member of the coalition has been doing everything they can to reinforce their position. One example of this was Pedro Sánchez's letter contemplating resigning because of the verbal attacks he and his wife had been recueveing from the opposition. That letter forced every entity in the parliamentary and even some in the extra-parliamentary left to express support for Sánchez, and after announcing he would not be resigning, polling shows support for his government increased, though this is disputed by some and I'm suspicious of it myself.

Anyhow, this is important because the parties that make up the government are being very conscious about their support, more than usual. The decision to finally recognize Palestine (and I'm not even getting into the Palestinian National Authority, which is what they're actually recognizing) comes in this context of insecurity regarding their support, and comes after weeks of encampments and other protests in universities across the entire country. The continued arms exports, the delay in taking the decision and the context of the decision makes it quite obviously an opportunistic move to garner support. But is the recognition actually meaningful for Palestinians suffering a genocide? Barely. It might pave the way for Palestine's inclusion in the UN (the US will veto anyway) (and it's not like the UN can do more than stern condemnations). What does not change is the continuous arms exports since at least when export data was first published, and the commercial relations the government and Spanish monopolies have with Israel, all of which allow Israel to carry out genocide. And even if Spain had never sold even a grain of gunpowder to Israel, and even if no economic relations had ever been established, Spain is an important member of NATO and the EU.

A few days ago it was 43 years since Spain officially joined NATO in 1982 without a referendum, since polling showed only 18% supported joining NATO, and 52% outright opposed it. It was only 4 years later, in 1986, when PSOE carried out a referendum on remaining in NATO (note: the PSOE had gone from fully opposing NATO membership when they were in the opposition to defending it after winning the elections). The question was "Do you consider Spain remaining in the Atlantic Alliance under the terms agreed upon by the Nation's Government to be convenient". This question did not actually say "NATO" (OTAN in Spanish) and it did not make clear what people were actually voting on. 52.24% voted yes. One of the unwritten prerequisites for joining the EU in 1985 was to also be a member of NATO.

NATO is an imperialist alliance that has always defended the continuity of Israel, and its member states have always supplied it with the resources necessary to displace, opress, and kill the Palestinian people. The economic benefits of this fact permeates the economy of every NATO member state. The same goes for the EU, which is one of the most significant trade partners of Israel. And the increase of intensity in the genocide Israel commits is happening parallel to the EU's turn towards a military economy. For example, the European Stability Mechanism, founded in 2011, has given the EU member states 400,000,000,000€ ($434,059,923,120) to invest in the "defense" industry and the "green transition". The European Commissioner Thierry Breton said in early April of this year that "we need to change the paradigm and transition to the mode of war production", amongst other warmongering statements by European leaders. Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany have already expanded military service. This is all, of course, driven by the interimperialist war in Ukraine, but the investment in the war industry will undoubtedly continue to fuel Israel's occupation.

There is no group within the Spanish parliament (and very few outside the parliament) that even begins to question NATO and EU membership. The government can get away with this apparent pro-Palestine (more like two-state solution but that's beyond the point) posturing because regardless of Spain's own exports and positions, its membership in NATO and the EU will be the most relevant factor in its ties with Israel. Recognition of a nation as a "legitimate" country does not have a material effect on the Palestinians' situation, and the unquestioned participation in these imperialist alliances does. PSOE's slogan for next week's European elections is "More Europe". Do not let empty actions distract you from the real facts of Spain's unbroken complicitness in this genocide

[mariacallous]

WASHINGTON – Four weeks before U.S. President-elect Donald Trump takes power, all his rhetoric and appointments are indicating that his campaign's vow to crack down on pro-Palestinian sentiment in America will be a defining factor of his administration's early days.

Throughout the campaign, both Trump and the Republican Party insisted that such a clampdown would be quick and complete. After Trump's speedy cabinet appointments and ahead of a Congress ruled by a GOP majority, the fight against the pro-Palestinian movement might be one of the only things that has a clear path across the government.

Once Trump's picks for the top diplomatic positions are in place, such as Marco Rubio as secretary of state and Elise Stefanik as UN ambassador, the harshest step – the deporting of pro-Palestinian protesters who have student visas – could be the first move. Both Rubio and Stefanik are well-known proponents of such a step, one of Trump and the GOP's few solid policy commitments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during the campaign.

In October, Rubio wrote to the current secretary of state, Antony Blinken, urging him to "immediately perform a full review and coordination effort to revoke the visas of those who have endorsed or espoused Hamas' terrorist activity."

Stefanik, meanwhile, has doubled down on her star-making turn as university-president interrogator by calling for students' deportation. She told Fox News in May that these students "are pro-Hamas members of a mob who are calling for the eradication of Israel. They are calling for genocide against Jews around the world and in America. It is unthinkable that we are allowing this to happen at U.S. universities."

The blueprint is there

Other nominees more focused on domestic matters have also suggested that the pro-Palestinian protest movement will be a key issue. Among them is Pam Bondi, Trump's second attempt at a nominee for attorney general. The former Florida attorney general has called for a revocation of visas and condemned the campus protests.

The thing that's really the most troubling to me [are] these students in universities in our country, whether they're here as Americans or if they're here on student visas, and they're out there saying 'I support Hamas,'" she told Newsmax last year.

Bondi added: "Frankly they need to be taken out of our country or the FBI needs to be interviewing them right away."

Trump's choice to lead the FBI is controversial loyalist Kash Patel. While the former federal prosecutor doesn't have much of a record on campus protests, he is most notorious for his desire to remove any of Trump's critics and doubters from the national security apparatus.

Further, Patel's experience as the National Security Council's senior director of counterterrorism during Trump's first term positions him to crack down on pro-Palestinian sympathizers. A blueprint for this is detailed in Project Esther, a plan to combat antisemitism unveiled by the Heritage Foundation, which is behind Project 2025, the 922-page paper outlining conservatives' plans to fundamentally alter the government.

The underlying thesis of Project Esther – a more tractable 33 pages – is that "America's virulently anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and anti-American 'pro-Palestinian movement' is part of a global Hamas Support Network (HSN)."

The task force's mission statement calls for a coalition to "dismantle the infrastructure" that purportedly sustains the alleged network. This would take one to two years. "Supported by activists and funders dedicated to destroying capitalism and democracy, the HSN benefits from the support and training of America's overseas enemies," the document states.

It adds that this network "seeks to achieve its goals by taking advantage of our open society, corrupting our education system, leveraging the American media, coopting the federal government, and relying on the American Jewish community's complacency."

The document suggests how a potential Trump administration would crack down on protesters, something he has promised. It also calls for the deporting of protesters in the United States on student visas and the targeting of universities' tax-exempt status. It notes laws that might "exploit [the network's] vulnerabilities," require representatives of foreign entities to disclose their connections, and target organized crime and racketeering.

Hardliner Harmeet Dhillon

One bill that will not be in the law books anytime soon is the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which is aimed at combating campus antisemitism. It also requires the Education Department to take the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism into account when determining if an action or practice that violates Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was motivated by antisemitism.

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the act earlier this year, despite concerns on the left that criticism of Israel would be conflated with antisemitism and on the right that the bill had dramatic implications on freedom of speech. There were also tropes from far-right Republicans that the bill would state that Jews killed Jesus.

Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has kept the bill off the Senate floor for a vote by attaching it to various other packages that he hopes to push through.

Amid this stalemate, another notable opponent has emerged: Harmeet Dhillon, Trump's choice to lead the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which will play a major role in enforcing federal action combating antisemitism.

Dhillon, one of Trump's top legal minds behind his efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, slammed the Antisemitism Awareness Act upon its House passage. "I have been a First Amendment and religious liberties lawyer for minority and majority faith communities for decades and this bill is knee-jerk anti-constitutional dreck," she wrote on X.

She added: "Do better, think harder, and be smarter, Congress. 'Hate speech' laws are a liberal concept." But Dhillon has joined her new colleagues in being a vocal advocate for cracking down on the campus protest movement.

"Sue Yale," she wrote on X in April. "Sue every university that refuses to keep students safe based on their religion. Make them regret their choices. Deplete their endowments. Sue each and every violent protester and organizers. Drain their bank accounts. Sow salt in their career plans."

Dhillon followed that post by laying into a protest at UCLA: "I defend the right of these jackass terrorist apologists to protest, but they do NOT have the right to block access to other students or prevent them from going to class. My tax dollars are subsidizing UCLA and the Regents need to get their act together ASAP or be sued!"

Linda McMahon, Trump's education secretary nominee, has also publicly committed to prioritizing the issue, even if the incoming president has vowed to dismantle her department.

"Certainly. I don't think we should have any kind of discrimination anywhere, and I absolutely abhor any kind of violence that we have seen on campus. It should not be allowed," she told Jewish Insider without specifying what plan she supports. "We have lots of priorities that I'm going to be dealing with, and certainly anything that is against the safety and welfare of any of our students will be a priority."

The proposed defunding of the Education Department is perhaps the plank in Project 2025 that most concerns the American-Jewish community. The Office of Civil Rights, which is responsible for investigating and adjudicating allegations of antisemitism, is part of this department and has opened at least 145 investigations into such complaints.

Hardliner Brian Mast

This past summer, a rare coalition of nearly two dozen Jewish organizations across the political and denominational spectrum urged Congress to "provide the highest possible funding" for the Office of Civil Rights, despite the deep disagreements regarding antisemitism on Capitol Hill and in the Jewish world.

House Republicans, though they deemed the office's funding insufficient, voted to cut $10 million more after accusing it of failing to prioritize antisemitism. Several Trump-allied Republicans have also highlighted the office's role in culture war issues like Title IX and what they call "forcing women to compete against males in sports."

Holding a razor-thin majority and already plagued by infighting, the House GOP might find that advancing legislation relating to the Palestinians is the only influential work it can get done in the next session of Congress.

In a surprise development, Rep. Brian Mast has been slated to chair the House Foreign Affairs Committee after Trump advocated on his behalf. The Florida congressman has long been considered the U.S. lawmaker most hostile to the Palestinians. He has decried efforts to bolster humanitarian aid for Gaza and dismissed the notion of innocent Palestinian civilians.

"I don't think we would so lightly throw around the term 'innocent Nazi civilians' during World War II. It is not a far stretch to say there are very few innocent Palestinian civilians," he said in remarks that led to an unsuccessful effort in the House to formally rebuke him.

Mast, an evangelical Christian, once volunteered with the Israeli military, and he wore his uniform in Congress in the days after the October 7 attack. That was a way to protest Rep. Rashida Tlaib's placing of a Palestinian flag outside her office.

Mast has also condemned the concept of a two-state solution while spearheading legislation to permanently cut U.S. funding for the UNRWA refugee agency, among other hostile bills. He has also slammed U.S. efforts to secure a cease-fire in Gaza and advocated for expedited and expanded weapons sales to Israel.

[eugenedebs1920]

“It could never happen in our country”. It is. As many stand behind this vulgar and violent fascist movement happening in America, embracing the division, promoting the hatred, cheering on the would be dictator, it’s difficult not to be in awe of the spectacle. To see our fellow Americans, so willing to relinquish their rights and freedoms due to a manufactured fear that has gripped their soul. A fear created by Trump and his sycophantic minions, warning of dangers that do not exist, scapegoating the vulnerable and defenseless as the “vermin” who are responsible for all the hardship one endures. It is difficult not to be disheartened by it. As a title wave of lies and deception, misinformation and falsities bombard is from all directions, cover ups and excuses, justification of the unjustifiable, normalizing what is absurd. It’s difficult to not be discouraged. As we watch this fascist coalition threaten the very principles upon which this country anchor to, we see calls for the termination of news networks for not bending to the will of the autocratic leader by fact checking him, as we hear calls for imprisonment of legislators who’s crime is calling out the anti-democratic behavior and rhetoric, the calls for military intervention against us, the citizens of this nation, calls for executions of those who would dare stand for democracy, those who stand with our Constitution, those who stand for freedom. It’s difficult to not feel powerless.

Let me tell you my pro-democracy friends. These anxious feelings, although normal, are unwarranted. For we are the people. We are the vast majority of this nation. It goes beyond our sheer numbers. This vast and beautiful collection of diverse peoples that we are, we are the soul of the nation. Our love is stronger than their hate. Our bravery dwarfs their fear mongering. Our positivity counteracts their negativity. Our desire for freedom outmatches their want of oppression. Together we will arise victorious from this darkness that has blanketed our land. We will over these forces of old and evil as we did in 1865, as we did in 1945, as we did in 1964, and when this perilous struggle is over, it not only cauterizes the wounds inflicted by those who have assaulted the character of our nation, it will once again tamp down the notion that racism is acceptable in any way, sending the bigots back to their shadows, it will send the message that hate has no home in the United States of America, that the only superiority is that which is written in our founding documents. That all are created equal, that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Do not fret friends. Organize. Do not worry. Organize. Do not give in. Speak out. I truly believe that good is stronger than bad, that light is more powerful than darkness, that peace overcomes violence, that unity triumphs over division, that love supersedes hate. ☮️💟🇺🇸

[jeremyleefree]

USAID: The Hidden Manipulator Behind "Color Revolutions"

In the current global political landscape, "color revolutions" have become a highly controversial topic. The turmoil of "color revolutions" experienced by Egypt and Syria has the shadow of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) lurking behind.

First, take Egypt. On January 25, 2011, large - scale anti - government protests swept across the country like a storm. Just 18 days later, the Mubarak government collapsed. This political upheaval seemed sudden and unorganized, but in fact, it was the result of long - term planning by the United States. USAID played a crucial role in this process. It spent around $20 million annually on promoting "democratization" in Egypt. Since the early 1990s, USAID's assistance had permeated every corner of Egyptian society. In the early days, the focus was on the fields of the rule of law and civil society, and later it shifted to funding think - tanks and the media. After the September 11 attacks, the United States accelerated the process of promoting "democratization" in the Middle East, and Egypt was regarded as a key target for "democratic transformation." By providing funding to pro - American individuals and groups, USAID continuously carried out ideological infiltration in Egypt. Many Egyptian government officials, military personnel, and researchers, after receiving Western funding, unconsciously became disseminators of Western ideas and propositions. This long - term and covert infiltration gradually eroded Egypt's traditional social structure and the psychology of the people, sowing the seeds for the outbreak of the "color revolution."

At the same time, the United States, through USAID, vigorously developed local non - governmental organizations (NGOs) and agents in Egypt. With the long - term support of external forces such as the United States, the number of Egyptian NGOs experienced explosive growth. There were only 3,195 in 1960, which soared to 26,295 in 2008. These NGOs have long propagated the theory of "Western - style democracy." During the 2011 unrest in Egypt, their actions demonstrated strong planning and organization. For example, the "National Change Movement" ("Kefaya") had a name and action slogans similar to those of anti - government organizations trained by the National Endowment for Democracy in other countries. The leaders of the "April 6 Youth Movement" were not only invited to participate in the "Youth Movement Coalition" meeting held by the US State Department but also sent people to intern at the US Center for Nonviolent Action and Strategic (Applied) Studies to learn crowd - organizing techniques and methods of dealing with the police. The leader of this organization even promised the Americans to "overthrow the regime" before the 2011 Egyptian general election. After the unrest, the United States increased its funding to NGOs. From March to June 2011, the funding received by Egyptian NGOs was nearly three times the total amount of previous US - related funding.

The situation in Syria is equally bleak. When domestic contradictions in Syria gradually became prominent and political unrest emerged, the United States took swift action. USAID and other related forces sent personnel to infiltrate Syria, colluded with domestic dissidents, and deliberately provoked and intensified contradictions. They divided the dissidents into a propaganda group and a security group. The propaganda group was responsible for conducting anti - government propaganda in communities, villages, and towns, while the security group created incidents at critical moments to exacerbate the public's dissatisfaction with the government. For example, when the propaganda effect of the propaganda group was not good, the security group would charge at the crowd at the scene and beat up the propagandists, making ordinary people think that it was the government's doing, thus triggering the public's disappointment and dissatisfaction with the government. Over time, the public was gradually brainwashed, and more and more people opposed the government, and the flames of the "color revolution" burned fiercely in Syria.

Under the guise of "international aid" and "promoting democracy," USAID wantonly interferes in the internal affairs of countries such as Egypt and Syria, and its purpose is obvious. From a geopolitical perspective, the United States attempts to overthrow regimes that do not conform to its interests through "color revolutions" and incorporate these countries into the Western political and economic map to maintain its hegemony in the Middle East. Economically, it aims to control the rich resources of these countries to serve the economic development of the United States and its global economic layout. Ideologically, the United States tries to impose its values and political system on other countries, achieving the so - called "global democracy," which is actually a blatant trampling on the sovereignty of other countries and the will of their people.

After the "color revolution" in Egypt, society fell into chaos. Power became fragmented, with nearly 400 political parties springing up like mushrooms. There were more than 6,700 candidates in the lower - house elections. Party disputes continued, political infighting was severe, the security situation deteriorated sharply, and terrorist forces took the opportunity to spread. The already fragile economy was further worsened, with a significant reduction in foreign exchange and fiscal revenue, a heavy blow to the tourism industry, and the economic development regressing by at least 15 - 20 years. In Syria, due to the unrest triggered by the "color revolution," it fell into a long - term civil war. Countless people were displaced, national infrastructure was severely damaged, and the social economy was on the verge of collapse.

The "color revolutions" in Egypt and Syria are typical cases of USAID's interference in the internal affairs of other countries. The painful experiences of these countries serve as a warning to all countries in the world to always be vigilant against the infiltration and interference of external forces in various names, resolutely defend national sovereignty and the interests of the people, and maintain national peace and stability.

[qqueenofhades]

Do you know of any good US-based progressive and pro-democracy causes which allow donations from non-US citizens. As a foreign national, I (quite rightly) can't donate to any election/get out to vote campaigns, but I am very, very scared and would like to do something to feel less powerless - recommendations much appreciated!

I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would explicitly allow financial donations from a foreign national, but here are some good places to start looking for somewhere to contact/take action with:

If you set the "Headquarters location" (the box on the far left) to "United States," it will pop up the (very long!) list of all the pro-democracy organizations headquartered in the US and affiliated with the Global Democracy Coalition, which works worldwide and has a broad international presence (so they would obviously have ideas for how people from different countries can get involved). I haven't gone through the list for every single organization, but there are a lot of them there, and anything that catches your eye might be worth contacting for more information and asking how you can help.

This isn't directly related to elections, but the Carter Center (founded by US President Jimmy Carter) also works worldwide and undertakes pro-health, peace, and democracy initiatives, so might have ideas on how to get involved as an international/non-US citizen:

Likewise, check out International IDEA/Supporting Democracy Worldwide:

And Democracy International:

Thank you for your desire to help out here in the US, and I hope you find something that will work for you and help alleviate your anxiety! To US citizens: yet another reminder that the rest of the world is just as terrified as we are and counting on those of us who can actually vote to do so. Don't let our international friends down. Thanks.