#reinforce democracy

[influxovsnux]

Imagine thinking nobody in history accomplished anything before the advent of capitalism.

The above scenario never occurred, nor is it socialism, nor are specific economic systems required to inspire people to do good or important work.

The right-wing propaganda train has been doing this for a very long time. All in the name of transferring the world's wealth and power to a tiny group of unfamthomly rich people.

Sadly, it has been incredibly successful.

[rollercoasterwords]

ooh thats so cool! im doing my ba in international relations as well (im from hungary) and tbh i cant really say im too invested in it lol, altough i found my classes connected to history the most interesting so far. i have a class about post colonialism this semester and im kinda excited about that! <3

ooh yeah that’s exciting!! hope u enjoy the class <3 & yeah i ended up not liking my i.s. major but i don’t necessarily regret studying it too much…i know it’s def a field where lots of undergrads have pretty specific career aspirations which i did when i first started but then by the end of my degree i had completely changed my mind 💀 so it partially depends on after-graduation plans etc; i’m also only familiar w i.s. as an academic field in a u.s. university which. could understandably be more insufferable than elsewhere…but honestly if ur early on in ur degree & not finding urself super invested my advice is to be open to changing ur major if u don’t have a specific career etc that requires ur current major; if ur further along & need to stick w it then just try to supplement by taking course that are maybe cross-listed w other depts or electives in other depts if u can to make it more bearable lol

[silverfootsieamphibian]

Helldiver 2 alias Freedom Simulator

[melancolitio]

Probably not the place to post this because y'all are bananas hostile, but I don't think that reacting violently to fascist beliefs is productive in the slightest, in terms of making an actual change in the structures of our societies

[ms-demeanor]

Trump 2016 was nothing compared to what's coming and you know it.

No I don't, and you don't either.

One of the problems that I have with electoralism is that every election is the most important election of our lives. Every election is the last one to save democracy. Every election is the only way that we can protect the marginalized otherwise so you have to vote blue no matter who or you're going to be killed in the streets by the red team.

This is propaganda to get people to vote, but what it also does is reinforce the idea that the only people who can save you are the ones on the ballot.

There are people all over the world living under fascist regimes, living in war zones, living in dictatorships, who are supporting one another. There are trans communities under Modi and queers in Russia and people who provide underground reproductive healthcare in Iran and people who provide medical care to their neighbors in tents in Gaza.

What you are doing is American exceptionalism in a liberal hat. This is NOT the end of the fucking world. This is NOT the worst disaster you will ever face. This is NOT a reason to give up or to stop caring or to stop working or to lay down and die.

Is this a good thing that has happened? No. But bad things happen all the time and we keep going.

If you must wallow, then wallow, but I've got shit to do just like I did last week.

[capitalism-is-a-psychopathy]

Billionaires destroy more than they create

In a land often championed for its economic opportunity and equality, the American Dream promises that anyone who works hard can rise to prosperity. But for many in today’s middle and lower economic classes, that dream is fading, shadowed by a reality that feels increasingly rigged. At the heart of this issue lies a stark and glaring imbalance: billionaires, a minuscule fraction of the population, wield a staggering concentration of wealth and influence. This is not just an issue of economics but one that touches the foundations of democracy and fairness.

Imagine the economy as a massive machine, built to churn wealth throughout society. In an ideal world, this wealth would cycle effectively, where each part contributes and benefits in turn. But as billionaires amass wealth at unprecedented levels, this machine has come to function more like a funnel, siphoning resources from the broader society and concentrating them at the very top. This dynamic, driven by complex financial structures and tax strategies, isn’t merely an accumulation of personal fortunes but a systematic extraction from the economic potential of others. The capital that could have flowed through wages, education, and public infrastructure is often diverted into private bank accounts and shell companies, rarely benefiting the people who drive and build the economy day by day.

As wealth accumulates at the top, so too does political influence. Billionaires, with vast financial resources, can fund political campaigns, lobbyists, and entire networks of think tanks dedicated to shaping policy. Through these channels, they push for tax policies, regulations, and trade agreements that benefit the ultra-wealthy at the expense of middle- and lower-income families. Politicians, indebted to these donors, increasingly look to billionaire interests rather than to constituents’ needs. This creates a disturbing feedback loop: billionaires influence politics to further policies that reinforce their own wealth and power, leaving the broader populace with dwindling opportunities to influence their own government.

This concentrated power extends far beyond campaign finance and lobbying. With ownership over significant segments of media networks, billionaires control the narratives that millions consume daily. Through these media outlets, they shape public opinion, diverting attention from policies that would challenge wealth accumulation and pushing narratives that frame the ultra-wealthy as essential “job creators” or “innovators” rather than acknowledging their role in widening economic divides. Issues that might threaten their economic stranglehold are often buried, while others, that create division and distract, are amplified.

For the middle and lower classes, this confluence of wealth, media, and political power has a real impact. Stagnant wages, diminishing job security, and rising costs of living aren’t natural outcomes of a complex economy—they’re symptoms of a system shaped to benefit those at the top. Policies that could lift working-class Americans, like raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare, or better labor protections, are often stifled in legislative deadlock, thanks in part to the political influence of the ultra-wealthy who stand to lose from them.

So, as this cycle continues, the gap between billionaires and everyone else widens. The billions accumulated at the top no longer signify mere success but a barrier to mobility for everyone else. The middle and lower classes find themselves carrying the economic burdens, often working harder for less. Meanwhile, billionaires remain insulated, living in a different economic reality, one far removed from the struggles of the average American. This isn’t just an economic imbalance but a distortion of democracy itself, as the machinery of power and influence is pulled further from the reach of ordinary citizens and held more tightly by those whose interests rarely align with theirs.

Without addressing this imbalance, the promise of opportunity, the cornerstone of the American Dream, becomes less attainable with each passing year, not just for the lower and middle classes but for the nation’s future as a whole.

Addressing their manipulation

Billionaires and their advocates often employ a familiar set of narratives to justify their wealth and the structures that enable it. These arguments, framed in terms of the free market, capitalism, or fear of socialism, are not only misleading but often serve to distract from the deeper systemic issues at play. Below is a breakdown of these claims and the counterarguments that expose their flaws:

1. “It’s Just the Free Market at Work”

The myth of the “free market” implies that billionaires achieve their wealth purely through talent, innovation, and competition in a market where everyone has equal opportunity. But in reality, the U.S. economy is far from a genuinely “free” market.

Counterpoints:

• Government Subsidies and Tax Breaks: Many billionaires’ businesses rely heavily on taxpayer-funded subsidies, special tax breaks, and other forms of government assistance. Large corporations frequently lobby for policies that grant them tax advantages, including offshore loopholes and capital gains tax breaks. This creates an environment where they aren’t competing on equal ground but rather with significant state support, distorting the market in their favor.

• Anti-Competitive Practices: Many large corporations, especially in tech and finance, engage in monopolistic behavior, buying out competitors or using aggressive tactics to drive them out of the market. This concentration of power stifles competition, contradicting the notion of a “free” market where anyone can succeed if they work hard.

• Inherited Wealth and Privilege: A significant portion of billionaire wealth is inherited rather than self-made. Generational wealth compounds, giving the ultra-wealthy an enormous head start over those without similar family resources. This challenges the idea that wealth accumulation is simply the product of individual merit or a fair market.

2. “This Is What Capitalism Is Supposed to Look Like”

The argument here suggests that capitalism is an inherently competitive system, where the most successful rise to the top, benefiting everyone through innovation and job creation. This narrative hinges on the idea of “trickle-down economics,” where the wealth of the richest eventually spreads throughout society.

Counterpoints:

• Trickle-Down Economics Doesn’t Work: Decades of evidence show that wealth rarely “trickles down” to the rest of society in any meaningful way. Income inequality has only widened, with wages stagnating for most workers while billionaire wealth has soared. Billionaires tend to reinvest wealth in ways that concentrate their holdings, like in stocks, rather than in ways that benefit the broader economy.

• Wealth Extraction, Not Wealth Creation: Many billionaires achieve and maintain their fortunes through rent-seeking behavior—extracting wealth from existing resources rather than creating new value. Hedge funds, private equity, and real estate empires often profit by cutting costs (like labor) rather than by innovating or producing new goods and services. This dynamic benefits investors but hurts workers and consumers.

• Capitalism Can Take Other Forms: The capitalism practiced in the U.S. today, sometimes called “neoliberal capitalism,” focuses on minimal regulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and privatization. However, other countries demonstrate that capitalism can function with stronger social safety nets, wealth redistribution policies, and tighter regulations on corporate power. Nordic countries, for example, balance capitalism with robust welfare systems, ensuring a more equitable distribution of wealth and services.

3. “Without Billionaires, There Would Be No Innovation or Job Creation”

A popular myth is that billionaires are essential “job creators” and “innovators” whose wealth ultimately benefits society by funding new businesses and creating employment. This claim positions billionaires as indispensable to economic growth.

Counterpoints:

• Public Funding Fuels Innovation: Many of the biggest technological advances, including the internet, GPS, and medical breakthroughs, were developed with public funding rather than billionaire investments. Government research grants and subsidies often lay the groundwork for major innovations that billionaires later profit from. In other words, society bears much of the financial risk, while billionaires reap the rewards.

• Small Businesses Create Most Jobs: Small businesses, not billionaires or large corporations, are responsible for most job creation in the United States. Big corporations often eliminate jobs through automation, outsourcing, or consolidation. They may employ a large workforce, but they also tend to exploit workers through low wages, precarious employment, and cost-cutting measures.

• Billionaires Accumulate Wealth Through Wealth, Not Innovation: Many billionaires maintain their wealth not by creating jobs or innovating but by using their existing capital to generate more wealth, often through financial instruments that have little to do with actual economic productivity. Stock buybacks, dividends, and passive investments grow their fortunes without necessarily contributing to broader economic prosperity.

4. “Any Alternative Is Socialism or Communism”

When calls arise for higher taxes on the wealthy, stricter regulations, or broader social programs, the response is often to invoke the fear of “socialism” or “communism.” This argument seeks to paint any attempt at wealth redistribution or regulation as a slippery slope toward total government control.

Counterpoints:

• Social Safety Nets and Regulations Are Not Socialism: Social safety nets, progressive taxation, and regulations do not equate to socialism or communism; they’re features of a balanced capitalist system that seeks to prevent extreme inequality and protect public welfare. Countries like Germany, Canada, and Denmark combine regulated capitalism with strong social programs, resulting in healthier economies and greater well-being for citizens without abandoning capitalism.

• Inequality Threatens Capitalism: Growing inequality and economic instability can undermine the foundations of capitalism. A healthy capitalist economy requires a strong middle class with buying power, which excessive wealth concentration undermines. Reforms like progressive taxation, labor protections, and universal healthcare aren’t a rejection of capitalism but rather a means of stabilizing it.

• Historical Success of Mixed Economies: Many of the most successful and prosperous countries practice a mixed economy, where capitalism coexists with social policies that promote equality. The U.S. itself has employed a mixed economy model in the past, particularly after the New Deal, which implemented social safety nets, labor protections, and financial regulations that led to a period of unprecedented growth and prosperity for the middle class.

5. “They Earned It Fair and Square”

Finally, the idea persists that billionaires deserve their wealth because they “earned” it. This argument suggests that any policy aiming to redistribute wealth is fundamentally unfair, penalizing those who worked hard to succeed.

Counterpoints:

• Systemic Advantages and Wealth Hoarding: As previously mentioned, many billionaires begin with advantages—like family wealth or elite educational opportunities—that aren’t available to most people. Additionally, billionaires often employ complex strategies to avoid taxes, lobby for favorable regulations, and capitalize on government subsidies. These factors mean they haven’t earned wealth solely through hard work or merit.

• Billionaires Didn’t Build Alone: No billionaire operates in isolation; they rely on infrastructure, public education, and the work of thousands or millions of employees. A CEO’s wealth is made possible by a web of collective contributions, yet that wealth is rarely shared equitably. While billionaires might be rewarded for their role, their fortune is far from the result of individual effort alone.

In short, these narratives around billionaires often mask a more uncomfortable truth: today’s system is structured in ways that favor the ultra-wealthy at the expense of the broader population. Economic reform, rather than a threat to capitalism, is a necessary step to ensure a more just, equitable society where wealth accumulation doesn’t depend on privilege, influence, or systemic manipulation.

Making a change

Addressing the economic imbalance and the unchecked power of the ultra-wealthy presents a unique challenge, especially given the intense political polarization in the United States. For the middle and lower classes to push back effectively, they will need to build a coalition that transcends party lines and focuses on shared economic interests rather than divisive rhetoric.

1. Build Awareness Through Shared Issues, Not Ideology

The rhetoric around “free markets” and “socialism” often obscures real issues of economic struggle that affect both conservative and progressive working- and middle-class citizens alike. Instead of framing the issue in ideological terms, framing it in terms of tangible, shared grievances can help bridge the divide:

• Focus on Economic Inequality: Income stagnation, unaffordable healthcare, and housing insecurity are felt across the political spectrum. By shifting the narrative from “class warfare” to “economic fairness,” advocates can sidestep partisan language and emphasize the shared experience of economic struggle.

• Highlight the Impact of Corporate Power on Local Communities: Framing issues around how large corporations hurt small, local businesses can resonate strongly with both sides of the political spectrum. This approach often taps into conservative values around community and self-reliance, while also aligning with progressive critiques of corporate overreach.

2. Organize Around Labor Rights and Worker Protections

Historically, unions have been instrumental in improving working conditions and advocating for fair wages, and labor movements transcend political divisions. Many Americans—left, right, and center—share concerns about the erosion of workers’ rights, stagnant wages, and the declining influence of the average worker.

• Expand Union Participation and Labor Movements: Reinvigorating unions and expanding labor protections could give workers a stronger collective voice. New labor movements that focus on economic rights without overtly partisan language could attract support across the political spectrum, particularly when they champion issues like fair wages, workplace safety, and job security.

• Support Worker Cooperatives and Employee-Owned Businesses: Promoting models like worker cooperatives or employee-owned businesses can offer a compelling alternative to the current structure of corporate ownership without resorting to divisive rhetoric. These models prioritize local control and shared economic benefits, appealing to values of self-sufficiency and fairness.

3. Pressure Politicians on Key Economic Policies

A key to bridging the partisan gap is to focus on policies that benefit the broader populace rather than framing them as part of any ideological agenda. The majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, support policies like fair taxation, healthcare reform, and increased access to education when framed in terms of fairness and opportunity.

• Promote Tax Reform as “Fairness,” Not Redistribution: Instead of advocating for “redistribution,” proponents can push for tax policies that ensure everyone pays their fair share. Policies like a wealth tax or higher taxes on capital gains can be framed as holding the ultra-wealthy accountable rather than demonizing them, a stance that resonates with people who value fairness and personal responsibility.

• Advocate for Antitrust Legislation: Pushing for stronger antitrust laws to break up monopolies and prevent anti-competitive practices can appeal to both sides. For conservatives, this aligns with the values of market competition; for progressives, it aligns with corporate accountability and consumer protection.

4. Engage in Alternative Media and Independent Journalism

The ultra-wealthy often own or influence major media outlets, which can shape public opinion in ways that protect their interests. For the middle and lower classes to gain a clearer view of economic issues, alternative media sources and independent journalism that aren’t beholden to billionaire interests are crucial.

• Support Independent News Outlets: A growing number of independent news organizations are dedicated to in-depth economic reporting without catering to corporate interests. Supporting these outlets allows individuals to access a range of perspectives that help reveal the true impact of policies on ordinary people.

• Utilize Social Media Responsibly to Build Cross-Party Awareness: Social media, while often a divisive force, can also be used to spread information about economic injustice. When used responsibly to share facts, case studies, and stories of economic hardship, it can cut through the rhetoric and provide people across the political spectrum with a shared understanding of the issues.

5. Prioritize Voting Reform and Campaign Finance Reform

Money in politics is one of the core reasons why economic policies favor the wealthy. Bipartisan support for reducing corporate influence in politics is possible, especially when the focus is on fairness, transparency, and accountability in government.

• Promote Campaign Finance Reform as an Anti-Corruption Effort: Campaign finance reform, which seeks to limit the influence of wealthy donors and corporations on elections, can appeal to conservatives and liberals alike who are frustrated with the influence of money in politics. Instead of framing it as an anti-capitalist measure, framing it as an anti-corruption measure can attract broader support.

• Support Voting Reforms for a More Representative Democracy: Reforms like ranked-choice voting, ending gerrymandering, and preventing voter suppression can help create a political environment that more accurately represents the will of the people rather than special interests. By creating a more representative democracy, policies that reflect the economic needs of the middle and lower classes have a better chance of being enacted.

6. Create Cross-Partisan Grassroots Coalitions Focused on Economic Issues

Many grassroots organizations are focused on economic justice, but they tend to align themselves with one side of the political spectrum, often losing potential support in the process. Building cross-partisan coalitions that emphasize shared economic challenges rather than ideological differences could foster stronger, more united advocacy for middle- and working-class issues.

• Organize Around Issues, Not Parties: Groups like the Poor People’s Campaign, which focuses on poverty and economic justice, have successfully united people across political lines around issues that transcend party loyalty. This approach allows people to focus on their shared struggles, making the movement harder for politicians to ignore.

• Build Community-Level Alliances: Many economic issues are felt acutely at the local level. By focusing on community-level initiatives that address healthcare, affordable housing, and education, people can create practical, on-the-ground solutions that don’t require alignment with national politics. These local successes can serve as models for broader change.

7. Emphasize Civic Education on Economic Policies

Finally, bridging the gap will require education and awareness. Many people accept billionaire-fueled rhetoric because they lack exposure to alternative perspectives. Civic education efforts that focus on teaching economic principles, tax policy, and the influence of corporate power can empower people to understand the real impacts of current policies on their lives.

• Create Accessible Educational Resources: Podcasts, documentaries, workshops, and community discussions can all serve as tools for demystifying economic issues. When people have a clearer understanding of how things like tax policies and wage laws work, they are better equipped to make informed decisions.

• Promote Financial Literacy and Empower Individuals: Financial literacy programs that help individuals understand budgeting, credit, and investments empower people to navigate the economy more effectively. While this doesn’t directly address systemic issues, it gives individuals a greater understanding of the forces shaping their lives and can be a first step toward broader engagement.

By approaching these issues with a focus on shared struggles, fairness, and practical solutions, the middle and lower classes can work together to build a movement that transcends political divides. This movement can challenge the status quo without becoming mired in divisive ideological battles. The real strength of such an effort lies in its ability to unite ordinary people around a common vision for a fairer, more just economic system—one that serves all citizens, not just the wealthiest few.

[probablyasocialecologist]

In his past media interviews, Sinwar has spoken of Hamas as a social movement with a military wing and framed its political goals as part of the historic struggle to reestablish a unified state of Palestine. “I am the Gaza leader of Hamas, of something much more complex than a militia—a national liberation movement. And my main duty is to act in the interest of my people: to defend it and its right to freedom and independence,” he said. “All of those who still view us as an armed group, and nothing more, you don't have any idea of what Hamas really looks like.... You focus on resistance, on the means rather than the goal—which is a state based on democracy, pluralism, cooperation. A state that protects rights and freedom, where differences are faced through words, not through guns. Hamas is much more than its military operations.”

Sinwar, unlike leaders of Al Qaeda or ISIS, has regularly invoked international law and UN resolutions, exhibiting a nuanced understanding of the history of negotiations with Israel mediated by the U.S. and other nations. “Let's be clear: having an armed resistance is our right, under international law. But we don't only have rockets. We have been using a variety of means of resistance,” he said in the 2018 interview. “We make the headlines only with blood. And not only here. No blood, no news. But the problem is not our resistance, it is their occupation. With no occupation, we wouldn't have rockets. We wouldn't have stones, Molotov cocktails, nothing. We would all have a normal life."

Throughout 2018 and 2019, Sinwar endorsed the large-scale nonviolent protests along the walls and fences of Gaza known as the Great March of Return. “We believe that if we have a way to potentially resolve the conflict without destruction, we’re O.K. with that,” Sinwar said at a rare news conference in 2018. “We would prefer to earn our rights by soft and peaceful means. But we understand that if we are not given those rights, we are entitled to earn them by resistance.”

Israel responded to the protests with the regular use of lethal force, killing 223 people and wounding more than 8,000 others. Israeli snipers later boasted about shooting dozens of protesters in the knee during the weekly Friday demonstrations. For many Palestinians these events reinforced the view that Israel’s policies cannot be changed by words.

Jeremy Scahill, On the Record with Hamas

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Aslı Aydıntaşbaş for Politico Magazine:

American democracy is about to undergo a serious stress test. I know how it feels, in part because I lived through the slow and steady march of state capture as a journalist working in Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Turkey. Over a decade as a high-profile journalist, I covered Turkey’s descent into illiberalism, having to engage in the daily push and pull with the government. I know how self-censorship starts in small ways but then creeps into operations on a daily basis. I am familiar with the rhythms of the battle to reshape the media, state institutions and the judiciary. Having lived through it, and having gathered some lessons in hindsight, I believe that there are strategies that can help Democrats and Trump critics not only survive the coming four years, but come out stronger. Here are six of them.

1. Don’t Panic — Autocracy Takes Time

President-elect Donald Trump’s return to power is unnerving but, as I have argued previously, America will not turn into a dictatorship overnight — or in four years. Even the most determined strongmen face internal hurdles, from the bureaucracy to the media and the courts. It took Erdoğan well over a decade to fully consolidate his power. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Poland’s Law and Justice Party needed years to erode democratic norms and fortify their grip on state institutions.

I am not suggesting that the United States is immune to these patterns, but it’s important to remember that its decentralized system of governance — the network of state and local governments — offers enormous resilience. Federal judges serve lifetime appointments, states and governors have specific powers separate from those granted federally, there are local legislatures, and the media has the First Amendment as a shield, reinforced by over a century of legal precedents. Sure, there are dangers, including by a Supreme Court that might grant great deference to the president. But in the end, Donald Trump really only has two years to try to execute state capture. Legal battles, congressional pushback, market forces, midterm elections in 2026 and internal Republican dissent will slow him down and restrain him. The bottom line is that the U.S. is too decentralized in its governance system for a complete takeover. The Orbánization of America is not an imminent threat.

2. Don’t Disengage — Stay Connected

[...]

Nothing is more meaningful than being part of a struggle for democracy. That’s why millions of Turks turned out to the polls and gave the opposition a historic victory in local governments across Turkey earlier this year. That’s how the Poles organized a winning coalition to vote out the conservative Law and Justice Party last year. It can happen here, too. The answer to political defeat is not to disconnect, but to organize. You can take a couple of days or weeks off, commiserate with friends and mute Elon Musk on X — or erase the app altogether. But in the end, the best way to develop emotional resilience is greater engagement.

[...]

4. Charismatic Leadership Is a Non-Negotiable

One lesson from Turkey and Hungary is clear: You will lose if you don’t find a captivating leader, as was the case in 2023 general elections in Turkey and in 2022 in Hungary. Coalition-building or economic messaging is necessary and good. But it is not enough. You need charisma to mobilize social dissent. [...]

Last year’s elections in Poland and Turkey showcased how populist incumbents can be defeated (or not defeated, as in general elections in Turkey in 2023) depending on the opposition’s ability to unite around compelling candidates who resonate with voters. Voters seek authenticity and a connection — give it to them.

5. Skip the Protests and Identity Politics

Soon, Trump opponents will shake off the doldrums and start organizing an opposition campaign. But how they do it matters. For the longest time in Turkey, the opposition made the mistake of relying too much on holding street demonstrations and promoting secularism, Turkey’s version of identity politics, which speaks to the urban professional and middle class but not beyond. [...]

6. Have Hope

Nothing lasts forever and the U.S. is not the only part of the world that faces threats to democracy — and Americans are no different than the French, the Turks or Hungarians when it comes to the appeal of the far right. But in a country with a strong, decentralized system of government and with a long-standing tradition of free speech, the rule of law should be far more resilient than anywhere in the world. Trump’s return to power certainly poses challenges to U.S. democracy. But he will make mistakes and overplay his hand — at home and abroad. America will survive the next four years if Democrats pick themselves up and start learning from the successes of opponents of autocracy across the globe.

Aslı Aydıntaşbaş, who had first-hand experience with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s authoritarianism in her native Turkey as a journalist, wrote in Politico Magazine on how to effectively fight Donald Trump’s authoritarian impulses.

[wilwheaton]

Clooney wrote of the "profound moment" the country is currently in, noting how just last month he hosted the "single largest fundraiser supporting any Democratic candidate ever, for President Biden's re-election." "I love Joe Biden," Clooney wrote. "As a senator. As a vice president and as president. I consider him a friend, and I believe in him. Believe in his character. Believe in his morals. In the last four years, he’s won many of the battles he’s faced." "But the one battle he cannot win is the fight against time," he continued. "None of us can. It’s devastating to say it, but the Joe Biden I was with three weeks ago at the fund-raiser was not the Joe “big F—ing deal” Biden of 2010. He wasn’t even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate." Regarding the debate, in which the 81-year-old President stumbled continually, Clooney wrote that "our party leaders need to stop telling us that 51 million people didn’t see what we just saw." "We’re all so terrified by the prospect of a second Trump term that we’ve opted to ignore every warning sign. The George Stephanopoulos interview only reinforced what we saw the week before. As Democrats, we collectively hold our breath or turn down the volume whenever we see the president, who we respect, walk off Air Force One or walk back to a mic to answer an unscripted question," he wrote.

George Clooney calls on Biden to drop out to "save democracy" — just weeks after hosting fundraiser

George Clooney has nothing to gain and everything to lose, by telling the truth right now. Politicians and their supporters hold grudges for eternity. He’s speaking up and saying this now, knowing exactly what the stakes are for him, and for our country.

This is what I’ve been wanting to know. This is what the campaign has been hiding from us: WE all saw that President Biden had a bad night. The question the demands an answer is: was it a bad night? Or has time and age caught up with the president? Are we going to believe our lying eyes, or clap louder?

We don’t vote for just a president; we vote for an administration. For the most part, this administration has been fantastic, more progressive than I ever dreamed, to say nothing of rebuilding a nation out of the wreckage of four years of Trump.

And all of that is going to be burned to ash if President Biden can’t mount an effective campaign to defeat fascism and its leader. Since the debate, the campaign has kept him behind teleprompters and away from unscripted interactions. That’s alarming, and a tacit admission that he can’t fight like he once did, that the person we saw at the debate is the person he is most of the time.

If we lose this election, America will be plunged into decades of authoritarian, theocratic, christian nationalist fascism. The stakes will never be higher, and President Biden and his team need to do what is best for the country.

We will not win this election by clapping louder and gaslighting ourselves. We need — this crisis demands — a candidate who can clearly and easily refute Trump’s lies, and simply and clearly explain to voters what the stakes of this election are. The 2020 Joe Biden could do that; the 2024 Joe Biden doesn't seem to be capable of that, anymore, and that puts our entire nation and way of life at risk. George Clooney is telling us that he literally just saw, privately, what we all saw in public, and it was not a one-off. He also reveals that every single elected Democrat he talks to agrees with him, but they are too afraid to speak up. That’s horrifying, and I desperately hope it isn’t true.

But if George Clooney is telling us a hard truth, risking the wrath of countless powerful political players, and we should listen to him; not because he is rich and famous, but because he was literally in a room with President Biden and his supporters, and is now on the record that the President Biden we saw at the debate is not a guy with a cold or whatever, and now journalists can follow up with other people who were there to confirm or deny George Clooney’s observations.

These are tough questions that demand answers, now, because we are four months out and this shouldn’t be close, at all. America hates Trump, and he has lost every election since 2018 as a result.

President Biden and the Democrats need to run up huge margins in Michigan, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, and Ohio, to overcome the inevitable MAGA fuckery. We need a candidate who is fifteen points ahead of Trump, not someone who has been in the margin of error for his entire presidency -- which is fucking insane when you look at all of Trump’s felonies, judgments, impending trials, and all of his corrupt criminality that the SCOTUS MAGA Majority twisted itself into knots to protect.

This should be a landslide against Trump and MAGA. It’s close because the candidate running against him isn’t -- likely can’t -- be out there, every day, banging the podium and forcing a change in the narrative. 

Did you see my governor after the debate disaster? He was on fire. That guy would destroy Trump in a debate. Vice President Harris would be laser focused on prosecuting the case against him. President Biden is the only candidate who Trump could drag into a fucking dick waving contest about golf scores when the fucking future of American Democracy is at stake. There is not a single other credible candidate who would take that bait. My god.

President Biden has done so much more than I ever thought possible. He doesn’t get credit for all his progressive achievements, for pulling America out of a economic calamity (caused by Trump and his allies), forgiving student debt, his appointments to the FCC, FTC, and other regulatory agencies that had been captured by industry during the Trump regime.

All of that will be wiped out in a matter of days, if Trump seizes power again.

George Clooney is warning us that President Biden doesn’t have the stamina and focus to win reelection and secure not just his legacy but the future of our country. He is saying out loud and as publicly as possible that we are not crazy, that we really did see what we saw.

This is DEFCON 1 for Democracy. This isn’t politics as usual. This is a moment of tremendous existential danger that only gets worse with each passing day. IF President Biden remains the candidate, I will vote for him, obviously. But I hope that he will fire everyone involved in preparing him for the debate, because they failed him, they failed America, and if Biden is going to take the fight to Trump and MAGA the way he needs to, it he needs a team who understand who they are fighting against, how to punch Trump in the nose, and what the stakes are.

[psychotrenny]

The core premise of Democratic Socialism, that Capitalism can peacefully transition to Socialism through Liberal Democratic procedure, is an error that can only result from the most blatant revisionism. Because if you coherently apply Class-based analysis to the situation it's pretty obvious that the Bourgeoisie state would not passively allow its own procedures to decisively act against its class interests. Both in theory and in practice (i.e. the rise of Fascism in 20th century Europe) the Bourgeoisie are more than happy to drop even the pretenses of Liberal Democracy if they ever pose a serious threat to Bourgeoisie power. The State does not exist as an entity on its own disconnected from broader society; it is fundamentally an expression of and tool to reinforce the power of the dominant classes. It might be possible to, at least temporarily, turn those tools against them but the results that subversion can achieve are limited on a structural level.

Like Democratic Socialism only works if you adopt a fundamentally Liberal mindset, that sees social structures as determined entirely by metaphysical ideas. In this way, political positions are evaluated in terms of the abstract values they hold rather than the material interests they advance. "Democracy supporters would never oppose the results a free and fair election; that would go against their ideals". But as soon as you start looking through the lens of class analysis it becomes pretty clear that Liberal Democratic elections are just a means to an end, and an easily discarded means at that. Despite all the fuss they like to make about democracy, the fundamental fact is that the Bourgeoisie class were not voted into power and so cannot be voted out. Democracy under a DOTB is fundamentally a game where the Bourgeoisie set the rules and are free to ignore the results; you can't beat them at it no matter how good you play

[demeterdefence]

even ignoring everything else wrong with lore olympus (which in itself feels impossible) there is just something really egregious and insulting at the way a "modern retelling" over an ancient greek myth just full-heartedly whitewashes the entire culture and mythos.

and it's not like rachel is the first to do it - greek myths and legends have been whitewashed for centuries, depictions of the gods have been categorically stripped of their ethnicity and origins long before rachel got a hold of them. it's the fact that rachel goes out of her way to insult the original myths whenever she can, that she emphasizes and pushes a western-centric mindset and viewpoint over and over and over and not only reinforces the whitewashing, but continues it down the line.

like, this is the first episode.

rachel goes out of her way to mock the original styles and wardrobes of the ancient greek world, and i get her attempt was to make persephone feel "out of place" with the more "modern" clothing that the other gods wear, but it really just does more to a) demonize demeter, who is almost always in traditional clothing, b) sexualize persephone.

go even broader with it, move away from the clothing itself, and rachel doesn't even bother to use any of the ancient traditions that are core to the myths. like for the love of god, she uses a christian wedding for persephone and hades!

greece is the birthplace of modern democracy and had a powerful judicial system, and rachel instead uses the modern / western iteration of court because ... why not

(completely unrelated but the inserts of everyone except eros and aphrodite come from the stupid zoom session zeus had back when he first charged persephone with treason, meaning we have proof yet again that rachel isn't drawing the characters into the scene, she's making pngs and sticking them into pre-arranged backgrounds downloaded from stock images)

and there are ten thousand more examples i could pull, because this is just the whole entire comic. you can look at a lot of modern adaptions and see where things have been modernized respectfully, and where they are done with disdain for the source material - no one is claiming percy jackson, for example, is perfect, but the author took a great deal of care in his research, and the love for the original myths and culture shine through. lore olympus has zero respect for the original stories, exemplified in how rachel demonizes demeter - the actual crux of the myth. it's bad writing and bad research and further attempts to whitewash a rich and storied culture that had people from so many walks of life, who existed in full spectrum of lgbt identity, who did not conform or even know of the world that exists today. you can modernize without erasing it, and rachel's refusal to do so is one of the many issues tacked to lore olympus.

[tomorrowusa]

America is getting weirdness fatigue. It's time to cancel The Trump Show and move on.

Some people who started middle school or high school around 2015 may actually think that Trumpism is normal in American politics. In fact, you'd have to go way back to the McCarthy era (late 1940s to mid 1950s) to find anything close to it.

Trump is to American Politics what COVID-19 is to public health.

Trump is not normal and we need to reinforce institutions of democracy to hinder people like him in the future.

The first thing we can all do is vote – and take more interest in what goes on at the state and local levels which are often neglected by liberals and moderates.

[reality-detective]

TERROR PREDICTION: Prophecy of More Than a Thousand Terrorists Targeting Over 10 US Cities!

The countdown to Donald Trump’s historic return as the 47th president of the United States on January 20, 2025 is under siege with a chilling prophecy. Brandon Biggs, famed for his unnervingly accurate foresight of a past assassination attempt on Trump, warns of an unprecedented, multi-city terrorist attack targeting the inauguration and beyond.

Biggs’ vision details coordinated bombings using unassuming vehicles like trucks laden with explosives, hidden in underground garages, waiting to unleash chaos on the most pivotal day in modern American history. His warnings go beyond speculation, drawing from a track record that’s silenced skeptics before.

“Unstoppable Chaos: A Chilling Warning”

The attack, Biggs claims, is designed to shake the very core of American democracy. Trucks parked where no one would suspect, poised to turn celebrations into carnage. Fertilizer bombs, precision-timed detonations—this isn’t an isolated event but a synchronized strike on freedom itself.

Biggs insists these warnings are not mere speculation. Supporters see him as a modern prophet, a patriot risking everything to expose hidden threats. Critics, however, dismiss him as a fearmonger. But his previous accurate predictions leave no room for complacency.

A Nation at a Crossroads

Trump’s return marks a battle for the heart of the nation. His supporters see it as the ultimate revival of American greatness, while opponents rally against him with equal fervor. The stakes couldn’t be higher, with massive crowds expected in Washington, D.C., and tensions running sky-high.

Behind the scenes, heightened security measures are in place. Sources close to Trump confirm additional layers of protection to counter the potential for disaster. Homeland Security urges vigilance, urging citizens to report any suspicious activity immediately.

But even with advanced surveillance, bomb-sniffing dogs, and reinforced checkpoints, the scale of Biggs’ prophecy demands unprecedented vigilance. The imagery is haunting: coordinated teams, hidden weapons, a day of celebration transformed into unimaginable devastation.

January 20, 2025: Triumph or Tragedy?

This inauguration isn’t just about a president. It’s about the survival of America’s ideals. Biggs’ warning isn’t just a prophecy—it’s a rallying cry. The question is, will America rise to defend its legacy, or will it fall prey to the shadows lurking within?

The storm is brewing. ⛈��🌊

Stay vigilant. 🛡️⚔️

Everything is at stake. 🌎 💫

REMEMBER‼️

We were warned about "The Storm"

And 👇

Seriously... What Biggs describes sure sounds like the 17 city 1 event scenario 👇

"IF" this False Flag is what is coming?

People are not ready for what they are gonna experience... It's NOT going to be pretty. 🤔

[queercodedangel]

Squid Game Season Two Analysis: Capitalist Ideology, The Illusion of Democracy, and The Necessity for Revolution

Why the second season of Squid Game is a great follow-up to the first season and offers us an even more radical critique of capitalism and its supposedly "free" and "democratic" institutions.

(Spoiler warning for both seasons. I won't go into too much detail, but some spoilers for the bigger plot points will be present)

I really enjoyed the second season of Squid Game, so I was surprised when I learned that a good amount of fans of the first season did not feel the same.

Because of that, I wanna give my thoughts on the themes and messages that this season in particular offers us and why I believe season 2 is, in many ways, even more radical than season 1 in its narrative choices.

Season One: The Dehumanizing Nature of Capitalism

Season 1 did a great job as a more general critique of capitalism (with some elements that are more specific to South Korea). It showed us a story of impoverished people that are so desparate that they find themselves trapped in a literal game of life and death that forces them to not only compete with other participants who are in similar financial situations, but to sometimes even betray and kill them just to survive and possibly win the big money at the end of all rounds.

To make it all even more cruel: It is soon revealed that the whole game just exists for the entertainment of rich elites who change the conditions of the game as they please when they are bored.

Needless to say: The game in Squid Game is a pretty heavy-handed allegory for the predatory nature of capitalism and how it literally kills us. The creator himself has stated this multiple times, since there are still people who (willingly or unwillingly) deny this.

There are already plenty of great analyses of these aspects in season 1 (I really recommend the video on YouTube called "Squid Game: Ideology and The New Soviet Man" by Kay and Skittles), so let's move on to season 2.

Season Two: The Setup

Our protagonist is once again Gi-hun, the only survivor of all games from season 1. He is practically a billionaire since he won all the money in season 1, and could therefore live a pretty comfortable life.

And yet he is fixated on one singular goal: To track down the location where the games take place to put a stop to them once and for all. Gi-hun feels guilty to spend his fortune on anything else than this one goal, since it's a fortune that came from the deaths of his friends and countless other people.

Gi-hun eventually finds himself back in the game after every other approach failed. Unfortunately for him, the tracker that he surgically implanted in his tooth got removed while he was knocked out and transported into the game. He is once again forced to participate in the game, since his rescue team that was supposed to save him and attack the island on which the games take place cannot locate him as of now.

The Greatness of Gi-hun: Resisting Hyperindividualism, Cynicism and Capitalist Ideas of Worth

I really like Gi-hun as a character. He started out as a deadbeat dad who got into severe debt because of his gambling addiction. Gi-hun is someone who many people that are entrenched in neoliberal capitalist ideology wouldn't feel much sympathy for at first, as he's shown to be pretty reckless and just overall far from a noble hero when we first get introduced to his character in season 1.

If you're from the west (or a country like South Korea which has a similar hyperindividualist capitalist culture), then you are taught to see Gi-hun's situation as something self-caused, as something he freely chose to be in with his own bad decisions. Furthermore, you're taught to see his socio-economic situation as a direct reflection of his value as a person.

In the series itself, the Front Man, the VIPs and even some other players in the game reinforce this way of thinking. They constantly express the sentiment that the players in the game are "worthless", "scum" and "trash" that deserves to be "filtered out" (killed) because they are responsible for the situation that they are in and have no worth anyway, as their socio-economic status shows according to this logic.

Gi-hun is someone who rejects all of this.

In season 2, we see him more determined than ever to save as many people as possible in the game, and to ultimately put an end to the game itself. He does not believe in the narrative that people's worth is determined by their socio-economic status, nor that they are completely self-responsible for their situation and therefore deserve to be killed in the game.

Gi-hun calls the game out for what it is: A predatory and cruel tool of rich capitalists that preys on people's fears and vulnerabilities to encourage the worst aspects of people's personalities to flourish, all just for the entertainment of rich investors who see the players as expendable and enjoy watching them die and betray each other.

Gi-hun isn't particularly gifted or talented, he's not the exceptional, flawless individual that neoliberalism fetishizes. He can be cowardly, insecure, frightened and even selfish, as we saw in season 1 when he lied to the old man to save his own life.

But at the end of the day, he is someone with an unwavering belief in the worth and potential of people despite what his hypercapitalist neoliberal culture (and people deeply embedded into it) constantly tells him. He's someone who, despite all his flaws, risks his life and happiness for that simple belief.

Gi-hun is the antidote to a deeply cynical, hyperindividualistic and neoliberal capitalist society that conditions us to not believe in the worth and potential of other people beyond their wealth and social status.

The Illusion of Democracy: A deceptive Facade of Free Choice and Equality

Let's look at the game itself this season, since there have been a few changes to its rules.

In this season, the surviving players are given the opportunity to vote after each round to either continue into the next round or to stop playing and divide the money that has accumulated so far among each player that survived. The more players die, the more money gets added to the final prize and the fewer people need to share the total sum with each other, meaning each player gets more money in the end if the majority votes to stop playing.

The staff of the game keeps emphasizing how the players chose to be part of the game, how they always have the option to leave, how the game respects free choice and values democracy, how everyone is equal in the game, and how the rules are fair and universal.

Unsurprisingly, this is all nonsense.

The players are not even aware that they are playing with their lives at risk until after the first game, a game called "Red Light, Green Light", which has a high fatality rate because once the first player dies, the shock and sudden rush of fear causes people to panic, leading to more deaths.

The first season also showed us that the VIPs can change the rules and conditions of the game whenever they feel like it, even during a round.

Age, health, knowledge and experience with the particular games that are being played in each round can also make the difference between life and death. Sometimes the games also straight up involve a factor of luck that the players have no real control over.

Then there's also the fact that not every player is in the same situation. Some players, such as Hyun-ju or Yong-sik, are shown to have severely more debt than others and lost significantly more in their life, which means some have the privilege to be all set again after just one or two rounds (if the majority votes to stop playing) while others will have barely earned enough money to fix their life, and would therefore need to play more rounds to achieve that outcome.

Some also have family and friends that need them, while others lost everything and have no one to come home to. All these factors make them unequal and shape the way they vote.

So basically: The players are stuck in a game that they didn't even know puts their life in danger until after they played the first round. The only reason they entered in the first place was because of their precarious situation that varies in severity from person to person (which means some have the privilege to vote to end the game early with their financial issues fixed, while others do not). Some players have more advantages than others in each round because of age, health, knowledge, experience or even just sheer luck. And the VIPs can just change the rules of the game whenever they feel like it.

Squid Game tells us very clearly that it thinks very little of the rhetoric of "free choice" "free democracy" and "equality" in a structurally coercive, brutal and predatory system with fundamentally unequal conditions such as our capitalist society.

The Front Man: Cynicism, Vote Manipulation and Counter-Revolution

A key aspect of the second season of Squid Game is that the Front Man himself pretends to be a regular player; he participates in the games among Gi-hun and the rest as player 001. The Front Man deliberately gets close to Gi-hun and even manages to win his trust pretty easily with his down-to-earth and kind facade, making him involved in Gi-hun's every move.

The Front Man is, in many ways, the opposite of Gi-hun.

He is shown in both seasons to think very little of the players and humanity as a whole. He sees the participants of the game as worthless trash that deserves to get sorted out. The Front Man believes humanity is selfish, greedy and cannot be better than what it is right now, which makes the game a necessary part of the world to him.

The Front Man is thoroughly entrenched in the cynical, neoliberal capitalist worldview that sees humans as fundamentally selfish and greedy beings that only have themselves to blame for their situations.

It is noteworthy that the Front Man is very fixated on Gi-hun, and even seems to grow a liking to him because of his unwavering belief in the value and potential of people that he upholds despite all the horrors and betrayal that he witnessed. This suggests that a small part of the Front Man might still have hope that Gi-hun is right and wants him to succeed in his goal.

But at the end of the day, we see that his cynical and neoliberal view on humanity rules over what little hope in a better world he might have.

As such, the Front Man ultimately sabotages Gi-hun's efforts whenever he can. When the vote was tied after the first round, he votes to continue into the next round so that more people die, something Gi-hun fought to prevent by making it clear to the other players that more people will die if they continue.

But this is not the only time he manipulates Gi-hun's efforts: When Gi-hun organizes an armed resistance to finally put an end to the game itself for good, the Front Man betrays him in the last minute by kiling members of the resistance group and then shooting Gi-hun's best friend in front of him in order to emotionally break Gi-hun and make him lose hope.

The Front Man is not just a despicable antagonist, he also serves as a pretty blunt example of a member of the ruling class that rigs elections and destroys revolutionary movements from within, a strategy that imperialist powers such as the US have utilized many times in history already.

When Voting isn't enough: The Necessity of Revolution and Class War

Despite Gi-hun's attempt to end the game for good having failed (at least for now), I don't believe the message of Squid Game's second season is one of resignation. Not only is the game shown to be fundamentally unjust and rigged, but voting alone is also portrayed to not be enough.

Throughout the whole season, those who vote to end the game never succeed. This is not a coincidence. The game is designed to make it the less likely outcome not just because of the involvement of Front Man, but because the game preys on people's despair and precarity, all while also encouraging selfish, greedy and reckless behavior in its very design.

But even if enough people voted to end the game: The next batch of players would just be thrown into the same situation Gi-hun and the others just escaped from. A successful majority vote to leave the game would save many lives, but Gi-hun's fight would be far from over. His goal to put a permanent end to the game would not be achieved yet.

The staff of the game also makes a deliberate choice to put a big X or O onto the jumpsuit of each player depending on how they voted. This encourages players to define themselves as either Xs or Os, which leads to hostility towards the players of the other fraction.

This reaches a point where players of both fractions plan to murder the other fraction in order to secure the next vote for themselves.

But Gi-hun puts a stop to that.

He realizes it's a deliberate distraction so that people fight each other rather than the game itself. He proposes that the players should instead organize together to fight the real oppressors that forced them into the whole situation in the first place.

They are not Xs or Os. They are impoverished and desparate people who were manipulated to participate into a literal game of death that requires suffering, betrayal and murder for victory.

The message of Squid Game Season Two is one of collective resistance and revolution:

The institutions of a fundamentally rigged and predatory class system are not enough to abolish the system itself. Voting can be used as a form of damage control, but it cannot replace collective action and organizing.

Instead of fighting each other, we need to organize together to fight the system itself. It is the only way we can truly all be liberated from the death game of capitalism.

[alainamama17]

The Shadows of History: Parallels and Warnings in American Democracy

As a historian, I am acutely aware that while history does not repeat itself, it often presents echoes that serve as warnings for the future. The United States today stands at a crossroads, with certain elements reminiscent of 1930s Nazi Germany and the ambitious plans of Project 2025, raising concerns about the direction in which the country is heading.

The 1930s in Germany were marked by the rise of authoritarianism, a period where democratic institutions were systematically dismantled in favor of a totalitarian regime. The parallels drawn between that era and the current political climate in the United States are not to suggest an identical repetition of events, but rather to highlight concerning trends that, if left unchecked, could undermine the very foundations of American democracy.

**Project 2025 and the Unitary Executive Theory**

Project 2025, a conservative initiative developed by the Heritage Foundation, aims to reshape the U.S. federal government to support the agenda of the Republican Party, should they win the 2024 presidential election. Critics have characterized it as an authoritarian plan that could transform the United States into an autocracy. The project envisions widespread changes across the government, particularly in economic and social policies, and the role of federal agencies.

This initiative bears a resemblance to the early strategies employed by the Nazi Party, which sought to consolidate power and align all aspects of government with their ideology. The unitary executive theory, which asserts absolute presidential control over the executive branch, is a central tenet of Project 2025. This theory echoes the power consolidation that occurred under Hitler's regime, where legal authority was centralized to bypass democratic processes.

**The Erosion of Democratic Norms**

In both historical and contemporary contexts, the erosion of democratic norms is a precursor to the loss of liberty. The United States has witnessed a polarization of politics, where partisan interests often override the common good. The Supreme Court, once a non-partisan arbiter of the Constitution, has been accused of partisanship, with decisions increasingly influenced by political ideologies rather than constitutional law. This shift mirrors the way the judiciary in Nazi Germany became a tool for enforcing the will of the regime, rather than a protector of the constitution.

**The Role of Propaganda and Media**

Propaganda played a crucial role in Nazi Germany, shaping public opinion and suppressing dissent. Today, the media landscape in the United States is deeply divided, with outlets often serving as echo chambers that reinforce ideological beliefs. This division hampers the ability of citizens to engage in informed discourse and make decisions based on factual information, a cornerstone of a functioning democracy.

**Civil Liberties and Minority Rights**

The targeting of minority groups was a hallmark of Nazi policy, justified by a narrative of nationalism and racial purity. In the United States, there has been a rise in xenophobia and policies that discriminate against certain groups. The protection of civil liberties and minority rights is essential to prevent the kind of societal divisions that can lead to the marginalization of entire communities.

**Conclusion**

The parallels between the United States today, Project 2025, and 1930s Nazi Germany serve as a stark reminder of the fragility of democracy. It is imperative that as Americans, we remain vigilant against the forces that seek to undermine democratic institutions and principles. The lessons of history implore us to safeguard the values of liberty, equality, and justice, lest we allow the shadows of the past to shape our future.

As a historian and educator, I believe it is our responsibility to draw upon these parallels not to incite fear, but to inspire action. We must engage in civic education, promote critical thinking, and encourage participation in the democratic process. Only through collective effort can we ensure that the American experiment continues to be a beacon of hope and freedom for the world.

[jewish-sideblog]

Re: Israel being proof that Western leftists don’t actually want decolonization: “But Israel doesn’t let gay people or interfaith couples get married!”

yeah because Israel recognizes that marriage is a fundamentally religious and institutional concept to begin with. For most of Israel’s history, it didn’t have civil or legal marriage at all. For anyone. Only religious marriage, which is handled by religious authorities. That system is far from perfect and far from equal! It has its own huge host of problems! But if we’re going to pretend like we want decolonization? Then we gotta actually let non-Western governments do non-Western things. Even if they’re messy and bad at first.

The (especially USAmerican) Western concept is that good marriage laws allow for gay people and interfaith couples to marry, because that’s the result of a righteous Western fight for equality under Western laws. But it leaves very little room for the idea that the institution of legal marriage is fundamentally flawed. Maybe gay marriage is a bad thing. Not because gay people don’t deserve the same rights as straight people. But because it reinforces the belief that the governments and societies should only afford certain legal and financial benefits to monogamous couples who undergo a religious ceremony in front of mandated officiants.

If you expect non-Western nations to do democracy and equality exactly like liberal capitalist Western nations do, then you don’t actually want decolonization. You want to enforce your ways of thinking and being universally, because you believe they are most morally righteous ways to be. That’s the colonial mindset, babe.