«hallowed be thy Name, thy Kingdom come», that’s ‘the christians’ Aim’/Islam
The world is ugly sometimes
We(sterners), aggressors, are still the main(~only) obstacle to ‘world peace’/‘a union of diversities’
♪All we are saaying…♬(, are we even trying ? we could/should/must protect them&us)
(the link to the original thread was in the selftext b.t.w.)
It seems like the last record for today hasn’t been published yet, if it’s indeed there that we should look to find the source.
However, false-flags are unfortunately awfully common since it gives us/them a.n excuse/‘casus belli’(, e.g., and we know it for using it ourselves, or willingly accepting an attack, or “forcing”(, we always have a choice if we accept to bear the consequences,) the hands of their enemies while pretending it was unprovoked, such as ~‘with Pearl Harbor due to the lack of oil’, or the 7th of October due to the ongoing colonization of Palestine, etc. It’s never purely angelic on one side vs. diabolical on the other, hopefully both sides are trying to be/do good, but the winners will write the history books and real/amoral selfish politic is considered more efficient).
There are mounting suspicions that former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun intended to justify the declaration of martial law or a state of united defense by instigating a military conflict with North Korea by ordering strikes on the sites from which the North was launching trash-filled balloons and flying unmanned drones to Pyongyang.
— https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/1172239.html
Islamists are supposed to support islamists against Yugoslavia(, Bosnia), Russia(, chechens), China(, uyghurs), the AES and other african countries, …
And they’re also opposed to other islamists, such as Iran.
In the end, they’re possibly just a western tool.
On the other side, it’s manifestedly supported by the population, otherwise the overthrowing wouldn’t have happened in days, let the population decide then.
I have some doubts that they’re islamists, perhaps only on the level of Türkiye or Iraq, hopefully not like Egypt, but there’ll be elections apparently, so we’ll see.
Georgia is still resisting, and Romania didn’t say its last word, but Syria fell, not Israel. We’ll see the consequences for Iran and the others…
(edit : that was uselessly harsh, most muslim countries have islamic laws, only a few of them ‘don’t have islam as the state religion’/‘are secular’, i.d.k. what’s wrong with me, they’ll do as they want, islam will certainly have more influence than before and they’re good/pious, but yeah, they may end up pro-Israel&pro-west despite the past, and anti-Iran&anti-Russia. They, and their future actions, will be part of the history lessons of syrians schools for many generations now.)
It’ll be too early to say that for a few decades, but if other systems survive they’ll consider obvious that our current one failed.
Our system doesn’t care at all about virtue, we’re even saying that right&wrong is relative now, it’s the law of the strongest and there’ll be no judgment in this life or afterwards.
Nowadays, it’d be naive to publicly aim for goodness as a goal, i don’t think there’s any need to develop further on this. If i’m right, then we failed as a civilization, end of the story.
I’ll add that we shouldn’t once need lies to support our decisions if we’re right(, or is it because our population is too stupid to handle the truth ?)
Once again we(sterners) are far from failing at destroying the remnants of diversity among our species, but if other systems survive, new generations in these other worlds will find amazing that our world is entirely based on greed, and that we believe it somehow end up benefiting the weakest/poorest, how convenient is it to believe that luxury expenses are productive, or that stealing money from consumers/workers/citizens equals deserving it.
We’re not even following our own theories(, poor countries obviously have more children because women aren’t working in factories/companies/fields/… b.t.w., there’s no mystery), nor teaching it at school, that’s how much we (sub)consciously know that we’re liars here as well, unassuming of our failures such as with Pinochet or Structural Adjustment Programs.
It wasn’t long ago that we were hearing “Socialism seems great in theory, but unfortunately it never worked in practice”, or that our “democracy” is the worst system with the exception of every other.
I don’t want the western system to disappear all over the world, let our failure(&successes) stay as a lesson for the rest, and with nuclear weapons we don’t have to fear an invasion anyway. But we’re trying to destroy other systems because they are too successful compared to our failed/inefficient one, under the guise of a vague freedom as if chinese people need to be saved by us.
B.t.w., there’s not much of our success that would be maintained without neo-colonialist advantages such as unequal exchanges, once again something that shouldn’t be delved into by our failed capitalist-owned mediatic system, like many things.
Are we(sterners) even able to cite a single non-western thinker/actor/singer/… ?
I know it’s not much Lemmygrad’s credo, but there’s no other instances to say the same thing about theocracies, as if someone honestly believing in God(, or Hell,) could consciously commit evil deeds(, everyone makes honest mistakes though).
(I’m still believing in adding rational justifications for the ~minority of the population who need more than blind faith to act virtuously, especially since it isn’t hard t.b.h., we’re simply ignorant of the thousands of theologiansðicists).
A long-ass text to simply state that a/multiple better world.s is/are possible if we(sterners) stop opposing it/them(, e.g., confederations of free communes). Since realpolitik opposes dreamers, we(sterners) will annihilate all of that, our system will stand supreme, or w/e…
Ah, f*ck, if they’re still socialists then i messed up(, not that it’s what you’re saying).
Even if the c.c.m. is the heir of Nyerere since multipartism was introduced in 1992, it’d still be a stretch to consider them communists, right ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chama_Cha_Mapinduzi
In the early 1980s, with a change of President and following a period of sharp economic decline, Tanzania shifted course away from the socialist agenda pursued since 1967 towards a more market-oriented economy.
In 1986, the Government embarked on its first comprehensive adjustment program. One of the central elements of the Government’s reform agenda has been a privatization program.
During 1994-1998, Tanzania divested about 270 public enterprises (PEs). These included mainly small-medium PEs in tradable goods sectors, but also a number of large PEs (e.g., brewery, cigarette factory). In some cases, such as leather, privatization of PEs has opened up markets for private entrepreneurs and improved output and efficiency. There have, however, also been cases in some sectors where delays in divestiture have contributed to deterioration of fixed assets, and created uncertainty which has limited private investment.
In late 1996 the Government of Tanzania (GOT) decided to expand the privatization program to divest all major utility and infrastructure PEs (water, telecommunications, ports, railways, electricity) banking, agriculture and mining PEs. The GOT’s stated aim is to divest all of these enterprises by the end of 2000.
However, in practice, it is expected that divestiture of the remaining 230 PEs will take longer, and some (notably in infrastructure) will be opened to private investment in stages over the medium to long term.
And i haven’t found a Gini index before 1991 :
(i’m less criticizing them for not being socialist enough, other political parties could do worse b.t.w., than defending the assertion made in my title there)
I didn’t expected this 98% to be so exceptional if i’m understanding wikipedia right : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chama_Cha_Mapinduzi#Electoral_history
It’s easy to criticize.
Apart from the case from Nicaragua, how many atrocities&coups did we(sterners) commited, and how many times were we condemned ? Thanks Karim Khan for giving us, a.f.a.i.k., the first arrest warrant towards a western leader.
That these accusations didn’t appeared before May should be indicative enough of his guiltiness.
Also, D.Trump inaugurated the u.s. embassy to Jerusalem May 14th, 2018, exactly 70 years after Israel’s creation.
Nobody here needs to have read the Bible to know that 7 is an important number, who knows what they planned for their 77th anniversary(, May 14th, 2025).
deleted by creator
The ages most represented among the dead were five to nine-year-olds.
Edit :
Just a note on this :
While it is probably just that they werent counted yet
It’s unrelated to the rest of your comment, but i wanted to underline something here : California has 25.2M eligible voters(, based on the VEP column from the document given by @multitotal above). If we’ve only counted half of their votes, then it’s there that we’ll find most of the missing 15.5M votes.
Since California overwhelmingly votes Democrat(, appr. 66%-33%), then it may be fair to assume 8M more votes for K.Harris and 4M for D.Trump, and they’re separated by 4M votes.
In the end, Kamala Harris probably got almost as many votes as Donald Trump but i’ve yet to read a newspaper saying that. Even if it won’t change the outcome of the election obviously, and i was too young/uninterested in 2016 to say if newspapers correctly reported from the beginning that H.Clinton ended up with more votes than D.Trump, i think that something so obvious/easy should have been noticed, or perhaps that i’m mistaken again and/or that they don’t really care since the results stay unchanged.
Just to add that a lot of people are focused on explaining these results by the votes of minorities, even if it’s mostly white people voting republican(, confirmations : 1, 2, 3, 4), yet when we look at it, it didn’t evolve that much between 2012 and 2020(, here’s for 2020, and here’s for 2024). I’m not saying that there’s nothing to say about the hispanic vote, but it just feels ‘less pertinent’/‘too simple’ once you see the ups&downs, i.d.k., there’s probably more pertinent infos, such as the inflation or something(, i.d.k.), here’s my 2cts on your election 🤷.
In any case, it’s too obvious to even point out, but journalists didn’t explained the results solely by the hispanic vote, so i can’t criticize some biases towards oversimplification here, and since i’ve checked i can confirm that the hispanic vote is indeed a noticeable change like we’re being told(, even if it doesn’t seem to be particular to D.Trump, but something that began ~20 years ago, at least here&there, but not here&there).
This seems like a good news for our instance though.
(and it shouldn’t be controversial to state that Jan6 wasn’t a coup, and that those who were there shouldn’t be in jail, their liberation is now a given and that’s one less injustice)
And if they don’t have the same source, it confirms the WaPo’s 65% with its 64.52%(, in the VEP_TURNOUT_RATE column)
we’re making some error somewhere
Yeah, you’re right, it’s too obvious, anyone can do 72.6M+68M+2.2M and easily see that it’s only ~143M out of 158.5, so we’re indeed making an obvious mistake somewhere. They’re probably simply not counted yet, as you said(, California is slow here).
It says those are expected vote totals for states where less than 97 percent of the vote has been counted
We may have understood it the same way, yet just to be sure : The turnout is counted normally, except for states where less than 97% of the votes are counted, in which case the reported turnout has been replaced by the expected turnout.
That sounds to me like a lot of Dem voters didn’t show up
You’re right, if they didn’t voted for third parties, if the votes are mostly counted, if the voter turnout is the same, and if republicans didn’t received more votes than in 2020, then where did these 14M votes went ?
Thanks for confirming that i’m missing something, don’t know if you or someone here have the explanation.
Ideally, stats by categories would be more useful to draw a conclusion, but at first sight it doesn’t seem so though :
At first, i agreed with the explanations based on the lack of cohesion of the democratic party, and the influence of Palestine, on the votes :
With most votes counted, the 2024 election elected D.Trump with ~73M votes vs. ~68M for K.Harris, compared to 2020 when D.Trump was rejected despite having the same numbers(, 74.2M,) and J.Biden was elected with 81.3M votes.
Furthermore, D.Trump would have received less votes without influent people like Robert Kennedy Jr. on his side, who still received votes apparently.
However, third parties like the libertarian party or the Green party received much more votes in 2016 than in 2024(, and the republican&democratic parties much less). Having gained 1M votes at most wouldn’t have that much of an impact.
(I’ve also sometimes heard(, mostly twitter, but here’s msnbc,) that the 2.5M muslim-americans voted D.Trump in opposition but that’s not supported(source), even if J.Stein should have obtained much more if these surveys were trustworthy).
While i can’t deny the influence of many pro-Palestine actors, i can’t really prove it by the numbers either, and some deny its importance. Also, the high voter turnout doesn’t favor the alternative of a boycott.
I only took a superficial look, so i don’t doubt that there’re many americans here who could easily correct my mistakes if they want to
Yeah, and they’ll be like “but we don’t have a choice, we have to build these machines !”
Of course they have, we could stop wars and live in peace with our neighbors, united in diversity, ensuring everyone’s security, but we’re not even trying. And inside, we could enable a real/direct democracy(, e.g., sortition,) with efficient checks and balances to prevent a risk of deterioration.
Of course, we won’t, just that it’d always be false to say that we have no other choice than the current road.
For those interested : https://leftychan.net/leftypol/src/1622232510872-4.pdf
Mutilation of class struggle can take another form : closing one’s eyes to the fate visited by capitalism on colonial peoples or peoples of colonial origin.
From the outset, calling attention to the ‘millions of workers’ forced to die in India, to allow capitalists to make modest concessions to British workers, Marx underlined the connection between the colonial question and the social question in the capitalist metropolis (see Chap. 2, Sect. 3). This was a demanding intellectual perspective.
In sharp contrast to Proudhon, Fourier was a champion of the cause of women’s emancipation. But it happened that, in the very years when Marx and Engels were expressing their hopes in the proletariat as the agency of universal emancipation with youthful hyperbole, followers of Fourier (and Saint-Simon) planned to construct communities of a more or less socialist kind in Algeria, on land taken from the Arabs in a brutal, sometimes genocidal war. 11
Later, utopian socialism mostly viewed the abolitionist movement with condescension or suspicion. After the February 1848 revolution, Victor Schoelcher and the new government proceeded to the definitive abolition of black slavery in French colonies, almost half a century after it had been reintroduced by Napoleon, who had thereby cancelled the results of the black revolution on Santo Domingo led by Toussaint L’Ouverture and the laws emancipating blacks enacted by the Jacobin Convention.
However, Etienne Cabet, an eminent representative of French utopian socialism, criticized Schoelcher for focusing on a narrow objective—the emancipation of black slaves—rather than committing himself to the universal emancipation of labour. 12
On the outbreak of the Civil War in the USA, Lassalle argued similarly, judging at least from a letter to Engels of 30 July 1862 in which Marx criticized the ‘antiquated, mouldering speculative rubbish’ of Lassalle, for whom the gigantic clash underway in the USA was ‘of no interest whatever’. Rather than developing positive ‘ideas’ for transforming society, ‘the Yankees’ confined themselves to mobilizing a ‘negative idea’ like ‘the freedom of the individual’. 13
For the two representatives of socialism cited here, commitment to the abolition of slavery in the colonies or the North American republic distracted attention from the social question, which remained a burning issue in the capitalist metropolis.
To the American Civil War—in Marx’s view, an epic event—Lassalle made only distracted, reductive references. Because of the blockade imposed by the Union on the secessionist South, and the consequent shortage of cotton for the textile industry of Britain, and Lancashire in particular, British workers were forced into unemployment and risked having to ‘emigrate to the colonies’. It was ‘one of the most bloody and horrible wars that history has ever seen’.
What was at stake in it was not touched upon. In fact, rather than the institution of slavery, Lassalle indicted ‘federalism’ and the self-government accorded states as allegedly responsible for the ‘absorption in particular interests’ and ‘mutual hatred’ of the contending parties, which were thus put on par. 14
The economistic or corporatist limitations of representatives of the labour and socialist movement were not unconnected with the initiative of the dominant classes, whose effectiveness was in fact underestimated by Marx and Engels. Having included ‘Young England’ in the ‘spectacle’ of ‘feudal socialism’ staged by ‘aristocrats’, the Communist Manifesto concluded: ‘the people, so often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms, and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter’. 15
In fact, things turned out rather differently. The historically most important member of Young England was Disraeli. In him (as in the
organization he joined) are to be found elements of the transfiguration of the ancien régime, but he may be regarded as the inventor of a ‘socialism’ more appropriately defined as ‘imperial’ than ‘feudal’. Far from meeting with derision from the popular classes, this was socialism that often enchanted and ensnared them.
In the same years as The Holy Family and The German Ideology proclaimed the irreducible antagonism between proletariat and bourgeoisie, Disraeli published a novel that in its own way dealt with the same themes. We find a Chartist agitator bitterly challenging the existing order and denouncing the reality of the ‘two nations’ (‘rich and poor’) into which England is divided. In the Communist Manifesto, the Chartists are included among the ‘existing working-class parties’; 16 and the agitator seems to exhibit the revolutionary consciousness attributed to the proletariat by Marx and Engels. It is interesting to observe Disraeli’s response: it made no sense to speak of ‘two nations’; a bond of ‘fraternity’ now united ‘the privileged and prosperous English people’. 17
The key word is the one emphasized by me : the English aristocracy had shelved the caste, even racial arrogance it traditionally displayed towards the popular classes ; and now it was the ‘fraternal’ national English community as a whole that adopted a pose of supreme aristocratic disdain for other nations, especially colonial populations.
In other words, rather than disappearing, the racialization traditionally suffered by the British popular classes was displaced. It is no accident if Disraeli, who subsequently became the author of the Second Reform Act (which extended political rights beyond the circle of the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie), and of a series of social reforms, was simultaneously the champion of imperialism and the right of the ‘superior’ races to subjugate ‘inferior’ ones. In this way, the British statesman proposed to defuse the social question and class struggle in his own country : ‘I say with confidence that the great body of the working-class of England […] are English to the core. They are for maintaining the greatness of the Kingdom and the Empire, and they are proud of being subjects of our Sovereign and members of such an Empire.’ 18
These were the years when in France Proudhon adopted the position (according to Marx) of a ‘socialist of the Imperial period’—to be precise, the Second Empire. 19
Thus, we see a new political movement emerge. In the late nineteenth century, alluding to Napoleon III and Bismarck as well as Disraeli, a German observer spoke of an ‘imperialist social policy’ or ‘imperial socialism’ (Imperialsozialismus ). 20
Already brought out by Marx, the connection between the colonial question and the social question in the capitalist metropolis was recognized and put at the centre of a new political project, which proposed a kind of quid pro quo: the popular masses and proletariat were invited to respond to the dominant classes’ limited social reforms with patriotism and support for colonial expansionism.
That’s what i thought, but after rapidly checking i edited my comment because i realized that i’ve been abused by some clickbait titles about some kind of “war” between Morocco and Algeria over the Sahara(, and that our president recently took the side of Morocco).
When i’m looking a bit more into this, they’re not lying to this point, but they’re not saying that the algerian position is based on its own decolonial tradition, every article i found(, out of the 5-6 i’ve skimmed through, 2015 in a specialized magazine, up to 2024 in a more general one,) say that it’s primarily done to annoy Morocco, and more power/influence over the region. Not in favor of the Sahrawis whose point of view isn’t really told.
So, i guess that if i had to find the bias in our propaganda, it’d be that usually we’d be in favor of the independence of the Sahrawi republic, but we’re curiously not taking their sides(, just like for south-eastern ukrainians or others). So our bias is that we’re progressively aligned with the position of Morocco, and the u.s.
Indeed, the algerian position is more about supporting their independence, there’re no claims, thanks 👍
Internet is the occasion to meet other nationalities, so i was wondering : do you have an opinion(, and/or could you tell me the general algerian opinion,) about the western Sahara ? Should it be independent, moroccan, algerian, divided, … ?
Also, it’s not important but it reminds me of seeing a channel a few years ago that offered a bounty for archeological findings proving that the western Sahara was the ancient location of Atlantis, e.g. with this, it’s almost certainly false but kind of the only thing i know about this topic 🤷
The Fr*nch left is Charlie Hebdo
And yeah, the so-called “freedom of expression”*
*As long as we agree with you. Terrorism apologia or what we deem “hate speech” or “disinformation” is a threat to our “values”.
It’s not because they (possibly )knew that they necessarily wanted it to happen though ?
Just that if they ever knew about something so secret, then they probably didn’t say “no”, and more something like “it’s your responsibility” instead ?
For what it’s worth : if they instigated something like that, it’d probably not come without a formation of the korean citizen’s mindset first, and we(sterners) would probably have felt this preparation at home as well.
Well, on the other side coups were apparently quite frequent in the 50s-80s, so my guess is as good as yours.
Good to remember by the way that, as you know, like Hong-Kong and Taiwan, these countries were among the western-backed dictatorships, so their history books are different than ours :
There are many countries in the region, but Myanmar is special since it only stopped being a dictatorship in 2011, after 49 years, yet they went back in 2021.
We also supported Suharto until its disappearance from 1967 to 1998, the Philippines from 1965 to 1986, etc.
And it’s probably worth mentioning the authoritarian South Vietnam as well(, 1955-1963), due to the similarities with Korea.
And we’ll remember the Khmer rouge, but not the authoritarian and western-backed Lon Nol.
We(sterners) also supported the military regimes in Thailand, anything but communism.
Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore was also considered authoritarian.
I don’t think that there are a lot of countries in Africa, South America, or South-East Asia, who escaped (western-backed )dictatorships, but it’d have been worse if freedom wasn’t among our most important “universal” values(, after anti-communism, anti-islamism, and anti-‘whatever influent ideology survived the colonization’), let’s say that we(sterners) were “forced” and that we couldn’t possibly live peacefully with commies&others, for a reason i’ve yet to fully grasp since we could probably live in peace while staying capitalists with the right measures/protections, guess they preferred the cold war rather than taking the risk.