Skip Navigation
Political Memes @lemmy.world
trek32 @lemmy.world

Far left intellectualism

819 comments
  • There was no massive Jewish/Muslim conflict for a 1000 years in the region. The biggest massacre in the region against the Jews was probably the Siege of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099, albiet exact numbers are not available. The crusaders killed everyone in the city with a death toll as low as 3000 to as high as 70000. This includes all Muslims, Jews, and Christians.

    When I tried to look at the pogroms done against Jews in the Levant the history is actually remarkably scant. While they did happen, my impression based on just reading the wiki article was that they were caught up in larger conflicts in the region and it wasn't a deliberate targetting in the same way the Tsar's cossacks targetted Jews. And in all those cases the dominant power always came to their rescue and compensated them for the damages done by their persecutors. Also it appears that the worst perps weren't Muslims, but Druze (who are not Muslims).

    In short, Trump is not only highly dishonest, but also a worthless shitbag who has been struggling his entire life to enshittify the world we all live in. He is worse than Bezos or Zuckerberg, because at least Amazon is a decent shopping platform, and Zuckerberg's facebook helped many people (myself included) to reconnect with childhood friends that I thought I would never speak to again).

  • This isn't what's happening, though. The Dems and Reps are aligned on Israel because it isn't a moral issue, but economic, which is why Biden has given Israel everything they want, including approving the invasion of Lebanon. The US supports Israel as a settler-colonial project because it helps the US secure power in the region, securing the Petro-Dollar as the world currency. This is how the US exploits the Global South, through predatory IMF loans, aka Imperialism.

    Read To Stop Marx, They Made Zion. The genocide of Palestinians is for economic reasons, it cannot stop without a One-State Solution.

  • This is not a 1000 year conflict.

    Israel cannot perpetrate it's crimes without the backing of the USA.

    Stop excusing genocide and colonialism.

  • 600 upvotes you reddit migrants must be proud

    • Probably as proud as far lefties are every time someone posts a “libturtz baaaaad” meme on .ml.

  • That conflict is just 76 years old. Even the idology that caused the conflict ist just 130 years old. Before the British colonialism the region had almost no conflict since the crucades.

  • Yeah I'm perfectly fine with not being on the same side as people openly embracing Dick Cheney and weird people can't figure out how being active in genocide is bad.

  • At least the meme acknowledges what a messed up hair trigger situation it is there, as it has been forever, and debunks the naive belief that USA simply cutting off its support would magically bring peace to the region instead of World War 3.

  • Utterly breathtaking amount of historical confusion.

    After WW1 the British, who were the major imperial colonial power at the time, though on a steep decline, had already decided that the strip of land we now know as Israel/Palestine was a strategic necessity in order to ensure a divided and weak middle eastern political arrangement, which could be exploited by mineral and oil investors. The old colonial system was clearly on the way out, and needed to be replaced by a system of international finance neocolonialism that came to prominence after WW2 with the Marshall Plan.

    So they knew they couldn't just colonize Palestine, it was against their interests as the seat of international finance capital. This was outlined in broad strokes in the Balfour Declaration written by James Balfour sent to Lord Lionel Rothschild, later adopted with the League of Nations Mandate in 1921. So they backed the Zionist project and started encouraging Zionists to move to Palestine which had an existing Jewish population and whose government was generally tolerant of these Zionists who brought with them lots of foreign capital to invest. This plan continued until WW2 when the industrial economies of Europe, and especially Britain were utterly destroyed by the war. The USA, which had stayed out of the war as much as possible until the battle of Stalingrad that turned the tides against the Nazis, had wanted this since it could then establish itself as the world's industrial powerhouse and seat of neocolonial finance capital. After a period of mass industrialization, this is exactly what happened.

    But of course the international finance capitalists, wherever they were stationed, had a plan in place for the region of Palestine; and a few years later, with backing of the international community, we have the tragedy of the Nakba.

    100 years of conflict, engineered by the international ruling class of our current world. Obviously regional tensions existed, Muslim and Jewish tradition goes back a very long time and has occupied the same parts of the world for much of it, but the period of peace that existed in the region of Palestine was 500 years long before the British carved up the Ottoman empire for their own benefit.

    • The 'period of peace' still meant systemic discrimination against jews in Palestine, the Ottoman empire, Russia, Europe and Northern Africa. Creating their own country to escape this discrimination was the major driver for migration starting in the 1880's.

      Sure there have been other geopolitical drivers capitalizing on this but you seem to want to make it seem like it was just a capitalist conspiracy, ignoring these social demographic causes. These religious nutjobs would be going at eachother even if there was no money to be made

      • just a capitalist conspiracy

        Capitalism isn't just an economic system, it isn't a way that people make money it is a system of class domination. It is the productive system of the globe, and the history of humanity is the history of production.

        You would have it reduced to just a religious dispute. Religion enforces the ideological superstructure of our system. Within feudal society God was the disembodied social object that drove productive relations: the king was king because god wanted him yo be, and the church made sure the serfs and peasants served (produced for) the nobility and aristocracy as it was god's will.

        Now our god is money. We don't do things because god wills it, we do it because we need money. It is a system of forced competition that takes our time and work, converts it into commodities, sells those commodities for a profit in a marketplace, and delivers those profits to the "owners" of the capital. All social relations are condensed down to impersonal market exchanges, and people become alienated from each other, from themselves.

        Marx said that Religion was the opiate of the masses, which taken in context is actually a very humanist conclusion. But he also said that atheists were like children trying to reassure everyone that they don't believe in the bogeyman. When you view religion as the enlightenment does, as it views all things, you see individuals acting irrationally at the behest of their own imagination. When you view it dialectically you realize that it is rational, that it is a real social force that has a function as a part of society, for better or for worse. A vast system of social interconnectedness. Rather than a mere delusion, it has great power and influence, which leaves us the question about for whom it operates and what are the historical conditions that temper it's operation.

        Hopefully someday your lived conditions will set you on the path to emancipate yourself. As the great social philosophers En Vogue once proclaimed: "Free your mind and your ass will follow."

  • Imagine a scenario with multiple political parties competing to defeat the Republicans. With more representative electoral systems, voters could choose any candidate they prefer, ensuring that even if their choice doesn’t win, their vote can still be counted against the republican party with no spoiler effect. Since voting methods are determined at the state level, we don’t need to wait for federal changes; some states have already implemented electoral reform. Alaska recently picked a more moderate conservative over Sarah Palin because of Ranked Choice voting

    Who would oppose having multiple chances to take power from the Republican Party? The Democratic Party would. In states they control, they could replace First Past The Post voting with an electoral system without a spoiler effect. Yet year after year, election after election, the democrats sit on their hands and do nothing about FPTP voting.

    Democrats frequently acknowledge the shortcomings of FPTP voting, and have done so for longer than I’ve been alive. Just mention voting for a third party to any Democrat, and they’ll readily express their awareness of the flaws in the voting system used by most states. Comments for articles about the Green Party will further illustrate their understanding of this issue.

    The Democrats seem to prefer the country balancing over a fire pit of fascism rather than truly competing for our votes. Party over country at all costs.

  • Two points:

    1. You don't measure politicians on their words, you measure them on their actions. When it comes to actual results, the style of salemanship makes no difference whatsoever: only an idiot would trully believe the used cars saleswoman with the smooth talk, half truths and vague statements of intentions that keeps implying she's really committed to getting you a trouble free car whilst always selling you a lemon is any better than the salesman with the brutish and simpleton sales talk that keeps telling you you'll get "the greatest car on Earth" and sells you a lemon. They're both shit, just with a different method of scamming people. Kamala ain't going to do anything but keep on supporting the Genocide all the way to a Holocaust because she hasn't taken even the slightest step in the direction of trying to stop it, quite the contrary
    2. The only way to get Democrat politicians to not freely act on their sociopath impulses - and anybody who unwaveringly supports the mass killing of people, including tens of thousands of children due to their race is, no matter what excuse they use, with total and absolute certainty a sociopath - is for them to be terrified that their careers will crash and burn. That means losing not just the Presidential election but also massive numbers of seats in Congress and even local elections. A sociopath's only motivation is they themselves and nobody else, so when it comes to politicians that's keeping their career going until they've made millions from selling their services as yielders of the powers entrusted to them by voters to the highest bidder. So people organising locally and for example plastering posters with pictures of dead children and the words "X gets paid to support this" all over the place in the districts of every APAIC supported Congress candidate to FUCK THEM UP for talking money to enable the mass murder of children can, if it succeeds, push the Democrats away fro supporting Fascism and other such sociopath choices, whilst the veritable reek of fear from the OP and others like him posting "We must vote for the smooth talking lovers of Genocidal ethno-Facism abroad so that the overt Fascist simpleton here doesn't win" memes just tells the sociopaths in the Democrat party that there are not limits to what they can get away with and will push the Democrat Party even more to the Right with Fascism In American the ultimate result either way. Sure, Trump not winning now is less bad than him winning, but if that happens in such a way that the Democrat politicians get convinced that there are no limits to the how depraved and sociopath they can be - and sending weapons to people murdering tens of thousands of children because of their race is about as depraved as it gets short of them murdering children themselves with their bare hands - and get away with it, all you did was make sure your Future is Fascism, the only difference being When rather than If.
819 comments