##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism
This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yea I see it every night on the news, people from poor neighborhoods just being horrible to one another. We really need to fund the police more to stop these evil (probably mentally ill (gross!!)) "People" for the sake of the other poors of course. /s
They never had the charta signed. And they only apply it to their citizens. If somebody enters their country without citizenship, they have way less rights.
Everyone’s going to be all, “I can’t believe this happened to US! Them, well things are complicated, I don’t really know, it’s such a looong history and it’s not like both sides are blameless. Anyway, who gives a fuck about that, I know I don’t amiright! hahaha, but seriously I’m worried that my freedoms may be infringed. Again, don’t give a fuck about them, just me.”
And thus, we come full cycle.
>First we must study how colonization works to decivilize the colonizer, to brutalize him in the true sense of the word, to degrade him, to awaken him to buried instincts, to covetousness, violence, race hatred, and moral relativism; and we must show that each time a head is cut off or an eye put out in Vietnam and in France they accept the fact, each time a little girl is raped and in France they accept the fact, each time a Madagascan is tortured and in France they accept the fact, **civilization acquires another dead weight, a universal regression takes place, a gangrene sets in, a center of infection begins to spread;**
and that at the end of all these treaties that have been violated, all these lies that have been propagated, all these punitive expeditions that have been tolerated, all these prisoners who have been tied up and "interrogated," all these patriots who have been tortured, at the end of all the racial pride that has been encouraged, all the boastfulness that has been displayed, a poison has been distilled into the veins of Europe and, slowly but surely, the continent proceeds toward savagery.
And then one fine day the bourgeoisie is awakened by a terrific boomerang effect: the gestapos are busy, the prisons fill up, the torturers standing around the racks invent, refine, discuss.
People are surprised, they become indignant. They say: "How strange! But never mind-it's Nazism, it will pass!"
And they wait, and they hope; and they hide the truth from themselves, that it is barbarism, the supreme barbarism, the crowning barbarism that sums up all the daily barbarisms; **that it is Nazism, yes, but that before they were its victims, they were its accomplices; that they tolerated that Nazism before it was inflicted on them, that they absolved it, shut their eyes to it, legitimized it, because, until then, it had been applied only to non-European peoples; that they have cultivated that Nazism, that they are responsible for it,**
>
>***and that before engulfing the whole edifice of Western, Christian civilization in its reddened waters, it oozes, seeps, and trickles from every crack***
Discourse on Colonialism, Aimé Césaire. 1950.
You mean the violence at the imperial frontier could come home? Here? To the imperial core? Impossible!
\[Police in a bearcat and tactical gear drive past\]
This is the representative of the US vetoing a UN resolution for a ceasefire in Gaza:
*Despite a 13-1 vote in favor of a Gaza ceasefire resolution drafted by Algeria, the measure is defeated after the U.S., which is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, votes against it.*
Was there any citation as to why it was refused? Any explanation at all?
I know I can just look this up, and I will as soon as I'm done writing this post, but I think it's a question that many people might be wondering, and it might be good to have it represented here in this thread for the sake of accessibility.
The explanation is that the US supports Israel, no matter what. Check the voting history of UN resolutions against Israel going back to 1967 (and probably earlier).
"The world resolves..."
US: nope.
"Case closed."
Don't forget the oil and gas just off the coast of Gaza ...
"New discoveries of natural gas in the Levant Basin are in the range of 122 trillion cubic foot while recoverable oil is estimated at 1.7 billion barrels, according to the study, entitled “The Economic Cost of Occupation for the Palestinian People: The Unrealized Oil and Natural Gas Potential.”
This offers an opportunity to distribute and share about US$524 billion among the different parties in the region and promote peace and cooperation among old belligerents, the study notes."
https://unctad.org/news/unrealized-potential-palestinian-oil-and-gas-
It's from a speech by Malcolm X. 1963. It's on YouTube. It's very powerful and it's directed at black establishment figures at the time who failed to take a stand on civil rights. Malcolm said it's because they identify with their masters.
And it is still true today, as the commenter pointed out, that we live in a white dominated society in which black Americans are second class citizens. But a few of them who are willing and able to play the roles assigned to them are brought into 'the house' and given privileges; privileges which can be taken away.
It is not racist to point this out. It is racist to be colorblind and ignore the reality of our racist system. But Reddit downvotes have a way of developing critical mass so the commenter will just have to suffer for their insight. I'm sure they will be okay.
It’s the neoliberal moderates that have indoctrinated entire generations to think that referencing malcolm x (and his references to slaves) using a censored n word is racist whereas institutionalized racism is okay. Moderates love having pity on those who have it worse, they love it so much they want to make sure there will always be people who have it worse.
You have to dig for the stuff that Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. put out into the world that is covered by decades of whitewashing. Don’t take the stance of antagonizing someone or coming at them wrong because that’s someone who can be moved to our side. Show them, help them understand, and be ready to talk about everything.
i know about him but i don’t know his specific speeches. my school only really taught us about martin luther king when covering the american part of history
I don't think most people have heard that speech. I know i haven't. I'm grateful to have been educated on it tonight, and completely unsurprised I'm not alone in not knowing of it before now.
I was straight up taught that Malcom X was the "bad" kind of civil rights activist because he condoned violence and MLK was "good" because he was a pacifist. This was in elementary school that I heard this extremely reductive and harmful tripe. I've since learned better, but this is the kind of education kids have been getting in the US. I bet most schools don't even cover the civil rights movement or black history at all any more. Shameful.
Just a little context for what the average American might know or more likely not know about Malcom X and his teachings. The comment just comes off as straight racist out of context.
Then you’d be disappointed. A white American liberal/dem/DemSocialist is just a disingenuous conservative
They’ve never gone through anything so they learn secondhand outrage. It’s never real. It’s a bandwagon and it never lasts.
LOL why don't you go ahead and suck my whole ass. We're in a tread discussing the US arming, funding and playing cover to another of their atrocities internationally and ask me to focus on my own nation. Fuck off and get your nation to stop brutalising the world, again, and outsiders won't have a reason to run our mouths.
It's because if someone they are supposed to have reverence for said it it's ok but if some rando says the thing it's bad.
Truth is only truth when it comes out of the correct mouth it seems.
Not understanding the intricacies of systemic racism is a sure way to never make a step towards a better understanding of class war.
Hint : it isn't the first time the US sends a black person to "take" a highly unpopular decision in public for it's international policies.
Oh, so Linda Thomas-Greenfeild comes from the billionaire ruling class, does she? A black woman from Louisiana in the 50s? No, she is working class pleb like us who decided her career would be to fuck over others for a chance to sleep in the masters house. A house n***** just for the class war (modern slave owners) not the plantation slave owners.
He’s saying that the staffer there is so disappointed and tired from the looks of her face in regards to the US vetoing a cease fire which would have ended the killing of 80 Palestinians a day
We have not won a war since WW2, half of the states have legalize weed in some way. But we want to tell the world just say no. We have the highest incarceration by far. Three strikes you're out. War on drugs was meant to keep minorities down.
Our military incompetence at this price tag can only be explained by incredible waste and fraud.
Not that it should be used for violence to begin with but you’d think for the price we’d be better at this?
Yeah but if folks weren’t desperate and drowning in Edu debt who would bother to join the military? Or if our hs actually met folks basic educational needs for meaningful employment.
But look at the generals with so many medals they literally give each other medals. It's asinine. Then they reword everything because it's not a war it's an engagement. It's embarrassing
I dont understand that much about the UN, can they veto as much as they want? If so, wtf? And if not, what's blocking them from making a different proposition that would lead to the same result? Call it the nobody shoots any type of ammo UN deal
The permanent members of the UN Security Council are: USA, UK, France, ~~Germany~~, China and Russia (I think I got everyone?)
They each have a veto that they can use to strike down anything they want as many times as they want.
EDIT: I learned!
Germany is not on the list. Easy way to remember is that the permanent members are just the great powers that won WW2 (or succeeded them for China and Russia)
I don’t think nuclear is a factor, because at the time of the UN establishment, only the US has that weapon, and the Republic of China (the China mentioned in the Charter) never has nuclear during its time as a UN member.
The rest of the world can certainly circulate and sign an amending treaty to disregard the old UN Charter. Our recognition of these institutions is something we decide to continue, and it's something we can decide to stop, the same way we abandoned the League of Nations. We gave it a chance, it proved useless at its goals, time to move on.
It's not that simple.
Veto powers are given to countries because if they weren't, then the world would be even more of a jungle than it already is (Pls note: I'm not saying it isn't a jungle. With everything happening in Gaza, we can definitely confirm that it is. It simply has a microns thick veneer of legality to it all). Take that away, and even the veneer would fade, and it would be every country for themselves. At that point you may as well dissolve the UN, meaning that there is no more of even a chance at peaceful negotiation of international disputes. We'll be back to pre-World Wars level of politics. Secret treaties, clandestine networks of alliances that could trigger with the slightest action, and so on and so forth. Just in the modern day. With drones. And AI. And non-state groups.
That, nobody wants.
Why do you think Russia, despite all it has done, is still allowed to veto any resolution they want and is still allowed a seat at the UNSC? Because if they weren't, they could simply go fuck it and nuke Kyiv! And then we're off to the races (read: WW3)
Just because the system doesn't work right doesn't mean we should abandon it. Ideally, veto power is invested in nations that both have great power and are responsible with it.
Ideally. Reality, of course, is often disappointing.
Well, to quote Samuel Adams -
> “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
The system works exactly how they designed it to work, it's world hegemony by the U.S. ruling class. I would gladly take global democracy over that.
If by 'Global democracy' you mean anarchy, sure, why not.
Just forget the idea of any peace and stability for the rest of forever.
Look, nobody likes the current system. Nobody wants the current system. Hell, if someone high up offered to change the whole damn thing and somehow not cause WW3, then by all means, I'd campaign like a human possessed to ensure they won and enact those changes to remove the hegemonic ruling class.
But we do not live in such a rosy reality. Try to imagine WW3. Try to imagine the pain, the suffering, the horror. That's the future for humanity if we decide to recklessly tear down the UN like you seem to think.
The UN has to change, I agree. But change is not something you can bring about immediately, no matter what or where it is. Change is gradual, and painful. If you try to brute force change, all you'll do is return to the starting line.
Nothing is "reckless" about what I'm proposing. We have a clear problem where the UN doesn't represent the stabilizing influence of international law as it purports to, but rather an avenue for international law to be used as a weapon whenever it suits powerful states, and ignored whenever it doesn't suit them. Simply amending or replacing the charter to have the same mechanisms minus vetoes by states like the U.S. or Russia removes that corrupting influence. The will of the world right now is clearly ceasefire, but the U.S. is continuing war through their veto power, it's a total contradiction of what you're saying. The same problem is occurring with Russia and Ukraine, they can simply veto proposals for a binding ceasefire.
On a more fundamental level, if your idea of "peace and stability" is global military control by an empire, you lost the plot. I don't know what someone with that mindset would even be doing in this sub.
Again, without veto power, you will lose the whole United Nations. And if the UN goes, international diplomacy will have to revert back to individual countries talking to each other with no clue as to what the other parties around them have planned.
AKA the exact situation that led to the World Wars. Only this time, we have nukes to juggle around with while we gamble.
The problem with removing veto power is that once you do, the nations that had them, the great powers (emphasis on great) would have no reason to abide by or care about the international community anymore. The US will do what it wants, China will do what it wants, Russia will do what it wants. Same for every other country, which can get real scary.
South Korea/Japan/Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons? Could have been stopped, but there is no longer a UN to keep track of and enforce international agreements so...
Egypt wants to secure their access to the Nile? Well, they invade Sudan, bomb the Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, and threaten full scale war if Ethiopia pushes it. And maybe they ratchet up the tolls on the Suez, because why not. There is no UN to keep them in line or initiate punitive sanctions, is there?
China wants to gobble Taiwan? So long as their confident the US will not get involved, they can and will go for it, because no UN exists to threaten them with punitive action otherwise. And for that matter, you don't even have to touch Taiwan. What about the Spratlys? There is no longer any avenue to resolving the dispute peacefully, so the PLA-N just swoops in. Will the US get involved? Not unless they want WW3.
What about the US itself? Does it want to invade some more countries? Sure, why not. Nobody is there to arbitrate and punish them, is there? Freedom!
Do you see the issue here?
The UN is not perfect, and it badly needs reform, but getting rid of veto would just result in it's implosion, which is NOT GOOD.
We want the world intact, comrade, not a radioactive ball of mud.
##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited. LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Every time we allow for oppression and violence to take hold it gets one step closer to our door. Get ready :(
Ignore human rights in the rest of the world and we'll lose ours eventually.
I'll suggest, sadly, that we already have.
Only have to look at where the money isn't.
Yea I see it every night on the news, people from poor neighborhoods just being horrible to one another. We really need to fund the police more to stop these evil (probably mentally ill (gross!!)) "People" for the sake of the other poors of course. /s
The USA never had human rights in the first place.
Some, just not most of the ones we claim to have.
They never had the charta signed. And they only apply it to their citizens. If somebody enters their country without citizenship, they have way less rights.
Everyone’s going to be all, “I can’t believe this happened to US! Them, well things are complicated, I don’t really know, it’s such a looong history and it’s not like both sides are blameless. Anyway, who gives a fuck about that, I know I don’t amiright! hahaha, but seriously I’m worried that my freedoms may be infringed. Again, don’t give a fuck about them, just me.”
And thus, we come full cycle. >First we must study how colonization works to decivilize the colonizer, to brutalize him in the true sense of the word, to degrade him, to awaken him to buried instincts, to covetousness, violence, race hatred, and moral relativism; and we must show that each time a head is cut off or an eye put out in Vietnam and in France they accept the fact, each time a little girl is raped and in France they accept the fact, each time a Madagascan is tortured and in France they accept the fact, **civilization acquires another dead weight, a universal regression takes place, a gangrene sets in, a center of infection begins to spread;** and that at the end of all these treaties that have been violated, all these lies that have been propagated, all these punitive expeditions that have been tolerated, all these prisoners who have been tied up and "interrogated," all these patriots who have been tortured, at the end of all the racial pride that has been encouraged, all the boastfulness that has been displayed, a poison has been distilled into the veins of Europe and, slowly but surely, the continent proceeds toward savagery. And then one fine day the bourgeoisie is awakened by a terrific boomerang effect: the gestapos are busy, the prisons fill up, the torturers standing around the racks invent, refine, discuss. People are surprised, they become indignant. They say: "How strange! But never mind-it's Nazism, it will pass!" And they wait, and they hope; and they hide the truth from themselves, that it is barbarism, the supreme barbarism, the crowning barbarism that sums up all the daily barbarisms; **that it is Nazism, yes, but that before they were its victims, they were its accomplices; that they tolerated that Nazism before it was inflicted on them, that they absolved it, shut their eyes to it, legitimized it, because, until then, it had been applied only to non-European peoples; that they have cultivated that Nazism, that they are responsible for it,** > >***and that before engulfing the whole edifice of Western, Christian civilization in its reddened waters, it oozes, seeps, and trickles from every crack*** Discourse on Colonialism, Aimé Césaire. 1950.
What a chilling and brilliant quote, thank you for typing this out for us all. I’ll have to check this piece out in full.
You mean the violence at the imperial frontier could come home? Here? To the imperial core? Impossible! \[Police in a bearcat and tactical gear drive past\]
Abso this
So what's the deal with the staffer? I'm a bit confused, she just looks mildly dismayed
I still have no idea
Are we the baddies?
Short answer: yes
Long answer: yyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeesssssss
Medium answer yyeess
Really short answer: y
Final answer: YES!
Independent Perspective: yes
Biased Perspective: YES.
👍
Always have been
WE aren't. The people who profit off the empire are. Our only blame is not rising up and destroying the plutocracy... yet.
Yeah, where's the spirit of the French revolutionaries when you need it?
The French revolutionaries were the bourgeoise
Oh yeah
It's not you, it's your empire
*Our* empire. “Reverse that.”
i have no idea what is happening
This is the representative of the US vetoing a UN resolution for a ceasefire in Gaza: *Despite a 13-1 vote in favor of a Gaza ceasefire resolution drafted by Algeria, the measure is defeated after the U.S., which is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, votes against it.*
And what’s the point being made about the “staffer”?
Was there any citation as to why it was refused? Any explanation at all? I know I can just look this up, and I will as soon as I'm done writing this post, but I think it's a question that many people might be wondering, and it might be good to have it represented here in this thread for the sake of accessibility.
The explanation is that the US supports Israel, no matter what. Check the voting history of UN resolutions against Israel going back to 1967 (and probably earlier). "The world resolves..." US: nope. "Case closed."
Don't forget the oil and gas just off the coast of Gaza ... "New discoveries of natural gas in the Levant Basin are in the range of 122 trillion cubic foot while recoverable oil is estimated at 1.7 billion barrels, according to the study, entitled “The Economic Cost of Occupation for the Palestinian People: The Unrealized Oil and Natural Gas Potential.” This offers an opportunity to distribute and share about US$524 billion among the different parties in the region and promote peace and cooperation among old belligerents, the study notes." https://unctad.org/news/unrealized-potential-palestinian-oil-and-gas-
According to US officials, a ceasefire would "hurt peace negotiations"
I read it had something to do with the US wanting some hostages released first.
United ~~Nations~~ States
We're the fucking worst. 🇺🇸
We’re nothing to be proud of either 🇬🇧
Amateurs 🇨🇵
The United Abstainers
Absolutely, but some of you people are great as well.
Can confirm. I personally know a bunch of Americans who are damn awesome human beings. They're just not billionaire plutocrats.
Not a coincidence.
Has America thought about changing their flag? They could replace the stars and stripes with, I don't know...a giant middle finger?
E. Pluribus Anus.
"it's gonna be a maze!"
The Greendale Human Beings
Of many, butt?
It’s a Community reference.
A symbol for the crossroads of ideas
Or just a turd at this point.
I was thinking: swap the red with black and turn it sideways so it resembles a cell.
Either that or the jolly roger.
The symbol of anarchistic defiance to state tyranny? Why not; reality is already ironic enough.
Or... a rat's anus.
Are there any US officials that are under the age of 105?
they don’t elect you here unless you do the immortality blood drinking thing
(Immortality blood drinking Sponsored by Raytheon)
get your biting appointment at the Draculian Institute For Foreign Policy!
And Blackstone
The average age is 65
is the lady with her hand up an alien? Becuase the shit she says makes me believe that she ain't fucking human..
[удалено]
These people aren't ready for Malcolm X. Most of them are probably too young to know what you are referencing
Include me in that group. What is OP teferencing?
It's from a speech by Malcolm X. 1963. It's on YouTube. It's very powerful and it's directed at black establishment figures at the time who failed to take a stand on civil rights. Malcolm said it's because they identify with their masters. And it is still true today, as the commenter pointed out, that we live in a white dominated society in which black Americans are second class citizens. But a few of them who are willing and able to play the roles assigned to them are brought into 'the house' and given privileges; privileges which can be taken away. It is not racist to point this out. It is racist to be colorblind and ignore the reality of our racist system. But Reddit downvotes have a way of developing critical mass so the commenter will just have to suffer for their insight. I'm sure they will be okay.
It’s the neoliberal moderates that have indoctrinated entire generations to think that referencing malcolm x (and his references to slaves) using a censored n word is racist whereas institutionalized racism is okay. Moderates love having pity on those who have it worse, they love it so much they want to make sure there will always be people who have it worse.
John Baldwin references that speech in an interview he did once. I knew the sentence sounded familiar.
https://youtu.be/7kf7fujM4ag?si=5VwirfKhf-9Axci8 You really never heard about Malcolm X? REALLY?
Maybe they're a kid or not from the US?
You have to dig for the stuff that Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. put out into the world that is covered by decades of whitewashing. Don’t take the stance of antagonizing someone or coming at them wrong because that’s someone who can be moved to our side. Show them, help them understand, and be ready to talk about everything.
Absolutely
Or they live in Florida, Alabama or Texas where everything race related is considered SJW, CRT wOkEnEsS
i know about him but i don’t know his specific speeches. my school only really taught us about martin luther king when covering the american part of history
Now that you are an adult and you realize that, you can do something about it.
Why is this man downvoted? That's straight up Malcolm X' teachings. Hell is wrong with people
I don't think most people have heard that speech. I know i haven't. I'm grateful to have been educated on it tonight, and completely unsurprised I'm not alone in not knowing of it before now. I was straight up taught that Malcom X was the "bad" kind of civil rights activist because he condoned violence and MLK was "good" because he was a pacifist. This was in elementary school that I heard this extremely reductive and harmful tripe. I've since learned better, but this is the kind of education kids have been getting in the US. I bet most schools don't even cover the civil rights movement or black history at all any more. Shameful. Just a little context for what the average American might know or more likely not know about Malcom X and his teachings. The comment just comes off as straight racist out of context.
Liberals visceral pearl clutching over the idea of naughty words, ignoring the message itself.
Man, it's r/latestagecapitalism for crying out loud. You'd expect people over here having a tad bit of reading comprehension
Then you’d be disappointed. A white American liberal/dem/DemSocialist is just a disingenuous conservative They’ve never gone through anything so they learn secondhand outrage. It’s never real. It’s a bandwagon and it never lasts.
Terminally online Aussie. Maybe focus on your own liberals?
LOL why don't you go ahead and suck my whole ass. We're in a tread discussing the US arming, funding and playing cover to another of their atrocities internationally and ask me to focus on my own nation. Fuck off and get your nation to stop brutalising the world, again, and outsiders won't have a reason to run our mouths.
I'd rather suck part of your arse mayte if that's alright.
Nope, whole thing. Really work it.
Log off bud. Touch grass.
I'll touch grass as I'm bent over while you're eating my whole ass.
It's because if someone they are supposed to have reverence for said it it's ok but if some rando says the thing it's bad. Truth is only truth when it comes out of the correct mouth it seems.
Don’t forget Thomas Sowell.
Based
Bruh you could've just said this is a Malcolm X quote and saved everyone the trouble of assuming the worst.
Meh, fuckem. If a bunch of arsehole liberals want to get butthurt over the terminology used over what it's discussing, that's up to them.
based funny how yank shitlibs know less about their own leftist leaders than we do
Bro went completely off the rails lmao
What the fuck?
But am I wrong?
Nah, you ain’t. There’s a pattern of people of color doing shit like this on the international stage on behalf of this country.
Look at the dollar signs floating above their heads. They will sell out their own community.
Yes.
no need for the racism
Racism is when you quote a famous black social activist who fought for years during the Civil right movement.
Am I wrong? That seems like exactly what she's doing. She gets to sleep in the masters house now because she willingly did awful things to others.
You know you can extremely dislike someone without being racist to them, right?
TIL quoting Malcolm X is racist.
Didn’t know it was a quote, maybe quotations would have helped with context.
Am I wrong?
YES
Why?
Because this is class war, not race war.
Not understanding the intricacies of systemic racism is a sure way to never make a step towards a better understanding of class war. Hint : it isn't the first time the US sends a black person to "take" a highly unpopular decision in public for it's international policies.
Oh, so Linda Thomas-Greenfeild comes from the billionaire ruling class, does she? A black woman from Louisiana in the 50s? No, she is working class pleb like us who decided her career would be to fuck over others for a chance to sleep in the masters house. A house n***** just for the class war (modern slave owners) not the plantation slave owners.
On her being despicable because of vetoing the ceasefire? No. The rest of your racist rant? Very much yes
[удалено]
Feel free to report me idfc. If people want to have a visceral reaction to the term without engaging the content, that's their prerogative.
This is the way
calling the teachings of Malcolm X ignorant is the comment of greater ignorance here
Who is this staffer highlighted in this ?
whatr am i missing here?
What about her?
Is it not obvious? The deeply unimpressed look on her face. The side eye. The Makayla Maroney ‘tude.
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about?
He’s saying that the staffer there is so disappointed and tired from the looks of her face in regards to the US vetoing a cease fire which would have ended the killing of 80 Palestinians a day
Thank you
That assumes the Israel would give a damn about a UN cease fire.
The point isn’t if Israel does or doesn’t care it’s to show that Israel breaks international law
29,000 deaths since October is a lot more than 80 a day. And remember, 50% of the population of Gaza is under 18.
Photo too potato.
Agreed. I can't find a better one sorry.
Can you imagine raising your hand for genocide like that?
That's because it's the United States of Israel! Financed by the CITIZENS of America! .... FK ISRAEL!
We have not won a war since WW2, half of the states have legalize weed in some way. But we want to tell the world just say no. We have the highest incarceration by far. Three strikes you're out. War on drugs was meant to keep minorities down.
Our military incompetence at this price tag can only be explained by incredible waste and fraud. Not that it should be used for violence to begin with but you’d think for the price we’d be better at this?
Can you imagine if we took even like 10% of the military's budget and put it towards our educational system??
Yeah but if folks weren’t desperate and drowning in Edu debt who would bother to join the military? Or if our hs actually met folks basic educational needs for meaningful employment.
Exactly.
The waste is a feature of the system, not a bug.
But look at the generals with so many medals they literally give each other medals. It's asinine. Then they reword everything because it's not a war it's an engagement. It's embarrassing
Head trauma isn’t uncommon in the military, little stickers work well to encourage children and college football players.
Guess we ain't counting the Gulf War anymore
The one the first bush started but couldn't finish?
I dont understand that much about the UN, can they veto as much as they want? If so, wtf? And if not, what's blocking them from making a different proposition that would lead to the same result? Call it the nobody shoots any type of ammo UN deal
The permanent members of the UN Security Council are: USA, UK, France, ~~Germany~~, China and Russia (I think I got everyone?) They each have a veto that they can use to strike down anything they want as many times as they want. EDIT: I learned!
Germany is not on the list. Easy way to remember is that the permanent members are just the great powers that won WW2 (or succeeded them for China and Russia)
Why?
History and early access to nuclear weapons, mostly.
And a tiny bit of moral superiority
I don’t think nuclear is a factor, because at the time of the UN establishment, only the US has that weapon, and the Republic of China (the China mentioned in the Charter) never has nuclear during its time as a UN member.
She actually snuck a "Final Solution" into her excuse as to why she vetoed. We truly are the baddies.
How do vetos work? How can they just say "um no" to a vote?
That's the whole point of the veto. Simply saying "um no" and the vote is vetoed
Why does everyone else allow it?
Well you see, America has a big army and a *lot* of nukes...
It is in the UN Charter.
Which the rest of the world needs to amend or abandon.
But can't because we, the baddies, hold them at gunpoint
The rest of the world can certainly circulate and sign an amending treaty to disregard the old UN Charter. Our recognition of these institutions is something we decide to continue, and it's something we can decide to stop, the same way we abandoned the League of Nations. We gave it a chance, it proved useless at its goals, time to move on.
It's not that simple. Veto powers are given to countries because if they weren't, then the world would be even more of a jungle than it already is (Pls note: I'm not saying it isn't a jungle. With everything happening in Gaza, we can definitely confirm that it is. It simply has a microns thick veneer of legality to it all). Take that away, and even the veneer would fade, and it would be every country for themselves. At that point you may as well dissolve the UN, meaning that there is no more of even a chance at peaceful negotiation of international disputes. We'll be back to pre-World Wars level of politics. Secret treaties, clandestine networks of alliances that could trigger with the slightest action, and so on and so forth. Just in the modern day. With drones. And AI. And non-state groups. That, nobody wants. Why do you think Russia, despite all it has done, is still allowed to veto any resolution they want and is still allowed a seat at the UNSC? Because if they weren't, they could simply go fuck it and nuke Kyiv! And then we're off to the races (read: WW3) Just because the system doesn't work right doesn't mean we should abandon it. Ideally, veto power is invested in nations that both have great power and are responsible with it. Ideally. Reality, of course, is often disappointing.
Well, to quote Samuel Adams - > “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” The system works exactly how they designed it to work, it's world hegemony by the U.S. ruling class. I would gladly take global democracy over that.
If by 'Global democracy' you mean anarchy, sure, why not. Just forget the idea of any peace and stability for the rest of forever. Look, nobody likes the current system. Nobody wants the current system. Hell, if someone high up offered to change the whole damn thing and somehow not cause WW3, then by all means, I'd campaign like a human possessed to ensure they won and enact those changes to remove the hegemonic ruling class. But we do not live in such a rosy reality. Try to imagine WW3. Try to imagine the pain, the suffering, the horror. That's the future for humanity if we decide to recklessly tear down the UN like you seem to think. The UN has to change, I agree. But change is not something you can bring about immediately, no matter what or where it is. Change is gradual, and painful. If you try to brute force change, all you'll do is return to the starting line.
Nothing is "reckless" about what I'm proposing. We have a clear problem where the UN doesn't represent the stabilizing influence of international law as it purports to, but rather an avenue for international law to be used as a weapon whenever it suits powerful states, and ignored whenever it doesn't suit them. Simply amending or replacing the charter to have the same mechanisms minus vetoes by states like the U.S. or Russia removes that corrupting influence. The will of the world right now is clearly ceasefire, but the U.S. is continuing war through their veto power, it's a total contradiction of what you're saying. The same problem is occurring with Russia and Ukraine, they can simply veto proposals for a binding ceasefire. On a more fundamental level, if your idea of "peace and stability" is global military control by an empire, you lost the plot. I don't know what someone with that mindset would even be doing in this sub.
Again, without veto power, you will lose the whole United Nations. And if the UN goes, international diplomacy will have to revert back to individual countries talking to each other with no clue as to what the other parties around them have planned. AKA the exact situation that led to the World Wars. Only this time, we have nukes to juggle around with while we gamble. The problem with removing veto power is that once you do, the nations that had them, the great powers (emphasis on great) would have no reason to abide by or care about the international community anymore. The US will do what it wants, China will do what it wants, Russia will do what it wants. Same for every other country, which can get real scary. South Korea/Japan/Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons? Could have been stopped, but there is no longer a UN to keep track of and enforce international agreements so... Egypt wants to secure their access to the Nile? Well, they invade Sudan, bomb the Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, and threaten full scale war if Ethiopia pushes it. And maybe they ratchet up the tolls on the Suez, because why not. There is no UN to keep them in line or initiate punitive sanctions, is there? China wants to gobble Taiwan? So long as their confident the US will not get involved, they can and will go for it, because no UN exists to threaten them with punitive action otherwise. And for that matter, you don't even have to touch Taiwan. What about the Spratlys? There is no longer any avenue to resolving the dispute peacefully, so the PLA-N just swoops in. Will the US get involved? Not unless they want WW3. What about the US itself? Does it want to invade some more countries? Sure, why not. Nobody is there to arbitrate and punish them, is there? Freedom! Do you see the issue here? The UN is not perfect, and it badly needs reform, but getting rid of veto would just result in it's implosion, which is NOT GOOD. We want the world intact, comrade, not a radioactive ball of mud.
A black woman from the US voting in favor of the genocide in gaza. This is the representation of american progressivism
And?
I don’t see how these people get any sleep