Jabril

joined 5 months ago
[–] Jabril@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

TBF sanctions have worked really well against Cuba, Venezuela, DPRK just to name a few. Smaller and isolated economies which have not fully industrialized can artificially be set back decades via sanctions, and while those nations still exist, we can't pretend it hasn't been an immense struggle for them which is almost entirely due to the sanctions. The US thought their war strategies against the Taliban and ISIS would work against Russia and they thought their economic attacks would work the same - not realizing in both instances that Russia isn't a literal or figurative island with a fragile economy.

[–] Jabril@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 4 months ago

Doubt it, they are likely trying to win favor with China after sending more boots to Ukraine which I imagine Xi gave Macron an earful about. France is always happy to say something that "goes against the grain" but then still fall in line when the rubber meets the road.

[–] Jabril@lemmygrad.ml 25 points 4 months ago

Finally someone with a large platform fucking using it

[–] Jabril@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 4 months ago

After the word "eugenics" became recognized as a bad thing post WWII, the very large base of eugenicists in science and academia suddenly became "geneticists."

[–] Jabril@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you have only a basic understanding of Marxism, its not hard to get to a class reductionist analysis that goes something like: workers in US need to rise up against US imperio-capitalists > there's a huge population of the working class which are very alienated from the left due to propaganda > make propaganda that appeals to them where they are already at to begin pulling them left > eventually enough people will be radicalized to get organized and make an impact.

This is kind of the basic Marxist model right? Unite the workers against the common enemy, the bosses, and fight together for a better world. Why wouldn't you want to bring such a large demographic of workers into the fold instead of rejecting them and thus giving them only one political option in the right? "If only all the rednecks would be like the early 1900's again, we'd be able to make so much change!"

Patsocs realize that there is a large, white working class demographic of people in the US that is only being targeted by right wing media so they are utilizing symbolism and rhetoric that said group already identifies with in order to get content views which they see as radicalizing them towards the left. The reality is that the majority of workers in the US, not even just white ones, would identify with the US and the idea that the US is a legitimate state over the idea that it should be abolished and made into a bunch of smaller nations of some kind, especially anything run by Indigenous people who are such a small percentage of the population that people can't imagine being governed by them.

This all fits nicely into a very antiquated and reductive analysis of Marxism that avoids the concept of settler colonialism and neo-colonialism, and is missing the sub-classes of workers which actually keeps the workers of the US at large, particularly the white ones, in a sort of global labor aristocracy which sees them as fundamentally on the side of capital because they benefit so much from it. Without understanding this reality, it is easy to imagine we can just get all the workers in the US on the same side against their common enemy and thus would want to try to meet them where they are at and guide them towards the light. Instead, the truth is closer that these demographics of US workers are brown shirt sleeper agents who will allow any atrocity to be committed in their name as long as they get to keep their comforts more or less intact. They do not have the same interest as other workers in the US, especially the colonized workers that they exploit domestically like Indigenous people and New Afrikans.

I believe the PatSocs genuinely believe the logical thread I spoke to above and think that they are going to incite the working class white people into some sort of communist ballot box revolution in the US that will usher in a socialist USA. They reject the idea of the US being illegitimate because it has existed for "too long," the people who's land it was are "virtually gone" in the majority of areas of the country and it has and continues to have such a profoundly large global impact that it is firmly cemented in reality as a nation. A lot of Americans don't vote or care about politics but they do identify with America, because they do benefit from imperialism, and the idea of the USA not existing is something I'd bet most US citizens would find totally implausible.

All of this will be very validating to the PatSoc engagement reports for similar reasons that DSA and anarchism has a lot of traction in the US - they don't ask anyone to change their self perception, or beliefs. They don't ask you to commit class or race suicide or even grow as people, you can just adopt a new rhetoric and aesthetic and feel like you are better than anyone to the right or the left of you. This brings money into the PatSoc's bank accounts which affirms their positions and creates a positive feedback loop which keeps them chasing clout/money/power and forces them to become grifters even if they thought they were sincere at some point. I'm sure they go to bed at night thinking "we are spreading communism and socialism farther each day, we are radicalizing the masses, this is the correct thing to be doing," but once you have patreon subscribers paying your bills because they like the content you put out, you are pretty much on that track for life.

Personally I think instead of rejecting them entirely, people need to be engaging with and showing why their rhetoric is undeveloped and backwards.

[–] Jabril@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 4 months ago

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, Exterminate All The Brutes

aside from all the ones mentioned

 

After more than seven days of deliberations that followed a three-week trial, a San Diego jury on Friday convicted two Los Angeles-area men of conspiracy to riot as part of the first-ever prosecution alleging a criminal conspiracy by antifa.

The jury also convicted one of the defendants, 27-year-old Brian Cortez Lightfoot, of five additional counts of use of tear gas not in self-defense, but ended up hung on nine counts of assault. The judge declared a mistrial on those charges. The jury acquitted both Lightfoot and his co-defendant, 41-year-old Jeremy Jonathan White, on an additional count of assault.

Prosecutors alleged that Lightfoot and White were self-described anti-fascists who showed up prepared to attack their political enemies at a Jan. 9, 2021, "Patriot March" in Pacific Beach organized by supporters of then-outgoing President Donald Trump. Defense attorneys told the jurors their clients were there to counter-protest the march — which took place just three days after Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol — and that any violence they might have participated in was self-defense against provocateurs and armed members of the pro-Trump group.

Experts said the case marked the first instance nationwide in which prosecutors alleged a conspiracy by members of antifa, which is generally considered a decentralized, leaderless ideology rather than a structured group.

Because of the nature of conspiracy cases, in which defendants can be held accountable for the actions of their co-conspirators, prosecutors presented the jury with an array of evidence alleging 11 separate incidents of violence committed by similarly dressed black-clad counter-protesters that day in Pacific Beach. White and Lightfoot were only accused of actually participating in some of the violent incidents — and White was acquitted of the only underlying assault charge he faced, which involved him allegedly pointing to a man who others then attacked.

"Basically ... what he got convicted for is what he was wearing, which is problematic for the First Amendment," Curtis Briggs, White's San Francisco-based defense attorney, told reporters outside the courtroom Friday. "Mr. White will definitely appeal after sentencing, and I think it's an amazing appellate area that implicates the First Amendment."

Neither man reacted when the verdicts were read. White faces up to two years in custody, and Lightfoot faces a maximum sentence of five years and four months in prison.

Nine co-defendants in the case previously pleaded guilty to various charges. Some have been sentenced to prison. Others will be sentenced later this year along with White and Lightfoot.

"We want to thank the jury for their service and for reaching their just guilty verdicts on the two remaining defendants in the Antifa conspiracy case," District Attorney Summer Stephan told the Union-Tribune in a statement. "This was a complex case with 11 defendants indicted and now all convicted — nine by guilty pleas and two by jury verdict. The DA team worked tirelessly on this case in order to be sure our community remains safe, and that the rule of law is followed."

John Hamasaki, Lightfoot's San Francisco-based defense attorney, said the government spent an inordinate amount of resources on the case considering its nature.

"The DA expended probably the most resources I've seen them expend in any case — murders, multiple murders, gang murders — I've never seen a DA's office expend this much resources for a single case, and I think you have to look at the political circumstances surrounding it," Hamasaki said Friday after the verdicts were announced.

During April 23 closing arguments, Hamasaki and Briggs both alleged the prosecution was biased against left-wing activists who police and prosecutors view as "their ideological opponent."

Briggs argued that his client showed up in Pacific Beach as a medic and "didn't punch, kick or fight anyone." He said White showed up to exercise his First Amendment rights and to protect his fellow anti-fascist protesters.

The attorney showed the jury video footage from a police helicopter accompanied by the radio chatter between officers at the time. In the video, police repeat multiple times that Proud Boys, who they describe as being "very anti-police," have "hijacked" the Patriot March.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the Proud Boys a hate group, and the Anti-Defamation League has designated it a right-wing extremist group.

"This is excellent context when you're trying to understand how scared Mr. Lightfoot would have been, how scared Mr. White would have been — this all goes into their state of mind with their actions that day," Briggs told the jurors. "You should ask why you didn't hear about this from the prosecution."

During her rebuttal, Deputy District Attorney Mackenzie Harvey told the jury that the police discussion of the Proud Boys occurred "long, long after the day of violence" allegedly carried out by the antifa group.

"This video ... introduced into the trial this term 'the Proud Boys,'" Harvey told the jurors. "It gave the defense the opportunity to try to convince you that there is some other evidence, something else that you should consider, directly contrary to the court's instructions ... The defense is trying to play on your emotions about a group, maybe that you've heard about at other times and other places. They want to insert that into this case, improperly."

While Briggs spent most of his closing arguments presenting evidence that he said showed his client was not guilty, he returned several times to questions about what police and prosecutors failed to show the jury about the people on the other side of the violence that day — including at least five who had been at the storming of the Capitol three days earlier. He also argued that police and prosecutors had every reason to want to target White, who Briggs said had advocated in the past for justice reform and taking power away from prosecutors and police.

Harvey countered that trials are about facts and evidence, not the feelings of deputy district attorneys or law enforcement officers.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Daniel Goldstein warned the sides before trial about making personal attacks against each other and had urged all parties to settle the case based on its political implications.

In November, Briggs argued that Stephan and her office should be disqualified from trying the case, alleging they were politically biased against anti-fascists and had demonstrated a pattern of failing to prosecute members of right-wing groups who committed violence at political rallies and protests. His argument had focused, in part, on Stephan's controversial 2018 campaign website. It featured a menacing image of antifa marchers behind a superimposed photo of George Soros, the billionaire liberal activist who is often vilified in conservative circles and had donated money to a super PAC supporting Stephan's opponent.

Goldstein denied the disqualification motion, ruling no conflict of interest existed, but warned that the case's political aspect could derail the trial.

"Both sides want to pull this into the political realm," Goldstein said during the November hearing.

Hamasaki acknowledged to the jury during closing arguments that some of the videos they'd seen were "really bad" and that wrongful conduct had occurred that day in Pacific Beach. "But that doesn't mean that Brian should be held accountable for other peoples' actions," he told the jurors. "Brian should be held accountable for what Brian did."

Hamasaki said Friday outside of court that there was "problematic evidence" for his client, but he thought it was a fair verdict based on the evidence.

"Ultimately they didn't get to guilty verdicts on nine counts, so that's a huge victory for the defense," Hamasaki said. He hopes Goldstein will sentence Lightfoot to probation rather than time in custody.

During closing arguments, Harvey, the prosecutor, accused the defendants of lying when they took the stand, telling the jury they could disregard all of their testimony because of it. As to the political implications of the case, she told the jury that ideology didn't matter — even if some of the victims were not the most sympathetic.

"At the end of the day, so what? So what if somebody had swastika tattoos on their face?" Harvey asked the jurors. "Incredibly offensive to probably everyone in this room? Absolutely. But what happened to the law? ... No matter what, everyone is entitled to equal protection of the law, no matter what they believe."

Goldstein set a June 28 sentencing hearing for White, Lightfoot and their co-defendants who have pleaded guilty but not yet been sentenced.

[–] Jabril@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 4 months ago

For a brief second I thought this meant Columbia University and was quite surprised

view more: next ›