Interesting idea but the data seems pretty low quality. The only way you’d include Dearborn but not Chicago is if you were on twitter the whole week.

There is absolutely no scenario in which Trump decreases funding for Israel. He was in many ways the most Zionist president to ever exist.

When he handed Jerusalem to Israel, he broke with decades of strategic resistance from the US because he didn’t understand the instability it would create, and wanted to give Israel whatever it wants.

His current position is that Netanyahu is to blame for allowing harm to come to Israeli civilians. Not that Israel is bad for genociding Palestinians for 75 years. His fear is that Netanyahu is reckless and creating instability that might result in Palestinian liberation rather than their slow, competent strangulation by more “liberal” Israelis.

I know he’s not the President now, and Joe Biden is evil, but can we at least try and remain committed to the goal of independent working class power? We didn’t tail Biden in order to “stop Trump”, and we shouldn’t tail Trump to stop the Democrats.

Thank you for clarifying! So basically he’s continuing to side with the secular, Ashkenazi, Israel lobby contingent as he always has, even back when he was a democrat. Blaming Netanyahu for allowing Israeli settlers to be killed, not for genociding Palestinians. Just like Netanyahu’s domestic opposition have already been doing.

Hopefully this is an indicator that the domestic situation in Israel is too polarized to form a unity government tasked with effectively wiping out Gaza, as some are calling for.

Hopefully constructive critique:

This just sounds like a mirror of American exceptionalism. Down to the portrayal of your human enemies as subhuman. More extreme rhetoric cannot be traded in for a quicker path to socialism, especially if it comes at the expense of oversimplifying Marxist strategy.

Defeats of the hegemonic empire are good, but they are not an unqualified good. Keep your agitation focused on US defeats, not on the triumph of warlords.

Still Grayzone

People ITT acting like this was principled. Musk was against the war very early for exactly the same reasons as Tucker Carlson.

Capital directly benefits from spending money in this way, and directly suffers if social spending increases.

Totally unrelated, move along

Oulianoff

🤌

From the (translated) article:

“This position is dissociated from ECOWAS which, even if it continues to favor the « dialogue », ordered ’ « immediate activation of [ sa ] standby force », and it considerably weakens the West African organization”

I think this is how the word “dissociated” bubbled up to the headline, and could be perceived as a misleading translation, as it implies there was some formal rebuke of ECOWAS by the larger AU when there was not.

Still, this is real news and very positive for those who oppose intervention.

Oh now I get it, he’s another Bukele

This doesn’t make any sense to me. Are you basing it on some work of Marxist theory?

fair share

Social imperialist dead giveaway

Not everything is a coded message. Bernie is one of the most memed individuals of all time. Do you want us to explain why putting him in a red army uniform is funny?

I’m completely numb to the symbolism, I thought we were making fun of how it’s off center

Can’t tell if sarcastic, but I highly doubt a Hollywood movie taking a side in a preexisting border dispute is going to derail an international trade deal

I don’t see how an argument against US tech startups and an argument against tech debt in 50 year old bank computer systems are both supposed to apply to the same institution. This really feels more like an investigation of every rhetorical argument that could be made against a hypothetical brics bank rather than a real one. Supported by the fact that they seem to think the difficulty in coding a bank system is making sure the ledger doesn’t “misread” entries - this is a difficult problem for humans but not computers, and it doesn’t get harder whether you have 1000 statements or 1 million.

And the United States called it a war crime when Russia started doing so. Pure hypocrisy.

I mean, 10 years ago China would not have been an option, just more IMF loans. Seems to fit the label of dedollarization perfectly.

linking CIA