Never trust bootlickers or those who've willingly served the armed forces.
obvious shit OP, lurk more
Especially with her "anti-war" policy only focusing on fallen American soldiers (let's just ignore the hundreds of thousands brown people killed by US imperialism) and her obvious ties to Hindu fascism one must really ask why Jimmy Dore keeps shilling this woman. That she's cucked by Israel is just the icing on the cake. She also wants the US to sanction Iran and North Korea.
NATO in Afghanistan is an apartheid occupation which murdered more innocent Afghans since 2001 than Israel has murdered Palestinians in the same period.
Both are bad but this obsession with Israel while ignoring US/UK/NATO crimes does look a lot like anti-semitism and white supremacism. Death to Israel, but foremost, death to the United States of Amerikkka.
She is effectively the most anti-war electable politician in the US today, even if for imperfect reasons.
Why do you care about her "Hindu 'fascism'" but not her membership in the Democratic-Republican Party that murdered over 3 million people in the last 20 years?
This. An ancom on leftpol also pointed out how Israel functions as a lightning rod for the far worse crimes of Saudi Arabia in Yemen, which has the third largest military spending in the world, above Russia.
Both Saudi Arabia and Israel are client states of the Anglo-Saxons, neither is particularly worse than the Anglo-Saxons. Murders and war crimes of the Anglo-Saxons are far greater in amount and no lesser in cruelty than those of the Israeli Jews or Saudi Arabian Arabs.
Well Dore seems kind of like a "regular Joe" socialist like "Billy Brown of London," which is how Isaac Deutscher described Orwell. The politics of this is like workaday "common sense" socialism and wooing people over through reason and quick-and-plain answers. I think this also explains Dore's somewhat conspiracist outlook on some things – like he's not a Marxist at all so how does he explain American wars? He'll go "the elite are all power-hungry psychos!" or whatever. I haven't listened to him very much though. Like Orwell's "a boot stamping on a human face." He just thought the elite were all in cahoots and had everything master-planned out where that's not really a Marxist outlook which is always sniffing out contradictions. Well yeah and it's worth pointing out these sanctions tend to be very destructive to the most vulnerable people in those countries. They muddle through, though.
Not Bernie? Not saying he's good either but my problem with Tulsi's quasi-left nationalism is that even in its isolationalist form it can easily turn into its opposite where you just get national chauvinism. Like this history of fearmongering about Iran and North Korea that she does despite being "anti-war." The problem with this stuff is that you get people into a mindset that can be activated like a key. This is why Islamophobia is so destructively awful - the American population for instance is brainwashed into supporting any war on a Muslim country because they're all "bad." The wars are fought for reasons other than this "Western civilization" crap people are spoon-fed, but people will come up with very angry, aggressive rationalizations. I think all of this nationalist stuff is a devil bargain's basically.
His anti imperialist analysis is actually his best. He calls out specific companies, lists natural resources of the country, talked about the Syrian pipeline etc. He also does use a lot of Marxist lingo, like whining about the free movement of capital paired with the restricted movement of labour in reference to outsourcing of jobs. In that video he claimed that modern capitalism in imperialized nations is worse than slavery, in that if a slave gets sick the lord would at least have the incentive to cure the slave, while the capitalist can just fire and replace the worker.
Rewording what I said, she is the most effectively anti-war one.
Nuclear weapons are a risk for all humanity. If any time from now there is political instability in a country with nuclear weapons, they can end up in the hands of terrorists or some Nazi-like government. Now, I personally think it is well worth the risk and that the world would be a better and safer place if Iran and North Korea had nuclear weapons, but I see how one can disagree from a legitimate concern for security of the West or even the whole world.
Tulsi clearly and unambiguously opposes all current wars (Syria, Afghanistan) or efforts leading to war (Venezuela, Iran), where Bernie is more ambiguous and also always makes sure to reinforce the war propaganda (Assad/Rouhani/Maduro is a baby-eating dictator).
Tulsi is problematic, supporting sanctions sometimes and speaking abstractly against "terrorism", but she rejects the idea that American conquest is liberation of oppressed peoples, while Bernie does not.
You forgot the best/worst SKWAD member. (She voted to condemn BDS).
Yeah so does Tulsi. All candidates of the Democrats do that, because you'd commit political suicide in the burger politics spectacle if you call Maduro a chad. Ilhan Omar and AOC do it too. The only politician who doesn't is Jill Stein and she's in the Green Party.
I'm sorry, I know Tulsi is a MILF but she really isn't that convincing to me. Her entire anti-war platform seems to be based on caring about the poor mistreated American soldiers. She's went from conservative to progressive but she still kinda internalized that mindset. Bernie, on the other hand, comes from a clear socialist (Trotskyst) background, and while he's a SocDem in practice he seems to be a bit more conscious about American imperialism. He's shit on the Palestinian question (not as shit as Tulsi though) but he actually has called for an end of sanctions against developing countries. I don't really care if he calls Maduro a dictator as long as he lifts the sanctions on Venezuela and the DPRK.
I like him too but he eventually needs to get rid of some liberal holdovers. I think it would really help if he got Parenti or someone like that on the show. Sometimes Jimmy says something really based, when he points out that it's capitalism and that both the Dems and the Republicans suck, but then he always falls back on liberal ideas, like the belief that the American idea is actually about freedom and equality, and isn't founded on genocide and slavery.
The problem his he gets his info by people like Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal who used to be liberals and always have this "conspiratorial" type of edge in their analysis. He should listen more to Abby Martin who has told me that she has read Marx and considers herself a Marxist and a Socialist.
His biggest problem is his liberal gun takes. Somebody needs to school him on the panthers and arming the poor to defend against terroristic violence.
By the way, how do you even enforce the BDS ban? First off, BDS is just like Antifa not an organisation but a loose movement with all kinds of people in it. Secondly, how do you prove that a merchant doesn't buy Israeli goods because he boycotts Israel?
They have had Abby Martin on the show many times, including their live shows.
You can't enforce a ban on any individual not buying shit, but you can enforce a ban on organizing a boycott. You can charge people with a crime or civil offense for having a BDS facebook page or posting BDS tweets for instance.
Also he needs to read more Marx. People on his streams recommend him books and he reads them. He's said he's read some Marx, but he needs to get more recommendations. Maybe someone should shill Lenin's Imperialism since that's especially relevant today.
Honestly think the gun issue is secondary when there isn't a revolutionary situation. It's not like there is going to be a people's war in America anytime soon (and that's a good thing because at this point the right has the numbers and the guns to easily crush the left). Its an incorrect take but it's more forgivable than his perceiption of the American system as such being at all compatible with socialism, and his idea that fucking FDR was a socialist.
Also, can we now admit that Wolf is fucking shit when it comes to making people Marxists? He was on the show now twice and with his stupid co-op/SocDem shilling you got Dore believing that welfare and unions are socialist. I don't think Dore is dumb enough to not understand the LTV or the commodity form.
I know, and her Venezuela segments absolutely Chavista-pilled Jimmy. He even went on a rant how Bernie says stupid stuff when he called Maduro a dictator.
Neither of those things in and of themselves force someone to be a socialist. Lots of socdems see surplus extraction (i.e. LTV) as a necessary evil or compromise. The real issues with the commodity form only come into view if you contextualize it properly by looking at its long-term trajectory and its power to infect and corrupt non-commodity economics. Just understanding the basic principles isn't enough.
He's definitely intelligent enough to grasp all of that though.
I thought that the BDS ban would only affect business owners and not consumers, like a business saying it never sells Israeli goods. Forgive me, but I don't think it's always the best idea to have a blue-collar guy reading Capital. You can teach him the basic tenets of Marxism in a comprised version, like the Paul Cockshott videos do. Lenin is also a good choice but the problem with Lenin is that he spends 50% of his writing dissing nowadays completely unknown people he had beef with, and unironically Stalin is a good choice as an introduction to Marxism the problem is that the name Stalin usually scares people away.
I just wish he had a proper, well-spoken Marxist on the show like the guy who runs the Prolekult channel (somebody should fucking send Jimmy "History is Marching" already), and not milquetoast semi-liberal Marxists like Wolff who just muddy the waters.
Also, Wolff definitely moved him left. He's not a solution and neither are his policy ideas. Both Wolff and co-ops are stop-gap measures. He says as much about co-ops, and I think he knows his audience is non-socialists he can hook into the concepts. He alone won't convert people, just open them up to the ideas. It's the same shit as when Sanders is a socdem, but by saying he's a socialist and associating the word with meeting people's needs with popular solutions, he's opening people to talk about it.
Marx wrote a lot more than Capital, and it's not that hard to read. It's just long. Stalin is neither a good introduction to Marxism nor an appealing persona. 0/10, apply yourself.
Well it's not really the co-op shit that gets me (Marx himself thought they were a good idea) but sometimes he says stuff like praising FDR and that's where I draw the line. You're right that Wolff moved him to the left, but the problem his Wolff sometimes underestimates his audience and thinks he needs to provide baby-tier explanations. His lectures are much more advanced but for some reason his outreach attempts are often too dumbed down.
What's wrong with his works? They break down Marxism for the common man. Its only his persona that scares people away.
have you ever been to america
Uncle Joe is working from an interpretation of an interpretation of Marx. He alters and even invents ideas to mold Marxism into what he thought the USSR needed. If you're going to use an interpretation of Marx at least use one that's relevant to a situation that exists in the world today.
Haha I remember, I was in the chat while Jimmy was praising Bernie. I donated with a message along the lines of "Bernie betrays Venezuela, never trust a socdem". A lot of other viewers obviously helped, but less than an hour later he went on that rant.
Fuck off. Opposing a genocidal ethno-state is not "antisemitism", even if there are also other genocides which don't receive as much publicity. If Israel wants to end "antisemitism", maybe it should consider committing slightly less genocide.
Even considering how shit the US and the UK is, they don't exclude 50% of their population from voting and build a wall around them. Compared to fucking Israel the US is progressive.
Well the only reason Isreal is even capable of doing that is the US.
Neo-conservatism and Zionism are deeply religious movements, and you are uninformed about what the CIA does around the world.
Well that puts into words pretty well what I'd thought about Dore for a while now.
You don't need to repeat the official line every time the topic comes up either. I have shown examples of Bernie doing so, now show any of Tulsi.
She refused to call Bashar al-Assad an enemy of the US, has strongly cast doubt on the reasons given to go to war against Syria, and actually met Assad in 2017. I am also unable to find from her any criticism directed to the Venezuelan government or its top officials.
I have shown you the hard evidence that when it comes to supporting or opposing individual wars and their propaganda efforts, he is worse than Tulsi. One of the actual architects of the Iraq War was also a trotskyite socialist, Tony Blair.
Tulsi has, that I can find, only ever defended sanctions to enforce denuclearisation, to which Bernie not only agrees but goes further and supports sanctions as well for enforcing Western "human rights" (i.e. the right to conduct propaganda and espionage operations in the country).
Only because the core US-UK population is too huge so the excluded portions float around 15%.
Afghanistan has 35 million people. NATO soldiers literally hunt Afghan civilians for sport, but Afghans don't get to vote for the government that controls the occupying armies.
Iraq's population during the occupation peaked at 30 million people. None had the right to vote in US or UK elections.
Syria's population peaked at 20 million during the war (and is decreasing). NATO never successfully occupied most of Syria, but claims all of it and gives rights to none of the people there.
Marx could not predict modern geopolitics. That's where Lenin comes along.
Tulsi is what happens when you vote with your dick and not your brain.
Tulsi is pretty trash though.
Her ripping on Harris was funny though.
all politicians are trash but tulsi is the least trash
the hard facts are that on opposing the wanton murder of innocent people abroad she is far better than bernie, but leftists are uncomfortable with leaders who are young and hot in addition to having the least bad policies
Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton’s recent work on the Greyzone Project and Moderate rebels is excellent and passionately anti-imperialist. It should be noted that they previously held poisonous liberal positions during the Arab Spring and the Syrian Civil War a few years back however their current have changed immensely and I would consider them leading voices in anti-Imperialist journalism and an imperative go to for anyone interested in current events.
I unironically agree, he’s more of the Paul Wolfowitz/Irving Krystol/Zbigniew Brzezinski type than the ISO type but I would argue that those are pretty much indistinguishable at this point.
Blumenthal has this retardedness where his way of "anti-imperialism" is blindly saying the opposite of what the US government says.
On Venezuela for instance this means that he will never criticise Maduro (which is fine in itself, leave it to Venezuelans to opine on their own government), but will attack anyone in Venezuela who opposes Maduro and justify any action of the Venezuelan government.
That also makes him tend to attack countries to US government is not actively hostile, particularly by attacking justice and law enforcement that enforces laws such as "don't dump toxic waste into rivers" and "don't bribe government officials". Sure, police and courts are full of problems in most of the world, but Max should shut up about it if he and his army don't provide something better when they invade.
This is the same kind of mental sickness that led e.g. Noam Chomsky to support the Khmer Rouge, which was officially opposed but covertly supported by the US to oppose Vietnam.
I don't know about Norton but I'd guess he does the same.
Characterising any Venezuelan politician who doesn't support Maduro is a US puppet, for one. I don't keep a collection of awful opinions of every blue-checkmark shithead, that's one I could find with little searching, but he was this kind of awful well before this Venezuela crisis.
Given your next question though, I assume you agree with him. That's just sad.
I don't oppose Maduro, but I don't oppose Venezuelans who oppose Maduro either. Yet to you, saying that Venezuelans have the right to be critical of Maduro, and that some yankee dog is wrong to attack them, makes me an opposer of Maduro.
You and Blumenthal are useful tools of imperialism. You're supposedly a supporter of Maduro and you're heavily implying that he is a dictator, that defending the right to oppose him means opposing him. Not even Maduro would openly say that, so doesn't that make you the opposer? If you think he should be more brutal and dictatorial, you do in fact disagree with his current policies.
They have disagreements, sure, but his way of thinking is that which led Chomsky to support the Khmer Rouge, and he would likely have agreed with Chomsky on that at the time.
He hasn't labelled "every Venezuelan politician who is criticism of Maduro" as imperialist stooge. In fact, he would have labelled the Communist Party of Venezuela as imperialist if that were true. He has labelled some Venezuelan politicians and expats as imperialist stooges, because he discovered obvious ties to the Republican Party, Marco Rubio and the CIA.
I also honestly don't get the "muh blue check mark" rant. Just because you have a blue check mark doesn't make you a liberal, that's like saying if you wear a suit you are an establishment politician. In case you haven't noticed, the left, especially the anti-imperialist left, is completely marginalised, and these people (Blumenthal, Norton, Maté) doing actually good journalism from a clear anti-imperialist perspective to the point where they are even getting rewards, but of course you have to attack them because they are not part of your scene and have a blue check mark. If you'd spend the same energy attacking/exposing liberal journalists that would be much better. It reads like you are just one step away from calling Blumenthal an anti-semite because he talks about AIPAC.
Also, that argument that he was liberal a few years ago and had shitty takes to give about the Arab Spring is part of the toxic Twitter cancel culture where you can't make a mistake ever in your life and no matter how much you apologise for it you'll always be a literal demon spawn to this "leftist" scene. I mean, Jesus fuck, 50% of this board was literally Zig Forumsyps a few years ago.
If you're hoping to find a journalist who is 100 percent telling the truth in the full and complete objective fashion you're never going to find it. Blumenthal / Norton have their perspective and there are going to be gaps but I follow them and read their work because they're doing work you're not going to see elsewhere for the most part.
Or not to say they're not telling the truth as they see it, but there is not any such thing as "objectivity." And all journalists also miss stuff and make mistakes or whatever. Anyways
tf did I just read
Why was he banned?
What? He just pointed out the hypocrisy; I didn't see him promoting or even defending state of Israel
Tulsi is pretty trash and much more hawkish than she appears. Trump almost had her in his cabinet alongside Mattis shes so trash. She’s basically 2006 Obama.
At least 10% of Tulsi fans wouldn't support her if they didn't want to fuck her.
The Communist Party of Venezuela is irrelevant. If it had any power and questioned Maduro's legitimacy, Blumenthal would call it CIA-controlled too.
Meet with Americans ≠ be controlled by the Americans. Didn't Maduro use Venezuelan state companies to donate to Trump's campaign? bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39648675 (Yeah, yeah, BBC is the mouthpiece of the House of Windsor, but it cites official US election documents.)
Pointing that some Venezuelans are suspect for having contact with Americans is one thing. Claiming that they must be sellouts/puppets is another. If the US is going to support anyone who can challenge Maduro, delegitimising anyone who the US would support is delegitimising any real opposition to Maduro.
what, no, all I meant was he isn't important enough for me to actually keep a dossier of why he is bad.
I do, too. I'm not on an anti-Blumenthal crusade, someone just happened to mention him and I remembered he was kind of bad for some reason.
Saying that NATO (or the actual Nazi Germany or anything else) is worse than Israel, is Zionism.
Saying death to Amerikkka and death to Israel in the same sentence is Zionism because it equates ultimate evil Israel and kinda evil United States.
name a better well known candidate
Opposing the bad things Jews do while consistently ignoring or making excuses for Whites doing the same or worse is anti-semitism.
Kindly end your life.
shut the fuck up wh*te
Sorry, I thought you were serious in Kind of ashamed right now.
Not going to bite. None of the dems you can trust when it comes to imperialism, except for maybe Gravel but he’s a nut on a lot of other things, but Gabbard without a doubt would turn heel on everything she stood for as soon as she got in office. Her whole anti-war stance basically amounts to “boots on the ground hurts muh fellow soldiers, but drones are my best friend”. She somehow was “conflicted” when it came to torture, which is Tulsi speak for “I don’t know if this is politically advantageous for me to support yet”. Bitch has literally been funded by Lockheed Martin and Boeing in the past. Back in 2015, even the right wing think tank American Enterprise Institute endorsed her foreign policy views. If you cant sense that she reeks of opportunism and is only trying to syphon the current trending discontent among dem voters, your political instincts are hot garbage. Obama version 2.0, I’m telling you.
She's not, strictly speaking, against imperialism. But she does hold certain positions that would lead to less wars.
Maybe she'd pull an Obama and do wars, but everyone else including Bernie is already on the side of doing wars. If you don't want to do lesser-evilism, fine, but if you do, there is no excuse to support anyone else (except Gravel).
Right-wing isn't an automatic disqualifier. Trump is right-wing and is the first president to seek reconciliation on reasonable terms rather than hostility with North Korea.
I still have to disagree. She was consistently and vocally opposed to all the wars after Iraq (and also became critical of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). She might support an abstract "war on terror", but she is clear that wars against Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya are not fighting "terrorism".
Why would she defend Syria and Assad, if not out of genuine opposition to the war?
I was surprised nobody mentioned who contributes to the D party. Follow the money.
No, she doesn't. She poses zero threat to the military industrial complex.
While playing chicken with Iran, trying to coup Venezuela, and surrounding himself with every piece of shit war monger from past administrations in his cabinet. Him being choosy about who he goes to war with for the sake of political theater does not make him not a saber rattling chicken hawk. It's Nixon visiting China all over again. Also, it isn't the first time the U.S. has played nice with an enemy. The U.S. cooled on Qaddafi before couping him, and Bolton already said that they were following the Libya model, so…..
Which can be applied to any country. That's a really important point you can't handwave away. The pushing of right-wing propaganda regarding our wars and following their script should be troubling. It's an incredibly shady tactic on her part, and it's par for the course with her strange associations with the right-wing think tanks.
But she conveniently leaves out the Ukraine. rlly makes u think. Look into that one. She wanted weapons to be sent to the fascist groups there. Also, it wasn't like she was against war in Iran. She was outspoken against Obama on the Iran deal and the only reason she signed it was because she didn't think it was a good idea to go to war with them at that time, implying at another point in time it might be a good idea.
Her support was because they weren't bombing Al-queda hard enough. It's an argument for efficiency, not for less wars. That's actually a very consistent talking point for her, but also ties into a lot of right-wing anti-interventionist thinking, which isn't anti-interventionist at all but a disagreement on how intervention is used. What you would get with Tulsi as president would be more proxy wars, sanctions (which she consistently has voted for), and tactical drone strikes. The one good thing about Trump is that he's too bumbling to be as covert as previous presidents, but Tulsi would put the mask right back on.