They're getting more like Nazis every day - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15182582
ckaihatsu wrote:Vague again. You're certainly not taking any effort to make any kind of a case that I'm *not* for civil rights, especially because I'm *for* civil rights, all the way through to *de-privatization* so that *workers* can control the material-world legacy of their own past labor efforts.


I can see you citing yourself about the necessity of the gulagization of counter-revolutionaries from that post onwards, or am I reading you wrong there? :)

And your excuses for the Holodomor could apply to anything you are saying about capitalist countries
#15182583
ckaihatsu wrote:We can trace Holodomor back to the conditions of *duress* for Russia's industrialization -- and China's too -- at the hands of the already-industrialized Western empires.


You are so anti-West that you resort to slandering the West on the Holodomor which, regardless of the intentionality, is accepted as Stalin's fault.


ckaihatsu wrote:Consider that both Russia and China *threw off* their monarchies, just as the U.S., France, and Britain did, yet Russia and China were *invaded* by the developed world.


Considering how oppressive Russia and China have become (or have remained), I fail to see why I have to agree with you in denouncing invasion as something wrong. South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, all of which "fell under" American influence, emerged as prosperous and free societies.
#15182589
wat0n wrote:
I can see you citing yourself about the necessity of the gulagization of counter-revolutionaries from that post onwards, or am I reading you wrong there? :)



Well, it's not a light matter, so I think your smiley-face is inappropriate.

I don't agree with Stalin or his contrived 'socialism-in-one-country', but, given the position he was in, he simply *consolidated* the country under nationalism while successfully rebuffing Western predations.

And, as ingliz pointed out, the U.S. has *its* gulags, too:


ingliz wrote:
The United States had the highest prisoner rate, with 639 prisoners per 100,000 of the national population.

2.1 million in 2019

US Rate of Imprisonment by Race and Ethnicity per 100,000

Black 1,408
Hispanic 378
White 275

Data source: United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Prisoner Statistics, 1978-2014. Bibliographic Citation: ICPSR36281-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2015-10-09; U.S. Census Bureau (2013). 2013 Population Estimates. Annual estimates of the resident population by sex, race, and Hispanic origin for the United States, states, and counties: April 1, 2010, to July 1, 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.


:lol:



---


wat0n wrote:
And your excuses for the Holodomor could apply to anything you are saying about capitalist countries



I haven't tried that yet, but in the case of Holodomor, it was *definitely* due to the Western imperialist invasions in 1918 that imploded the country's economy and made it difficult for Russia to industrialize -- hence the famines.


Patrickov wrote:
You are so anti-West that you resort to slandering the West on the Holodomor which, regardless of the intentionality, is accepted as Stalin's fault.



(See the above segments.)


Patrickov wrote:
Considering how oppressive Russia and China have become (or have remained), I fail to see why I have to agree with you in denouncing invasion as something wrong. South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, all of which "fell under" American influence, emerged as prosperous and free societies.



You think I'm going to *join* you in cheerleading for Western imperialism? Think again.
#15182592
ckaihatsu wrote:You think I'm going to *join* you in cheerleading for Western imperialism? Think again.


Not really. I am just saying I am going to staunchly oppose your belief because I actually see Western Imperialism (or more accurately, British / American Imperialism) is a better regime to live under, given the ability of my race (Chinese) to prosper under British / American Imperialism.
#15182594
Patrickov wrote:
Not really. I am just saying I am going to staunchly oppose your belief because I actually see Western Imperialism (or more accurately, British / American Imperialism) is a better regime to live under, given the ability of my race (Chinese) to prosper under British / American Imperialism.



Well, the *human cost* just wasn't worth it:



This internal form of imperialism is also distinct from the United States' formation of "colonies" abroad.[115] Through the treatment of its indigenous peoples during westward expansion, the United States took on the form of an imperial power prior to any attempts at external imperialism. This internal form of empire has been referred to as "internal colonialism".[116] Participation in the African slave trade and the subsequent treatment of its 12 to 15 million Africans is viewed by some to be a more modern extension of America's "internal colonialism".[117] However, this internal colonialism faced resistance, as external colonialism did, but the anti-colonial presence was far less prominent due to the nearly complete dominance that the United States was able to assert over both indigenous peoples and African-Americans.[118]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism#United_States
#15182595
ckaihatsu wrote:Well, the *human cost* just wasn't worth it...


According to the history of British rule in Hong Kong, as well as the post-war history of South Korea, Japan and Taiwan as I just said, it's crystal clear that Britain and America have both moved on from that stage. What you quoted are certainly facts, but they no longer apply now.

When met with competing systems, Western Imperialism is the first to improve itself for the better. When they fail to do so and retreat in defeat, the places in concern usually descend into corruption, chaos and oppression, as happened in places from Iran to South Africa to Hong Kong and to Myanmar.
#15182598
ckaihatsu wrote:Well, it's not a light matter, so I think your smiley-face is inappropriate.

I don't agree with Stalin or his contrived 'socialism-in-one-country', but, given the position he was in, he simply *consolidated* the country under nationalism while successfully rebuffing Western predations.

And, as ingliz pointed out, the U.S. has *its* gulags, too:


The prisoners in the US are not there because of their politics and furthermore the conditions they live in are not even remotely as brutal as those who were sent to the gulags. At least you are dropping this pro-civil rights facade.

ckaihatsu wrote:I haven't tried that yet, but in the case of Holodomor, it was *definitely* due to the Western imperialist invasions in 1918 that imploded the country's economy and made it difficult for Russia to industrialize -- hence the famines.


As usual, totalitarians also always blame others for their incompetence/misdeeds. The Allied intervention in Russia had finished by 1925, had been ineffectual militarily (the number of troops committed to the effort was minuscule compared to the size of the armies involved) and economic sanctions were lifted in 1920. If anything, the British imposed sanctions in 1933 (once the Holodomor had already begun) and this was to secure the release of British citizens who were in the hands of Soviet authorities (and not over other humanitarian concerns).
#15182615
Patrickov wrote:
According to the history of British rule in Hong Kong, as well as the post-war history of South Korea, Japan and Taiwan as I just said, it's crystal clear that Britain and America have both moved on from that stage. What you quoted are certainly facts, but they no longer apply now.

When met with competing systems, Western Imperialism is the first to improve itself for the better. When they fail to do so and retreat in defeat, the places in concern usually descend into corruption, chaos and oppression, as happened in places from Iran to South Africa to Hong Kong and to Myanmar.



You're getting to be like wat0n, making baseless triumphalist assertions that border on outright *propaganda*.

You're making it sound like past imperialist histories of colonization have no bearing today, while racist wage-slavery continues, and the racial wealth gap *reflects* this past history of 400 years of racist slavery and Jim Crow segregation.



History of colonisation and decolonization

Main articles: History of colonialism and Decolonization

The era of European colonialism lasted from the 15th to 20th centuries and involved European powers vastly extending their reach around the globe by establishing colonies in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. The dismantling of European empires following World War II saw the process of decolonization begin in earnest.[7] In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill jointly released the Atlantic Charter, which broadly outlined the goals of the U.S. and British governments. One of the main clauses of the charter acknowledged the right of all people to choose their own government.[8] The document became the foundation for the United Nations and all of its components were integrated into the UN Charter, giving the organization a mandate to pursue global decolonization.[9]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_ ... lonization



By the way, you're effectively back to arguing for the 'White Man's Burden':



"The White Man's Burden: The United States and the Philippine Islands" (1899), by Rudyard Kipling, is a poem about the Philippine–American War (1899–1902), which exhorts the United States to assume colonial control of the Filipino people and their country.[1] Originally written to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria (22 June 1897), the jingoistic poem was replaced with the sombre "Recessional" (1897), also a Kipling poem about empire.

In "The White Man's Burden", Kipling encouraged the American annexation and colonization of the Philippine Islands, a Pacific Ocean archipelago conquered in the three-month Spanish–American War (1898).[1] As a pro-imperialist poet, Kipling exhorts the American reader and listener to take up the enterprise of empire, yet warns about the personal costs faced, endured, and paid in building an empire;[1] nonetheless, American imperialists understood the phrase "the white man’s burden" to justify imperial conquest as a mission-of-civilization that is ideologically related to the continental-expansion philosophy of manifest destiny of the early 19th century.[2][3][4][5]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden



---


wat0n wrote:
The prisoners in the US are not there because of their politics and furthermore the conditions they live in are not even remotely as brutal as those who were sent to the gulags. At least you are dropping this pro-civil rights facade.



It's not a facade, and I can prove it with the argument that U.S. prisoners are mainly there for crimes of *property*, meaning the upholding of the ideology of *private property*. That's political *enough*.


wat0n wrote:
As usual, totalitarians also always blame others for their incompetence/misdeeds. The Allied intervention in Russia had finished by 1925, had been ineffectual militarily (the number of troops committed to the effort was minuscule compared to the size of the armies involved) and economic sanctions were lifted in 1920. If anything, the British imposed sanctions in 1933 (once the Holodomor had already begun) and this was to secure the release of British citizens who were in the hands of Soviet authorities (and not over other humanitarian concerns).



I hope you're not insinuating that *I'm* a 'totalitarian'. I'm *not* a Stalinist, but I'll gladly review the history of Western imperialist oppression of Russia and China.

Here's regarding the economic effect of the Allied invasions of 1918:



According to Soviet historiography, the ruling Bolshevik administration adopted this policy with the goal of keeping towns (the proletarian power-base) and the Red Army stocked with food and weapons since circumstances dictated new economic measures as the ongoing civil war exposed the old capitalist market-based system as unable to produce food and expand the industrial base.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism
#15182616
ckaihatsu wrote:It's not a facade, and I can prove it with the argument that U.S. prisoners are mainly there for crimes of *property*, meaning the upholding of the ideology of *private property*. That's political *enough*.


And you want to incarcerate people over crimes of thought, which is far more ideological than preserving others' rights. Besides, using your reasoning jailing murderers and rapists would also be an ideological decision :)

Also, even the USSR recognized some measure of individual property, and punished those who stole public property.

ckaihatsu wrote:I hope you're not insinuating that *I'm* a 'totalitarian'.


Yes you are. You are the one who advocates gulagization of opponents simply based on what they think, not me.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm *not* a Stalinist,


Stalinism isn't the only type of totalitarianism.

ckaihatsu wrote:but I'll gladly review the history of Western imperialist oppression of Russia and China.

Here's regarding the economic effect of the Allied invasions of 1918:


...Effects that had dissipated by 1932 (and in China's case, by the time of the Great Leap Forward).
#15182618
wat0n wrote:
And you want to incarcerate people over crimes of thought,



No, you're incorrectly imputing that I'm a *Stalinist*, and I'm *not*. I'm not a nationalist of any kind. (Only nationalism would use a state apparatus, as for imprisonment, and I'm for the *working class*, and ultimately for a stateless and classless society.)


wat0n wrote:
which is far more ideological than preserving others' rights. Besides, using your reasoning jailing murderers and rapists would also be an ideological decision :)



No, this is faulty reasoning on your part, since crimes against property is not the same as crimes against a person's physical *person* and their own well-being. My point stands that crimes against private property is politically *ideological*, for the upholding of the capitalist institution of private property.


wat0n wrote:
Also, even the USSR recognized some measure of individual property, and punished those who stole public property.



Okay, well, you can be the historian on this stuff -- again, I'm not a Stalinist.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I hope you're not insinuating that *I'm* a 'totalitarian'.



wat0n wrote:
Yes you are. You are the one who advocates gulagization of opponents simply based on what they think, not me.



Incorrect again -- my political slogan is 'Don't be a counterrevolutionary'. This implies that there has to be some *action* on the part of someone, against an ongoing revolution, for them to be 'counterrevolutionary'.


wat0n wrote:
Stalinism isn't the only type of totalitarianism.



wat0n wrote:
...Effects that had dissipated by 1932 (and in China's case, by the time of the Great Leap Forward).



Nope, sorry, we obviously disagree on the impacts of history, and you're being too *dismissive* of the legacy of past Western imperialism.
#15182619
ckaihatsu wrote:No, you're incorrectly imputing that I'm a *Stalinist*, and I'm *not*. I'm not a nationalist of any kind. (Only nationalism would use a state apparatus, as for imprisonment, and I'm for the *working class*, and ultimately for a stateless and classless society.)


And yet there you are, supporting gulagization of political opponents in the thread I linked to. It doesn't matter if a commune does it instead of a state.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, this is faulty reasoning on your part, since crimes against property is not the same as crimes against a person's physical *person* and their own well-being. My point stands that crimes against private property is politically *ideological*, for the upholding of the capitalist institution of private property.


Your distinction is also ideological, if you want to play that game.
ckaihatsu wrote:Incorrect again -- my political slogan is 'Don't be a counterrevolutionary'. This implies that there has to be some *action* on the part of someone, against an ongoing revolution, for them to be 'counterrevolutionary'.


Like what, speech for example?

ckaihatsu wrote:Nope, sorry, we obviously disagree on the impacts of history, and you're being too *dismissive* of the legacy of past Western imperialism.


Quite evidently we do.
#15182622
ckaihatsu wrote:You're getting to be like wat0n, making baseless triumphalist assertions that border on outright *propaganda*.

You're making it sound like past imperialist histories of colonization have no bearing today, while racist wage-slavery continues, and the racial wealth gap *reflects* this past history of 400 years of racist slavery and Jim Crow segregation.


You are just refusing to admit that I have proved, with examples, that Western Imperialism had moved past the age of oppression and become much more free and open (to even their mistakes and atrocities), while locals keep their oppressive backward ways; and in this way proved superior to your utopia.

If anything, your posts are closer to propaganda than mine. In your standards, my posts are at worst reactionary.
#15182626
Comparing the USA to Cuba and the USSR tells us two things:

1. The people doing so are comfortable with logical fallacies like whataboutisms, and…
2. The US is comparable to Cuba and the USSR when it comes to human rights abuses.

Having said that, I disagree with the thread title.

The US conservative world has always been a bit authoritarian and racist. Trump merely made it more overt like it was back in the 80s.
#15182627
ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're incorrectly imputing that I'm a *Stalinist*, and I'm *not*. I'm not a nationalist of any kind. (Only nationalism would use a state apparatus, as for imprisonment, and I'm for the *working class*, and ultimately for a stateless and classless society.)



wat0n wrote:
And yet there you are, supporting gulagization of political opponents in the thread I linked to. It doesn't matter if a commune does it instead of a state.



Again, 'Don't be a counterrevolutionary'. It's the *politics* that count, and then the rest is means-and-ends.


Means and Ends CHART

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, this is faulty reasoning on your part, since crimes against property is not the same as crimes against a person's physical *person* and their own well-being. My point stands that crimes against private property is politically *ideological*, for the upholding of the capitalist institution of private property.



wat0n wrote:
Your distinction is also ideological, if you want to play that game.



Are we on a forum for *politics* -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Incorrect again -- my political slogan is 'Don't be a counterrevolutionary'. This implies that there has to be some *action* on the part of someone, against an ongoing revolution, for them to be 'counterrevolutionary'.



wat0n wrote:
Like what, speech for example?



Fortunately it's not up to *me* -- here's an ongoing example of sorts, though, if you like:



No to U.S. govt attacks on Cuba. Yesterday's rallies and march in Chicago


To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>


There was a lively gathering Sunday afternoon of over 100 people opposing the U.S. government attacks on Cuba. There was an opening rally, a march north on Michigan Avenue and in the street on Adams to Federal Plaza, and then a closing rally.

Speakers offered support for Cuba, and denounced the U.S. imperialist attacks on Cuba and the Biden Administration stand on this.

The Chicago Anti-War Coalition (CAWC) offered quite a few factual points to supplement and elaborate upon what a number of other speakers said. Here is the speech offered by CAWC:

The Chicago Anti-War Coalition fully joins with everyone who opposes the U.S. government’s attacks on Cuba.

These U.S. attacks now include fomenting some disturbances in various Cuban towns and cities on Sunday, July 11. This was not a big social movement, but it did some destruction to property and tried, unsuccessfully, to whip up opposition to the Cuban Revolution.

The Biden Administration has further attacked Cuba by expressing support for the disturbances and putting in new U.S. sanctions on some government officers who were active in stopping the disturbances. Biden is promising there is more to come.

The U.S. government spends millions of dollars trying to have individuals and groups in Cuba turn against the people’s government, especially taking advantage of the current difficult economic conditions caused by the U.S. blockade of Cuba. The blockade has included preventing delivery of needed food, medical supplies, fuel, as well as discouraging tourism, even in the midst of the problems associated with the covid 19 pandemic.

The Biden Administration has been full of imperialist attacks on Cuba since Biden took office.

In February, President Biden continued the “National Emergency” with Cuba for another year.

The continuing blockade threatens businesses of any other country that deal with Cuba that they will face sanctions by the U.S. government. This flies in the face of the international law outlawing unilateral sanctions against a sovereign state.

In May, the Biden Administration renewed the bogus Trump administration's stand that Cuba is “not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.” It has not removed Cuba from its list of state sponsors of terrorism.

And the Biden Administration is allowing U.S. businesses expropriated by the Cuban Revolution 60 years ago to sue, even though they had been offered payments by the Cuban Revolutionary Government.

The U.S. has been imperialist since the days of the Founding Fathers.

The Founding Fathers all said that their aim was to build an American Empire. Jefferson talked in 1809 of “receiving Cuba into our union.” Jefferson said in 1823: “I frankly confess that I have always regarded Cuba as the most interesting addition that can be made to our system of state."

There were strong independence movements by the people of Cuba. But it remained under Spanish rule until the U.S. instigated the Spanish-American War (1898) and made Cuba a U.S. protectorate with military rule from 1898–1902, and intervened with troops from 1906–09, 1912 and 1917–22.

By 1926 U.S. companies owned 60% of the Cuban sugar industry and imported 95% of the total Cuban crop.

But U.S. rule began to be upset when, on July 26, 1953, a small band of Cuban revolutionaries, led by Fidel Castro, launched an armed attack on the Moncada Barracks in the city of Santiago. On January 1, 1959 the victorious July 26th movement marched into Havana.

U.S. interference with Cuba continued with bombings, biological warfare, an attempted invasion, and assassination attempts on Fidel Castro.

The motivation of the U.S. ruling class, its big banks and corporations, is clear—to impose privatization and U.S. domination over this nation that is so politically independent of the U.S. and influential in the world.

Since it is possible that many ordinary Americans believe the lying propaganda about Cuba, how about if we calmly talk with others about the importance of opposing the U.S. attacks on Cuba. Ok? And, don’t we need to emphasize that the Cuban people have every right to exercise self-determination in deciding their future?

No to the U.S. attacks on Cuba! No to the U.S. Blockade of Cuba!



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Nope, sorry, we obviously disagree on the impacts of history, and you're being too *dismissive* of the legacy of past Western imperialism.



wat0n wrote:
Quite evidently we do.
#15182629
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're getting to be like wat0n, making baseless triumphalist assertions that border on outright *propaganda*.

You're making it sound like past imperialist histories of colonization have no bearing today, while racist wage-slavery continues, and the racial wealth gap *reflects* this past history of 400 years of racist slavery and Jim Crow segregation.



Patrickov wrote:
You are just refusing to admit that I have proved, with examples, that Western Imperialism had moved past the age of oppression and become much more free and open (to even their mistakes and atrocities), while locals keep their oppressive backward ways; and in this way proved superior to your utopia.

If anything, your posts are closer to propaganda than mine. In your standards, my posts are at worst reactionary.



You haven't proved *shit* -- also, you may want to provide some *evidence*, otherwise all you're doing is making baseless claims that have no weight.

'Reactionary' isn't a characterization to be *proud* of -- it means that someone, like yourself, is against *social progress*, in favor of reaction and elitism.


3-Dimensional Axes of Social Reality

Spoiler: show
Image
#15182631
ckaihatsu wrote:Again, 'Don't be a counterrevolutionary'. It's the *politics* that count, and then the rest is means-and-ends.


Means and Ends CHART

Spoiler: show
Image


Exactly, and those means include the denial of civil rights for the sake of the ends. We know how this goes.

ckaihatsu wrote:Fortunately it's not up to *me* -- here's an ongoing example of sorts, though, if you like:


And no one cared about them, at all. Thankfully.
#15182634
wat0n wrote:
Exactly, and those means include the denial of civil rights for the sake of the ends. We know how this goes.



Do you realize that you're now definitely making arguments for the side of the *counterrevolution*?

You can't just pretend that politics *doesn't exist* whenever you *feel* like it -- like everything's somehow 'neutral', and the far-left / revolutionary side made everything *political* out-of-the-blue.

No, there are *class* interests at stake here.


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

Spoiler: show
Image



---


wat0n wrote:
And no one cared about them, at all. Thankfully.



Well, there was an attempted 'color revolution' in Cuba recently, but that was quickly exposed for the bullshit that it was.
#15182635
ckaihatsu wrote:Do you realize that you're now definitely making arguments for the side of the *counterrevolution*?

You can't just pretend that politics *doesn't exist* whenever you *feel* like it -- like everything's somehow 'neutral', and the far-left / revolutionary side made everything *political* out-of-the-blue.

No, there are *class* interests at stake here.


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

Spoiler: show
Image


And more stupid justifications for denying civil rights - good though, because it exposes how farcical your stance is.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, there was an attempted 'color revolution' in Cuba recently, but that was quickly exposed for the bullshit that it was.


Yeah, those protesters were all paid by the CIA, weren't they? :lol:

And I thought you were no nationalist and the like. Amusing.
#15182637
wat0n wrote:
And more stupid justifications for denying civil rights - good though, because it exposes how farcical your stance is.



'Civil rights' in relation to *what*, exactly -- ?

'Civil rights' is *currently* a thing, under capitalism, because of the history of class relations, where regular people *need* civil rights to be officially codified (as in the U.S. Bill of Rights), because otherwise the privileged ruling class elite would just retain segregation and Jim Crow practices -- even slavery.

What *you're* objecting to is the proletarian *repression* of the civil rights of the *ruling class*, who are currently the oppressors in society. Therefore you're arguing for the side of the *ruling class*, and so you're espousing a *counterrevolutionary* line, unfortunately.


wat0n wrote:
Yeah, those protesters were all paid by the CIA, weren't they? :lol:

And I thought you were no nationalist and the like. Amusing.



Laugh all you want -- there *is* something known as 'geopolitics', and the U.S. has no business interfering in the internal matters of Cuba.
#15182956
Doug64 wrote:
Glenn Greenwald would beg to differ: FBI Using the Same Fear Tactic From the First War on Terror: Orchestrating its Own Terrorism Plots. It's a rather lengthy piece, since he goes into the history of the story and other examples of FBI malfeasance, but the part about the FBI involvement in the Whitmer kidnapping conspiracy is this:



viewtopic.php?p=15182419#p15182419



---



On July 16, BuzzFeed News published an article detailing the FBI infiltration of the Wolverine Watchmen, a fascist militia group that planned to kidnap and kill Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer last fall. The article shows that the FBI had undercover agents and informants in the group and that informants facilitated meetings, established connections and helped provide paramilitary training to the conspirators.

This has been seized on by far-right, pro-Trump elements and libertarian journalist Glenn Greenwald to exonerate Trump in both the Michigan plot and the January 6 attempted coup, as well as to downplay the growing fascist threat generally.

Far from supporting the claim that the danger of a fascist dictatorship has been overblown, the fact that at least a dozen informants and undercover agents played a role in the plot against Whitmer serves as a warning of the intimate connections between the state and far-right militia groups, such as the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Three Percenters, all of whom participated in the attack on the U.S. Capitol this past January.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... h-j29.html

Breaking down? Oh please, how many times have we […]

Universal Basic Income is a scam.

Feel free to show that I am wrong by providing ev[…]

The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

You can do it Trump supporters. I believe in you.[…]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2019_protes[…]