RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]

  • 14 Posts
  • 183 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle










  • Known for espousing antisemitic tropes,[11][12] Sima’s Weibo channel spread the notion that Jews colluded with the Empire of Japan to establish a Jewish homeland in mainland China during the Second Sino-Japanese War in what has been termed the Fugu Plan.[13]

    In August 2022, he admitted to buying a house in California. This made him a target of widespread ridicule, with commentators saying “being anti-American is work, living in America is life” (反美是工作、留美是生活).[14] For unknown reasons, he was blocked in Chinese social media in August 2022.[15] His accounts were later reinstated on 27 August.[15]

    On 4 July 2023, he attended the American Independence Day dinner hosted by the US Embassy in China where also met with US Ambassador to China R. Nicholas Burns. Sima’s attendance of the dinner was mocked by Chinese social media users who accused him of being hypocritical, as the day before the event he had criticized the US proposal to provide Ukraine with cluster bombs during the Russian invasion as “an act against humanity.”[16]

    I mean, he sounds like a provocateur, probably looking to heighten tensions between the two powers. Antisemitic at that. Also, support for Donald Trump under the guise that he’ll be better for China? The best outcome for China is (somehow) becoming a partner with the US economically and having friendly relations. Problem there is neither party wants that. Under Trump, tensions will continue to be heightened between the two but also internal tensions in the US will also accelerate. Maybe this is what he means when he says Trump is good for China, but that’s a very nationalistic sentiment.

    If you want to stop the spread of far right nationalism in your country this is one way you handle it. In America, we put far right nationalism on the same level as every other political thinking, except for left thinking, especially left economic thinking, which we demonize.








  • I think its because of the Friends of Cuba movement at the time. The red scare during the Korean War was super aggressive. McCarthyism was born in this era and the agitation against support for N.Korea was intense.

    With McCarthyism drying up and allowing citizens to express these views with less consequence, it allowed for better left agitation.

    The Korean war was also super fucked up. Some historians believe it qualifies as a Genocide. The massacres committed by and under the supervision of the US were incredibly fucked. To allow for even a whisper of agitation for removing sanctions from N.Korea would mean allowing those conversations to come up. The natural conclusion of agitating for an open N.Korea means highlighting the countless noncombatants executed by the South Korean colonial police under the direct supervision of the US. It requires discussing the fact that 80% of all shelters in the north were obliterated.

    There is a reason its called the “forgotten war”.







  • Your vote outside of the two-party system is effectively the same as a non-vote. That is the disconnect. No one is looking at third party votes and seeing anything of substance. It will always look like a misunderstanding of the system.

    The Democrats spend money slandering 3rd parties and attempting to remove them from ballots. That’s a material impact on the election, even if a small one, it proves that they are threatened by them.

    The reductionism is the belief that vote == vote. It does not,

    Care to elaborate?

    If you want change, which you should, you should also understand the limits of the system in place. To not do so is to allow it to continue on its path.

    Did I say I vote for change? I said its about sending a message. Change doesn’t happen at a ballot box in the capitalist system. A Maoist will tell you change flows from the barrel of a gun. Marxist-Leninists will tell you change comes from rising class consciousness. Neither would tell you it comes from voting.

    The media will have to ask, where did the votes go? They will want to mine that question for content. Jill Stine, she’s a known quantity. “Who is Claudia De La Cruz?”, “Who are the PSL?” are eventually questions they will have to ask. This contradiction only generates more attention to 3rd parties. The more attention they have, the more eyes see them. The more eyes see them, the more people are exposed to alternatives. Which only results in more than zero percent of those eyes pealing away from the two parties.

    PSLs goal isn’t electoral victory. Its clear though they understand that the election process, as a whole process, is driven by spectacle, and it will pull you in front of media if you are becoming too much of a threat within that system. This only exposes people to PSL and their movement.

    This is an incremental process, a small part of a longer strategy of engagement and activism.