Great work as usual. Personally, I see ones attitude to Israel specifically as the policial litmus test of our time: if you support Israel, you support Imperialist slaughter globally and systematic attacks on the rights and living standards of workers at home. So, one can identify a potential ally by simply asking another: do you support Israel in any way? If the answer is no, their is sufficient common ground to build a political movement.
I believe the question you ask, whether someone supports Israel's genocide and other war crimes, is a good one. I myself use it to judge the moral status of Jews that I know. It's a useful question used in this way because Jews are among the most heavily indoctrinated as children, which explains why Israel is so dear to their hearts. This is true for the vast majority of US/diaspora Jews, who have a natural tendency to support their political leaders here, and to also support Israel. In recent years, because of the Gaza genocide, many Jewish views have become more complex, but I believe there's still the basic belief among them that says Israel is necessary for the survival of Judaism and that Israel itself is a righteous endeavor.
Great that Greens pick up seats, but overall a heavy majority of morally defective candidates will be assuming office. That's sad.
Here in the 'land of the free™' it will be incredibly hard to find candidates opposed to genocide because ballot line access is chiefly controlled by Republicans and Democrats. Morally centered candidates are not welcome to run.
I decided to do what I used to loathe and "throw my vote away" on the green party from now on. If we do that, maybe eventually we could make some headway. But as Nate says, if you can't stand up to genocide, what will you stand up for? I'll vote for the candidates I want instead of whoever is against Republicans. Holding my nose and voting for Harris was thrown away too, so at least I can log protest votes against the establishment's evil.
Yes, and the reason we have such a duopoly is because the vast majority of the voters believe that it's better to "vote the other guy out." We don't realize that there are usually more than one third party candidate that has a legitimate platform with intentions of truly correcting our system, which is what the vast majority of voters really want. But the erroneous belief that a third-party vote would be "wasting" a vote, there's not much hope.
If a democracy works best when each voter votes for the candidate whom the voter truly thinks is best for the country, then a third-party vote is obviously the best choice for that voter. And I do believe that's the case. But the erroneous idea that a third-party vote is "wasted" is silly and devastating to this democracy. If that belief is somehow destroyed, it might take only a couple election cycles before people increase the share of votes third parties achieve, so that those parties will receive more funding in succeeding elections. It's not an instant cure, but even the slightest increase of third-party share of votes will alarm the duopoly, so that even though the third-party candidate may not win, it sends a message to the duopoly.
But having said all that, the really most effective, single action we can take to improve our politics is a constitutional amendment that allows campaign contributions only from individual, human voters, with an across-the-board maximum contribution and with a government subsidy to those voters who cannot afford it. There's a similar amendment, called "we the people" amendment languishing in the house for some 10 years now, and it's not being addressed by enough Congress Critters, demonstrating how corrupted this institution really is.
Looking at the results, it appears that disenchanted Tory voters have made a direct switch to R(D?)eform. Ignorant people will have to learn the hard way
Thank you for this clear and thorough understanding of a large portion of our western world politics, and in particular, that of the UK. With all the spirit I can command, I hope we citizens in all western countries in short time see through the lies and deception that fool us into giving the miscreants the power they need to do so much wrong against those who are the same as us citizens here.
The Prairie Key: Why Saskatchewan Holds Leverage for Global Peace - World Version
The world is hurting. Democracies strained. Institutions groaning under cruelty and corruption. But here is the truth the world needs to hear: change does not rest on any single nation's shoulders alone.
The solution runs through a flat, cold, wind-scraped place most of the globe ignores: Saskatchewan.
Why Saskatchewan Holds the Key
This province sits on the world's largest high-grade uranium deposits—fuel for nuclear power and naval propulsion across dozens of nations. It controls North America's only fully integrated rare earth supply chain: the neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium inside jets, drones, and missiles worldwide. It produces potash that feeds farms on six continents. And it holds helium for critical cooling infrastructure.
Saskatchewan trades with 163 nations. Without this province, global defence and agriculture falter. That is not a threat. That is geography and geology.
Demand Peace Conditions
Premier Scott Moe holds a lever larger than most heads of state. He could declare: Saskatchewan's resources will be used for peace and prosperity only.
· No uranium for offensive weapons.
· No rare earths for invasion forces.
· No potash for regimes that starve their own people.
· No helium without binding peace agreements.
What the World Can Do
Call on Premier Scott Moe. Write to him. Demand that Saskatchewan condition every export on de-escalation, diplomacy, and disarmament.
Saskatchewan cannot save the world alone. But it can refuse to fuel its destruction. And sometimes, holding back the spark is more powerful than fighting the fire.
1. Happy horseshit rhetoric aside, you can see what matters to the uk establishment by what they ban. That said, the point is to be able to play Grima Wormtongue to the Americans, and the Americans care very much about Israel.
2. Moral arguments are wasted on sociopaths such as Starmer.
Great work as usual. Personally, I see ones attitude to Israel specifically as the policial litmus test of our time: if you support Israel, you support Imperialist slaughter globally and systematic attacks on the rights and living standards of workers at home. So, one can identify a potential ally by simply asking another: do you support Israel in any way? If the answer is no, their is sufficient common ground to build a political movement.
Thanks
I believe the question you ask, whether someone supports Israel's genocide and other war crimes, is a good one. I myself use it to judge the moral status of Jews that I know. It's a useful question used in this way because Jews are among the most heavily indoctrinated as children, which explains why Israel is so dear to their hearts. This is true for the vast majority of US/diaspora Jews, who have a natural tendency to support their political leaders here, and to also support Israel. In recent years, because of the Gaza genocide, many Jewish views have become more complex, but I believe there's still the basic belief among them that says Israel is necessary for the survival of Judaism and that Israel itself is a righteous endeavor.
Great that Greens pick up seats, but overall a heavy majority of morally defective candidates will be assuming office. That's sad.
Here in the 'land of the free™' it will be incredibly hard to find candidates opposed to genocide because ballot line access is chiefly controlled by Republicans and Democrats. Morally centered candidates are not welcome to run.
My local Green borough counsellor got in on not many more votes than the Labour counsellor so, for once, my vote actually mattered~
Excellent
Would love someone I voted for to win before I die. I'm 70+ years old and the song, A Long time coming, makes a great deal of sense to me.
I decided to do what I used to loathe and "throw my vote away" on the green party from now on. If we do that, maybe eventually we could make some headway. But as Nate says, if you can't stand up to genocide, what will you stand up for? I'll vote for the candidates I want instead of whoever is against Republicans. Holding my nose and voting for Harris was thrown away too, so at least I can log protest votes against the establishment's evil.
Yes, and the reason we have such a duopoly is because the vast majority of the voters believe that it's better to "vote the other guy out." We don't realize that there are usually more than one third party candidate that has a legitimate platform with intentions of truly correcting our system, which is what the vast majority of voters really want. But the erroneous belief that a third-party vote would be "wasting" a vote, there's not much hope.
If a democracy works best when each voter votes for the candidate whom the voter truly thinks is best for the country, then a third-party vote is obviously the best choice for that voter. And I do believe that's the case. But the erroneous idea that a third-party vote is "wasted" is silly and devastating to this democracy. If that belief is somehow destroyed, it might take only a couple election cycles before people increase the share of votes third parties achieve, so that those parties will receive more funding in succeeding elections. It's not an instant cure, but even the slightest increase of third-party share of votes will alarm the duopoly, so that even though the third-party candidate may not win, it sends a message to the duopoly.
But having said all that, the really most effective, single action we can take to improve our politics is a constitutional amendment that allows campaign contributions only from individual, human voters, with an across-the-board maximum contribution and with a government subsidy to those voters who cannot afford it. There's a similar amendment, called "we the people" amendment languishing in the house for some 10 years now, and it's not being addressed by enough Congress Critters, demonstrating how corrupted this institution really is.
Yep. MoveToAmend.org
Totally agree with your concept of only allowing human voters to contribute to campaigns. Have to kill the corporate personhood ideology.
Looking at the results, it appears that disenchanted Tory voters have made a direct switch to R(D?)eform. Ignorant people will have to learn the hard way
Thank you for this clear and thorough understanding of a large portion of our western world politics, and in particular, that of the UK. With all the spirit I can command, I hope we citizens in all western countries in short time see through the lies and deception that fool us into giving the miscreants the power they need to do so much wrong against those who are the same as us citizens here.
Thanks Sam
I certainly wish this would be the case in Sweden. With the exception of Malmö, this outcome is highly improbable in Sweden. Sigh . . .
The Prairie Key: Why Saskatchewan Holds Leverage for Global Peace - World Version
The world is hurting. Democracies strained. Institutions groaning under cruelty and corruption. But here is the truth the world needs to hear: change does not rest on any single nation's shoulders alone.
The solution runs through a flat, cold, wind-scraped place most of the globe ignores: Saskatchewan.
Why Saskatchewan Holds the Key
This province sits on the world's largest high-grade uranium deposits—fuel for nuclear power and naval propulsion across dozens of nations. It controls North America's only fully integrated rare earth supply chain: the neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium inside jets, drones, and missiles worldwide. It produces potash that feeds farms on six continents. And it holds helium for critical cooling infrastructure.
Saskatchewan trades with 163 nations. Without this province, global defence and agriculture falter. That is not a threat. That is geography and geology.
Demand Peace Conditions
Premier Scott Moe holds a lever larger than most heads of state. He could declare: Saskatchewan's resources will be used for peace and prosperity only.
· No uranium for offensive weapons.
· No rare earths for invasion forces.
· No potash for regimes that starve their own people.
· No helium without binding peace agreements.
What the World Can Do
Call on Premier Scott Moe. Write to him. Demand that Saskatchewan condition every export on de-escalation, diplomacy, and disarmament.
Contact: premier@gov.sk.ca or 306-787-9433.
Saskatchewan cannot save the world alone. But it can refuse to fuel its destruction. And sometimes, holding back the spark is more powerful than fighting the fire.
1. Happy horseshit rhetoric aside, you can see what matters to the uk establishment by what they ban. That said, the point is to be able to play Grima Wormtongue to the Americans, and the Americans care very much about Israel.
2. Moral arguments are wasted on sociopaths such as Starmer.