we support the same political party

The world has been fighting for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide for years. At a time when some global politicians are once again stoking the flames of populist nationalism, as a direct descendent of survivors, my fight to Keep the Promise and never stay silent has made me a canary in this coal mine.

For the last seven years, thanks to the support and encouragement of my late friend and mentor Kirk Kerkorian, I have been inspired to tell our story of the Armenian Genocide. Our greatest challenge was how to make this film relevant to my fellow Americans. Now, with the effects of the rising nationalism — not just in this country but around the world as well — our story couldn’t be more timely as it awaits its release. The Promise is not just a tale of tragedy. It also demonstrates love, hope, the plight of refugees, and the kindness of brave individuals helping those in danger. It is inspired by the testimonies of those who survived the horrific Genocide of Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire.

In fact, the term “genocide” was created by Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1944, in referencing the Armenian experience and the Holocaust. However, denialists and human rights abusers have created revisionist arguments to throw up a smokescreen and deny the application of the word to the very events that defined it. Let that sink in for a moment…or 102 years worth of moments. However, the narrative of the Armenian Genocide is not only about its 1.5 million victims or the hundreds of thousands of Greeks and Assyrians who were murdered. Just as important are the Genocide’s nearly half a million survivors, whose cautionary tales of targeted raids, suppressed rights, mass deportations, starvation, concentration and slave labor camps, and mass killings reverberated in places such as Germany, Bosnia, and Rwanda, and continue to echo today within the refugee camps of those now fleeing South Sudan, Myanmar, and Syria.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Although polarization isn't a good thing (in my educated opinion), what political party do you most closely identify yourself with and why?

To be honest I can’t really say, only because there isn’t a political party in the U.S. that I support right now. I’m registered independent. I was libertarian, but then realized most of that party is just politically ignorant, selfish people. The 2 party system is a sham, both Democrats & Republicans have become the same (((neo-con))) team. We can’t reform a system that doesn’t allow reform, it’s been the same thing for decades. I more disagree with both sides, than agree, but that’s why I’d say I’m third position. I think there are good ideas from both parties, but most aren’t very good, so we need to come up with new solutions, beyond the polarized norm. I’m a nationalist at heart & believe all that the state does should be for the benefit of the people & that what people do should also be of benefit of the greater community. The state should defend the people militarily, economically (business regulations) & personal freedoms (that benefit society). We need to cut ties from (((globalists))) & (((international banking))). All things Marxist should be removed as well, be it international socialism/communism, or cultural Marxism/political correctness. Any & all tenants of that ideology should be removed or destroyed. I believe in a homogeneous society, based on mutual respect, but not ignoring racial differences. People tend to collaborate & be more willing to help each other in a society of similar demographics. Separate but equal was a viable solution & should have been maintained. Granted the state should have enforced more punishment on racially provoked crimes; again, mutual respect. I don’t follow a strict racial superiority view like National Socialism, but I’m also not ignorant of jarring racial & cultural differences. The western world, including the U.S. was founded on white European culture & should be preserved as such. Strict immigration standards should be set to preserve that (including removal of current citizens, if necessary). The “melting pot” mentality here has diluted our society, we no longer have an “American culture”. We have no culture, and no people can survive without culture tying them together. Which is also why I’d be for a dominant Christian undertone in society. We need something tying us together & being that the U.S. was founded on Christian tenants, it’s logical to continue & increase those. This nation & the western world has turned its back on God, and is slowly falling into debauchery because of it. We need to uphold the values of family & community. The strength of a nation begins with the family. Being a military veteran I also see the benefit in a powerful military, but also the benefit in staying out of conflicts we shouldn’t be in i.e. Syria. We ought to let countries resolve their own issues & focus on our country’s problems. The U.S. should no longer be the “world police”. However it’d be wise for us to maintain allegiance to Europe, for our mutual benefit. Granted that Europe straighten out also & not attempt to drag us down into its multicultural hell that’s currently happening. Sorry for the diatribe, but I hope that was helpful in understanding my political views! Thanks for the ask!

The anti-Trump resistance will fail if we don't ditch establishment Democrats | Bhaskar Sunkara
We can’t succeed if we are tied to generations of unpopular Democratic party leaders
By Bhaskar Sunkara

If the last week has shown us anything, it’s that Donald Trump has power, but he doesn’t have much of a mandate yet.

We need to keep it that way — and be wary of the bad political leadership and strategy that can help him build one. November’s election is a powerful reminder that the Clinton establishment’s mix of socially inclusive rhetoric and neoliberal economics is a weak response to xenophobic populism.

An anti-Trump resistance movement must be broad, but it must direct its anger and energy not just at the enemy in the White House, but the failed leadership that let him get there. The Tea Party movement couldn’t have emerged with Bob Dole and George W Bush among their leaders. We can’t build our anti-Trump resistance, settled with generations of unpopular Democratic party leaders either.

The alternative must come from below — and certainly protests like the Women’s March are inspiring starts. Millions marched, many of whom had never attended a political protest before. It was hopefully a sign of things to come. Yet it is crucial that we know what this broad movement is for, as well as what it is against. 

For years, myself and others posed a divide in the Democratic party that seemingly existed only notionally: a gap between social-democratic demands at the base of the party and technocratic neoliberalism at the top of it. The Sanders campaign made that divide more real and tangible — it stirred a rabid opposition to Clintonism within millions of people, many of them politicized for the first time, and more importantly presented an alternative politics.

Now a whole generation of Sanders Democrats are engaged in a process that at its best creatively produces divisions and polarizations within the party that complements the organizing that is going on outside of it.

The broad sketches of an alternative left politics in the Trump era are emerging. Socialists and others are doing their part building social movements organized around real, uncompromising demands for things like free public higher education and a dignified health care system to expand the base for progressive politics, while using local elections (both within Democratic primaries and as independents) to spread their message far and wide.

But though he’s seemingly in disarray now we must be wary of the ways in which Trump’s support can easily be bolstered.

We should be very afraid when the president of the Building Trades Unions umbrella group, Sean McGarvey, calls the meeting he had with Trump last week the best of his life. Our response in the labor movement must be to support rank-and-file struggles against leaders prone to conciliation for even the most meager of concessions. We must demand the same accountability from liberal organizations and the Democratic party, as well.

There is no doubt that this stance will put like-minded leftists and liberals in direct confrontation with establishment Democrats and their assorted lackies.

(Continue Reading)

Hardcore supporters for the Democratic Party hated the Iraq war yet they voted for Hillary Clinton (who happened to be a warmonger). These are the same people have forgotten that corrupt politicians are beholden to Wall Street who wreck the economy. So this party loses support in the supporters in the long term it won’t be just about corruption. It’s people refusing or forgetting why a crisis happens in the 1st place or the kind of solutions can be implemented by our political leaders or politicians.

Since Nancy Pelosi has already declared “we’re capitalists, that’s just the way it is” then we should assume that the Democratic Party is prone to repeating the reckless mistakes which lead to another recession.

“At this time, ‪#‎BlackLivesMatter‬ does not endorse any presidential candidate. Moreover, we are not affiliated with a political party. Our work is not funded or driven by any political party nor is it influenced by local or national candidates.

As stated in our mission, #BlackLivesMatter is an ideological and political intervention; we are not controlled by the same political machine we are attempting to hold accountable. In the year leading up to the elections, we are committed to holding all candidates for Office accountable to the needs and dreams of Black people. We embrace a diversity of tactics. We are a decentralized network aiming to build the leadership and power of black people. We do not endorse any political party and we are not supported by any political party. Our political aims we’ve stated clearly.

Historically, all political parties have participated in the systematic disenfranchisement of Black people. Anti-black racism, especially that sanctioned by the state, has resulted in the loss of healthy and thriving Black life and well-being. Given that, we will continue to hold politicians and political parties accountable for their policies and platforms. We will also continue to demand the intentional dismantling of structural racism.

-BlackLivesMatter Facebook statement

What happened in Austria?

hooo boy good question so lets try to shed some light on this clusterfuck

So, 2016 is an election year in Austria; more precisely the presidential election. 

First thing first, there are 6 candidates though two are independent and the other four represent political parties. 

The candidates that matter:

  • Alexander Van der Bellen |  The Greens (liberal; environmentally orientated)
  • Irmgard Griss | independent (liberal)

  • Rudolf Hundstorfer | SPÖ (central-left; socialist)

  • Andreas Khol | ÖVP (central-right; economically orientated)

  • Norbert Hofer | FPÖ (far-right; populist)

Now why Austrian tumblr is collectively losing its shit is because Hofer was by far in the lead, by 36%.  This is highly concerning because the notions he and his party,the FPÖ, support are for example Anti-refugees, Anti-same gender marriage and its generaly known they’re quite bigoted in many many ways.  So basically, the “Nazi-party” won the presidential elections.

However, there has to be a second ballot done next month ever since he didnt score more than 50% and in this second ballot, it will be between Hofer and Van der Bellen, who scored second most. 

As you can see, politically it looks really really bad for Austria at the moment and we seriously hope the second ballot will maybe save us from a FPÖ-president.

For more than half of my life Stephen Harper has been in power in Canada, and during that time, not once have I heard someone say they were happy with what he was doing, or that they were voting for him in the next election or even that they like him. I mean literally no one, young and old, everyone hates this guy. The conservative, right wing voters in this country have one main party they can vote for, while on the left side we have 3 parties that are slightly varied but when you get to the bare bones they’re the same party. The left voters spread out over the three, leaving the right wing Canadians to all vote for one party. And here we are, 10 years with a prime minister that most people openly dislike, and others are too ashamed to say out loud they support him.

This really isn’t democratic and I’m angry.

I reject supporting reforms via electioneering in the US because the electoral process is one of the most powerful methods to discipline all voters along a patriarchal, heteronormative, and capitalist spectrum. In simple words, elections encourage people to give up themselves to a corrupt social order in return for promises of reform the state and its power elite have no obligation to fulfill because you have to work or perish. It would seem a simple solution to the problem is conscious class struggle wherein all workers recognize something about themselves in common. It’s just not that simple. Wish it were.

When it comes to class struggles, we need to learn that consciousness does not also need to insist we imagine ourselves as the same people with the same interests. Our shared good is in common; our bodies and minds are not. And it’s insulting to insist the most traditionally ideal within the working class–white working men–need special assistance or they might further support the worst aspects of the corrupt social order. (This plea to support white workers is also a reactionary struggle against minority organization within class struggle and can lead to violence against the most oppressed who support such struggle on behalf of an idealized elite traditional discourse.)

The US electoral process insists (1) we have no shared good that isn’t an economic good, and that’s fucked up for all sorts of reasons I shouldn’t have to explain. Go hang out with the US libertarians to see what that kind of rhetoric gets you. And (2), likely most harmfully, the process insists we are all the same in the voting box. We are not the same. We need not believe we can be the same. We should not insist we should be the same. Why would I need to use my imagination to imagine a social order without difference when I live in a radically differentiated society. I need to stop embracing that social order not the social differences.

The most common example of this grotesque and useless sameness these days is colorblind rhetoric in progressive struggle across the political spectrum. Our traditional social imagination eradicates social difference. One of the results is increasing violence against minority populations who demand recognition. And whether we like it or not, the election seasons increases this violence on behalf of political parties’ search for popular support.

Bernie ‘16 is not playing out like Obama ‘08.  Let that myth go.

Everybody keeps trying to compare Bernie to Obama because he unexpectedly took Clinton down 2008.  Bernie didn’t perform as well as Obama did on Super Tuesday eight years ago.  Obama actually won more states and more delegates than Clinton did.  He didn’t leave Super Tuesday still playing catchup.  I’m all for supporting your candidate, but let’s not re-write history folks especially when maps are hella searchable online.

Plus, Obama won Iowa.  And then he won Nevada and South Carolina.  And then he took home more delegates and won more states than Clinton on Super Tuesday.  Obama was already on pace for the nomination and Hillary Clinton was the only reason the campaigning went all the way through June – she wasn’t ready to concede defeat in a contest that she was losing from the very beginning.

This is absolutely not the same race, and if there are any similarities, they’re between Clinton ‘16 and Obama '08.  Bernie will pick up a few more states with a large white majority (probably Ohio, certainly Maine, maybe Michigan) in the upcoming contests, and that’s it.  Hopefully his campaign will see the math earlier than Clinton’s did in '08 so we can stitch the party back together and figure out a way to take out the Trumpster Dumpster.  

As of now, this contest is only serving to make Bernie supporters see Hillary supporters as blind sheep ignorant of her evils, and  Hillary supporters see Bernie supporters as keyboard bullies who don’t really know how the government works.  At some point we have to get back on the same team, and it should be sooner rather than later.  

I’ve been absent from Tumblr, and it sucks, because during our last election go-‘round, I was very much here, railing against Mr. 47 percent himself, Mitt Romney, and the basket of deplorables collectively known as the Tea Party, which – let’s face it – hated the fact that we were about to re-elect a black President. And the GOP, from Mitt to John Boehner and every Republican in between allowed for the TP to fester and eventually become the gangrene that ate away at every single appendage of their party, paving the way for a xenophobic, racist, misogynistic bigot to ascend to the top of their 2016 ticket.

I’m talking about Donald Trump, natch.

So while there has been plenty to get angry over–from Trump’s opening salvo on Mexicans to his casual heartlessness over the plight of Syrian refugees to his bragging about grabbing women “by the pussy” to his birtherism and his egging on of violence against his political opponents, their supporters and the media–I think I let it get to me. I let it exhaust me. There wasn’t fight left in me anymore, after 2012 and 2008, to blog as much as I used to. But I also think that Tumblr’s left-leaning progressive crowd has, for the most part, picked up my slack. Not that my voice is any more significant than anyone else’s. I just feel like the 130,000-plus followers I have here expected more from me. It’s to them that I apologize for having been absent, for not having helped do my small part to rally the troops and ensure that Donald Trump, the man who represents the most vile of our natures, doesn’t take the White House come November 9.

So please–do your duty tomorrow, November 8, and vote. Vote like your country, your life, and our collective sould depends on it. If Bernie was your man, then vote for Hillary, knowing he supports her, and knowing she will do what’s politically possible to advance the progressive agenda. Just as the Tea Party attacked Batack Obama for being black, Hillary’s now feeling the same hatred because she’s a woman. Don’t think for a second those “TRUMP THAT BITCH!” shirts worn by folks at Trump rallies are outliers. Ask Trump “grab 'em by the pussy” and “bleeding out of her whatever” himself: misogyny is no accident.

And is that what we want in the White House?

Get to the polls. Vote. My voice doesn’t matter now. But yours does.

And always will.

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, representing the Establishment and forsaking the middle class at every opportunity.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the U.S. Representative for Florida’s 23rd congressional district, a member of the Democratic Party and the Chair of the Democratic National Committee has taken a lot of heat lately for her and the Democratic National Committees unwavering support for Establishment Candidate Hillary Clinton.

It turns out, that even BEFORE a single vote was cast this year, the DNC had made up their minds for ALL OF US, and pledged to do anything in their power to bring Hillary Clinton and their corporate interests into power.

“August 2015, the Democratic Party Convention in Minneapolis, 33 Democratic State Parties made deals with the Hillary Clinton Campaign and a joint fundraising entity called “The Hillary Victory Fund” and allowed for her core Billionaire and inner circle individual donors to run the maximum amount of money allowed through those state parties to the Hillary Victory Fund in New York and the DNC in Washington” -counterpoint

It seems Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC believe they not only know better than us, but that OUR VOICES DON’T MATTER. She votes with the Republicans across the board, and is as un Democratic as it gets. Its time to make a change..

This year, we get the chance to do just that…

Tim Canova stands by Bernie on all major issues, and is giving Debbie a run for her money this election season. He is a huge supporter of the Black Lives Matter Movement, and has spoken out in favor of Criminal Justice Reform, and to end the institutional racism that has become soo painfully obvious to all of us in the recent years.

-Tim Canova believes in campaign finance reform, and getting money out of politics. He openly criticizes and condemns the two party dependence on Wall Street Funding.

-He’s speaks out in support of the LGBT community and the right for same sex marriage.

-He opposes the TPP and strongly criticizes Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s never ending support of agreements that hurt the American Worker and Middle Class. The list goes on and on..

Two of the nations largest unions the Communication Workers of America and National Nurses United, have endorsed Canova.

It’s time, we the 99% say enough is enough and make our voices heard. Do some research into Tim Conova and the current DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The facts will speak for themselves.

I support Tim Canova, because REAL CHANGE starts from the ground up.

stupostals  asked:

Do you know much about Svoboda? Western Media seems to be avoiding the issue of this extremist party which holds 36 seats in the Ukrainian parliament. I even heard Anne Applebaum sidestep this issue in an interview the other day. What are your thoughts?

Svoboda is absolutely terrible. Party leaders and members are blatantly pro-Nazi but unsurprisingly they deny any charges of extremism, racism, anti-Semitism, etc., despite their own platform strongly indicating otherwise. Their typical line is that they’re pro-Ukrainian and not anti-anyone else, as if their love of Ukraine can somehow eclipse their rabid hatred of those they perceive to be outsiders, which is actually a very common “defense” in neo-Nazi and white nationalist circles. I really don’t know why some people in the media are so reluctant to acknowledge the support that Svoboda has in Ukraine but the western media doesn’t seem very interested in covering just how complicated the situation really is. Currently they seem most interested in promoting the idea that the Russian occupation of Crimea will result in another Cold War or, better yet, WWIII.

-“In its official programme, Svoboda demands criminal prosecution for “Ukrainophobia”, and also various regulatory measures which are oriented to a greater or lesser extent towards the principle of national identity:

  • the restoration of the Soviet practice of indicating nationality in passports and on birth certificates;
  • proportional representation on executive bodies of ethnic Ukrainians, on the one hand, and national minorities, on the other;
  • a ban on adoptions by non-Ukrainians of Ukrainian children;
  • preferential treatment for Ukrainian students in the allocation of hostel places, and a series of similar changes to existing legal provisions.

Measures such as these are in themselves nothing out of the ordinary, but if they were all introduced at once, they could result in officially sanctioned ethnic differentiations that may eventually lead to the stigmatization of Ukrainian citizens of various nationalities, and guests of Ukraine. This would violate the principles of human rights to which Ukraine signed up when it joined the Council of Europe, and would aggravate existing ethnic conflicts in Ukrainian society. What is more, Svoboda announces in its programme that it is both possible and necessary to make Ukraine the “geopolitical centre of Europe” – a typically nationalist case of delusions of grandeur, reminiscent of Russia’s current superpower ambitions.” (x)

-“Svoboda’s presence has been felt immediately in Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, where its 37 deputies belong to a broad coalition opposing President Viktor Yanukovych’s Party of Regions.

Meeting for its first two sessions in mid-December, the Rada - as it has a number of times in the past - degenerated into scenes that resembled not so much a legislative process as an ice hockey brawl, involving dozens of shoving, punching and kicking parliamentarians. Svoboda’s newly installed deputies, clad in traditional Ukrainian embroidered shirts, were in the thick of the melee, when not actually leading the charge.

They helped attack and drive from the opposition’s ranks two deputies - a father and son - who were accused of preparing to defect to the ruling party. Then they joined a massive free-for-all around the speaker’s rostrum, in protest at alleged illegal absentee-voting by deputies from the governing party. One of Svoboda’s leading members, sports journalist Ihor Miroshnychenko, his ponytail flying behind him, then charged the podium to prevent a deputy speaking in Russian. (Svoboda believes that only Ukrainian should be used in all official bodies.) Outside, Svoboda deputies used a chainsaw to cut down an iron fence erected last year to prevent crowds from storming the parliament building. This they justified in the name of popular democracy. “No other democratic country has fenced-off the national parliament,” said Svoboda’s Ruslan Koshulinskiy, the deputy speaker of parliament. “People have chosen these lawmakers and should have a right to have access to them.” Chaotic and confrontational as this may seem to Western eyes, Svoboda’s over-the-top behaviour is partly what drove many Ukrainians to vote for them.

The party has tapped a vast reservoir of protest votes. In a political landscape where all other parties are seen as corrupt, weak or anti-democratic - or all three - Svoboda seems to have attracted voters who would otherwise have stayed away from the polls altogether. Its strong anti-corruption stance - promising to “clean up” Ukraine - has resonated deeply. “I’m for Svoboda,” said Vadim Makarevych, a supporter, said at a recent rally in Kiev. “We have to stop what is happening in our country. It’s banditry and mafia.”

At the same time, they have staked out a position as fervent - some say rabid - defenders of traditional Ukrainian culture and language. Months before Miroshnychenko charged the parliament podium, Svoboda activists were photographed appearing to spray police with pepper gas, at a demonstration against a law making Russian an official language in some regions of the country. Among those who see Russia as a threat to Ukraine’s independence - chiefly in the west rather than the east of the country - many applaud this tough anti-Moscow stance. But in the run-up to October’s election, the party also wooed centrist voters by softening its image.

Party leader Oleh Tyahnybok repeatedly reassured voters that Svoboda is not racist, xenophobic or anti-Semitic - just pro-Ukrainian. “We are not against anyone, we are for ourselves,” he said. By presenting itself as a party of very devoted patriots, Svoboda seems to have won over voters who would be repelled by some of its more radical views - or voters who sympathise with these views, but prefer them to remain unspoken.

In the last parliamentary elections five years ago, Svoboda managed only 0.7% of the vote. This time, in addition to expanding its traditional base in the country’s Ukrainian-speaking west - it won close to 40% in the Lviv region - Svoboda made inroads into central regions, capturing second place in the capital Kiev. Last week (20/12/12) the charismatic Tyahnybok was voted Person of the Year by readers of the country’s leading news magazine, Korrespondent.

But while the party’s radical past can be papered over, it cannot be erased. Its name until 2004 was the “Social-National Party” and it maintains informal links to another group, the Patriots of Ukraine, regarded by some as proto-fascist. In 2004, Tyahnybok was kicked out of former President Viktor Yushchenko’s parliamentary faction for a speech calling for Ukrainians to fight against a “Muscovite-Jewish mafia” - using two highly insulting words to describe Russians and Jews - and emphasising that Ukrainians had in the past fought this threat with arms.

In 2005, he signed an open letter to Ukrainian leaders, including President Yushchenko, calling for the government to halt the “criminal activities” of “organised Jewry”, which, the letter said, was spreading its influence in the country through conspiratorial organisations as the Anti-Defamation League - and which ultimately wanted to commit “genocide” against the Ukrainian people.

Tyahnybok stresses that he has never been convicted for anti-Semitism or racial hatred, though prosecutors opened a case against him after his 2004 speech. “All I said then, I can also repeat now,” he says. “Moreover, this speech is relevant even today.”

Other Svoboda members have also courted controversy. Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn, a parliamentary deputy considered one of the party’s ideologues, liberally quotes from former Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, along with other National-Socialist leaders.

This undoubtedly appeals to a number of Svoboda’s voters, though to what extent is difficult to determine. Even now, Svoboda’s platform calls for passports to specify the holder’s ethnicity, and for government positions to be distributed proportionally to ethnic groups, based on their representation in the population at large. “We want Ukrainians to run the country,” says Bohdan, a participant in a recent Svoboda rally, as he waves a Ukrainian flag and organises cheering and chanting. “Seventy percent of the parliament are Jews.”

Some see signs that Svoboda’s radical elements are reasserting themselves. Activists recently attacked and sprayed tear gas at a gay rights rally in central Kiev. Ihor Miroshnychenko, meanwhile, used abusive language to describe the Ukrainian-born American actress Mila Kunis, who is Jewish, in an online discussion.

However, a number of Svoboda’s critics, while underscoring the potential dangers of the party’s rise, also say that its popularity may be fleeting. Svoboda’s surge mirrors the far-right’s growing strength in many countries across Europe, they point out, and may not signal any fundamental, long-term rightward shift among the Ukrainian population. With the increased scrutiny that the party will come under in parliament, more Ukrainians may also take objection to Svoboda’s wilder statements, or decide it creates unnecessary divisions in an already polarised country. The party itself could also become more mainstream as it conforms to pressure from its political partners. This has happened with other far-right groups in the past, like the Italian Fascist party, which mellowed as it integrated into Italy’s conservative camp, experts say. “There’s a belief that Svoboda will change, once in the Verkhovna Rada, and that they may become proper national democrats,” says Andreas Umland, a political science professor at Kiev’s Mohyla Academy University. But he hesitates to predict how the party’s internal tensions will be resolved. “We don’t know which way Svoboda will go,” he says. “It may actually become more radical.” (x)

The Open Letter signed by Tyahnybok (2005)

  • Title - Stop the Criminal Activities of Organised Jewry
  • Signed by Tyahnybok and 17 others
  • Lists Jewish businessmen, who got rich in the 1990s, and claims they control Ukrainian media
  • Describes Zionism as “Jewish Nazism” and warns of “genocide” through the impoverishment of Ukrainians
  • Demands investigation into the activities of Jewish organisations headed by people “suspected of serious crimes” (x)

More on Svoboda:

-The Right Wing’s Role in Ukrainian Protests (x)

-Svoboda: The Rising Spectre Of Neo-Nazism In The Ukraine (x)

-Ukraine’s nationalist party embraces Nazi ideology (x)

-Ukraine’s Ultranationalists Show Surprising Strength at Polls (x)

-Svoboda’s rise inspires some, frightens many others (x)

-The Ukrainian Nationalism at the Heart of ‘Euromaidan’(x)

-A Fascist Hero in Democratic Kiev (x)

-UPA: Controversial partisans who inspire Ukraine protestors (x)

-Anti-Semitism rears its ugly head in PR war over protests (x)

anonymous asked:

How about you stop ruining Australia Day. If you're so not proud of this country get the fuck out. You don't deserve to live here if you are going to constantly bring up our ugly past. Every country has things they are not proud of. Australia Day isn't only about white settlers. It's about mate ship and loving our country for how lucky we are to have freedom. You should be ashamed for trying to bring down the pride of your fellow Aussies.

What a putrid load of shit.

Glad to “ruin” your Australia Day if it means making people uncomfortable about confronting the reality of genocide and its ongoing impact today.

I’m not going to “get the fuck out” of Australia. Think about what this mentality means. If everyone who raises dissent about nationalism or official narratives “gets the fuck out” of the country, then all you are left with in Australia is people who are sycophants for the Australian state.

If all dissenters were to “get the fuck out of” Australia, you’d effectively eliminate all opposition to the Australian government’s line and all narratives associated with nationalism. To be fair, that’s probably what you want, I guess. Pretty obvious by the content of your Ask.

So what makes one “deserving” of living in Australia then? To what extent do we have to bow down and agree with the Australian state’s racist narratives and policies to be “deserving” of existing in this country? 

Should everyone in Australia shut up and just celebrate 1788 despite the fact that it’s the date that marks a genocidal invasion? If dissent against official narrative means those dissenters should “get the fuck out” of Australia, then you clearly aren’t interested in genuine democracy at all.

Which is the whole irony of nationalist ideology. Couched in terms of being “proud” of “democracy”, but wielded as a weapon against “un-Australian” narratives that highlight oppression. The political function of nationalism is actually to rally ordinary people behind the state, when they wouldn’t otherwise throw their support behind the state.

So actually I’m not going to “get the fuck out of” Australia, I’m going to stay the fuck in this country and make it a better place for people to live in. If that means disrupting the so-called stability of normalised racism, then so be it.

If you actually bothered to read my original response, you’ll find that the whole issue is not just about “our ugly past” in some distant history, but actually about the way in which that ugly past bleeds into the present.

Go and read something about the apartheid-esque Northern Territory intervention laws. Go and read something about police brutality in Redfern. Go and read about coercive measures that state and federal governments alike have used to “acquire” indigenous land. All this is happening right fucking NOW, it’s not just about our ugly “past”.

While you’re at it, think deeper for a bit and break down some of the narratives of “Australia Day”. What the fuck IS “mateship”? If you look past idealised imagery of beers and the beach and prawns on the barbie, what IS “mateship”? A totally abstract ideological construction.

You say we should feel “lucky” to have “freedom”. If we’re so fucking lucky to have freedom, then how about we actually make USE of that (relative) freedom to change life in this country for the better?

THE WHOLE POINT OF FREEDOM IS TO USE IT. Not to passively sit there and spout lazy rehashed parochial narratives about nationalist buzzwords and tropes.

For the record, though, I don’t really believe Australia’s “freedom” is genuine. We have the “freedom” to elect one of two rotten political parties, both which support big business over working class people, both of which crush the rights of refugees and indigenous people, both of which refuse to grant same-sex marriage rights in spite of the popular opinion of ordinary Australians.

We have “freedom” until our “right to freedom” actually starts to disrupt the system, i.e. Occupy Melbourne and the Max Brenner pro-Palestine campaign, both of which were suppressed by brute force via organised police violence. Same deal with union pickets, and the blockade of the East-West Tollway in Melbourne.

What “freedom” was there when John Howard sent Australian troops to die in Iraq at the cost of billions of dollars, despite the largest protests in Australian (and world!) history against the war?

What “freedom” is there for refugees who seek asylum in Australia (and no, it’s not illegal - I know you’re going to say something idiotic like that) and are forcibly locked up in prison camps without recourse to legal representation, where verbal and physical abuse are constantly forced upon them?

These are not just “things every country has that they’re not proud of” - it’s an institutionalised system of profit over humanity, systematic racist violence, and militaristic gallivanting around the globe committing all manner of human rights abuses. If it’s SYSTEMATIC, then it’s probably worth paying SYSTEMATIC attention to, rather than briefly feigning false concern over anything of substance on our way to celebratin’ STRAYA DAY! 

I’m not ashamed of bringing down Australian nationalism. I’m damn well proud of it, if that’s what I have to do to go some small way towards fighting for some fucking dignity in this country.

Elizabeth May and Thomas Mulcair respond to petition (19,000 signed) calling for a leaders debate on women issues

The last leaders debate on women’s issues in Canada was in 1984.

Trudeau and Harper have not responded yet.

Elizabeth May’s (Leader of the Green Party) statement:

“Debates enliven democracy; we need more of them.  We need more substance and less spin in election campaigns.  Women’s voices are often ignored, in society and in elections.  As the only woman leader of a federal political party in the House of Commons, I am looking forward to participation in the major leaders’ debates.

“However, even with a woman at the table, we need a focus on women’s issues that the one round of English and French debates cannot adequately deliver.  That is why I am an enthusiastic supporter of the call for a debate among the leaders of the major political parties on women’s issues.”

Elizabeth May, O.C.
Leader of the Green Party of Canada
Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands

Thomas Mulcair’s (Leader of the NDP) statement:

As leader of the Official Opposition, I fully support the idea of a leaders’ debate that focuses on women’s equality in Canada.

Unfortunately, since the first and only leaders’ debate on women’s issues thirty years ago, many of the same challenges still remain obstacles to women’s equality in Canada. As former NDP leader Ed Broadbent said during the 1984 debate: “Inequality is a fact of life for Canadian women. We must start creating a Canadian society where our daughters and our sons have equal opportunities.”

Canada is falling behind other countries in closing the gender gap, especially on wage equality and political empowerment. The 2014 Global Gender Gap report by the World Economic Forum ranks Canada 19th, behind Burundi, South Africa, Nicaragua, the Philippines and most European countries. In addition, violence against women continues to be a serious issue in Canada, especially for Indigenous women.

Canada has a strong base to build on when it comes to women’s equality. We have guaranteed equality rights in our Charter, decriminalized abortion, and can be proud of our strong history of Canadian women fighting for equality rights.

New Democrats have always and steadfastly stood up for women’s equality. After the last election, the NDP caucus had the highest number of women Members of Parliament of any caucus in Canadian history.

Whether speaking out on issues like choice on abortion; breaking the silence on violence against women; electing the first female leader on the federal level; pushing for proactive legislation on pay and employment equity; making sure that every piece of legislation is examined for its impact on women; or supporting a national inquiry on missing and murdered Indigenous women, the NDP has stood side by side with women’s groups in supporting equality for women. New Democrats also initiated a study by the Committee on the Status of Women on gender-based analysis of Canada’s budgetary policies. The study illustrated that economic policies can lead to gender inequalities that have a major impact on women’s lives but often go unnoticed by the general public. This type of debate could help bring these issues to the fore.

For all these reasons, I am looking forward to debating these issues with the other party leaders.

Achieving women’s equality in Canada means that we all do better; our families are healthier, our economies grow and our quality of life increases. New Democrats will stand side by side with you and organizations working to build a more equal Canada.

snowbaes  asked:

what are some reasons for students/youth of color, young women, and the queer community to support bernie?

Mostly I think it’s consistency and his tendency to put people first, because I think that’s based on deep moral convictions that don’t just change very easily. I’ll admit that he focuses on the economy to a fault and doesn’t discuss how race, gender, and sexuality intersect with the economy nearly enough. Personally, I think that’s because he believes until economic equality is worked out, those other forms of equality can’t be adequately achieved. Bernie marched on Washington with MLK and that march was entitled the “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom”. MLK realized that social attitudes weren’t going to change over night, but they had to, and so did the economic structure of our economy. So I think those two things are inextricably linked, and I think Bernie does as well. 

I know some of that wasn’t directly related to your question, but ultimately I think his moral convictions are what got my attention to begin with. The unfortunate reality of American politics is that people of color, women, people in the LGBT community, these groups simply aren’t represented on a national political scale in a truly meaningful way. Not in the transformative sort of way that we need to achieve real success at solving many of the problems these communities face. There are obvious incremental steps that need to be taken and large scale systemic forces that need to be subdued, but on some level the culture will have to change to accommodate those changes in government. Bernie Sanders is the current political representative of that culture shift though, he represents the broad based, social justice minded views of the millennial generation. He’s held those views for as long as I can tell and if he can’t push progress forward I don’t think it will be for lack of trying, or unnecessary compromise (although we might always disagree on what constitutes an unnecessary compromise).  

I don’t think you just go to the University of Chicago, as a child of poor immigrant parents, study political science, and fight segregation without some strongly held convictions. The same convictions which pushed Bernie to a Kibbutz, which would have only reinforced those beliefs. The same convictions which pushed Bernie to spend most of his young adult life writing angry letters to the editor supporting LGBT rights in the 1970′s, running for office with a Vietnam War protest party that had almost no chance at winning, and then later running as an independent for mayor because “corporate interests had ruined your town”. These views shape Bernie Sanders, he’s been so consistent because he’s basing his decisions on morality and not politics. Furthermore I think his actions have established he views us all as fundamentally equal and acts accordingly. Sometimes the institutions don’t allow for perfect decision making, but as a whole he has always put people over politics for decades, and more importantly he treats all people like people, not just tools to win elections.