Carguacountii

its a Usian thing I think, you've got a peculiar and unresolved relationship with so-called 'race' - your government still subscribes to racial theory in its administrative definitions. The arguments tend to be different (more pertinent to the issues) in other countries, and in 'non-white' US.

of course, color is an aesthetic argument, and it isn't an intrinsic property of a thing or person (and 'white' is indisputably a type of color). And aesthetic arguments, like the debates about 'taste' when it comes to media or consumption, are somewhat pointless. I think people argue about aesthetics when they've got no other pressing concerns, which isn't a bad thing per se, just unrelatable to people who do have those pressing concerns.

obviously, this is a US website (like most websites) so its to be expected that you have these kind of discussions, and hyperbole is a natural aspect of that. But really, it might be good to remember to be somewhat internationalist, and be aware that attitudes/understandings toward terminology, and also to so-called 'race' aren't universal. These kind of discussions, on this topic, are very insular.

I don't mean to criticise, I can see where the sides are coming from and why the arguments happen like they do here. But really, it makes no sense to say 'white people', referring to a kind of construct, outside of the US (and probably inside parts of the US). People will just read it as the skin color, or a proxy for or reference to 'racial theory'.

It would be better, and more accurate I think, to refer to yourselves (the 'white people' of the US) as European settler-colonists, since that's what you are. 400 years isn't that long at all - line 5-10 people up in space, and its not much at all, line them up in time/generations and you get 400 years.

Really, in the sense of a paradigm of understanding the world around us, leftism is a religion, albeit a generally atheistic/untheistic one like some east Asian 'religions'/philosophies (you can see its origins and similarities in other religious movements like the Hussites for example or the Zaydi Islam). So its to be expected that self-flagellation occurs. But self-flagellation is just self-indulgence - maybe useful for some, but not for the many.

Its probably related to the elections to a degree... but Kid Starver has the same foriegn policy as the tories (not a surprise, given his background). Which isn't too unusual, since the Labour party is often the party of war - usually if they want Labour in (and they clearly do) its to fight a war.

On an anecdotal level, I've attended a lot of job fairs, and I'd say that starting around Covid times, there has been a military recruitment stand at all of them, which is new (at least from my experience).

I asked a colleague (hospitality sector) when the Russia war kicked off, if he'd sign up to fight in the event of an invasion, and he said yes. Then I asked what if it was just London being attacked, and he looked disgusted and said no (this was in the North).

This is true, but Freemasonry also exists as a higher cult than that - lots of US presidents have been members (partly because elites join every exclusive club going for networking), and it was/is rife in the British Empire at all levels, just that the higher levels like with every cult exploit the lesser, while allowing the lesser to exploit outsiders.

In religious terms, Freemasonry is just protestantism mixed with old Judaism - partly why its disliked by 'popular' christianity, being suspected of a return to what the 'early church' had an issue with.

Is the Freemasonry one 'centrist'? I've seen it advocated by all kinds... its an anti-British Empire, sort of Catholic one isn't it? And the protestants respond with 'its actually all the Jesuits and the Vatican'. And then there's syncretic versions that accuse both.

I'm not sure they're intellectually lazy, but its rather like tracking the cults of the Elites, of which there are many. They do tend to ignore environmental/class causes and processes and focus more on individuals and discrete specific parts, but they do a lot of research (sometimes of dubious quality ofc). Misguided or tunnel vision maybe, but not lazy.

Personally, I don't think they're too offensive, they broadly share the same principals - anti-elite and pro-popular mass movement. Though maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're referring to, 'centrist' is confusing me.

Ok, thanks.

Do the small bourgeoisie like immigration in the US? They tend to be against it in my country, especially in less urban areas, because they can rely on local (often familial) networks and being the only game in town for their labor, and need less of it in any case.

Given what you've mentioned, where does the outrage (I saw reported - maybe its untrue) come from when border states started moving migrants to cities? Just that it was messing with the 'usual' system of filtration or those states usual 'sourcing' of migrant workers, or they were the wrong kind of labor?

I've seen that Biden is, apparantly, wanting to 'toughen' the border (conditionally on passing other foriegn policy related budgets), is the 'crisis' simply a matter of those states wanting in on the public money tree that the Biden admin and backers have been enjoying with Ukraine?

Also, do you know or suspect if the 'crisis' relates in any way to the spats with Mexico (I think they recently nationalised an oil processing facility, and there's been talk of re-writing the trade agreement), or in any way to the infamous intelligence agency directed drug trafficking business across the border?

I wonder also about the demographics of those moving north, usually its the case that people who migrate internationally (as opposed to internally displaced) are relatively well-off (in their home countries), because the very poorest can't afford to move. Are they mostly from South/Central America, or is cheap air travel also adding people from other places (I've seen some claims of this, but I'm not sure whether to believe them)? Are the people coming from the South useful at all to the Dem's usual backers?

Thanks for responding, I don't mean to flood you with questions it just seems like a fairly big deal and the reporting and analysis around the issue just frames it in terms of a political dispute without mentioning why. Like, I understand the (low level) border conflict between Canada/US, because its about fishing. But this, I have no idea...

Yes, the current border fight - I don't mean like a physical struggle, but a political one.

I guess I'm asking, who profits? and whose profits are being impacted, by this current struggle? To try to understand the interests involved.

Seemingly both parties backers (and factions in those parties backers) have good reason to have immigration, and also have those immigrants desperate and exploitable. Of course there will be those who don't have an interest in immigration too, some because of ideology, but also and primarily because of economics. Seemingly, the new Confederacy is on the face of it, appealing to those interests - who are they?

Well, SA has a big population (comparable to Germany, UK, Iran, Turkey), a lot of resources, a pretty big economy (with lots more potential to develop, around 30% rural population compared to 'developed' nations average of 20-25%), comparable military to Euro countries. It has a lot of standing internationally and in Africa, and occupies a crucial geographic (trade and strategically speaking) position. Thanks to Rhodes wanting to break from the British Empire, it was also relatively well industrialised, compared to for example plantation type colonies. Its also something of an international 'intelligence community' hangout location, or spy hub. And of course it is part of Brics, and on good terms with many countries, particularly those who oppose the 'international rules based' or US/European hegemonic order. It also has good 'moral authority', like the pope.

So I wouldn't say not powerful on its own, and with international support (which it has in this case from all the Islamic countries, and others) it is a significantly powerful 'side' in the dispute, even weighed against the West. And of course Russia and China back SA in many regards (just as SA backs Russia and China).

But I'm no SA expert, I'm sure someone local could give better info - that's just my perception on what I do know.

I think I just caught Ramaphosa speaking and emphasising 'all parties to' or similar. My expectation (i'm not an international lawyer obviously) is that no Hamas is not obliged (any actions would be prosecuted under Israeli law, it being the occupying power, I assume), that 'all sides' refers to the states in dispute, i.e. SA.

edit; The State of Palestine is an observer to the UN and signatory, actually I'm not sure, because Fatah & Hamas are in dispute... but I think its Fatah that are recognised as the government internationally, so I guess they would be responsible in that sense, not Hamas, unless Hamas were recognised as the legit government.

Some initial conclusions from today's ruling;

Israel and its international supporters have been found guilty of committing genocide in occupied Palestine, on the basis of the 'no smoke without fire' precedent. Or, is plausibly suspected of, being pedantic.

Ansarallah & Hezbollah are both non state actors doing their respective countries proud by upholding committments they are only ethically, not actual signatories to, being non-state actors.

The US and UK are attacking Ansarallah without any legal justification, as China has said, and actually impeding their efforts to uphold the genocide convention.

of relevance to the UK, the leader of the Labour party has publically incited genocidal acts. And the Unions, by not supporting Hamas as requested, are also complicit. The Isreali ambassador needs to be sent home for her disgusting comments. Time to start filing lawsuits with the ICC i guess

South Africa (and co-signers) is now the vanguard of moral authority in the world, if it wasn't already, and should be listened to hereafter on matters of international ethics.

it seems like its kind of giving both sides what they want (usually what courts do when ruling between powerful interests as far as is possible)

israel & US & Europeans can keep attacking, but also there's a suspicion of genocide, it makes a bombing campaign and demolitions, not to mention the attempt to provoke the West Bank very difficult.

I guess a case of giving Israel enough rope to hang itself, but also not telling the US to stop its foriegn policy?

This is true of course, but then on a more fundamental level, the ICJ does uphold an international legal system agreed on by fewer countries (and is founded on even fewer, per the League of Nations) than exist today, that is based in British and to a degree French legal systems, so it still to some degree upholds 'western' hegemony in that sense, like foundationally.

but then, the hegemony really tied their own laces together with the Serbian & Myanmar rulings here, I guess the law is a double edged sword

I guess it makes sense, public (specified in the statement) incitement is just going to harm their own legal defence going forward (whether they can actually get politicians to stop doing it is another issue). They already claim they're meeting the humanitarian conditions thing, and its easier for them to split hairs over ('hamas stole it all' etc), plus other countries will pay for it.