Spain's Sanchez, Brazil's Lula lead global gathering of left-wing leaders against far-right rise
Posted by Naurgul@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 100 comments
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva are set to co-chair a gathering of left-wing leaders in Barcelona on Saturday aimed at countering the rise of the far right and strengthening democratic institutions. The meeting brings together figures from across Europe, Africa and Latin America amid growing global political polarisation.
The gathering comes as democratic institutions and values have faced growing threats around the globe from advancing authoritarian and far-right forces in the age of US President Donald Trump.
Both Lula and Sanchez will address this gathering, which will feature talks on issues such as income inequality, the green transition and how progressives can improve their election results.
Sanchez, in power since 2018, has emerged as a prominent figure for Europe's disillusioned progressives, who see him as one of the few remaining openly leftist voices in a continent increasingly dominated by right-wing politics.
His vigorous criticism of Israel, championing of immigration and staunch opposition to the US-Israeli war on Iran have bolstered his image as a left-wing hero.
YourFuture2000@reddit
"Left wing" lol
The are at best centrists.
I think it is interesting how over the history the actual "left" (people fighting against their exploitation and for their autonomy) have been erased from history by conservatives, and then, the more center position (the ones accepting conciliation with exploitation and subordination of people in exchange of "rights" in the exploitative system (the democratization of exploitation) then is called "left" to replace what was erased for history and people consiousiness.
Which means, the "right" through the mechanism of state and capitalist power on mass communication and education, has been slowly winning its position and ideology by convincing people that the those accepting conciliation with them are the left.
To give an historical exemple, the Jacobins, that Inspired and was admired by Karl Marx, were the most conservative and conciliating to the oppression system moviment, after some of a lot more radical and true liberatory revolution took place and were killed by the more conservative counter-revolution. As consequence, with Karl Marx influence, the so called left itself became a lot more conservative, in accepting and even defending that taking the power of oppression system is the true effective revolution against oppression system instead of elimination the oppression system itself.
Anyway...
HockeyHocki@reddit
Why is it those on the left feel so compelled to call-out anyone not as far left as them as being not left at all, like playground gatekeepers
keepthepace@reddit
Because otherwise we would be winning and there is nothing these purist fear more than actual decision-making power and forming coalitions.
Acceptable-Device760@reddit
Winning what exactly?
The right of nothing improving?
keepthepace@reddit
People like me? When did anarcho communists win last time? I am far left, like very far left, but I am open to coalition because contrary to the edgelords with a Che shirt, I am able to see the progress that a centre left coalition brings and the difference with what right wing coalitions cause.
Acceptable-Device760@reddit
You saw progress?
Sorry you are not anarcho communist. You are a fool.
keepthepace@reddit
We are all fools, best we can do is to not be blind.
Acceptable-Device760@reddit
No, best we can do is actually try to change things, instead of pretending like what you are doing is achieveing anything, its not.
keepthepace@reddit
I love it when people who do not know me tell me what I know and don't know, what I do and don't do, what I ignore and what I did not think about.
Not every socialist is a revolutionary, and most anarchists I know in France have a quiet praxis that does change things in depth. They will say things like "I avoid politics" because of the type of criticism you give. They will accept the labels of "traitors, moderate, naive" while slowly building a more inclusive, cooperative, tolerant world.
Acceptable-Device760@reddit
You didnt say socialist, you said anarcho communist. Thats a very specific position that cannot be achieved without revolution.
YOU DONT know what youa re talking about.
keepthepace@reddit
Well I disagree. At least in my country, I believe we have all the tools to achieve that without revolution, though I have sympathy for people who still believe in it, a century after the propaganda of the deed was recognized as a dead end by most anarchists.
Like I said, cooperatives, non-profit, public organization already work in a non-capitalist mindset and seeds of a non-coercive society exist here and there. Everywhere it manages to convince the population, the progress in irreversible and much more powerful than if imposed through a revolutionary vanguard.
I don't know which South America country you are from, maybe you are from one that would need a revolution to allow these seeds to exist. Don't take your case for a universal truth.
All the people I have met who talk like you do had very little clue about how little they knew about things they held as certainties. You could be the exception of course, but I have yet to see any proof of it.
I am always looking for a better label. I am not married with that one, that's the most descriptive I have found. But if you have a better name for people who promote non-capitalist and non coercive organizations, who fight the far-right, who fight for a more egalitarian, inclusive, tolerant world, I am all ears.
Acceptable-Device760@reddit
You are talking about a system without central government and arguing it can happen without revolution.
you are a fool.
keepthepace@reddit
I think it will remain that way.
Acceptable-Device760@reddit
Yeah... if you are set on using improper terms to name yourself because you like the sound of it. Be my guest. Again you are a fool.
Czart@reddit
Because purity testing is the only thing they can do and accomplish. They're literally useless, politically alienated and their biggest achievement was the 70 years of having their empire of shit in USSR.
And even then, 3/4 of those that long for the glorious soviet shitshow have no clue how it actually looked and are jorking it to the propaganda that outlived the party dumpster.
Tl;dr, useless morons who can only purity test on social media.
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
I guess ending Apartheid and the civil rights movement were all accomplished by the right or alternatively “useless” changes?
Or could it rather be that you have the common Redditor problem of instantly equating anything “left” with Soviet Stalinism.
Czart@reddit
Quote from the person that started this entire comment chain. I know where i am, and i know this place is infested with tankies. So i don't have a "reddit problem", because they DO mean fucking stalin.
YourFuture2000@reddit
You are falling for the mainstream political propaganda.
I am not defending or saying that the Siviet Union was "the true left".
I am just saying that the left is each generation being associated to what generations before was called center or right.
The Soviet Union itself, among the "left" is seen as one of the most conservative of the "left" strand. Just as I said, Karl Marx itself was the influence of one of the most conservative movement of the "left" revolutionaries. And many argues that Boksheviks was a step further away from the left of Marx, and towards the conservative influence of Blanquism.
Czart@reddit
Brother, if you're trying to sell soviet union as somehow conservative, then you're so deep in an echo chamber you lost sight of what a normal person think.
Smobey@reddit
Buddy, you did not understand their post at all, did you?
Czart@reddit
Damn i wish i could be as detached from reality as you guys. Must be blissful.
Smobey@reddit
I mean considering you seem to be borderline illiterate, I think you're doing pretty good on the "detached from reality" part.
Czart@reddit
Doing the "right of stalin is basically fascist" meme unironically is the most terminally online commie thing ever.
Smobey@reddit
Buddy, I implore you, please go back and read the message a few messages up. Try to read it with some understanding and thought, actually parsing every word in your mind. That's not what they said. You're not understanding that post at all.
Czart@reddit
They called Soviet union literally "one of the most conservative of the "left" strand". If you think that USSR is "conservative leftism" you're delusional, plain and simple.
Smobey@reddit
After the early years of the revolution, USSR was about as conservative as socialism gets. The left-communist side lost, after all. The right-communist side won. Stalin was, explicitly, a right-communist; a right-wing socialist.
If you disagree, what would you consider to be a more conservative branch of socialism than that?
YourFuture2000@reddit
You are not read to understand this kind of conversation.
Smobey@reddit
The whole "purity testing" claim is really funny.
It's always someone really arbitrarily deciding that liberals and socialists are both "on the left" based on some silly political compass they saw online, and then they claim that the socialists are "purity testing" the liberals due to not working with them, even though there's almost nothing they see eye to eye with to begin with.
Czart@reddit
Yes, the left-right axis famously didn't exist before political compass... And sure, commies don't purity test, Trotsky was just a filthy liberal.
Smobey@reddit
Phrasing political disagreements are purity testing is silly, though. It's like a child's way of understanding politics.
Like, Trotsky fundamentally believed that the socialist project was doomed to failure if it didn't spread further than the USSR, and Stalin fundamentally believed that spreading the revolution further was a folly and that they should focus on centralising power in the USSR lest the whole thing collapse around them.
It was a big ideological disagreement! Both of them sincerely thought everything they fought for could be doomed if the other got their way, so they both fought to make sure their own vision would come to fruition.
Saying that it's "purity testing" is really funny.
Czart@reddit
I'm writing a reddit comment, not a research paper dude. And yes, i'm going to call it purity testing because the first comment in this chain literally goes "hurr durr they're not real leftists".
Oh, sure sure a disagreement. So i'm guessing once stalin won that disagreement trotsky peacefully retired?
Smobey@reddit
So I suppose that after Stalin purity tested Trotsky he peacefully retired? lol
Czart@reddit
What? He killed him because commies cannot stand anyone that isn't their exact flavour of commie.
Smobey@reddit
Sure. And you are calling this purity testing. I'm pointing out it's a funny thing to do.
Czart@reddit
I would consider that the end point of purity testing, yes. If they have power, that's what they do, just kill anyone who isn't within a step or two from their flavour of stupidity.
Smobey@reddit
But again, Stalin and Trotsky did not turn against each other because they had some minor tiny difference in opinion. I mean, giving a full history lesson here would be pretty excessive, but as I said, the stakes were massive and both of their views were fundamentally completely incompatible with the others'. The path USSR would've taken under Trotsky's vision would've been almost nothing like the path USSR would've taken under Stalin's vision.
There was not really a world where they could have worked together unless either of them completely gave up on their vision.
What you're effectively saying is "If you don't completely give up your ideology and vision, you're purity testing the other person and that's bad!" but like surely you see how looney that is?
Czart@reddit
Cool and yet, stalin clearly won and by the time he got to trotsky there was absolutely no reason to off him. Well, other than being a psycho.
No, what i'm saying is: "Leftists love calling other leftist they disagree with as 'not true leftists'. And if given power, they will go as far as kill them over those disagreements"
Smobey@reddit
At literally no point did Stalin ever say Trotsky was "not a true leftist", so I'm not sure you understand the historical context of what you're talking about at all.
And while I don't want to sound like a Stalin defender here, in the most cynical sense assassinating Trotsky was a pretty good idea, politically speaking, with the "ends justify the means" kind of a way of thinking.
Czart@reddit
And you talk about being borderline illiterate? Bruh. I'm done here.
Smobey@reddit
In fairness, it was kind of silly to debate the matter at all without having even a basic understanding of the actual history involved, wasn't it?
Smobey@reddit
Well, it's always been like that through history, right?
Even during the early French Revolution, the far-left (who wanted to get rid of the king) kept 'calling out' the left (who wanted to keep the king but curtail his power) and there was plenty of fighting between the factions.
In retrospect though, it's pretty obvious that they had vastly different goals that couldn't both be met at the same time though, right?
LineOfInquiry@reddit
I mean the far left turned out to be right in that case, I’d say they were right to call out monarchists
tsardonicpseudonomi@reddit
Do you mean center left communists when you say "far left"?
LineOfInquiry@reddit
I was using it to refer to the same people the above commenter was, aka republicans
tsardonicpseudonomi@reddit
Republicans?
Smobey@reddit
Yes, the far left of the French revolution. Republicans.
Acceptable-Device760@reddit
Lula isnt left though. He had more right leaning policies implemented than left.
It's not gatekeepers is not looking at someone clear centrist and not agreeing he is left because he is not a nazi.
GreatestLoser@reddit
How? You’re telling me all of the programs for the poor to get an education for free, healthcare, transportation, when there really wasn’t any of that before him are not left? He basically gave the poor in Brazil a fighting chance.
Acceptable-Device760@reddit
Because economically he still favour the corporations with a lot of privatization.
He did a lot for the poor yes, but he also made a lot of right leaning policies. Thats why he is a centrist.
YourFuture2000@reddit
As I said, because the "left" at each generation is always one step into the right and futher away stepping of what before what the actual left. Which in other words means. What is seeing as left today some generations later was see as center or conservative. And what is seem center or conservative today, in the future will be called left, if the trend of the past centuries remains.
Because conciliation with the king, the capitalist or whatever system of abuse and oppression in exchange of participation in the oppression itself at some degree, is not the the original aspect of the so called "left". The term left and right itself is a very restricted and reduced bipolar representation of a political system around the mainstream conservative power (the king) as conciliation, erasing the all the movements and ideas, and revolutions, that existed and happened against the system itself.
ImpossibleDragonfly@reddit
What you are calling "left" is basically marxist-communism which had its hay day during the cold war and once held dominance over the entirety of eastern Europe, across central Asia all the way to south east asia and north korea.
Since then all those societies either collapsed, were forced to introduce market reforms to lift their people out of poverty or devolved into a dystopian autarkic state.
Because of that, your version of "left" has been basically dismissed by any serious policy maker worth their salt.
fiction8@reddit
That's because your "actual leftist" ideas don't actually work. They are coffee house ideals that either can't scale, get swallowed by the rest of the world, or descend into brutal oppression to try to keep human nature in line.
Babeuf never had a chance to try, he's barely ahead of those who stayed in the newspaper columns or cafés.
Every utopian socialist experiment around the world fell apart fairly quickly and couldn't grow beyond a small commune. Hence Marx's dismissal of them.
The Paris Commune was forced (partially by circumstance) within a month to begin imprisonments and executions, and had they not gotten overwhelmed by outside forces would have ramped those up to the point of disaster. You can't force compliance with an ideology.
Nestor Makhno was the closest to measurable success, but even he was locked in a doomed contest of arms and had to almost exclusively focus outwards.
Ultimately the world we live in today is a result of trial and error, of forcing compromise through the threat of mass violence and unrest. Progress was won only after much hardship and starvation, and a few lightbulb moments from those with power finally realizing they can't hold onto absolutely everything forever. But the compromises that have formed are therefore far more resilient and flexible to circumstances than any idea from the "true left" that rarely survives first contact with reality.
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
Talks about “coffee house ideals” only to then evoke “human nature” in a very determinist and outdated way.
People are mostly a product of their environment, there is no hidden “human nature” that’s allegedly wild/destructive and thus needs to be kept in check.
What there is are expressions of humans adapting to the environment we created for ourselves, which is not the healthiest environment thus a lot of these expressions are not healthy.
The solution to that is not some authoritarian “Have to keep that human nature in check with force and oppression!” it’s to change the environment, the conditions, that lead to negative and anti-social behavior.
Which is something you will never be able to recognise as long as you just evoke some alleged ominous “human nature” as justification for this or that or why we allegedly can’t have nice things.
If that were true then we’d all be still living in caves, but we are very blatantly way past that which should serve as enough undeniable evidence that all this “Just human nature!” nonsense simply does not hold up in reality.
Not to mention that ideologically that line of thinking is very close to questionable racist movements and all their many negative contributions to human civilisation.
Because going from “Humans can’t change” to “Humans are divided into biologically distinct species with different qualities” is for many a path not far to go, and is exactly the kind of thinking that got us pseudo-scientific nonsense like IQ scores.
Guaire1@reddit
True leftism is workers ownership of the means of production. And all economic data in hisyory shows that workers cooperativees are far more efficient economically, far more resilient to crisis and also result in their employees being far happier. Mind you, these facts ive just thrown at you is from data gathered by capitalists states, so you cannot even accuse it of being biased.
Seems like human nature does in fact favour the left.
FayMew@reddit
The Commune would have survived if not for the conservatives who didn’t like what happened during the Commune. The communards were a resistance force. You clearly got the wrong idea about them.
fiction8@reddit
No, you have the wrong idea about them. Adolphe Thiers is indeed the outside force I already mentioned, but his eventual overrunning of the Commune is not relevant.
The Commune only lasted 72 days, but after less than 2 months it already started exercising heavy censorship measures, political imprisonments, and executions. Newspapers that disagreed with their vision were banned and their printing offices looted. Many church officials were imprisoned and property confiscated. Anyone suspected of being a sympathizer to Versailles was jailed, often without evidence. Hell they even put some of their generals on trial simply for failing to win every battle.
The reason I bring up the Commune is exactly those actions. The extreme nature of that sort of far left vision does not leave room for opposing views. And they justify every step towards authoritarianism with "oh, that one was a conservative" "oh, that one was a traitor" "oh, that one's speech was detrimental to the cause" "oh, that one doesn't like what we're doing."
The only system in human history that doesn't fall into that trap is free democracy. Because democracy can generally tolerate the existence of opposing views and promotes peaceful transitions of power back and forth. Such systems also necessitate some level of private property rights, to ensure other rights and to appease human nature.
YourFuture2000@reddit
The real reason is what I said, erased the wareness and history of the left and workers history from the public consiousiness. Hance your post.
Acceptable-Device760@reddit
Not as much erased as killed by the US.
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
No need to let the US hog all the glory for that one, it was and remains a first world team effort just like during the Cold War.
GianfrancoZoey@reddit
In the West the fall of the USSR has given them free rein to define 'left' and 'right' however they wish. People's understanding of it is completely relative, both nationally and internationally
In the UK people still think of Labour as left wing because the political-media establishment acts like they are even though they're obviously not
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
Very same in Germany where center right social democrats/Greens are made out as “Leftist extremist”.
There is always this Red Scare dimension to it, and it all reminds me so much of a dynamic that used to be exclusive to mostly Americans, but has by now been exported to most of the Western world.
The dynamic to make even the most moderate socially progressive policies out as instant: “USSR Stalinism!”.
Kid you not, that used to be a very common American argument against things like universal healthcare in the 90s and early 2000s.
It even used to be a component of the invasion of the 2003 invasion of Iraq: Saddams Bathist party was made out as socialists, leftist extremists only one step away from full blown communism.
Thats why Iraq had to be “De-Bathified” just like Germany was “de-Nazified”, combined with idiotic arguments like “didn’t you know the Nazis were all leftist? It’s right in their name!”.
That used to be a very r/shitamericanssay position, but 20 years of cultural imperialism through the www have made these insane takes completely normal in most of the Western world.
qwertyalguien@reddit
Ironically the fall of communism is what will kill capitalism (through neo feudalism).
System all about competition goes to shit the moment no alternative system competes against it. Who writes this shit?
haggerton@reddit
Well, Karl Marx wrote about it...
Kusko25@reddit
Not wrong, but right now I'll call anyone pushing back against the right an ally.
astronot24@reddit
Really? The WEF, who told you "you will own nothing and be happy" and rent everything from their corporations if you behave, those are your allies? You know the saying....with such friends, I don't need enemies.
Guaire1@reddit
The WEF isnt pushing back against the right. It IS the right
Kusko25@reddit
I picked the word ally over the word friend deliberately and nobody says we have to accept someone's bad opinions, just because I want their help against worse things.
YourFuture2000@reddit
You are correct. The left, including among the most radical, have often alien with liberal or other strands of left who they oppose, against a common enemy.
harpers25@reddit
A definition based on such a severe litmus test that no country counts isn't very useful in conversation.
Emperor_Cat_IV@reddit
Claiming the bourgeoisie french revolutionaries were more 'left' than marx is silly, at what point does classifying and quantifying political ideologies off a vague uncalculable metric become a completely pointless exercise
YourFuture2000@reddit
You are not disagreeing with me but I feel like you think so.
The term left and right itself is itself a bipolar correlative perspective in its origing. Reason why anarchists or many autonomists in Frence don't call themselves as "Left" (or right).
The point is that because of political mainstream propaganda of governments and mss media, each generation the left is always a step into the right. And what was left before then is seen as beyond of serious, racional, possible or political spectrum (too radical).
Emperor_Cat_IV@reddit
I am disagreeing with what you're saying.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I assume by oppression system you refer to the state. Marx did not shift leftist politics towards conservatism by advocating for a dictatorship of the proletariat rather than the immediate destruction of the state.
The capitalist status quo has definitely entrenched itself by discrediting any opposition to capitalism. But I think portraying it as a historical pattern going back to the 19th century isn't accurate. I think the passivity of modern left wing political movements can be better explained by improvement in quality of life for people in industrialised countries rather than generational shifts rightward politically.
YourFuture2000@reddit
When I say "oppressive system" I am talking any form of exploitation and taking of autonomy (the means of production) of working class. That can be the state, patriarchy, parlament system, capitalism, wagedom, even monetarism and contract system, etc. I am not talking to anything in particular.
The desire and theories to compete in liberal politics to join its structures has always been a more conservative (because of intelectual conservative education) strand in the left. Of course that there was a time that the liberals and even capitalists were considered the left for fighting against monarchy. But historically, the working class itself (not the intelectual and theorists), where not worried to either destroy the state or the monarchs or to join it. Their revolutions has been always through creating their own autonomy, like the communes, guilds, etc, throughout history.
Now, I am not talking about the passive aspect of today left, which is an entirely other subject.
Nervous-Basis-1707@reddit
Leftists are the left wing in the parameters of what the political system tolerates. Modern political systems are steeped in gradualism. Wild swings from one end to the other lead to periods of turmoil and disaster, especially when leftists feel that their side isn’t sufficiently left wing. None of the idealized left wingers of the early French Revolution would pass your purity test, you’d consider them only left wing in name because of their acceptance of the French King and his rule.
Lula specifically was a union metalworker who directly led worker strikes against right wing governments. To call him a centrist “at best” is simply untrue. And to write off leftist movements of the last 400 years as being ineffectual and allowing the right to win is also egregiously wrong. The past century has the most continuous leftist gains in human history. It’s working gradually, and more Paris commune type leftists are not needed to consolidate these gains.
YourFuture2000@reddit
You are correct firming what I say. Each generation it change. The point is that it is not aleatory. The reason main strain communication and governments always call centrists as left, is to make people in each generation disradicalised and alienated from the actual left, by thinking that just opposing conservatives or fighting for welfair state makes one left. The welfair state was invented by a very conservative German regime of Bismarck.
Lula was a sindicalist against distatorship. It was not against the right itself. His government and sindicalism has always been about gaining conciliation (position) in the power of right regime (gain rights). Meaning, reforming it.
2stepsfromglory@reddit
I would have never expected to see the day in which PSOE had the rest of the world PSOE'd, yet here we are.
ChillAhriman@reddit
Sánchez dreams too big. He could have had enough PSOEing Podemos and Catalonia, maybe even all of Spain, but it wasn't enough. He took his family party business and chose to PSOE Europe, to PSOE the whole world, even. He will win the next general elections, create the Spanish Space Program, and we'll become the first nation on Earth to contact with alien civilizations just so that he'll be able to PSOE them too. 1000 years of PSOE.
Context for non-Spaniards: we call being "PSOEd" when you buy into the PSOE's narrative and take their word for granted, only to be left behind half the way in. It became popular with this clip.
Annual__Procedure@reddit
What is the expanded form of the acronym? Who or what is the PSOE?
ChillAhriman@reddit
PSOE -> Partido Socialista Obrero Español / Spanish Socialist Workers Party
"PSOEd" isn't because of anything the acronym is meant to represent, just because of the party's behavior through the years.
Annual__Procedure@reddit
Ah understood, thank you for explaining!
2stepsfromglory@reddit
The PSOE's 1000-Year Reich is coming, though props to him for always falling on his feet given how his career was nearly dead a decade ago by the hands of members of own party, and now we have leftists abroad drooling every time he advocates for the bare minimum in regards of international law.
kolitics@reddit
“staunch opposition to the US-Israeli war on Iran have bolstered his image as a left-wing hero.“
Is defending a murderous regime’s right to hang protestors, oppress its women, and have nuclear weapons really becoming a left-wing thing?
KronusTempus@reddit
lol, just so you know, Iran is by far the most progressive country in the region in terms of human rights. They have the most educated women in the Middle East and there’s no restrictions at all on their ability to own property or run businesses. It’s so far ahead of US allies like Saudi Arabia and the gulf states that it’s not even worth comparing.
Now since you’re so opposed to nuclear weapons, do tell me, why is it okay for israel to have them?
HockeyHocki@reddit
Almost spat out my coffee🤣
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
Yes, ignorance is funny
Here’s another one you probably didn’t know: A whole bunch of US states have no minimum age for marriage as long as the parents consent aka legal child marriage.
Thats a normal thing in a country that rather recently denied women their own bodily autonomy.
Yet that kind of regime gets to bomb and invade far away places for the sake of women’s rights? The “just grab em by the pussy” party is the progressive one? Really?
HockeyHocki@reddit
Any country enforcing strict adherence to Sharia law on it's population is inherently not 'progressive' in terms of women's rights, what a joke. Iran are close to bottom of the barrel in the middle east for womens freedoms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women,_Peace_and_Security_Index
harpers25@reddit
Iran, Saudi, the Gulf States...seems like there's a country missing from your assessment but I can't figure it out!
xland44@reddit
Say what now? Did you miss Mahsa Amini who was beaten to death for not wearing a hijab?
The most progressive country for women in the middle east is Israel by a long shot, and yes that's even with all of the problem israel has. After that, maybe Lebanon in the christian areas.
Smobey@reddit
I think Americans are uniquely likely to think like this because the two party system has rotten their brains, or something.
Like if the Duck Country murders a thousand of their own citizens, and then the Rabbit Country for unrelated reasons bombs and destroys a dozen Duck Country babies' hospitals, judging Rabbit Country for doing that act is not defending Duck Country's act of murder, right?
But the yankee mind sees everything as some weird team sport, so any kind of cricitism of one entity means an automatic support of the opposing entity. It's fascinating.
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
Bush: 'You Are Either With Us, Or With the Terrorists' - 2001-09-21
It’s basically just a variation of the 10th principle of propaganda
On a US domestic political level that whole framing is even more insane, considering there’s about as much meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans as there’s between Pepsi and Coca Cola.
AmputatorBot@reddit
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.
Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2001-09-21-14-bush-66411197/549664.html
^(I'm a bot | )^(Why & About)^( | )^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)
Catalani@reddit
It’s a country consumed by propaganda and chauvinism. They’ll piss on your head and tell you with a straight face “it’s raining!”.
Zzokker@reddit
"Because the question is not whether we are in favor or not of the ayatollahs. No one is. Certainly not the Spanish people, and of course not the Government of Spain. The question is whether we are or not on the side of international law and, therefore, of peace."
Doesn't sound like "defending a murderous regime’s right to hang protestors [...]"
DragonDai@reddit
No. By defending international law and saying no to illegal foreign wars of aggression against anyone, regardless of who they are.
No one is saying "Hey! Don't be mean to Iran!"
Everyone is saying "Hey! Don't start an illegal war against ANY sovereign nation, EVEN Iran."
This is VERY easy to understand.
OsgrobioPrubeta@reddit
Israel oppresses it's women too now? Oy vey!
Sari_sendika_siken@reddit
No dummy, he is talking about the usa.
Israel allows it's female citizens to murder children as much as the male citizens.
OsgrobioPrubeta@reddit
No no no, murican woman only are allowed to kill foreign children, including illegal immigrants, but they are forbidden of killing murican children by abortion.
Thiphra@reddit
You are soooo right.
How dare people get upseted when a fucking tomahawk missle hits a kindergarden killing more than 100 in the middle of peace negociations ?
Strawbuddy@reddit
I recommend that folks read or watch Mexican Pres. Sheinbaums speech. It's a good speech and hits all the high notes. She talks about democracy, freedom, nonagression, human dignity, social justice, and environmental justice. The AMLO project is the end of neoliberalism
OsgrobioPrubeta@reddit
Both are currently making trips, tours or gatherings of various types trying to discuss, promote or make agreements to counter recent events, mostly triggered by USA, Israel and Russia.
But even so, and rarely mentioned, both Brazil and Spain have increased trade with USA on certain goods, or services.
Lula was here in Portugal yesterday, today our President will be at Spain too.