Just hope this "crackdown" does not stop the revolution which is happening in less than honest regimes. Its allowed people a store of currency which cannot be infringed, its more valuable than the scams and volatility that plague it.
That would require integrity and honesty, something fame rarely allows for. But I agree, but I would refrain from asking Kanye to voice his concerns at this particular issue at this particular point in time.
>white people holding on to their money and power instead of working on ways to distribute it.
Why is the emphasis on white people and not wealth? There are so many different historical groups of "white people"
I completely fail to take a submissive approach to the whole us race debate. Sure you guys have massive issues that stem from a long line of segregationist policies. Europe has its problems, but implying that this should lead to some sort of White only redistribution of wealth will lead to bloodshed.
Who the fuck thought it would be a good idea to equate class war with race war? Henry kissinger?
It’s a handy ideology. It allows Californians to feel super enlightened while having a ridiculous homeless population at the same time.
Precisely by making it a race issue instead of wealth distribution/class issue it becomes easier to shut people down who would support social programs, mostly by driving the well meaning masses into looking at it from the race perspective.
Keeping it as a race issue keeps the lower classes on eachothers throats. Heck I’ve seen arguments that Oprah, a billionare, is less privileged than a white hobo, because whiteness. And because it’s not about money but literally the amount of melanin in your skin there is no need to care about the money part.
Otherwise I wouldn’t care less what the yanks do but due to the large cultural dominance they have the issues spill to outside of US.
The most well known mind behind the modern form of that equation is that of Lee Atwater, one of the architects of the Republican "Southern Strategy" [1]. But using race to divide people who would otherwise be unacceptably likely to recognize and act on a common class interest is the oldest play in America, and it's always wild - by which I mean "unsurprising, but regrettable" - to see other white leftists in 2020 still falling for it.
> Why is the emphasis on white people and not wealth?
Because of the amount of violence that has and is taking place entirely on the basis of race rather than wealth.
Wealth is certainly a thing. But those who talk about how all these problems are just about economic class are sweeping the thousands of race-based and racist policies and actions under the rug.
> Why is the emphasis on white people and not wealth?
Because that's who has wealth [1] and they have it because they stole it from other groups via forced labor and literal theft of land and other resources and then explicitly disadvantaged them in post facto competition.
The ruling class stole these, not "white people". Throughout the history and the world, all places and races had their own class of oppressors, surprise - usually from the same race as the oppressed, and of course from a very wide racial variety. That US were built first from white colonists, who set the precedent for that place, does not mean whites are any different that other races in oppression. The ruling class also stole their wealth from the working class, including the white people in it, and if your aim is to bring equal racial representation, or a change on the dominant race, in the ruling class, rather than the abolishment of the present social and economoc structure, you are just maintaining the current situation and playing the capitalists' game.
Well said and reasoned; however, not all oppression is class based. My claim is that racism is a secondary oppression upon the first that you describe which white people (or whoever in other places) benefit from and participate in maintaining. It is true the inequality between the classes is much greater than any other but that doesn't mean that the others don't exist. I agree especially with your last point though and didn't intend to communicate otherwise.
>Baraitser then capped it all by saying the February hearing will be held, not at the comparatively open and accessible Westminster Magistrates Court where we were, but at Belmarsh Magistrates Court, the grim high security facility used for preliminary legal processing of terrorists, attached to the maximum security prison where Assange is being held. There are only six seats for the public in even the largest court at Belmarsh, and the object is plainly to evade public scrutiny and make sure that Baraitser is not exposed in pulic again again to a genuine account of her proceedings, like this one you are reading. I will probably be unable to get in to the substantive hearing at Belmarsh.
Following the WikiLeaks story from its early days until today leave me incredibly demoralized and to be frank, angry. If I where to list the amount of injustices WikiLeaks and those who have associated with them have suffered, I would sit here all night, and I strongly suspect that is by intelligent design.
This story, if the end of it is as it seems, it will mark a shift in the perceived ideals of the "free world".
> It further erodes any case 'the West' has to argue against the behaviour of China.
Can we just stop with this? Bringing this up distracts from the issue at hand, which has nothing to do with China or 'The West's' opinions of it. Regardless, is it not quite clear at this point that the issue is the elite of the world and not one specific nation?
I was hesitant to make the comment. However I decided to post it because the current political climate makes it relevant. The situation in Hong Kong, democracy, human rights abuses, it's all part of the current discussion-fabric of politics, and the treatment of Julian Assange fits perfectly as a piece in that puzzle, as does Snowden.
China are just the Eastasia of the moment, which is why that example was chosen.
Yes, the 'elite' of the world are a problem, if not THE problem. I'm trying to point out that the soft-power that 'The West' had, as a point of difference, as a rallying cry for the moral high-ground, is rapidly disappearing, and the lines separating Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia are blurry at best and non-existent at worst.
I've said before, there are no good guys in the world of major political powers. It's sad, but it appears to be fairly plain fact, and potentially a human inevitability.
That's the issue at hand. The treatment of Assange is a symptom of it.
WL partnered with journalists from all the world. Questioning if he himself is a journalist is rather dishonest considering he thinks himself one and he is responsible for millions of informative, ground-breaking articles written worldwide.
The Australian Journalist should not be concerned about precedent set in a US court against a US citizen.
But he did do that? Wikileaks partnered with media houses from all over the world, part of that process included the joint dissemination and "limitation of harm" by censoring names in the field.
Absque argento omnia vana