To Jimmy's question about Sanders' 2020 campaign being a psy-ops operation to curtail any progressive action momentum -
I would assert that not only was this true, but his 2016 campaign was as well. I think (now) that Sanders had never any real intention of actually running for PUSA.
I think the establishment understood that the Occupy Wall Street movement represented a real and serious threat to their hegemony. They understood that the best way to curtail this was to present a pretend-candidate who can cosplay the whole progressive schtick enough; to convince the progressive supporters to end up voting blue no matter who. The goal was to ultimately derail and defuse the movement, which is what ended up happening.
That's enough to know that the United States never has been (and never will be) a democracy for the majority. It's the illusion of democracy for the majority. Only the 1% really benefits from this capitalist system, and I would argue they themselves are now destroying it. Reason being - to re-organize things into a more fascist system.
From Scott Ritter -A reminder about the missiles of April ...
"The
Iranian missile attack on Israel did not come out of the blue, so to
speak, but rather was retaliation for an April 1 Israeli attack on the
Iranian consulate building, in Damascus, Syria, that killed several
senior Iranian military commanders.
While
Israel has carried out attacks against Iranian personnel inside Syria
in the past, the April 1 strike differed by not only killing very senior
Iranian personnel, but by striking what was legally speaking sovereign
Iranian territory — the Iranian consulate."
Remind the narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths who continue to defend the settler-colonial project known as Israel - that facts matter.
Four years ago, a group of women, aged 64 and up, filed a lawsuit before
Europe’s top human rights court against Switzerland for violating their
rights by not protecting them from the health impacts of climate
change.
On Tuesday, the court decided in their favor, marking the first time
an international court has ruled on governments’ legal obligations
regarding climate change.
“It is clear that future generations are likely to bear an
increasingly severe burden of the consequences of present failures and
omissions to combat climate change,” said Siofra O’Leary, president of
the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, following the
verdict, which cannot be appealed.