The poll wasn't for Democratic Party voters in the Miami area (although Miami isn't that much further south). It was a poll for Democratic Party voters in Florida's 23rd congressional district. The poll was commissioned because a Democratic Socialists of America candidate, Oliver Larkin, is running against the Zionist right-wing Democrat Jared Moskowitz that currently represents the district.

A non-exhaustive list of parts of FL-23 (most of which I got from Hasan's recent interview with Oliver Larkin - https://youtube.com/watch?v=jocqegXzbHQ):

• Parts of Ft. Lauderdale, a city which has the highest proportion of the population that are LGBTQ households for a medium-size city in the country.
• Wilton Manors, a city of about 11k comprised of over 20% LGBTQ households. It's the second city in the country and first ever in Florida to have its governing body be comprised entirely of LGBTQ people.
• Parkland, where the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting happened.
• Much of Boca Raton, which is known for its large Jewish population.

Edit: Alt-text for image

Medicaid covers medical care of a lot of poor kids, so if they're using Medicaid records then they're probably using kids' medical care data to identify parents to disappear.

UpScrolled was founded by Issam Hijazi, a Palestinian Australian technologist and CEO of the company behind the app, Recursive Methods Pty Ltd, based in Australia.

If it's based in Australia I wonder what the implications might be regarding surveillance, since Australia is a member of the Five Eyes, as well as any state censorship in service of Zionism, etc.

It doesn't hurt to be as accurate in our description as possible as information becomes available, because it shows to people who is being responsible and serious with their knowledge. But we shouldn't expect anything from Chuds themselves except inventing a story to justify what happened regardless of the facts.

They're working backwards from "The actions of ICE are good and correct" and they largely are deeply unserious in their replies when disagreeing with the facts of the matter. The narratives they spin are merely a front-facing excuse to justify their our-might-makes-right worldview. Just look at how some of them ran with an invented story about Pretti brandishing a gun at ICE.

The fascists want to assert racist and patriarchal violence upon the everyone (including in usually more subtle or unnoticed ways upon themselves, which keeps them in line) and anything they say is an excuse in service of this, so handle your interactions with them accordingly.

Slavoj Žižek (prior to him completely falling off) said something rather insightful about this idealized form of love in "The Pervert's Guide to Cinema":

All too often, when we love somebody, we don't accept him or her as what the person effectively is. We accept him or her insofar as this person fits the co-ordinates of our fantasy. We misidentify, wrongly identify him or her, which is why, when we discover that we were wrong, love can quickly turn into violence. There is nothing more dangerous, more lethal for the loved person than to be loved, as it were, for not what he or she is, but for fitting the ideal. In this case, love is always mortifying love.

Since I'd prefer we keep criticism of AOC accurate and substantive, I think it's worth noting that she said "Abolish ICE" is still her position a few days ago: https://xcancel.com/AOC/status/2011116393496813639

A comment on the thread today ~~about news that the US is relocating dozens of fighters to West Asia~~: https://hexbear.net/post/7297419

From what I heard, they're preparing a full-frontal assault to Iran.

Source: From one of my relatives in MİT—National Intelligence Organization, Türkiye's intelligence agency.

Direct link to the comment: https://hexbear.net/post/7297419/6819222

Edit: There's no evidence of a significant relocation of US fighters according to @MarmiteLover123@hexbear.net: https://hexbear.net/comment/6819297

A lot of people on this site using large amounts of hopium to imagine socialism is being built despite evidence pointing towards the capitalist roaders taking control of the country after Mao. Now we have people trying to pretend 5D chess is being played by the Politburo while they continue to abandon any proletarian internationalism, see for example their continued business with the Zionist Entity as one of its largest trading partners and that UN Security Council vote on the US "peace" plan that they abstained from rather than vetoing.

Also, we're supposed to believe that they'll transition to a more socialist economy in a few decades time because productive forces need to be built up. Somehow socialism was viable as a revolutionary force in the early 20th century, but now the largest economy on the planet, whose productive capacity easily outstrips the whole world pre-World War I and whose current population is 75% of the world population in 1914, somehow needs a few more decades of a mega-sized New Economic Policy before more expansive socialization of production. (I will remind people that capitalist states can also take control of the commanding heights of production in order to help keep their economy going, such as the nationalisations done in Britain after World War II.) Chances are China will have a lot of internal conflict if another sizeable part of the world has a revolution and is socialising production faster than them because it undermines the capitalist roaders' excuses.

Ultimately, imo, people waste their time here too often putting hope into China to bring about socialism. Do try to get to know fellow proles in other parts of the world including China, but you should spend much more time focusing on trying to organize where you are. The best thing to advocate regarding China is a policy of non-antagonism: everything I've written does not mean America & allies should be confrontational with them.

This is idealism.

1. You're trying to place hope just in the "third world" despite the presence of the class struggle throughout the world. The conditions of different countries require different tactics. For example in the US there is ripe ground given the unpopularity of what the government is doing.

2. You need to consider why active Maoists (who in many cases would identify themselves as Marxist-Leninists or Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, not Maoist Third-Worldists) do not have much love for China. The Communist Party of China hasn't just abandoned the cause of international socialism with the victorious capitalist roaders in the party (the bourgeois and petty bourgeois nationalists, as @SamotsvetyVIA@hexbear.net and I discussed here) using the excuse of building up productive forces, but they even will engage in such blatant acts as selling weapons to the government of the Phillipines which are then used to fight the guerillas of the Communist Party of the Phillipines.

I think this article I shared earlier in the week on /c/history is a pretty good piece to send to people, especially those at least sympathetic towards socialism. It outlines how the abolitionists actually managed to achieve lasting change in the United States, despite its 2 party system and powerful slave-owning aristocracy.

Basically it lays out what was done by the abolitionists to achieve a better world. That could help us start a serious discussion on what is to be done in our time.

The Abolitionist Dirty Break by Ben Grove

From the introduction of the piece:

How can a small movement challenge the Leviathan? How can it find strength in its independence? How can it topple a power that seems omnipotent and achieve a revolution?

In 2024, these tasks may seem hopelessly difficult to socialists in the United States. But defying the powerful has never been easy, and we will always have lessons to learn from our predecessors. One of the most important, yet also misunderstood, is the American abolitionist movement.

It’s easy enough to celebrate abolitionists for their righteous principles: activists of every stripe invoke their legacy. Yet abolitionists and their Radical Republican allies were more than just moral idealists. They were also cunning revolutionary strategists. Using principled independent politics, they successfully attacked America’s slaveholding oligarchy and the two-party system that protected it. Their insights and debates have tremendous relevance for modern socialists, because abolitionism helped to ignite the most important revolutionary rupture in U.S. history: the Civil War and the downfall of chattel slavery.

And these were the conditions that their movement built itself in:

By the 1820s, a two-party system of Whigs and Democrats was developing, nurtured by the brilliant New York politician Martin Van Buren. Van Buren’s explicit goal was to use the excitement of party politics to distract the masses from more dangerous conflicts over slavery. Whigs and Democrats would have fiery conflict and genuine power struggles—but both sides suppressed opposition to America’s true ruling class: the planters of the South, the Slave Power.

Is he really making a mistake? It seems to me like he's engaging in immanent critique of The Atlantic.

He's showing how what it does contradicts and differs from what it says it does.