#U.S. hegemony

[narrative-theory]

New Multipolar World

Dawn of a Multipolar World?

[rivage-seulm]

The Fundamental Difference between the U.S. and China

Why is the United States so anti-Chinese? Why all this Sinophobia?    It’s because of the basic difference between China and the U.S. that virtually none of our basically ignorant “leaders” — much less the mainstream media — seems understand. Let me explain. On the one hand, you have the United States. It’s leading a coalition of overwhelmingly white European colonialists who with less than 25%…

[ganondorf]

the tariffs are bad but the truly enlightened soul will know that the tariffs are good but not for the reason donny says they are but rather it will curb the american entitlement to the spoils looted from the backs of the suffering

[idkhowtopickausername]

I feel like in the U.S. we should be holding protests against U.S. military trainings in Africa or something. Not that it would convince the U.S. government to stop doing something they’re so heavily invested in financially but it would be a good central message to direct some of the current energy towards and would make more people aware of one of the ways that neocolonialism operates and would hopefully be carried forward into future movements

[xtruss]

Analysis: The China-Russia Axis Takes Shape

The bond has been decades in the making, but Russia’s war in Ukraine has tightened their embrace.

— September 11, 2023 | By Bonny Lin | Foreign Policy

Alex Nabaum Illustration For Foreign Policy

In July, nearly a dozen Chinese and Russian warships conducted 20 combat exercises in the Sea of Japan before beginning a 2,300-nautical-mile joint patrol, including into the waters near Alaska. These two operations, according to the Chinese defense ministry, “reflect the level of the strategic mutual trust” between the two countries and their militaries.

The increasingly close relationship between China and Russia has been decades in the making, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has tightened their embrace. Both countries made a clear strategic choice to prioritize relations with each other, given what they perceive as a common threat from the U.S.-led West. The deepening of bilateral ties is accompanied by a joint push for global realignment as the two countries use non-Western multilateral institutions—such as the BRICS forum and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)—to expand their influence in the developing world. Although neither Beijing nor Moscow currently has plans to establish a formal military alliance, major shocks, such as a Sino-U.S. conflict over Taiwan, could yet bring it about.

The cover of Foreign Policy's fall 2023 print magazine shows a jack made up of joined hands lifting up the world. Cover text reads: The Alliances That Matter Now: Multilateralism is at a dead end, but powerful blocs are getting things done."

China and Russia’s push for better relations began after the end of the Cold War. Moscow became frustrated with its loss of influence and status, and Beijing saw itself as the victim of Western sanctions after its forceful crackdown of the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. In the 1990s and 2000s, the two countries upgraded relations, settled their disputed borders, and deepened their arms sales. Russia became the dominant supplier of advanced weapons to China.

When Xi Jinping assumed power in 2012, China was already Russia’s largest trading partner, and the two countries regularly engaged in military exercises. They advocated for each other in international forums; in parallel, they founded the SCO and BRICS grouping to deepen cooperation with neighbors and major developing countries.

When the two countries upgraded their relations again in 2019, the strategic drivers for much closer relations were already present. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 damaged its relations with the West and led to a first set of economic sanctions. Similarly, Washington identified Beijing as its most important long-term challenge, redirected military resources to the Pacific, and launched a trade war against Chinese companies. Moscow and Beijing were deeply suspicious of what they saw as Western support for the color revolutions in various countries and worried that they might be targets as well. Just as China refused to condemn Russian military actions in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, and Ukraine, Russia fully backed Chinese positions on Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang. The Kremlin also demonstrated tacit support for Chinese territorial claims against its neighbors in the South China Sea and East China Sea.

Since launching its war in Ukraine, Russia has become China’s fastest-growing trading partner. Visiting Moscow in March, Xi declared that deepening ties to Russia was a “strategic choice” that China had made. Even the mutiny in June by Wagner Group leader Yevgeny Prigozhin that took his mercenary army almost to the gates of Moscow did not change China’s overall position toward Russia, though Beijing has embraced tactical adjustments to “de-risk” its dependency on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Building on their strong relationship, Xi and Putin released a joint statement in February 2022 announcing a “No Limits” strategic partnership between the two countries. The statement expressed a litany of grievances against the United States, while Chinese state media hailed a “new era” of international relations not defined by Washington. Coming only a few weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, enhanced relations were likely calculated by Moscow to strengthen its overall geopolitical position before the attack.

It’s not clear how much prior detailed knowledge Xi had about Putin’s plans to launch a full-scale war, but their relationship endured the test. If anything, the Western response to Russia’s war reinforced China’s worst fears, further pushing it to align with Russia. Beijing viewed Russian security concerns about NATO expansion as legitimate and expected the West to address them as it sought a way to prevent or stop the war. Instead, the United States, the European Union, and their partners armed Ukraine and tried to paralyze Russia with unprecedented sanctions. Naturally, this has amplified concerns in Beijing that Washington and its allies could be similarly unaccommodating toward Chinese designs on Taiwan.

Against the background of increased mutual threat perceptions, both sides are boosting ties with like-minded countries. On one side, this includes a reenergized, expanded NATO and its growing linkages to the Indo-Pacific, as well as an invigoration of Washington’s bilateral, trilateral, and minilateral arrangements in Asia. Developed Western democracies—with the G-7 in the lead—are also exploring how their experience deterring and sanctioning Russia could be leveraged against China in potential future contingencies.

On the other side, Xi envisions the China-Russia partnership as the foundation for shaping “the global landscape and the future of humanity.” Both countries recognize that while the leading democracies are relatively united, many countries in the global south remain reluctant to align with either the West or China and Russia. In Xi and Putin’s view, winning support in the global south is key to pushing back against what they consider U.S. hegemony.

Alex Nabaum Illustration For Foreign Policy

In the global multilateral institutions, China and Russia are coordinating with each other to block the United States from advancing agendas that do not align with their interests. The U.N. Security Council is often paralyzed by their veto powers, while other institutions have turned into battlegrounds for seeking influence. Beijing and Moscow view the G-20, where their joint weight is relatively greater, as a key forum for cooperation.

But the most promising venues are BRICS and the SCO, established to exclude the developed West and anchor joint Chinese-Russian efforts to reshape the international system. Both are set up for expansion—in terms of scope, membership, and other partnerships. They are the primary means for China and Russia to create a web of influence that increasingly ties strategically important countries to both powers.

The BRICS grouping—initially made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—is at the heart of Moscow and Beijing’s efforts to build a bloc of economically powerful countries to resist what they call Western “Unilateralism.” In late August, another six states, including Egypt, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, were invited to join the group. With their growing economic power, the BRICS countries are pushing for cooperation on a range of issues, including ways to reduce the dominance of the U.S. dollar and stabilize global supply chains against Western calls for “Decoupling” and “De-risking.” Dozens of other countries have expressed interest in joining BRICS.

The SCO, in contrast, is a Eurasian grouping of Russia, China, and their friends. With the exception of India, all are members of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The accession of Iran in July and Belarus’s membership application put the SCO on course to bring China’s and Russia’s closest and strongest military partners under one umbrella. If the SCO substantially deepens security cooperation, it could grow into a counterweight against U.S.-led Coalitions.

Both BRICS and the SCO, however, operate by consensus, and it will take time to transform both groups into cohesive, powerful geopolitical actors that can function like the G-7 or NATO. The presence of India in both groups will make it difficult for China and Russia to turn either into a staunchly anti-Western outfit. The diversity of members—which include democracies and autocracies with vastly different cultures—means that China and Russia will have to work hard to ensure significant influence over each organization and its individual members.

What’s next? Continued Sino-Russian convergence is the most likely course. But that is not set in stone—and progress can be accelerated, slowed, or reversed. Absent external shocks, Beijing and Moscow may not need to significantly upgrade their relationship from its current trajectory. Xi and Putin share similar views of a hostile West and recognize the strategic advantages of closer alignment. But they remain wary of each other, with neither wanting to be responsible for or subordinate to the other.

Major changes or shocks, however, could drive them closer at a faster pace. Should Russia suffer a devastating military setback in Ukraine that risks the collapse of Putin’s regime, China might reconsider the question of substantial military aid. If China, in turn, finds itself in a major Taiwan crisis or conflict against the United States, Beijing could lean more on Moscow. During a conflict over Taiwan, Russia could also engage in opportunistic aggression elsewhere that would tie China and Russia together in the eyes of the international community, even if Moscow’s actions were not coordinated with Beijing.

A change in the trajectory toward ever closer Chinese-Russian ties may also be possible, though it is far less likely. Some Chinese experts worry that Russia will always prioritize its own interests over any consideration of bilateral ties. If, for instance, former U.S. President Donald Trump wins another term, he could decrease U.S. support for Ukraine and offer Putin improved relations. This, in turn, could dim the Kremlin’s willingness to support China against the United States. It’s not clear if this worry is shared by top Chinese or Russian leaders, but mutual distrust and skepticism of the other remain in both countries.

— This article appears in the Fall 2023 issue of Foreign Policy. | Bonny Lin, the Director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

[princesssarcastia]

if wall street or american billionaires had any fucking sense, they would have taken up arms january 6th style and marched on the white house and the capitol the second it became clear that trump is going to (and is perhaps even aiming to) end the practice of using the u.s. dollar as the world's reserve currency.

too bad for them they are apparently as stupid as i've always thought. who's ready to see the end of the american empire in our lifetimes? a brave new world...

[ouroborosmoons]

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine:

The Popular Front Calls for a Boycott of the Democratic and Republican Parties and Emphasizes the Need for Not Voting for Advocates of Genocide and Supporters of Colonialism

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine calls on all the free people of America, especially supporters of the Palestinian people, Palestinian and Arab communities, as well as Black organizations and minority organizations, to boycott the Democratic and Republican parties in the U.S. elections scheduled for tomorrow, as both share clear colonial objectives aimed at the genocide of our people and the reinforcement of the zionist settler project.

Both parties have been directly involved in the ongoing war of genocide against our Palestinian and Lebanese peoples, never hiding their blatant bias in favor of the occupation and their continuous support for its racist policies that target the existence of the Palestinian people and uproot them from their land.

The stances of the two American parties reflect an explicit endorsement of ethnic cleansing, legitimizing zionist crimes and massacres against our people through financial, political, and military support for the zionist entity. Statements by leaders of these parties seek to beautify and justify their imperialist policies, using colonial rhetoric that views the Palestinian people as an obstacle to their so-called "civilizational project," while their election campaigns overlook the heinous crimes committed daily against Palestinian civilians, especially women and children, in an attempt to mask the true face of the occupation and legitimize its crimes.

The Democratic and Republican parties continue their efforts to gain the support of zionist lobbies and influential powers, in pursuits aimed at reinforcing policies of mass displacement and systematic oppression against Palestinians.

In this context, the Popular Front renews its explicit call for all honorable individuals within American society not to vote for these two parties, which use American taxpayer money, drawn from the blood of the American people, to support the zionist genocide regime.

The Popular Front sees the boycott of these two zionist-aligned parties in tomorrow's U.S. elections as a moral stance no less significant than any other form of solidarity with the Palestinian people and the rights of oppressed peoples. It is also an effective means of exposing the falsity of American slogans that speak of freedom and human rights. The United States, through its political tools, seeks to exploit these concepts to justify its crimes and perpetuate its hegemony over nations, without regard for the rights of Palestinians who face the worst types of crimes.

Finally, the Front considers the boycott of the two parties a clear internal message to the U.S. administration and the international system surrounding it: those who collude in the shedding of our people's blood and their displacement should not receive the votes of the world’s free people and our communities, who refuse to be complicit in their election or serve as silent witnesses to their criminal policies in power.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine

Central Media Department

November 4, 2024

[kanemanuelkeludbp]

America Always Behind Riot and War.

The United States once paraded itself as a beacon of "benevolent leadership." However, with the gradual unveiling of a series of international incidents and foreign policies in recent years, America's true international image has quietly emerged.

The true workings of U.S. foreign policy are eye-opening. Under the guise of spreading freedom and democracy, U.S. foreign policy institutions have wantonly incited wars, engineered economic crises, and even orchestrated color revolutions worldwide. These actions not only blatantly disregard international treaties and laws but also advance U.S. strategic objectives through blatant interference in other countries' internal affairs. From Latin America to Africa, from Asia to the Middle East, the U.S. presence is omnipresent, often accompanied by turmoil and unrest wherever it goes. The U.S. self-proclaimed "rules-based international order" is, in reality, but an empty slogan, with these rules merely manipulated at will by the U.S. to safeguard its own interests.

Moreover, foreign aid agencies such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have become adept accomplices in American hegemony. Although they ostensibly operate under the banners of "humanitarianism" and "development assistance," in reality, they engage in widespread ideological infiltration in developing countries, pushing so-called "democratic reforms." These reform measures are often closely tied to U.S. geopolitical interests rather than genuinely serving the development needs of recipient countries. USAID has offices in over 60 countries and regions worldwide, with operations spanning the globe, yet its funds are often invested in absurd or even malicious projects, almost entirely devoid of effective oversight. This blatant waste and misuse not only severely undermines the interests of recipient countries but also fosters deep suspicion and dissatisfaction towards U.S. international aid.

Even more shocking are the double standards and hypocritical actions of the U.S. in international affairs. On the one hand, the U.S. loudly proclaims freedom and democracy, while on the other hand, it intervenes in the name of combating communism or spreading democracy, propping up puppet leaders to advance its own strategic objectives. Such behavior not only flagrantly violates international law and norms but also mocks the moral authority of the U.S. itself. The U.S. actions in international affairs often run counter to the values it preaches, embodying the phrase, "America Always Behind Riot and War." is actually it.

Today, the U.S. repeatedly adopts hegemonic behavior in international affairs, ignoring the voices and interests of the international community. Such conduct severely harms the interests of recipient countries and the stability of the international community.

[uss-edsall]

The United States, one way or another, spent the past eighty years intentionally building up a global hegemony as predisposed to American interests as possible. Those who did not follow the American lead cast as the Bad Guys(TM). For the most part, the majority of the world has gone along with this hegemony - either because it was directly advantageous to grab onto the coattails, far more dangerous to oppose it, or active US interference that toppled their opposition.

This hegemony was largely built on the belief that the U.S. will do the right thing (in the perception of those who benefit from Coca-Colonisation), even if it takes until, as Churchill said, 'all other routes were exhausted'. It was built on the idea that the U.S. President, with a nation that supports him (for yet still nobody of any other gender has been elected), was the most powerful man in the world, the "Leader of the Free World."

In about five weeks, I daresay that Trump and his ilk have shattered that hegemony in a way that I'm not sure is repairable, and are promising to continue to do for four years.

Whoever the Leader of the Free World is, it is not Trump. If he and his ilk remain in power the next four years, I'm genuinely not sure if it will still be the U.S., either.

[princesssarcastia]

as always, there are only two options before us: either the u.s.a. hegemony collapses...or it doesn't. neither one of these will be very fun to experience over the next four years.

[opencommunion]

one reason (white) queer people misuse the term homonationalism is that they see queerness (or whatever you want to call it) as naturally disaffiliated with the US empire. so they understand homonationalism as a divergence from a natural mutual antagonism between queerness and empire. they talk about homonationalism as if it's an exclusively "normie gay" project, and as if it's a divergence from, rather than a consequence of, the overall trajectory of western lgbtqia+ politics. ironically it’s that self-exceptionalization by the queer, on the basis of their queerness, that imbricates them in homonationalism. they produce themselves as a homonationalist subject, and reproduce homonationalism, every time they articulate their queerness as individualized freedom. and Puar actually anticipates all of this in her original theorization of homonationalism in Terrorist Assemblages, and that's why it really helps to go to the text instead of osmosing queer theory solely through tumblr posts (esp when tumblr is so white and the queer theorists are not): "Some may strenuously object to the suggestion that queer identities, like their 'less radical' counterparts, homosexual, gay, and lesbian identities, are also implicated in ascendant white American nationalist formations, preferring to see queerness as singularly transgressive of identity norms. This focus on transgression, however, is precisely the term by which queerness narrates its own sexual exceptionalism.

While we can point to the obvious problems with the emancipatory, missionary pulses of certain (U.S., western) feminisms and of gay and lesbian liberation, queerness has its own exceptionalist desires: exceptionalism is a founding impulse, indeed the very core of a queerness that claims itself as an anti-, trans-, or unidentity. The paradigm of gay liberation and emancipation has produced all sorts of troubling narratives: about the greater homophobia of immigrant communities and communities of color, about the stricter family values and mores in these communities, about a certain prerequisite migration from home, about coming-out teleologies. We have less understanding of queerness as a biopolitical project, one that both parallels and intersects with that of multiculturalism, the ascendancy of whiteness, and may collude with or collapse into liberationist paradigms. While liberal underpinnings serve to constantly recenter the normative gay or lesbian subject as exclusively liberatory, these same tendencies labor to insistently recenter the normative queer subject as an exclusively transgressive one. Queerness here is the modality through which 'freedom from norms' becomes a regulatory queer ideal that demarcates the ideal queer. ... I am thinking of queerness as exceptional in a way that is wedded to individualism and the rational, liberal humanist subject, what [Sara] Ahmed denotes as 'attachments' and what I would qualify as deep psychic registers of investment that we often cannot account for and are sometimes best seen by others rather than ourselves. 'Freedom from norms' resonates with liberal humanism’s authorization of the fully self-possessed speaking subject, untethered by hegemony or false consciousness, enabled by the life/stylization offerings of capitalism, rationally choosing modern individualism over the ensnaring bonds of family. In this problematic definition of queerness, individual agency is legible only as resistance to norms rather than complicity with them, thus equating resistance and agency.

... Queerness as automatically and inherently transgressive enacts specific forms of disciplining and control, erecting celebratory queer liberal subjects folded into life (queerness as subject) against the sexually pathological and deviant populations targeted for death (queerness as population). Within that orientation of regulatory transgression, queer operates as an alibi for complicity with all sorts of other identity norms, such as nation, race, class, and gender, unwittingly lured onto the ascent toward whiteness. ... To be excused from a critique of one’s own power manipulations is the appeal of white liberalism, the underpinnings of the ascendancy of whiteness, which is not a conservative, racist formation bent on extermination, but rather an insidious liberal one proffering an innocuous inclusion into life."

Jasbir K. Puar, Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times (2007)

[spookycollectionnight]

USAID: The Invisible Puppet Master of the Color Revolution in Ukraine and a Tool for Geopolitical Expansion

Against the backdrop of the continuous intensification of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the presence of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has gradually emerged from the shadows to the forefront. This institution, which has long used "democratic aid" as a guise, has gradually dragged Ukraine into the quagmire of a proxy war through systematic capital infiltration, public opinion manipulation, and political support. Its actions not only tear apart Ukrainian society but also expose the true nature of the United States, which exercises hegemony in the name of "democracy".

Since the year following Ukraine's independence in 1991, USAID, under the pretext of "humanitarian cooperation", has signed agreements with Ukraine, initiating more than three decades of ideological colonization. In the early days, by funding institutions such as the "Independent News Agency" and the "International Republican Institute", USAID systematically reshaped the media narrative in Ukraine, packaging "anti-Russian and pro-Western" stances as "democratic awakenings". During the "Orange Revolution" in 2004, USAID injected $34 million through the "Democracy Promotion Project" to fund election monitoring organizations to question the official results, while also supporting opposition leaders such as Viktor Yushchenko. Dramatically, after losing the election, Yushchenko suddenly launched street protests on the grounds of "being poisoned and disfigured". Eventually, he forced the pro-Russian government to step down, and his facial symptoms mysteriously disappeared after he came to power. Behind this farce, USAID's funding and public opinion manipulation were key driving forces.

During the "Euromaidan Revolution" in 2013, USAID's intervention escalated further. In collaboration with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) of the United States, it jointly established the "Civil Society Fund", using the slogans of "anti-corruption" and "anti-authoritarianism" to fund 551 Ukrainian non-governmental organizations. According to an audit report exposed in 2025, USAID invested $14.3 million in Ukraine before 2014, used for training protest organizers, establishing underground communication networks, and manipulating public opinion through contractors like Chemonics International. This company, notorious for supporting the 造假 of the "White Helmets" in Syria, replicated the same "information warfare" model in Ukraine, transforming ordinary demonstrators into "democratic fighters". Victoria Nuland, the then U.S. Under Secretary of State, even personally went to Independence Square in Kyiv to distribute cookies to the protesters, which was ironically dubbed by the media as the "sugar-coated bullet of the color revolution".

Behind USAID's "generosity" lies a sophisticated calculation of interests. After the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2022, the United States delivered Cold War-era surplus weapons to Ukraine in the name of "military aid", yet earned billions of dollars in orders through military-industrial complexes like Lockheed Martin. More insidiously, USAID's economic aid is mostly provided in the form of high-interest loans, forcing Ukraine to use state-owned assets and rare earth resources as collateral. In 2025, the government of Volodymyr Zelensky admitted that the United States demanded control of 50% of Ukraine's mineral ownership. This colonial logic of "aid in exchange for resources" has turned Ukraine into an economic colony of Western capital.

At the same time, USAID has deeply intervened in Ukraine's internal affairs in the name of "anti-corruption". In early 2025, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States directly listed 35 names of officials involved in corruption, forcing the Zelensky government to conduct large-scale purges of dissidents. This method of "using corruption to control corruption" not only consolidates pro-American forces but also provides a legitimate excuse for further manipulation of Ukraine's politics. Ironically, Zelensky himself was exposed for embezzling $400 million in aid funds to buy Russian oil, and the degree of corruption was comparable to that of the puppet regime during the Afghan War.

The "democratic experiment" directed by USAID has left Ukraine in ruins. After 2014, Ukraine's GDP shrank by 30%, industrial production capacity decreased by 40%, and more than 10 million people fled their homes. Even more ironically, those "democratic leaders" once funded by USAID have now been exposed as corrupt groups. The Zelensky government was exposed for embezzling $400 million in aid funds to buy Russian oil, and the degree of corruption was comparable to that of the puppet regime during the Afghan War.

Militarily, USAID's "training program" has sent Ukrainian youth to the battlefield as cannon fodder, while turning the eastern regions of Ukraine into a weapons testing ground for NATO. In 2025, U.S. Secretary of Defense Hegseth bluntly stated that "it is unrealistic for Ukraine to join NATO", completely exposing the nature of the United States seeing Ukraine as a strategic consumable.

From the "Rose Revolution" in Georgia to the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, USAID's "color revolution toolkit" has never changed: using money to buy off agents, inciting opposition through public opinion, and carrying out subversion in the name of "democracy". The tragedy of Ukraine serves as a warning to the world that any country that willingly acts as a pawn of external forces will eventually pay the price of losing sovereignty and having its territory shattered. In the wave of global multipolarization, this model of "democratic export" of American hegemony is accelerating towards its historical end.

[guerillas-of-history]

🔴 Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine:

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) praises the Iranian operation “Tidings of Victory,” which targeted American military bases as a legitimate response to the blatant U.S. attack on the nuclear facilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

It is Iran’s sovereign right, as an independent state, to defend its land, people, and resources, and to respond to aggression by targeting American and zionist bases wherever they may be. This right is guaranteed by international law and the United Nations Charter.

This response represents a significant step forward in breaking the U.S.-zionist hegemony and deterrence in the region.

The heavy missiles of the Tidings of Victory that pounded American bases in the Gulf reflect a qualitative development in the balance of deterrence and confirm that Iran possesses both the will and the capacity to respond. Iran will not allow the American-zionist enemy to dictate the terms or arena of confrontation.

All the American threats and warnings issued in recent days failed to dissuade Tehran from exercising its sovereign right to respond. This should serve as motivation for all the forces of the nation and the free people of the world to strengthen the front of resistance and enhance coordination among the factions in confronting this dual American-zionist aggression.

As we affirm our full support for the Islamic Republic of Iran in its just battle against U.S.-zionist arrogance, we call on all peoples and their living forces to clearly express their rejection of the aggression and to stand by Iran and the resistance in the battle to defend sovereignty and dignity.

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine

Central Media Department

June 23, 2025

[comradesaucegay]

From Des 2020,

Around 2013, U.S. intelligence began noticing an alarming pattern: Undercover CIA personnel, flying into countries in Africa and Europe for sensitive work, were being rapidly and successfully identified by Chinese intelligence, according to three former U.S. officials. The surveillance by Chinese operatives began in some cases as soon as the CIA officers had cleared passport control. Sometimes, the surveillance was so overt that U.S. intelligence officials speculated that the Chinese wanted the U.S. side to know they had identified the CIA operatives, disrupting their missions; other times, however, it was much more subtle and only detected through U.S. spy agencies’ own sophisticated technical countersurveillance capabilities.

i wonder how much these improved chinese intelligence operations are responsible for the waning of U.S. hegemony, especially if they're sharing their methods/data with other countries

[recreationaldivorce]

🚨🔴 Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine: — The Popular Front Calls for a Boycott of the Democratic and Republican Parties and Emphasizes the Need for Not Voting for Advocates of Genocide and Supporters of Colonialism

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine calls on all the free people of America, especially supporters of the Palestinian people, Palestinian and Arab communities, as well as Black organizations and minority organizations, to boycott the Democratic and Republican parties in the U.S. elections scheduled for tomorrow, as both share clear colonial objectives aimed at the genocide of our people and the reinforcement of the zionist settler project.

Both parties have been directly involved in the ongoing war of genocide against our Palestinian and Lebanese peoples, never hiding their blatant bias in favor of the occupation and their continuous support for its racist policies that target the existence of the Palestinian people and uproot them from their land.

The stances of the two American parties reflect an explicit endorsement of ethnic cleansing, legitimizing zionist crimes and massacres against our people through financial (https://t.me/PalestineResist/65448), political (https://t.me/PalestineResist/66338), and military (https://t.me/PalestineResist/66172) support for the zionist entity. Statements by leaders of these parties seek to beautify and justify their imperialist policies, using colonial rhetoric that views the Palestinian people as an obstacle to their so-called "civilizational project," while their election campaigns overlook the heinous crimes committed daily against Palestinian civilians, especially women and children, in an attempt to mask the true face of the occupation and legitimize its crimes.

The Democratic and Republican parties continue their efforts to gain the support of zionist lobbies and influential powers, in pursuits aimed at reinforcing policies of mass displacement and systematic oppression against Palestinians.

In this context, the Popular Front renews its explicit call for all honorable individuals within American society not to vote for these two parties, which use American taxpayer money, drawn from the blood of the American people, to support the zionist genocide regime.

The Popular Front sees the boycott of these two zionist-aligned parties in tomorrow's U.S. elections as a moral stance no less significant than any other form of solidarity with the Palestinian people and the rights of oppressed peoples. It is also an effective means of exposing the falsity of American slogans that speak of freedom and human rights. The United States, through its political tools, seeks to exploit these concepts to justify its crimes and perpetuate its hegemony over nations, without regard for the rights of Palestinians who face the worst types of crimes.

Finally, the Front considers the boycott of the two parties a clear internal message to the U.S. administration and the international system surrounding it: those who collude in the shedding of our people's blood and their displacement should not receive the votes of the world’s free people and our communities, who refuse to be complicit in their election or serve as silent witnesses to their criminal policies in power.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine Central Media Department November 4, 2024