Babak Fakhamzadeh @mastababa@mastodon.social retweeted
WHAT LULA’S RE-ELECTION TELLS US: The Class War Need Not End in Fascism
On Sunday, Brazilians did something that the commentariat had told us was a lost cause. On the eve of his eighty-first birthday, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a former metalworker, turned the Trumpist, evangelical, neofascist, Zionist tide in Latin America to get re-elected President of Brazil.
Three weeks earlier, he had come second in the first round, behind Flávio Bolsonaro, son and political heir of the man who trumpeted the merits of fascism, who had embraced Trump as his lord and master, who plotted a cynical coup against Brazilian democracy – moreover, the main candidates that were eliminated were rightists whose voters were meant to move to Bolsonaro. Yesterday, Lula overturned this deficit and won with a margin of nearly four and a half million votes.
I want to use Lula’s victory to tell a broader story. A story about a war, the class war that the few are waging against the many across the Western world. And a story about how that war need not end, as so many now fear, in a neofascist revival.
THE HIDDEN CLASS WAR
“There’s class warfare, all right,” Warren Buffett once said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” Mr Buffett was not exaggerating. For almost four decades, Western governments and central banks have pulled every policy lever in the same direction: to make the assets of the few burgeon at the expense of the incomes of the many.
Consider the numbers. Between 1952 and 1988, economic growth explained nearly all the gains of the West’s stock market. From 1989 onwards, growth explains only about a quarter. The largest share, around 40 per cent, came from income diverted from workers to shareholders. Another third came from cheaper money and lower perceived risk. That is not wealth creation. It is wealth extraction: a transfer from those who work to those who own, inflated by cheap money and paraded on the evening news as “a strong economy”.
Then look at the rescues. 2001, 2008, 2020, the British gilt crisis of 2022, Silicon Valley Bank in 2023: each time, the state rushed in to save the asset holders. Together they reveal the rule: to save the economy, you must save the wealth of those who own it – not those who produce stuff, not even productive companies. In the United States, the top tenth own almost 90 per cent of all shares. The Fed and the US federal government insure it for them, doing ‘whatever it takes’ to prop them up whenever their prices tank. The rest of us in the West pay the premium, in the form of the austerity that always follows the bailout.
And the owners need never sell. Why do billionaires pay so little tax? Because they do not earn incomes - they accumulate capital gains, taxed only when sold. So they borrow against their soaring assets at 1 or 2 per cent and live on the loan. Then they die and pay no tax on their capital gains, passing on the loot to their kids at ridiculously low inheritance taxes. Meanwhile, to pay bills and put food on the table, the worker borrows on a credit card at 20 per cent, her debts the mirror image of their fortunes.
Then, a large chunk of these accumulating assets seek even higher rents in places like Brazil where the US government intervenes to ensure that the local governments will also place the defence of these assets’ values above all else.
CAPITAL IS NOT A THING, NOT MERELY AN ASSET
Why does austerity keep returning, even though it is economically self-defeating? Marx tells the story of Thomas Peel, who in 1829 sailed to Western Australia’s Swan River with £50,000 of provisions and three hundred working-class men, women and children. On arrival, his workers walked off into the bush and worked for themselves. Peel had brought money, tools and labour, but he could not bring capitalism along, because his workers had an alternative.
Capital, Marx concluded, is not a thing but a social relation: the power of those who own to get those who don’t own to do things they’d rather did not do. Austerity is not an economic policy. It is a disciplinary device, keeping the many sufficiently insecure and indebted to accept whatever is on offer. The ruling class’s deepest fear is not inflation or debt. It is to end up like Peel: rich, but without the power to compel.
IS FASCISM INEVITABLE?
Here is the part of the story that keeps so many of us awake at night. When centre-left politicians, from Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Tony Blair to Gerhard Schröder, Francois Hollande and Andy Burnham abandoned the language of class, a void opened up in the working-class heartlands of the West. Into that void stepped a venomous storyteller with a century of experience in filling such voids: the recalcitrant far right, the rebranded fascists. They offer left-behind workers a story of dignity, then redirect their fury away from the owner who shipped their factory abroad or sold their council house to some fund and towards the migrant next door. It does not end the class war. It merely divides one side – the workers – to rule over them. It camouflages it.
From the red suburbs of Paris to south Piraeus, from England’s red wall to Italy’s rust belt in Taranto, from the American rust belt to eastern Germany, the pattern seems relentless. And so, a fatalism has set in: the class war waged from above, we are told, must inevitably end in a neofascist, racist, misogynist revival.
Brazil has just refuted this fatalism. Brazil knows the monster intimately. It lived through four years of Jair Bolsonaro, with his nostalgia for the military dictatorship. On 8 January 2023, his followers stormed the Congress, the Supreme Court and the presidential palace. Brazil’s far right is not a fringe. Unlike Trump’s rag tag storm troopers, they had years of running a dictatorship. It won the first round of this election. They had the White House fully behind them, while the US Democrats, once again demonstrating their irrelevance, stayed mute. And yet, yesterday, they were defeated.
How? Not by hand-wringing about “populism”, nor by a centrist promise to manage the status quo more efficiently. Lula won because he did what the Western centre-left forgot how to do: he spoke the language of class, and backed it with policies that shifted power, however modestly, from the few to the many. His government exempted those earning up to five thousand reals a month from income tax and paid for it with a minimum tax on the very richest. During Brazil’s G20 presidency, it proposed a global minimum tax on billionaires. When Lula tells Brazilian workers that the elites have rigged the game, he points his finger upwards, at the rentier and the speculator, not sideways, at the migrant or the poor.
PIX – AN EXAMPLE OF AN ANTI-OLIGARCHY DIGITAL TOOL
But the most innovative weapon in Brazil’s arsenal is one that few outside Latin America have heard of. It is called Pix.
Every time you tap a card to pay for a coffee, a toll is levied. Visa, Mastercard and the banks take a cut, often 2 or 3 per cent, from every transaction. Multiply this by billions of purchases a day and you grasp one of the most lucrative rent-extraction machines ever devised. These are not profits made in competitive markets but rent extracted by those who own the digital rails on which our economic lives now run. It is part of what I call technofeudalism.
Unlike Britain, Europe or, of course, America, Brazil’s central bank moved to limit this rabid exploitation. It launched an alternative: a public, instant payment system, free for individuals and with capped fees for merchants. A Brazilian pays a street vendor in Salvador or sends money to her mother in Recife, instantly, using Pix from her phone, with no card company or bank taking its slice. Brazilians took to it with astonishing enthusiasm. Last year, Pix processed almost 80 billion transactions and overtook credit cards as the most popular way to pay online.
Pix is, in effect, the Swan River of the digital age. It gave tens of millions of Brazilians, including the poorest, who had never had a bank card, an alternative to the toll booths of Big Finance. And, like Peel, the toll collectors did not take it lying down. This summer, Washington imposed 25 per cent tariffs on most Brazilian exports, and its trade representative explicitly named Pix as a grievance, complaining that it “unfairly disadvantaged” American payment companies! The most powerful government on Earth deployed its trade arsenal against a free public service for being too successful at denying rents to Visa and Mastercard.
Lula did not blink. He defended Pix as a Brazilian public good, and Brazilians rewarded him for it. Here, at last, is a concrete example of limiting the power of Big Business, Big Finance and Big Tech: not with slogans, but by building public digital infrastructure that removes the opportunity to extract rent in the first place.
NOT A REVOLUTION, BUT AN AUSPICIOUS PORTENT
Let me not romanticise. Lula is no revolutionary. His margin was narrow. Brazil’s Congress remains in the grip of agribusiness and evangelical blocs. Its central bank still keeps interest rates punishingly high, a weapon of the class war if ever there was one. Lula himself has compromised much too much with these vested interests, and lost support as a result.
But Brazil has shown three things the rest of us must learn. First, the class war waged against the many does not have to end in fascism. Fascism wins only when the left vacates the battlefield of class. Second, a progressive government can win by pointing upwards, at those who extract rent, rather than downwards, at those who suffer. And third, Big Business can be defeated, at least forced to lose some battles, by building public alternatives to its rent-extracting machines.
So, here is the challenge to Britain, to Europe, to the people of the United States.
-Build your own Pix: public payment rails that end the tolls of Visa and Mastercard.
-Tax capital gains, ill-gotten wealth that is, not just income.
-Make every rescue conditional, with the public receiving real, permanent equity in return.
-Create a public investment bank as an alternative to the bond markets. Restore the bargaining power of the workforce. And give working people what Peel’s workers found at Swan River: an alternative, and the freedom to say no.
Buffett was right. There is a class war, and his class has been winning hands down. But yesterday, in Brazil, it lost a battle though not the war. It lost because a working-class president dared to name the war and fight it using weapons fashioned to defend the many.
unherd.com/2026/10/why-lu…
On Sunday, Brazilians did something that the commentariat had told us was a lost cause. On the eve of his eighty-first birthday, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a former metalworker, turned the Trumpist, evangelical, neofascist, Zionist tide in Latin America to get re-elected President of Brazil.
Three weeks earlier, he had come second in the first round, behind Flávio Bolsonaro, son and political heir of the man who trumpeted the merits of fascism, who had embraced Trump as his lord and master, who plotted a cynical coup against Brazilian democracy – moreover, the main candidates that were eliminated were rightists whose voters were meant to move to Bolsonaro. Yesterday, Lula overturned this deficit and won with a margin of nearly four and a half million votes.
I want to use Lula’s victory to tell a broader story. A story about a war, the class war that the few are waging against the many across the Western world. And a story about how that war need not end, as so many now fear, in a neofascist revival.
THE HIDDEN CLASS WAR
“There’s class warfare, all right,” Warren Buffett once said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” Mr Buffett was not exaggerating. For almost four decades, Western governments and central banks have pulled every policy lever in the same direction: to make the assets of the few burgeon at the expense of the incomes of the many.
Consider the numbers. Between 1952 and 1988, economic growth explained nearly all the gains of the West’s stock market. From 1989 onwards, growth explains only about a quarter. The largest share, around 40 per cent, came from income diverted from workers to shareholders. Another third came from cheaper money and lower perceived risk. That is not wealth creation. It is wealth extraction: a transfer from those who work to those who own, inflated by cheap money and paraded on the evening news as “a strong economy”.
Then look at the rescues. 2001, 2008, 2020, the British gilt crisis of 2022, Silicon Valley Bank in 2023: each time, the state rushed in to save the asset holders. Together they reveal the rule: to save the economy, you must save the wealth of those who own it – not those who produce stuff, not even productive companies. In the United States, the top tenth own almost 90 per cent of all shares. The Fed and the US federal government insure it for them, doing ‘whatever it takes’ to prop them up whenever their prices tank. The rest of us in the West pay the premium, in the form of the austerity that always follows the bailout.
And the owners need never sell. Why do billionaires pay so little tax? Because they do not earn incomes - they accumulate capital gains, taxed only when sold. So they borrow against their soaring assets at 1 or 2 per cent and live on the loan. Then they die and pay no tax on their capital gains, passing on the loot to their kids at ridiculously low inheritance taxes. Meanwhile, to pay bills and put food on the table, the worker borrows on a credit card at 20 per cent, her debts the mirror image of their fortunes.
Then, a large chunk of these accumulating assets seek even higher rents in places like Brazil where the US government intervenes to ensure that the local governments will also place the defence of these assets’ values above all else.
CAPITAL IS NOT A THING, NOT MERELY AN ASSET
Why does austerity keep returning, even though it is economically self-defeating? Marx tells the story of Thomas Peel, who in 1829 sailed to Western Australia’s Swan River with £50,000 of provisions and three hundred working-class men, women and children. On arrival, his workers walked off into the bush and worked for themselves. Peel had brought money, tools and labour, but he could not bring capitalism along, because his workers had an alternative.
Capital, Marx concluded, is not a thing but a social relation: the power of those who own to get those who don’t own to do things they’d rather did not do. Austerity is not an economic policy. It is a disciplinary device, keeping the many sufficiently insecure and indebted to accept whatever is on offer. The ruling class’s deepest fear is not inflation or debt. It is to end up like Peel: rich, but without the power to compel.
IS FASCISM INEVITABLE?
Here is the part of the story that keeps so many of us awake at night. When centre-left politicians, from Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Tony Blair to Gerhard Schröder, Francois Hollande and Andy Burnham abandoned the language of class, a void opened up in the working-class heartlands of the West. Into that void stepped a venomous storyteller with a century of experience in filling such voids: the recalcitrant far right, the rebranded fascists. They offer left-behind workers a story of dignity, then redirect their fury away from the owner who shipped their factory abroad or sold their council house to some fund and towards the migrant next door. It does not end the class war. It merely divides one side – the workers – to rule over them. It camouflages it.
From the red suburbs of Paris to south Piraeus, from England’s red wall to Italy’s rust belt in Taranto, from the American rust belt to eastern Germany, the pattern seems relentless. And so, a fatalism has set in: the class war waged from above, we are told, must inevitably end in a neofascist, racist, misogynist revival.
Brazil has just refuted this fatalism. Brazil knows the monster intimately. It lived through four years of Jair Bolsonaro, with his nostalgia for the military dictatorship. On 8 January 2023, his followers stormed the Congress, the Supreme Court and the presidential palace. Brazil’s far right is not a fringe. Unlike Trump’s rag tag storm troopers, they had years of running a dictatorship. It won the first round of this election. They had the White House fully behind them, while the US Democrats, once again demonstrating their irrelevance, stayed mute. And yet, yesterday, they were defeated.
How? Not by hand-wringing about “populism”, nor by a centrist promise to manage the status quo more efficiently. Lula won because he did what the Western centre-left forgot how to do: he spoke the language of class, and backed it with policies that shifted power, however modestly, from the few to the many. His government exempted those earning up to five thousand reals a month from income tax and paid for it with a minimum tax on the very richest. During Brazil’s G20 presidency, it proposed a global minimum tax on billionaires. When Lula tells Brazilian workers that the elites have rigged the game, he points his finger upwards, at the rentier and the speculator, not sideways, at the migrant or the poor.
PIX – AN EXAMPLE OF AN ANTI-OLIGARCHY DIGITAL TOOL
But the most innovative weapon in Brazil’s arsenal is one that few outside Latin America have heard of. It is called Pix.
Every time you tap a card to pay for a coffee, a toll is levied. Visa, Mastercard and the banks take a cut, often 2 or 3 per cent, from every transaction. Multiply this by billions of purchases a day and you grasp one of the most lucrative rent-extraction machines ever devised. These are not profits made in competitive markets but rent extracted by those who own the digital rails on which our economic lives now run. It is part of what I call technofeudalism.
Unlike Britain, Europe or, of course, America, Brazil’s central bank moved to limit this rabid exploitation. It launched an alternative: a public, instant payment system, free for individuals and with capped fees for merchants. A Brazilian pays a street vendor in Salvador or sends money to her mother in Recife, instantly, using Pix from her phone, with no card company or bank taking its slice. Brazilians took to it with astonishing enthusiasm. Last year, Pix processed almost 80 billion transactions and overtook credit cards as the most popular way to pay online.
Pix is, in effect, the Swan River of the digital age. It gave tens of millions of Brazilians, including the poorest, who had never had a bank card, an alternative to the toll booths of Big Finance. And, like Peel, the toll collectors did not take it lying down. This summer, Washington imposed 25 per cent tariffs on most Brazilian exports, and its trade representative explicitly named Pix as a grievance, complaining that it “unfairly disadvantaged” American payment companies! The most powerful government on Earth deployed its trade arsenal against a free public service for being too successful at denying rents to Visa and Mastercard.
Lula did not blink. He defended Pix as a Brazilian public good, and Brazilians rewarded him for it. Here, at last, is a concrete example of limiting the power of Big Business, Big Finance and Big Tech: not with slogans, but by building public digital infrastructure that removes the opportunity to extract rent in the first place.
NOT A REVOLUTION, BUT AN AUSPICIOUS PORTENT
Let me not romanticise. Lula is no revolutionary. His margin was narrow. Brazil’s Congress remains in the grip of agribusiness and evangelical blocs. Its central bank still keeps interest rates punishingly high, a weapon of the class war if ever there was one. Lula himself has compromised much too much with these vested interests, and lost support as a result.
But Brazil has shown three things the rest of us must learn. First, the class war waged against the many does not have to end in fascism. Fascism wins only when the left vacates the battlefield of class. Second, a progressive government can win by pointing upwards, at those who extract rent, rather than downwards, at those who suffer. And third, Big Business can be defeated, at least forced to lose some battles, by building public alternatives to its rent-extracting machines.
So, here is the challenge to Britain, to Europe, to the people of the United States.
-Build your own Pix: public payment rails that end the tolls of Visa and Mastercard.
-Tax capital gains, ill-gotten wealth that is, not just income.
-Make every rescue conditional, with the public receiving real, permanent equity in return.
-Create a public investment bank as an alternative to the bond markets. Restore the bargaining power of the workforce. And give working people what Peel’s workers found at Swan River: an alternative, and the freedom to say no.
Buffett was right. There is a class war, and his class has been winning hands down. But yesterday, in Brazil, it lost a battle though not the war. It lost because a working-class president dared to name the war and fight it using weapons fashioned to defend the many.
unherd.com/2026/10/why-lu…
154
1,075
3,414
431,299
Babak Fakhamzadeh @mastababa@mastodon.social retweeted
Lula vs. Bolsonaro: I was held in solitary confinement for 1,901 days for revealing the truth about the U.S. government's killings and espionage, including against Brazil and its industries. Out of power, Lula fought for my freedom. In power, Lula discussed my persecution with ed to meet with my family and offer help. After my release, Lula and I met in Rome to mourn the Holy Father's passing. Lula was kind to my children and asked for nothing in return. In contrast, Jair and Flávio Bolsonaro did nothing and said nothing. Yet without the ability to say no to Washington and Tel Aviv, there can be no domestic policy, only foreign instructions. Those orders are always the same: "Expand our theft of resources and wages, and keep your mouths shut about us murdering children." Sellouts will surrender everything in exchange for a cut, even their own tongues.
1,947
15,565
53,220
1,569,243
When everything is spectacle, nothing is.
Isn’t it strange that the news of an Israeli plumber supposedly saving a Flydubai plane carrying Israelis from crashing received so little follow-up coverage? 🙄 Truly a miracle on 2 fronts: the plane was saved, and the story somehow managed to disappear 🤡
0
0
0
29
It’s important for the right to keep the population as dumb as possible,
Flávio Bolsonaro says, if elected, he'll transfer jurisdiction over Brazil's free public university system from the Ministry of Education to the Ministry of Science & Technology. This would cut off access to its constitutionally mandated federal funding. panamericandispatch.org/p/the-future-o…
0
0
0
17
Babak Fakhamzadeh @mastababa@mastodon.social retweeted
Burkina Faso’s🇧🇫 Thomas Sankara was assassinated on this day in 1987, 3 months after calling on African countries to not pay back debt to European countries and institutions such as the IMF and World Bank:
‘I would like this conference to clearly declare that we cannot pay this g assassinated individually. If Burkina Faso is the only one to refuse, I won’t be at the next conference.’
‘I would like this conference to clearly declare that we cannot pay this g assassinated individually. If Burkina Faso is the only one to refuse, I won’t be at the next conference.’
On this day in 1987, Burkina Faso’s🇧🇫 Marxist revolutionary Thomas Sankara was killed in a coup backed by NATO intelligence services. Here are his achievements in his short 4 years in power:
- Vaccinated 2.5 million children against meningitis, yellow fever and measles in a tiated a nation-wide literacy campaign, increasing the literacy rate from 13% in 1983 to 73% in 1987.
– Planted over 10 million trees to prevent desertification
– Built roads and a railway to tie the nation together, without foreign aid
– Appointed women to high governmental positions, encouraged them to work, recruited them into the military, and granted pregnancy leave during education.
– Outlawed female genital mutilation, forced marriages and polygamy in support of women’s rights
– Redistributed land from the feudal landlords and gave it directly to the peasants. Wheat production rose in three years from 1700 kg per hectare to 3800 kg per hectare, making the country food self-sufficient.
- Increased education spending: Government education expenditure rose by 42% between 1983 and 1987.
- Increased healthcare spending: Public health expenditure rose by 27% between 1983 and 1987, according to research by economist Emmanuel Harsch and other scholars.
- Expanded rural healthcare: By January 1986, more than 7,460 primary health posts had reportedly been established across Burkina Faso, approximately one per village.
- Expanded access to drinking water: The revolutionary government constructed 600 wells and 1,100 boreholes in 1986, alongside investment in small dams and irrigation.
- Accelerated road construction: Burkina Faso reportedly built an average of 106 km of paved roads annually, compared with an average of 59 km annually during the preceding 23 years, an increase of approximately 80%.
- Increased cereal production: Annual cereal production rose from approximately 1.12 million tonnes in 1983 to 1.64 million tonnes in 1987, an increase of roughly 46%.
He was assassinated in a coup led by Blaise Compaoré, a man who Sankara considered a brother before their relationship deteriorated. Compaoré betrayed the revolution, and reversed the country’s revolutionary direction, putting the chains of foreign neocolonial dependence back on Burkina Faso.
With the arrival of Captain Ibrahim Traore to power, Burkina Faso once again has changed course back onto the revolutionary path.
16
766
1,547
29,486
I hope to live and see Palantir staff face the prosecution they deserve, but Sankar is right in that a computer cannot make management decisions. A human is responsible for those deaths. That human might be Sankar.
Asked about the US strike on a school in Minab, Iran that killed 123 children, Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar blames "human error" rather than Palantir's AI. He then complains that "Targeting is kind of this very salacious word."
0
0
0
58
How is this only seven?
🇺🇸 Seven senators, including four Republicans, say Trump's Russian diesel deal breaks the law
Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, Richard Blumenthal, Ron Wyden, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Thom Tillis and John Curtis said Sunday that Trump's decision to allow Russian diesel imports "runs 2022 law banning Russian energy imports until Moscow ends its war on Ukraine. They said the administration never consulted Congress or explained its decision, as the law requires.
Trump announced the deal Friday after a call with Putin, saying Russia would release more than 35 million barrels of diesel to the US and global markets to bring down fuel prices, which have soared since the US-Israeli war on Iran. Energy experts say the amount is too small to have a meaningful impact on record diesel prices. "The Administration must immediately reverse course," the senators said.
0
0
0
48
Babak Fakhamzadeh @mastababa@mastodon.social retweeted
It cannot be overstated how much Trump essentially having to beg Putin for diesel illustrates just how dramatically he has accelerated the decline of US global hegemony.
Through his own—and, really, Washington’s broader—strategic hubris and the outsized influence of Israel on U.S. foreign policy, Trump has found himself forced to ease pressure on Russia, an ostensible great-power competitor that Washington had spent years trying to isolate and weaken, to offset the immense costs of his strategically disastrous war against Iran.
It’s honestly incredible no matter how you look at it. Iran, what was an ostensible middle power battered by years of US siege and economic warfare, has managed to impose strategically game-changing costs on the United States.
The situation has become such that US overreach is simultaneously managing to empower Russia—at a critical moment in the Ukraine War and for the Trans-Atlantic alliance—AND propelling Iran toward a level of geopolitical power and influence it could scarcely have achieved otherwise.
What’s unfolding before our eyes in real-time is a truly astonishing case of imperial overstretch and decline, one destined for the history books.
Through his own—and, really, Washington’s broader—strategic hubris and the outsized influence of Israel on U.S. foreign policy, Trump has found himself forced to ease pressure on Russia, an ostensible great-power competitor that Washington had spent years trying to isolate and weaken, to offset the immense costs of his strategically disastrous war against Iran.
It’s honestly incredible no matter how you look at it. Iran, what was an ostensible middle power battered by years of US siege and economic warfare, has managed to impose strategically game-changing costs on the United States.
The situation has become such that US overreach is simultaneously managing to empower Russia—at a critical moment in the Ukraine War and for the Trans-Atlantic alliance—AND propelling Iran toward a level of geopolitical power and influence it could scarcely have achieved otherwise.
What’s unfolding before our eyes in real-time is a truly astonishing case of imperial overstretch and decline, one destined for the history books.
26
198
810
28,526
RT @MaxBlumenthal: “We tortured some folks.” -Barack Obama
0
2,285
0
Babak Fakhamzadeh @mastababa@mastodon.social retweeted
But you had no thoughts for the 400,000 Yemeni Civilians killed since 2015 by the Western backed Saudi / UAE Regimes. Or for over 70,000 Palestinians killed by your 'like-minded partner' Israel since 2023. You are a total Hypocrite...
Houthis have once again struck Riyadh’s airport, taking three innocent lives.
My thoughts are with the families of the victims.
We stand in full solidarity with the people of Saudi Arabia and all our Gulf partners.
Attacks on civilian infrastructure are unacceptable.
Iran's proxies must stop their reckless and violent acts.
196
3,613
10,322
97,695
Babak Fakhamzadeh @mastababa@mastodon.social retweeted
The Trump regime is going to execute a paraplegic Palestinian psychiatrist who has spent 17 years in prison by firing squad, and livestream it.
No other country in the world currently televises or livestreams executions.
No other country in the world currently televises or livestreams executions.
2,743
3,266
11,890
616,613
It’s not surprising that incompetence wants to be president. What is disheartening is that it draws widespread support in a population that is so familiar with the necessity and benefit of widespread solidarity.
On Thursday, we said that these texts should be relevant for all of October. Would have been nice to be wrong
0
0
0
27
She says “work harder”, she means “earn more”. If working harder was equivalent to earning more, care givers in the NHS would be millionaires.
“We don’t want you to be punished for working harder”
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch defends her new proposal to scrap the "cliff edge" that means parents in England lose out on childcare support when they earn more than £100,000 a year
#BBCLauraK
bbc.co.uk/news/live/c8n5…
0
0
0
22
Perhaps true, perhaps not. But what Lula certainly doesn’t have is capitalist millions at his disposal that only care about serving the elite, nor the support of the current American state that only cares about exporting empire at the cost of the common man.
What you're watching is the first election in 6 years where Lula no longer has tens of millions of dollars of USAID operation money propping up him and his allies.
0
0
1
87