[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1713468000889.jpg ( 224.82 KB , 1280x853 , pinocchio and the whale.jpg )

 No.480601

UK Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer last week declared for the third time that he would, in office, authorise the firing of nuclear missiles.

A conversation between Starmer and ITV News Political Correspondent Harry Horton—as Starmer was visiting the BAE Systems shipyard where Britain’s nuclear-armed submarines are built—was chilling. Horton asked, “If Britain was under attack would you be prepared to push the nuclear button… even it means potentially killing millions of people?”

Starmer replied, “The deterrent only works if there is a preparedness to use it—so that is a clear answer to your question.”

With the Conservative government mired in crisis and hated by millions, Labour is expected to win the general election later this year. Starmer’s statement is an essential element of Labour’s pitch to the ruling class that it can be trusted with office, under conditions in which Britain is embroiled in major military conflicts all over the globe.

Significantly, Starmer’s first public confirmation that he would authorise nuclear strikes took place on February 10, 2022. Asked by the BBC whether he would be willing to use nuclear weapons, he replied, “Of course.” This was just 14 days before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In January this year, while in Estonia, Starmer answered yes to the same question.

Starmer has since then boasted that Labour is the “party of NATO”, as he has enthusiastically backed every global crime of British imperialism, from the bloody slaughter in Ukraine, to supporting Israel’s genocide in Gaza and advanced plans for war against Iran and China.

The Labour leader is one of three senior political figures—including two prime ministers—who have publicly declared over the last decade that they would take actions meaning the end of civilisation.

That they were asked if they would do so was the response of Britain’s ruling class to the election of Starmer’s predecessor as Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, when he hesitated to pledge to launching a nuclear strike.

After winning a general election, a prime minister is privately briefed by a leading military figure and then told to write instructions in a letter to each of the four nuclear-armed submarine commanders, based on the scenario that Britain has been hit by a nuclear bomb and the prime minister is dead. The “letters of last resort” instruct the commanders on whether and when to use nuclear weapons. Since Britain obtained nuclear weapons, following the decision of the Atlee Labour government in 1947, every prime minister has signed these letters.

The destructive power of Britain’s arsenal is staggering. Each of the four Trident submarines carries 40 nuclear warheads, each with an explosive yield of 100 kilotons—at least six to eight times more destructive than the 15-kiloton bomb dropped on Hiroshima by the US at the end of World War II. Each warhead can obliterate up to one million people.

Corbyn is a lifelong member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and was chairman of the Stop the War Coalition when he took the leadership of Labour on a massive mandate against war and austerity in September 2015.

Within three weeks of taking office Corbyn was asked, at Labour’s annual conference in Brighton, if he would use nuclear weapons if elected prime minister. He replied “no” and stated his opposition to renewing the Trident nuclear programme.

This set into motion a ferocious campaign by the Blairites—backed by the Conservative government, intelligence agencies and the military—which resulted, in the space of five years, in Corbyn’s removal as Labour leader and expulsion from the parliamentary party.

Even before his Brighton statement, a senior serving British general told the Sunday Times, on September 20, 2017, that if Corbyn came to power there “would effectively be a mutiny… You would see a major break in convention with senior generals directly and publicly challenging Corbyn over vital important policy decisions such as Trident, pulling out of Nato and any plans to emasculate and shrink the size of the armed forces. The Army just wouldn’t stand for it.”

On July 18, 2016, after taking the Conservative Party leadership five days earlier and signing her own “letters of last resort”, Prime Minister Theresa May was asked in Parliament by the Scottish National Party’s George Kerevan, “Is she [May] personally prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill 100,000 innocent men, women and children?”

May replied, “Yes,” and denounced “the suggestion that we could have a nuclear deterrent but not actually be willing to use it, which seemed to come from the Labour Front Bench.”

During the campaign for the June 2017 general election, the first question asked by BBC journalist Andrew Marr during an interrogation of Corbyn was what would he write in the letters of last resort. “You have to say fire or don’t fire.” Corbyn took a major step in his ongoing capitulation before his Blairite opponents by fudging the issue, saying his “strict instruction” would be to “follow orders when given.”

By this time Corbyn had already abandoned everything he professed to personally believe regarding membership of NATO and the renewal of Trident. His 2017 election manifesto reaffirmed Labour’s “commitment to NATO” and promised that Corbyn would be “spending at least 2% of GDP on defence…”

A draft of the manifesto dated May 11 had stated, “Any prime minister should be extremely cautious about ordering the use of weapons of mass destruction which would result in the indiscriminate killing of millions of innocent civilians.” This was deleted from the final manifesto published five days later.

The 2017 election was narrowly won by May. Corbyn remained Labour leader until being routed by the Tories’ next leader Boris Johnson in the 2019 general election. As part of the war drive of the imperialist powers against Russia, Corbyn’s 2019 Labour manifesto had implied that the Johnson government was in the pocket of Russian President Putin and attacked him for refusing to “publish the report into possible foreign interference by Russia in UK democracy.”

Johnson fell from office three years later thanks to the murderous policies he pursued during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and was briefly replaced by Liz Truss as prime minister. When Truss was asked during a Tory leadership husting in August 2022 if she would launch nuclear missiles that “would mean global annihilation,” she replied, “I’m ready to do that.”

That all those auditioning for office before the ruling elite must now affirm their readiness to kill millions and destroy the planet is a stark warning. No matter who is prime minister and which party they lead, the working class in Britain, like workers internationally, confronts a single party of war. There is no lesser-evil because there is nothing fundamentally to choose between them.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/04/18/zhcj-a18.html
>>

 No.480602

How has Galloway's Workers' Party been faring lately? And what have the CPGB been up to?
>>

 No.480603

>>480602
I haven't followed the CPGB-ML since they posted their bio-essentialist transphobic piece.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
>>

 No.480604

>>480601
This feels like they asked about sanity.
Corbin answered: "I'm a reasonably sane person, live and let live"
Starmer answered: "I'm fuckin nuts, nuke all the people"

>>480602
Galloway won a local election. He got inside the political machine, he can't do much, but he can talk about things in an official capacity, the ruling circle doesn't want any attention on. They've been seething about that a lot.

>And what have the CPGB been up to?

Some of their members got arrested for distributing a flyer that mildly criticized Israel.
>>

 No.480605

>“The deterrent only works if there is a preparedness to use it—so that is a clear answer to your question.”
lmao, as if the UK can compete with Russia - the biggest nuclear power on the Earth
>>

 No.480607

>>480604
Starmer's just pretending to be crazy. He's a sociopath pragmatist!
>>

 No.480608

>>480605
Fun fact: for several decades now the little island has often spent more on its military than Russia.
>>

 No.480609

>>480605
Getting hit with one or two nukes is also pretty deterring. I guess. Ok, it obviously wouldn't work in a nuclear exchange, but it would do a lot of damage. That it would do less damage than the country with the most nukes on Earth doesn't really mean that much, the ultimate outcome of any exchange like this would be devastating for everybody.
>>

 No.480610

>>480604
Yeah I heard Galloway is symbolically running for PM too. Good on him I like his content
>>

 No.480702

Eugenics Island is going Ingsoc now. Starmer has that energy, hiding his power level before we are to call him Big Brother.
>>

 No.480711

>>480607
>Starmer's just pretending to be crazy.
That doesn't really seem like it would be an argument in his favor.
>He's a sociopath pragmatist!
ooohhh right, i get it, lol

>>480608
>Fun fact: for several decades now the little island has often spent more on its military than Russia.
in that case the Russians seem to be getting more bang for their buck.

>>480609
>Getting hit with one or two nukes is also pretty deterring. I guess. Ok, it obviously wouldn't work in a nuclear exchange, but it would do a lot of damage.
Using nukes is the opposite of deterring. You said it your self if a country gets hit with a nuke, chances that they use their own nukes skyrocket.

>That it would do less damage than the country with the most nukes on Earth doesn't really mean that much, the ultimate outcome of any exchange like this would be devastating for everybody.

You are only right because once a nuclear exchange begins it will go up the escalation ladder until everybody's nukes go flying.

But in the unlikely scenario where this would be limited to a slug-fest between the UK and Russia. idk man.
The Russians got the most advanced ABM systems, and the most advanced delivery systems. If the UK tries to hit them with "one or two nukes" and those get intercepted. The most likely outcome will be a UK surrender in exchange for not having millions of people incinerated in a retaliatory strike.

You're idea got officially labeled as "limited nuclear war". It's shit. If your limited nukes go through, the other side will do a full retaliation anyway because they want to destroy your ability to do that ever again. If your limited nukes don't go through the other side will have you by the balls.
>>

 No.480712

File: 1713787942669.jpg ( 23.03 KB , 160x240 , The Doomsday Machine.jpg )

A limited nuclear war is impossible because every nuclear power has the equivalent of Russia's "dead hand" system, where launching one nuke automatically initiates further launches. Highly automated nuclear protocols exist precisely to enhance the credibility of deterrence. But it's also what makes nuclear buildups so incredibly dangerous, because accidents or rogue incidents can trigger these automated systems all the same. There is is no real escalation ladder once the nukes start flying, they pretty much all come out at once. An escalation ladder is something that only exists before an exchange.
>>

 No.480714

>>480702
Eugene's right again. Starmer comes across as a bona fide fascist.
>>

 No.480715

>>480711
>Using nukes is the opposite of deterring. You said it your self if a country gets hit with a nuke, chances that they use their own nukes skyrocket.

The idea is to not use them to begin with. As it is, nuclear-armed countries have all the non-nuclear armed countries by the balls by default.

>You're idea got officially labeled as "limited nuclear war". It's shit. If your limited nukes go through, the other side will do a full retaliation anyway because they want to destroy your ability to do that ever again. If your limited nukes don't go through the other side will have you by the balls.


If the "one or two" nukes are launched at all, the only justifiable reason will be that the country launching them is, itself, retaliating for a nuclear strike. My statements are predicated on this as a condition. Launching nukes first would always be a strategic loss if you hit a nuclear-armed country, and full-scale invasions would also come with this sort of risk.
>>

 No.480724

>>480702
Indeed, Starmer has ghoulish ingsoc energy. Which is unbearable to most people. He might be like Liz truss, remember her ? she was prime minister for roughly a month before she fell off that horse, and then they un-democratically appointed that Sunac guy. Starmer might be another seat-warmer.
>>

 No.480753

>>480724
Ah Liz the sadomasochist slave girl to do the dirty work of Ba'al Hamon and the gang.

I don't see Starmer as just nobody. He goes back to the Trilateral Commission, so he's someone important, and presumably not a fucking retard like Boris. Whether he is personally charismatic is not very relevant, because honestly, who the hell rules by personal appeal in this day and age? I doubt he'd rule forever or become literally Big Brother, but I doubt he would be someone anyone wants to take down or really oculd. The Tories always tear each other apart over stupid shit. Conservatives are always like that, bitches and sons of bitches without even the cunning of the lowest liberal, relying entirely on venality and slime before the money men like Sunak do what the aristocracy always wanted to do anyway. Eventually, though, aristocracy runs out of Other Peoples' Lifeblood and some boring ass grody technocrat saves them, just enough to keep the rot going.

Maybe my read as a Burger is wrong but I see no reason Labour would lose at this point. As it appears to be going, Labour is already becoming the Party of Fear and nothing else, while the Tories are the party of dog hunting and stupid culture war talking points nobody gives a fuck about.
>>

 No.480754

>>480712
Have you ever considered the "dead hand" system is fucking retarded if you think about the aims of war for five minutes, and Ellsberg is there to herd the simps back to the plantation?

A limited nuclear war is not impossible because of the magic technology, but because war is not a limited exercise that works exactly as it is drawn up, where the enemy cooperates with your war plan. That's some Germanic thinking that always loses, like every time it has been tried. If you fire a nuke, first of all your destructive power is not what you believe it will be. Second, nuclear weapons are often used for counter-force - that is, the first target of a nuke attack are other peoples' nukes. Third, war of a limited sort is still prohibitively expensive. Look at Israel - they spent a ridiculous sum of money to "prepare" Gaza, on top of getting the US to be their air force and do most of the actual bombardment work. The Diaper Force isn't fighting shit on its own. The idea that any such war will be quick and automatic does not understand what this really would be, and the likely case that, at least now, any nuke war even hinted at means the people of the world will seek whatever cover they can. The governments of the world want to inspire fear to herd their subjects to slavery, and have deliberately cancelled plans for the most basic civil defense against a nuclear attack. There have been people asking the whole time this very obvious question about what happens in a nuclear war, and the mythology of "nuclear war" is always sold in a way which tells certain people they're going to be allowed on the lifeboat while the poors are "sacrificed for the greater good". It's always eugenics with those people. But, we don't comply with eugenics, we don't march like morons like their theories demand we do, in sufficient number for such a plan to work without consequences. Anyone who thinks they're going to be devilishly clever and kill us off with the magic nukes would be summarily exterminated if they attempted such a thing. As it is, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the eugenic creed retards get got by their superiors after they have fulfilled their "soft-kill" function. They're dumb fags for going along with any of it, but once they taste that ideology, there is no going back. The eugenist is life unworthy of life, and should be put down like a dog for goodness' sake. There really is no other way with Those People. But, we don't get to live in that world.

If the eugenists succeed in enclosing the world and creating their "15 minute cities" and slave camps, then nukes can fly. But, that only happens by tacit agreement of the world powers, who all agree that the eugenic creed is their only god. That is what the eugenists have always aimed for, and like every war plan, they believe it is always a fait accompli. They can't not.
>>

 No.480755

The US leadership has made clear their last act is to punish the American people, who they've always hated more than anything else in the world. That's all they can do now - more torture and lies. A Satanic race knows no other way. Unfortunately, the Satanic race is the human race. Oldest religion there is, you know.
>>

 No.480756

I'll also say here - I don't see a general war happening. I see the US either breaking up or being visibly aligned under a new thing, and being pushed to civil war to keep the Americans in a state of constant fear and dread, while depopulation happens. Eugenics has clamored for it, and weakened the resolve of anyone who would resist, killed off all who would be ringleaders with any competence. That's the only thing Eugenics did accomplish.
>>

 No.480757

File: 1713937874449.jpg ( 13.18 KB , 160x389 , thorazine.jpg )

>>480753
>>480754
>>480755
>>480756
You seem more unhinged than usual, is everything all right?
>>

 No.480758

>>480757
Fag. Die.
>>

 No.480762

>>480753
Labour will win in a race against the Tories, but someone from neither party would have a good shot at this point… electorally speaking. If Starmer is elected, I agree that he'll probably be around for a while, I reiterate that he comes off as a fascist, good for absolutely nothing except consolidating power and doing genocide.

>>480756
The winning move for the American people is to overthrow this before it's too late. Balkanization and Fascist unity are both nightmare scenarios, recipes for total decay, America needs to make a rapid shift into being a sort of pluralist Nordic model state or something like that. The only place which should be allowed to leave the union is Hawaii.
Stop occupying other countries, employ ex-military in construction and nationalization efforts (to prevent the general public from being "punished" by the rich for the loss of profits incurred by ending colonialism) as well as in the national guard in case of retribution for the years of cruelty, tax the shit out of land speculators and foreign-owned properties, end aggressions towards American Indians & Mexicans, use seized speculative land assets as reparations for the descendants of enslaved black people, and come down hard on any little despot trying to leave the union in order to prevent economic disparity and out-of-control offshoot states.
>>

 No.480763

>>480753
>I don't see Starmer as just nobody. He goes back to the Trilateral Commission, so he's someone important, and presumably not a fucking retard like Boris.
They're both neo-liberal power-brokers who seek to capture a political position to sell out. The actual brains of the operation unlikely operate in any publicly facing capacity.

I doubt they exclusively rely on greed to keep these power-brokers in line, especially when they reach high positions. So my guess is they also have something on Starmer they can hold over his head. Given that the prime minister position has a lot of diplomatic immunity, he might have done some fucked up shit. Maybe that's all on purpose and it's how they organize their power structure. At least that's how I try to reconcile that the majority of the Neo-libs give off these unsettling vibes.
>>

 No.480767

>>480762
There is no solution for the former United States. Its people can only endure this onslaught. It started in earnest in 1981, and there is no off switch for what was already done to us.

One thing that will happen is that the last pretenses that "the US" is a thing are going away, so it will be merged with the Anglo countries. The "balkanization" is a way to get Americans to keep killing each other over retarded shit while eugenics keeps winning and stealing everyone's shit. There are no political solutions.

Right now I'm thinking more about existing in spite of the institutions, in spite of any "general plan", since anyone who has state support does not want us to live. It's that simple, and all of the efforts to speak of it as a policy reform ignore all of the damage that has already been done. If anyone has any interest in anything useful, that is a different question, one that the state and "society" categorically refuse to answer. There is nothing left of the republic but eugenics, which means the republic will refuse to die and will ensure we keep suffering for decades to come.

They have succeeded in one thing - when this is finally over, humanity will never allow a republic to exist ever again. If it exists, it would only operate at the level of a city, and would be clearly subordinate to a despotic government. That is the only option left, because any "other system" was deliberately attacked and destroyed any time it attempted to form. By now, any "other system" would require humans to become very different creatures, and this step is one that eugenics and its successors will disallow under any circumstances. It would mean giving up on humanity altogether and doing some thing that hasn't been done before.

I have no reason to shut up about this or act like anything I've lived through is a working society. They did everything humanly possible to run anything that made a republic worth keeping into the ground, and then insisted it can never die as an idea.
>>

 No.480768

So, there is no "overthrow". Everything since 2000 has locked in this course that eugenics set, and those who would do the "overthrowing" see no reason to end the chokehold on humanity. That's the "revolution" they intend for us - more blood for the blood god. Eugenics is a genuinely revolutionary doctrine, in which the middle class locks ranks as compradors and cannibalizes everything in its path. That is the only image of revolution allowed to exist and it is appealing to that middle class which has always been drawn to revolution as their narrative. The masses are not revolutionary because revolutions are fucking horrible for them, and give them nothing. What the masses wanted was for this beast, in total, to never be a part of their life again, and that is exactly what is on offer. The Party of Order has already made its pledge in not-too-subtle language that they will get politics out of your life forever. Of course, they don't intend to actually "get politics out of your life" - just eliminate any pretense that you can tell the politicians no ever again. Hence, "Yes We Can" - that is an affirmation of the middle class "Jehad", and Obama got them marching in lockstep for pure eugenism. What Labour wants now has been an op to bring them in line with that, and take the leadership on that issue in the Empire. The reasons the Americans bow out is because there is not one American who can even present himself as a serious representative. Obama was a one-off, and in many ways, Obama continues to be the "man behind the man", a sort of political guru or boss in America because the liberals have no one else and don't need anyone else.
>>

 No.480769

At this time, the empire sees depopulation as its chief political imperative. They don't need more profit or wealth extraction, since they own everything they need to rule. It is the human beings who present the greatest threat and asset to their rule. The imperative is no longer to manage labor in the abstract. They're going direct now.
>>

 No.480770

I expect the outcome in the US won't be "balkanization", but a declaration that the United States is no more in the near future - maybe by the end of this year - and the proclamation of a new union that is stridently eugenist and makes opposition to eugenics the greatest and sole crime.
>>

 No.480771

That has already been the status quo, but they want to make it official, so that the remaining legal and institutional barriers are dissolved. That's what the CARES Act is - placing all of those people made homeless in death camps and torturing them with glee. Satanic race.

Unique IPs: 11

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome