正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Jesse Jackson’s 1984 DNC speech feels like something from a different planet. Demanding a new form of foreign policy “characterized by mutual respect, not by gunboat diplomacy and threats,” he calls to end the nuclear arms race and condemns the US decision to “mine the harbors of Nicaragua… to...

296,027 次观看 • 3 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Zohran Mamdani caves again: "Maduro's government is one of repression, there's no question about it” And calls the leaders of Cuba🇨🇺 and Venezuela🇻🇪: "dictators who have stifled free and fair elections, jaled political opponents, and suppressed the free and fair press." Mamdani represents the segment of the left that parade themselves as ‘democratic socialists’, but then help manufacture the consent for Washington to continue attacking every socialist nation on Earth. None of these so-called ‘democratic socialists’ ever realise that these countries which have had successful socialist revolutions are put under siege by the US through campaigns of sabotage and regime change, to overthrow the socialist revolutions that occurred through mass mobilisation and popular uprisings. While the US’ ‘democratic socialists’ continue to achieve absolutely nothing meaningful and perpetually cave to elite power, facing the limits of the capitalist state system in the heart of the US empire… They attack the movements of countries that successfully managed to actually achieve something, giving Washington’s oligarchs and deep state even more justification to sabotage and crush these revolutions with an iron fist. These ‘democratic socialists’ then blame the leaders of these countries for the problems caused by being put under a state of siege by Washington. The whole point of these ‘democratic socialists’ from the point of view of Washington’s elites is to pacify revolutionary socialism and working class power, and present a watered-down, useless form of ‘socialism’ that disappoints the working class… And causes the working class to turn to reactionary right-wing politics wrapped in neoliberalism, which, in the end again serves the interest of US oligarchs to further concentrate the ownership of capital and national wealth, not only in the US, but around the world through military interventions, sabotage, and regime change.

Going Underground

1,099,670 次观看 • 6 个月前

FIDEL WARNED US! CONSUMERISM WILL DESTROY THE PLANET Fidel Castro died on this day in 2016. People remember him for many things, but one thing is undeniable. He was the man who led the struggle that brought down the US-backed Batista dictatorship, a regime that turned Cuba into a holiday playground for Miami elites. At the same time, Black Cubans lived under something close to apartheid. And he didn't stop there. Castro also played a significant role in the liberation of southern Africa by sending tens of thousands of Cuban soldiers to Angola, around 36,000 at the height, helping to break the military power of the South African apartheid regime and pushing it towards collapse. But Castro wasn't just a military leader. He was a thinker who constantly questioned the world we live in and the myths that hold it together. More than 30 years ago, he asked a simple question that still hits hard today. What would happen if everyone in Africa, Latin America, and China owned a car? He wasn't scared of development. He was afraid of what unchecked capitalism and endless consumerism were doing to the planet and humanity's future. In this clip, he breaks down how the global system is built on extraction and consumption with zero concern for the Earth's limits. His point was simple. Consumerism is destroying the planet. And today, with more than 1.4 billion cars on the road, choking cities, polluting the air, and draining the resources future generations will need to survive, his warning feels more relevant than ever. Castro never denied the Global South its right to develop. What he exposed was a model that convinces us that life is about owning more than we need, even if that mindset burns the planet to the ground. VoxUmmah Venezuelanalysis Qiao Collective Progressive International Kawsachun News Orinoco Tribune Black Agenda Report

Sovereign Media

52,600 次观看 • 6 个月前

Andrei Tarkovsky on Ingmar Bergman's Shame (1968): "Let us look at Bergman's Shame. The film doesn't contain a single 'actor's piece' for the performer to 'give away' the director's purpose, to play the conception of the persona, his attitude to it, to assess it in relation to the overall idea; and the latter is entirely hidden within the dynamic of the characters' lives, at one with it. The people in the film are crushed by circumstances; they act only in accordance with their situation, to which they themselves are subordinate; they make no attempt to proffer us any idea, any perspective on what is happening, or to draw any conclusion. All of that is left to the film as a whole, to the director's vision. And how superbly it is accomplished! You cannot say in simple terms who amongst them is good or bad. I could never say that von Sydow is a bad man. They are all partly good and partly bad, each in his own way. No judgements are passed, because there is no hint of tendentiousness in any of the actors, and the circumstances of the film are used by the director to explore the human possibilities which they test, and not for a moment in order to illustrate a thesis. Max von Sydow's character is developed with masterly power. He is a very good man; a musician; kind and sensitive. It turns out that he is a coward. But by no means every bold man is a good human being, and cowards are not always scoundrels. Of course, he is weak and irresolute. His wife is far stronger than he, so much so that she can overcome her fear. The hero lacks that strength. He is tormented by his own weakness, vulnerability, lack of resilience; he tries to hide, to cower in a corner, not to see and not to hear; and he does this like a child, naively and with complete sincerity. But when circumstances nevertheless force him to defend himself, he instantly turns into a scoundrel. He loses all that was best in him; but the drama and absurdity of his situation is that as he is now he becomes necessary to his wife, who, in her turn, looks to him for protection and succour instead of despising him as she always had. When he beats her about the face and says 'Get out!' she goes crawling after him. There is something here of the age-old idea of passive good and active evil; but its expression is immensely complex. At the beginning of the film the hero cannot even kill a chicken, but as soon as he has found a way of defending himself he becomes a cruel cynic. He has something of Hamlet: my view is that the Prince of Denmark perishes not as a result of the duel, when he dies physically, but immediately after the 'rat' scene, when he understands how irreversible are those laws of life which have forced him, a man of humanity and intellect, to act like the inferior people who inhabit Elsinore. Von Sydow is now a sinister character, afraid of nothing: he kills; will not raise a finger to save his fellows; pursues only his own interests. The point is that you have to be a person of great integrity to feel fear in the face of the foul necessity to kill and humiliate. And by shedding that fear and apparently acquiring courage, a person in fact loses his spiritual strength and intellectual honesty and parts from his innocence. War is the obvious catalyst for the cruel, anti-human elements in people. Bergman uses the war in this film exactly as he uses the heroine's illness in Through a Glass Darkly: to explore his view of man." — "Sculpting in Time" by Andrei Tarkovsky (translated by Kitty Hunter-Blair, 1987)

RadiantFilm

27,527 次观看 • 4 个月前