Churchill on the Palestinian Arab revolt and Colonialism (1937): “I do not admit that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right.”

bsky.app/profile/atru...

"By robbing them of their personality, he puts them outside the pale of moral obligation. Mere symbols can have no rights - particularly when that of which they are symbolic is, by definition, evil."

His argument ignores the reality that those very isms shape sociopolitical frameworks that ultimately decide who gets access to resources, who gets to live, even who will subjected to genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Those isms matter way more to those who aren't White.

Keep in mind that this isn't a knock against Murphy per se. He is generally right about the economic issues, especially how Center-White parties in the U.K. and the U.S. aren't addressing material security.

It's just that the anti-isms argument is shortsighted.

BTW: Here's Kasparov doing genocide denial.

But they will run nonsense from the Kasparovs of the world because they serve as useful tools for opposing other empires opposed to U.S. White Supremacist power. And that's that.

There have been plenty of opponents of genocide who could have been platformed by those outlets, whose perspectives could demonstrate why what the Israeli and U.S. governments do are utterly inhumane.

Those outlets won't do that.

But again, this unsurprising. White-controlled media outlets have demonstrated over the last year that they primarily manufacture consent for White Supremacist regimes who want to commit genocide against Non-White people and those who fight alongside them.

In fact, it can almost be guaranteed that the Times and other outlets would do deep dives into Kasparov's relationships and allies, digging up all kinds of information that can't be done through a basic Google search.

White-controlled media outlets are handmaidens to White Supremacist Power. Especially that of the U.S. government and its vassals.

If Kasparov was, say, an opponent of the genocide it and the Israeli state are doing to Palestinian people, those outlets would not platform him.

The real question is why do White-controlled media outlets such as the New York Times continually platform Kasparov despite his record?

Because Kasparov stands for the 'right' thing: White-controlled nations and their desire to preserve White Supremacist Power.