The Left Independent ✊🏻✊🏼✊🏽✊🏾✊🏿𓅃

A few thoughts on the latest escalation: During the 40-day war, #Iran had a clear targeting strategy, and each set of targets served a specific purpose. In the first stage, Iran targeted U.S. radar and early-warning systems at bases across the region. The aim was to enable longer-range strikes against Israel later. At the same time, Iran targeted those U.S. bases that could be used for a potential ground operation against Iran, including bases in Kuwait, Al-Harir in Iraq, as well as some bases in the UAE that could be used for operations against Iranian islands. At the same time, attacks on energy infrastructure in the region were intended to maximize economic pain. This time, however, despite the effective resumption of war, Iran continues to target U.S. bases (in Kuwait and Bahrain) that have already been attacked several times. This may partly reflect efforts to strike new installations deployed by the United States at those bases. But when judged against current U.S. objectives, these attacks do not appear particularly helpful to Iran. During the previous round of war, the U.S. had a broader set of objectives, including regime change, a potential ground operation to sieze HEU stockpile, and the targeting of Iran’s missile capabilities. In this round, however, the U.S. is focused on weakening Iran’s ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz, and it is carrying out strikes toward that objective every night. These operations rely primarily on capabilities that the United States already has in the region, as well as on the reimposition of the naval blockade, which depends on U.S. warships and naval forces. Iranian attacks therefore do not appear to be deterring the United States from continuing its strikes. Therefore, it appears that Iran’s only strategy at this moment is to keep the Strait closed for as long as possible while the United States continues drawing down its strategic oil reserves, until the impact on the global oil market and the U.S. economy becomes irreversible. Iran hopes that this would push Trump to reconsider his position. Of course, this is a risky bet at a time when Iran remains under constant and heavy attack.

Great example of how innocent US civil society people-to-people exchanges can be weaponized by Chinese state media to normalize Chinese repression in Xinjiang. Would @1voicechoir be quite so comfortable visiting Myanmar? Russia-occupied Crimea? Why did they go to Xinjiang?

The June 2026 publication of an article titled "The Rise and Fall of Chris Smalls" in Jacobin magazine marks a watershed moment in the degeneration of the American "democratic socialist" media landscape. Nominally a critique of the Amazon Labor Union’s (ALU) internal friction, the piece serves as a thinly veiled political execution carried out on behalf of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). The catalyst for this media assault was simple yet profound: Chris Smalls, the foundational organizer of the historic ALU victory at JFK8 in Staten Island, publicly broke ranks with the progressive political establishment. Specifically, Smalls subjected Ocasio-Cortez to fierce, principled critique over her voting record regarding Israel, the ongoing devastation in Gaza, and her consistent capitulation to the broader Democratic Party apparatus. The ensuing online backlash from rank-and-field workers, radical leftists, anti-war activists, and Black organizers was swift and unsparing. By attempting to dismantle Smalls' credibility as an organizer, Jacobin did not just reveal its own editorial biases; it exposed its functional role as the unofficial media wing of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and liberals masquerading as radicals. The incident unmasked a deeper structural reality: when a self-made, independent Black working-class leader challenges the imperialist accommodations of elite progressive darlings, the social-democratic media complex will actively work to discipline, discredit, and discard them. AOC, Chris Smalls, and the Class Divide To understand the vitriol behind Jacobin’s hit piece, one must examine the history between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Chris Smalls—a relationship defined from its inception by political opportunism from the politician and a demand for genuine solidarity from the worker. When Smalls was fired by Amazon in March 2020 after organizing a walkout over unsafe pandemic working conditions, he did not have the backing of established, deep-pocketed trade unions. He and a small group of workers built the ALU from the ground up on a shoestring budget, greeting workers at Staten Island bus stops with food and literature. During the height of this grueling, uphill battle against one of the most powerful corporations on earth, the ALU repeatedly reached out to AOC—whose congressional district sits just a few miles away in Queens and the Bronx—asking her to bring her massive social media megaphone and star power to the picket lines. Ocasio-Cortez routinely demurred. In mid-2021, she backed out of a highly publicized ALU rally at the eleventh hour, citing vague "security concerns," an excuse that rang hollow to workers facing down corporate intimidation every day. Yet, when the ALU pulled off what pundits called an impossible miracle in April 2022—winning the union vote at JFK8—the progressive establishment suddenly rushed to center themselves in the victory. Ocasio-Cortez, who had been conspicuously absent during the trenches of the organizing campaign, quickly pivot to congratulate the workers online, attempting to bask in the reflected glow of working-class triumph. Smalls and the ALU leadership refused to let the politician rewrite history. Smalls publicly noted her absence when it mattered most, drawing a sharp line between the performative solidarity of electoral progressives and the gritty reality of independent rank-and-file organizing. The tension reached a boiling point as the Biden administration and the congressional "Squad" continuously aligned themselves with imperial statecraft. Smalls, alongside a growing vanguard of anti-imperialist workers, refused to separate domestic labor struggles from global working-class solidarity. Following the escalation of violence in Gaza, Smalls directly and publicly confronted AOC for her tepid, compromise-laden statements, her votes funding the Israeli military apparatus, and her willingness to shield the Biden administration from systemic critique. By demanding accountability for Palestine, Smalls committed the ultimate sin in the eyes of the progressive elite: he broke the unwritten rule of bourgeois politics, proving that working-class loyalty cannot be bought with a tweet or an invite to a gala. Shielding the Squad: How Jacobin Whitewashes Neoliberal Capitulation The Jacobin article functions as a classic character assassination, attempting to reframe Smalls’ refusal to bow to the political establishment as a psychological flaw—dismissing his leadership as mere "celebrityism" and vanity. In doing so, Jacobin deployed its standard editorial template: defending and whitewashing the egregious, neoliberal behavior of social-democratic politicians like AOC, Bernie Sanders, and the wider progressive caucus. For years, publication venues like the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) have meticulously documented how Jacobin acts as a political buffer for these figures. When Bernie Sanders voted to fund billions in military aid to fuel regional conflicts, or when he refused to call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza during critical junctures, Jacobin offered sophisticated, hand-wringing apologetics. When AOC voted in late 2022 to outlaw a strike by rail workers—forcing a contract without paid sick leave down the throats of the working class on behalf of the Biden administration—Jacobin rushed to frame the betrayal as a complicated tactical maneuver rather than a direct strike against class independence. This dynamic is not accidental; it is structural. The role of social-democratic journalism of this stripe is to convince radicalizing youth and workers that the Democratic Party can still be reformed from within. Whenever a genuine worker leader emerges from outside this bubble and exposes the absolute bankruptcy of this strategy, publications tied to this milieu must neutralize the threat. By attacking Smalls, Jacobin sought to protect AOC’s left flank. They sought to convince their readers that the breakdown of the ALU’s momentum was entirely due to Smalls’ flaws as an individual, rather than the immense pressure of an unsupportive state and an abandoned progressive infrastructure that prefers compliant union bureaucrats over disruptive, independent agitators. Liberals Posing as Radicals To understand the fierce online backlash against Jacobin, one must understand its positioning within the media landscape. Jacobin operates as the unofficial, de facto mouthpiece of the DSA leadership and the progressive NGO complex. It uses Marxist terminology, displays stylized socialist aesthetics, and invokes historical revolutionaries to build credibility among young people looking for alternatives to predatory capitalism. However, beneath the radical veneer lies a fundamentally liberal, reformist project. As commentators from outlets like Left Voice have noted in their public rebuttals to the Smalls piece, Jacobin’s editorial line has consistently opposed true class independence. True class independence requires a complete, uncompromising break from both corporate political parties. Jacobin, conversely, champions a strategy of realignment—utilizing the Democratic Party ballot line to run candidates who ultimately become house-trained managers of the capitalist state. When Smalls critiques AOC from the left on Palestine, he exposes the core contradiction of this strategy. He highlights that you cannot build a "democratic socialist" movement inside a political party that acts as the primary manager of global imperialism. The online backlash reflected this exhaustion: the working class is increasingly tired of liberals posing as radicals, using socialist catchphrases to justify voting for war budgets and corporate bailouts. The Anti-Black Dynamics of the DSA Milieu A particularly damning element of the Jacobin hit piece—and one that drew immediate fire from Black radical organizations like the Black Agenda Report and independent Black Marxists—is the underlying, institutional Anti-Blackness that characterizes both the publication and the DSA milieu it represents. The modern progressive movement in the United States remains overwhelmingly white, middle-class, and professional-managerial in its composition and cultural orientation. When this movement interacts with the Black working class, it historically does so through a paternalistic framework. When Black workers are compliant, quiet, and willing to serve as backdrops for progressive campaign ads, they are celebrated. But the moment a Black working-class leader asserts absolute independence, rejects white progressive tutelage, and formulates critiques using their own language and aesthetic, the establishment turns on them with venomous elite condescension. The Jacobin article dripping with this elitism. It sneered at Smalls’ wardrobe, his public appearances, and his cultural presence, reducing a brilliant, organic intellectual of the working class to a superficial "celebrity." This is a recurring trope within social-democratic spaces: It pathologizes independent Black leadership. It demands that Black organizers submit to the bureaucratic structures dominated by white Ivy League graduates and NGO professionals. It dismisses autonomous Black radical critique as "divisive" or lacking "structural understanding." By weaponizing these tropes against Smalls while simultaneously whitewashing the actions of a gentrifying progressive political class, Jacobin confirmed what Black radicals have argued for decades: Western social democracy is fundamentally tied to an elite, Eurocentric framework that is structurally hostile to independent, revolutionary Black working-class power. full article, link below unplugtheempire.com/post/how-jacob…

For nearly thirty years, Washington state’s 9th congressional district has been represented by Representative Adam Smith—a reliable fixture of the Democratic Party establishment. To his critics, Smith embodies the ultimate political insider: a powerful member of the House Armed Services Committee, a steady recipient of corporate campaign contributions, and an unwavering supporter of foreign military interventions. For decades, the political calculus in this left-leaning district, which spans south Seattle down through the suburbs of Bellevue and Tacoma, has suggested that a well-funded incumbent Democrat is virtually untouchable. But as the 2026 primary season approaches, a fundamentally different kind of political challenge has emerged. Kshama Sawant, the fiercely unapologetic revolutionary socialist who spent a decade shaking up Seattle City Hall, has launched an independent bid for the seat. Her objective is not merely to win a campaign, but to use the halls of Congress to build an entirely new framework for working-class resistance. In a wide-ranging, deeply critical interview on The Chris Hedges Report, Sawant and veteran journalist Chris Hedges laid bare the architectural mechanics of what they term the "corporate duopoly"—the bipartisan system governing American politics. The discussion provided an explicit autopsy of the modern Democratic Party, a scathing critique of establishment labor leadership, and a detailed blueprint for how grassroots movements can successfully force concessions from the billionaire class. A Platform Born of National Emergency Sawant’s decision to run for Congress is driven by what she characterizes as a structural breakdown affecting both domestic and international life. "We are in a national and international emergency for the working class, for the planet," Sawant told Hedges. Pointing to the stark reality that half of the American population reports struggling to afford everyday groceries in the wealthiest nation in human history, Sawant frames her platform not as a wishlist of progressive ideals, but as an urgent set of non-negotiable demands. At the core of her platform is a sweeping redistribution of wealth and an aggressive pivot in foreign policy. Internationally, Sawant calls for an immediate and total cessation of all United States military aid to the Israeli state, condemning the ongoing violence in Gaza, Lebanon, and across the Middle East as an unchecked humanitarian catastrophe bankrolled by American taxpayers. Domestically, her anti-imperialist framework extends to the dismantling of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the closure of its regional detention centers—agencies she points out were expanded and consistently funded under both Democratic and Republican administrations. On the economic front, Sawant is running on a national minimum wage of $25 per hour, comprehensive federal rent control tied strictly to inflation, and a massive expansion of publicly owned, high-quality affordable housing funded directly by taxing massive corporations. Her healthcare plan bypasses standard incremental modifications to the Affordable Care Act, calling instead for a state-of-the-art "Medicare for All" system that is publicly owned and democratically run by working people, entirely removing the profit motive from medicine. Furthermore, to combat what she describes as an impending "climate apocalypse," Sawant advocates for a massive green jobs program alongside the public ownership of major energy conglomerates, arguing that private energy bosses inherently profit from ecological exploitation. Unmasking the Corporate Duopoly and Its "Gatekeepers" A central thesis of Sawant’s campaign is that the two major political parties are structurally incapable of serving the public interest. She argues that the corporate media works tirelessly to maintain the illusion of a "lesser evil," a myth she explicitly rejects. According to Sawant, the Democratic Party is not an alternative to global capitalism; it is one of its two primary engines. To illustrate this systemic betrayal, Sawant and Hedges detailed the concept of political "gatekeepers"—figures inside progressive institutions who exist to domesticate unrest and redirect it back into safe, corporate-approved electoral channels. Sawant reserved some of her sharpest criticisms for mainstream labor leadership and what she terms "business unionism." "An overwhelming majority of the labor leadership has made peace with the bosses and their political parties," Sawant observed. She cited a striking historical failure: the fact that most contemporary union contracts include legally binding "no-strike" clauses. By signing away the right to strike—the working class’s single most potent weapon to stop the corporate profit machine—labor leaders have functionally neutered rank-and-file power. She recalled how during mass protests against ICE terror in Minneapolis, labor officials spent energy sending cautionary emails about contract penalties rather than organizing solidarity actions, highlighting a profound disconnect between workers and union executives. The domestication of the political left is not limited to union boards; it is rampant within the halls of Congress itself. Sawant pointed directly to figures like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and the Congressional Progressive Caucus as cautionary examples. She reminded viewers of the early 2021 "Force the Vote" initiative, where progressives held the numerical balance of power to withhold their votes for Nancy Pelosi's speakership unless they were guaranteed a floor vote on Medicare for All. The Progressive Caucus refused to wield its leverage. Sawant noted that in a later moment of candor, AOC admitted she avoided the tactic because she feared "relational and reputational harm" within the party structure. To Sawant, this admission exposes the fatal flaw of mainstream progressivism: prioritizing a comfortable seat at the establishment table over the needs of the working class. "If you are fighting for the working class, you will become enemy number one of the Democratic Party," Sawant stated, arguing that such friction should be embraced as a badge of honor, not avoided. The Battlefield of Washington's 9th District The political landscape of the 9th congressional district offers a clear study in how the establishment defends itself against systemic threats. Sawant’s chief opponent, Adam Smith, has spent nearly three decades building a career that bridges the gap between the Democratic establishment and right-wing policy preferences. Sawant pointed out that Smith was one of only five House Democrats who voted for the initial invasion of Iraq, has consistently authorized tens of billions of dollars in foreign military aid, and recently voted to block United States food assistance to Gaza. Furthermore, his campaign has historically relied on significant financial backing from major military defense contractors, aerospace companies, and pro-Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC. Yet, because Smith’s hawkish and pro-billionaire record makes him increasingly difficult to market to a deeply progressive base, Sawant argues that the Democratic establishment has deployed a familiar secondary strategy: introducing a curated alternative candidate to dilute the left-wing vote. In this race, that role is filled by another Democrat, Melissa Chaudhry. While Chaudhry is frequently perceived as a progressive option due to her personal identity and community background, Sawant notes that her platform carefully sanitizes its language to avoid challenging the party hierarchy. Explicit terms like "genocide," "occupation," "Israel," or "Palestine" are entirely missing from Chaudhry’s campaign literature and public messaging. Even more alarming to Sawant is Chaudhry’s calculated omission of protections for the LGBTQ+ community and abortion rights—a choice Sawant views as a massive betrayal given that Washington voters face severe right-wing ballot initiatives aimed at stripping trans protections. Sawant compared Chaudhry’s structural role to that of Senator Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 Democratic Presidential primary, who remained in the race just long enough to split the progressive vote and clear a smooth path for Joe Biden. The collaborative effort to suppress an independent left option went even further. Sawant revealed that the lone major Republican candidate in the race openly admitted to being actively recruited by political operatives to enter the primary. The explicit strategy was not to mount a serious challenge against Adam Smith, but rather to split the anti-incumbent vote and block Sawant from finishing in the top two positions, thereby preventing a revolutionary socialist from reaching the general election ballot entirely. Movement over Careerism For Sawant, entering an electoral race is never about securing a personal career. Throughout her decade on the Seattle City Council, she consistently donated the vast majority of her salary to a solidarity fund dedicated to social movements, living on only a fraction of her city income. This absolute rejection of careerism is what allowed her office to operate with unprecedented independence. When Sawant first took office in January 2014, senior Democratic council members sat her down and delivered a blunt warning: City Hall runs on our terms, and you will not win a minimum wage increase. Less than six months later, Seattle became the first major city in America to pass a historic $15 per hour minimum wage ordinance. How was this accomplished? Sawant explains that she did not win by mastering backroom negotiations or trying to be a "team player" with her council colleagues. Instead, she used her elected position as a megaphone to launch the "15 Now" grassroots movement, organizing thousands of workers, staging rallies, and threatening a direct ballot initiative that big business could not control. Faced with an organized and disruptive populace, the Chamber of Commerce and the city's political establishment were forced to concede. She repeated this exact outsider strategy to pass the "Tax Amazon" legislation in 2020, defying both corporate real estate interests and non-governmental organization (NGO) gatekeepers by collecting 30,000 community signatures in just three months to present an undeniable electoral threat to corporate giants like Jeff Bezos. "Elected offices under capitalism do not exist to give working-class people better lives," Sawant emphasized to Hedges. "They exist to defend capitalist interests." Therefore, the only way an institutional seat can serve a transformative purpose is if it is occupied by an organizer who answers exclusively to mass movements outside the building. @cmkshama full article, link below unplugtheempire.com/post/breaking-…

Officials also said they anticipate cases of cyclosporiasis to continue increasing in the U.S., possibly through the end of August. 6abc.com/post/lettuce-s…