#Navalny is facing TWO court hearings today; one is happening now. I'm listening to his speech. He's trying to explain: he was not hiding from the court; he was in a coma. The whole thing is so absurd that it is impossible to comment. In a nutshell: they just want him locked up.
Curtain. The next hearing is Feb 16. Enough time to elaborate the smear. I followed \U0001f447\U0001f3fc@Meduza Their chief editor is currently in jail. This \U0001f446\U0001f3fcWas the definition of a \u201cshame for the country.\u201d https://t.co/QAtqvBWZsM
— Zarina Zabrisky (@ZarinaZabrisky) February 12, 2021
This trial is organized according to the rules of combat propaganda: it plays on emotions. WWII has been hi-jacked by the Kremlin over the last ten years to amplify nationalistic sentiments. https://t.co/msNVV1PkwV pic.twitter.com/hjoijsH9cz
— Zarina Zabrisky (@ZarinaZabrisky) February 12, 2021
More from World
Let's go through some of them.
Do you really believe this? And you believe BDA is a time traveler too? You say BDA has accurately predicted things. Please point me to the proof. I have not seen any proof so far.
— I am Justice. God's Kingdom is coming. Wake up. (@GlynAlyn) October 13, 2020
- BDA predicted the Saudis would assassinate Suleimani. They did.
- He said the dog that got Badghadi's arm deserved a Medal Of Honor. The next day the President posted a joke image showing him giving the dog a MoH.
- He said one of his ops in Syria would severely disrupt a CIA drug trafficking operation. This was proved true within a few days:
https://t.co/Hranupwcxj
- He sent gold to Brazil to help pay for an anti-trafficking operation there. That op became public soon afterwards.
- On May 31 this year, he predicted the President would be giving a speech the next day. June 1, the President gives a surprise address at the Rose Garden.
- He predicted the US would be making diplomatic moves on Greenland. True.
- He said the US would be pulling all troops out of Afghanistan. This was confirmed within the month.
- He claimed earthquakes would be hitting Iran's nuclear facilities in December. Yep.
- There were FOUR facilities hit, not the three made public. Also true.
Shopkeepers like in this video below say
"Pompeo, we Xinjiang people hate you."
Or everyday working people like Zaynura Namatqari, who speak out against vicious & disgusting US lies and accusations about
BBC's false reporting is hurting real Uygurs.
— Jingjing Li \u674e\u83c1\u83c1 (@Jingjing_Li) February 13, 2021
At a press conference, I saw this Uygur lady, who is a former trainee of a vocational education & training center in #Xinjiang, got emotional & furious at @BBC 's false reporting accusing systematic rape in #China. #Uyghur pic.twitter.com/vdu7KlAWMr
.@qiaocollective have a brilliant thread of everyday proletarian Uyghurs speaking out against the harassment they face from the US and their paid
The family of a retired cadre scorn Pompeo and the American imperialist interests he stands for. They celebrate China's sanctioning of Pompeo as the proper move against U.S. imperialist designs on Xinjiang. pic.twitter.com/vOfExwMfD8
— Qiao Collective (@qiaocollective) February 12, 2021
'Uyghur proletariat' looks like this:
Not like this: (photo from a pro Islamist separatist protest in Turkey in 2017)
You May Also Like
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x