menas

I show you where to look, you could refuse to do so It's okay to be coward, but don't show off.

• Barkane bombing civilian, enforcing dictatorship
• Military intelligence giving intel to let Egyptian bomb civilian coming from Palestine
• Caesar canon used to bomb civilian in Yemen
• Village mobilize against ore extraction in Tchad bombed by french air force
• Allowing weapon during kanak mobilization, to let colon armed themselves, and covering them when they kill, and deporting kanak that want the peace treaty to be respected

All this event took place recently, and we just scratching the surface because it took time to investigate, specially when it's covered by the state confidentiality

do know what "the french" is. However, the french state is like leader in overthrow government :

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barracuda
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Bison (attempt)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Tacaud (counter insurgency)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_%C3%89pervier (defend a dictotar)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Manta (defend the same dictotar)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Azalee
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Zaire_unrest#September_unrest_and_French-Belgian_interventions (counter insurgency)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Licorne (counter insurgency)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Lamantin (counter self-governance)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Turquoise (allow a genocide)

I just dig in the article "françafrique" of wikipedia. It does not cover economic interventionism on domination, like through logistics or uranium extraction. For example a massive strike in Tchad has been counter by sending 2 billions euro to the dictator in order to keep things running. At the same time, Macron was whining to get 2 the same amount for the healthcare. You could find a lot of things about this infamous state deeds on the website "survie", and support their amazing work.

(notice that we didn't speak of Algeria, Lybia, Indochina, Kanaky, and a lot of other event)

so it's possible, once

Liberal capitalist states currently state that they ignore ethnicity in the makeup of their peoples, as long as they can help the nation in the international competition.

If I'm understanding this sentence correctly, you are saying that modern state could exist without discriminating people regarding of their ethnicity. That's incorrect, but first we may be clarified some definitions : their is no scientific differences between nations, ethnicities or races. Those word define group of people with an arbitrary definition. However, nations is usually used for a recognized group (by law for example), and ethnicities is commonly used to define people see as "primal".

Nations are social construct, usually based on genocide. Every modern state with a nation have disciminized, secregate or exterminate people who do not fit in the category of the national identity : gypsies, local minoritues, jews, ...

Their is a specific history of nationality in germany ("volk"), however even in the most "liberal capitalist state", the nationality is somewhat linked with a national identity, a parent, or a place of birth. The only place that came in my mind that may not have a "blood" related access to nationality is the UK. However this a rare case of multi-national state, with some other way of discriminate people based on their nationality (i.ethe Ireland)

Aren't every modern state are ethnostate ? I They just call it "nationality"

Ecological, social, economic issues and the answer is on the legal site. FOSS as usual I guess

Both are translated "tortue" in french However to be fair, it could be specified "Tortue marine" and "Tortue terrestre"

All work is done through coercition Some coercition are worst than other, but the all the worst one are not only in sex works. Fighting for emancipation is done by the workers themselves, not aqainst them

not in a Marxist sens. Classical marxists analyze work in order to make the workers the liberation class. Those definition to got some value that workers could take from capitalists.

In that sens, cops are needed for the expropriation of value from workers, not the production of value. So workers could keep this value for themselves if they have no cops.

This definition is operational in a lot of work situation, however it do have some flaws. As pointed out, it's mean that workers in the public sector to do not suffer from exploitation, that reproductive work is not work, or informal work (like drug dealing or sex work) is not work too. This last example show what those flaws let class disdain could hijack it.

I see 3 possibilities :

• this definition is true, but incomplete
• this definition is tree, but their is other form of work we have to take in consideration (maybe boss exploitation is not the same than domestic exploitation)
• this definition is wrong

• cops do not prevent crime : they'd rather let the crime happen to make an arrestation in order to have good stats. Futhermore arresting someone actually de-socialized them, leading to precarity, leading to criminality.
• cops do no protect You may trie to fill a case against your boss of against sexual violence. A lot of time, it will not help. When it does, it to try to know what are the victims need, and isolate them from their social network
• the function of police is not to fight crime Foucault 101 there. In short : criminality exists because of its interdiction. Immoral or dangerous things could legal, moral or healthy things could be illegal. Criminality exists because Police exists, and they both have a social function : keep the social order in place. That's why law focus on things poor people do and not what powerful people are doing

If you point is : "some things done by individual could not be tolerated", we agree. However punishment do not stop this thing to happen, and those things could be done by cops, magistrate or powerful people too. restorative justice an stuff

Seems that he became reasonable

"Without the fear of poverty, no one would be submissive "