A demonstration of why anyone who still believes or repeats White House claims about ANY of the U.S.-sponsored violence abroad is insane or personally corrupt
And a reminder: While antisemitism and other "-isms" are not broadly desirable personality traits, loons from Wokesters to Zionists advertise every day that transparent bigotries are protected speech
Below is a selection of news headlines from mid-July.
Below is a selection of current news headlines concerning the same war:
So, according to the White House, a war decided in Ukraine’s favor nearly five months ago somehow now requires at least an additional $60 billion in taxpayer funding to ensure that Ukraine emerges as its victor. This would bring the official total amount of aid sent to (or through) the Ukrainian government to $171 billion even though the U.S. has already admitted that the effort is—as anyone rational observer could have grokked would occur from the start—a galactic, needlessly lethal failure on every front except for weapons manufacturers and lucky, mostly unseen Wall Street investors and NGOs.
—who lives in Australia and whose clarity about certain aspects of American foreign policy is therefore neither chronically befogged by CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News propaganda nor subject to poisoning with threats by the U.S. Government—has summarized the truth about the role of the United States in the Russia-Ukraine hostilities as unflinchingly and succinctly as anyone.
Because I habitually follow reliable sources while striving to avoid propaganda outlets—and on top of that have long looked for reasons to oppose and discredit American-led military violence whenever and wherever it appears—I’ve been aware of the basics of the conflict since it began. In April 2022, six weeks or so after Russia invaded Ukraine, I wrote the following:
I shouldn’t be surprised that so many of the blue-check Twitter folk who spent the past several years calling incessantly for people to treat human lives with greater reverence by wearing masks and getting vaccinated are now treating the Russia-Ukraine conflict as something in which the United States would be criminally remiss to not militarily involve itself. Yet no one can sanely make the argument that the U.S. is under direct military threat, so Americans who are actively cheering on the hostilities in Europe, for whatever righteous reasons, are either not thinking clearly or have simply given up on feigning humanism and just want to see bodies pile up as long as those corpses and any associated chaos remain abstractable overseas elements.
As it did with Iraq and Afghanistan, the public narrative regarding Ukraine is playing out like the tale of Guns N’ Roses, but in reverse. Instead of projecting initial resistance or revulsion at the certainty of hundreds or thousands of innocent lives being lost to purposeful violence, Americans have already been lured into not just acceptance but appreciation of a war Someplace Else. And instead of the awe ultimately afforded Guns N’ Roses, today’s rah-rah feelings will yield, years too late, to distaste and sullen regret.
As they did maybe ten years ago, at the height of a period when most Americans believed that the U.S. was no longer conducting lethal military operations, Americans will wind up wondering, as they stare with deflated dicks at images of flags drapes over caskets on television, “Why the fuck did anyone ever listen to cocksuckers like Bill Kristol and David Frum?”
Nevertheless, when I expressed unrestrained contempt in September for U.S. senator, Uniparty warmonger, and winless masters Paralympics athlete Tammy Duckworth owing to Duckworth’s own transparent contempt for Americans in general and residents of Maui in particular, I was still not only the longstanding retard in the mix but the chronic cuck as well:
I wrote a lengthy and conclusive response to this. Mr. Broyles elected to ignore it, not once but twice. He didn’t reply when I first posted it, and he ignored my prompt for him to revisit the subject when he resurfaced a month later to complain about my criticism of Tracksmith for caving in the face of trolling by an Instagram-based legion of butthurt slowpokes who, on average, overspend on running gear by a factor of 250 percent merely to hobble through four-hour marathons.
Given the field of play, then, it’s hardly surprising that same people, along with even more of the American political right, are buying into almost every lie being manufactured and dispersed in the service of pretending that what’s happening in the Gaza Strip right now is actually part of a war at all.
But once more eliding the particulars of the conflict, the predictable is happening as the U.S. Government moves to crack down further on what people are allowed to say, not only about U.S. foreign policy but Israeli foreign policy.
The fact that only 14 of the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted to shoot this garbage down demonstrates both the phenomenally disproportionate (and thus grimly awe-inspiring) power of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the group’s cutthroat avarice.
The ridiculousness of this resolution, and the fact that the language is threatening enough on its own, is a red herring and an effective one at that. These issues obscure the fact that it’s not illegal to be either antisemitic or against Zionism in the first place. In addition to the resolution’s fundamental incoherence (many Jews in both the U.S. and even in Israel oppose Zionism, a 20th-century invention-cum-fever dream; and as it happens, the overwhelming number of my friends of all religions place opposition to needless slaughter above their cultural shibboleths), it tries to plant the idea that it’s now, and perhaps even long has been, against the law to run around talking about money-grubbing Jews or lazy, larcenous blacks or dirty Mexicans or overbreeding Muslims or drunken Native Americans, even in terms this “kind.” It’s not.
In fact, I’ve watched ugly, openly racist brown characters like Emilia Benton and Alison Desir thrive in the running industry for over three years now, just as I’m seeing a smattering of wild-eyed one-tenth-of-one-percenters rambling on about what pure nonhuman animals Palestinians are. If you get to talk like that, I get to call you whatever I please, and better still if I get to deliver this salutation in person. There will never be a selectively open season on white people or any other group that I find acceptable, and those who think the version of white-male-bashing now underway nationwide is somehow fine should at least agree that Jews don’t get to escape its sting just because a few of them can literally more than afford to while playing the usual victim-cards.
You see, in a well-functioning democracy, people who as a basic social trait exhibit pointless or reactive bigotries don’t have to be formally “cancelled”; they do a good job of cancelling themselves from most aspects of society once most of its members have had a chance to fairly evaluate what these folks say, how their behaviors correlate with their stated beliefs, and whether these plausibly represent an actual threat to anyone.
The 1997 film As Good As It Gets includes a scene where romance novelist and obsessive-compulsive-disorder-ravaged shut-in Martin Udall (played by Jack Nicholson) responds to an unanticipated disruption of his pathologically fragile mental equilibrium by directing a crude tirade in the faces of two evidently Jewish diners (the actors portraying both went on to star on House, M.D., still among my favorite all-time television series).
When people take these things beyond a certain point, the herd can fairly decide to nonviolently exclude even the relatively powerful from zones their toxic blather has demonstrably polluted. But in addition to also boasting an openly homophobic side, Udall taunts a black art dealer and Central American cleaning woman with targeted cruelties, if nothing else illustrating where his real grief is coming from.
Because this is a movie, it ends with Udall redeeming himself by allowing himself to fall in love and overcome his OCD, which had imprisoned him until that point and was the real reason for his externalized hatred of everything besides small dogs. But in real life, the government is using its latest deployment of military technology overseas to further render the First Amendment null. Antisemitism—and I maintain that the number-one cause of any ill feelings toward the American Jewry at the moment are the assholes in U.S. Congress and the media valiantly fighting to create the impression that Jews are a monolith whose views are accordingly unified and hence bent on killing civilians.
The simple fact, supported throughout recorded human history, is that when the richest and most powerful actors in the world are telling you that it’s absolutely forbidden either to disagree with Principle A or to broach Principle B, then if you value your freedom as you know it, you will—if your country’s blueprint for government expressly allows it, as mine does—vehemently reject Principle A as intrinsically corrupt while investigating Principle B for whatever value it clearly contains that has worried the elites. This will not only help limit how stupid you appear in the comment sections of people’s blogs, but even help keep the United States unique in the only truly good way I can think of at this point: You get to run your mouth about what the people in charge are up to. Or anything else.
Fuck the state-commanded censors and their obligatory partners, the disinformation-merchants. They’re everywhere, their influence is spreading, and at root it’s not about Israel or even just what’s allowed in the United States at all.
I happen to think the need for a Jewish ethnostate exists, and the overwhelming reason is well summarized in a simple map (and I strongly recommend reading the post on
from which I extracted it):
The moral and other accommodations being demanded of Americans on this front, however, are beyond those most people with any awareness of what’s going on are willing to make. A lot of us would go on supporting Israel unreservedly if Israel were different from what it has become and what it was apparently supposed to be, but the current version has some serious and persistent bugs. Those uncomfortable with this attitude being too widely embraced stateside had probably better begin getting used to it, as even three weeks ago 70 percent of Americans supported a cease-fire (i.e., wanted Israel to stop unilaterally wiping out Palestinians, even if some thought a real war was afoot).
But moreover, some of us just don’t like beaming assholes like Adam Guillette, an affluent fake-news generator whose smarmy grin shows just how threatened he feels, telling people nobler than he is—which doesn’t take much—to shove his 1-percenter whining up his oversized honker.
No one I know is pleased with these censorship and shaming gambits from rich people, whether these observers in favor of any kind of ethnic cleaning by force or completely silent on Israel-U.S. and Palestine-Hamas. And the idea that I even could care more about any other country—whether obviously maniac-led or not—than my own rights and those of the people I value most is simply a show-stopping wet-shart of a joke.