But where is the outrage over the constant anti-white hate mongering against white people that has been flourishing in our pigsty universities for decades? And how about our public schools teaching white children to be ashamed of themselves for being white? Can anyone explain to me why I should feel anything at all positive about a country that commits such crimes against children?
This Real Clear Investigations article below from 2020 is about the “1619 Project” and what the author Nikole Hannah-Jones told the editors of the Chicago Tribune about its purpose which is, she said, to instill guilt in white liberals so they will support reparations for blacks. White liberals are not being targeted though. White children in our public schools are. And our Woke white leftist ruling class loves this and is totally supportive of it. She was even given a Pulitzer Prize for this poison in 2020. This is not “black history” though. This is anti-white hate mongering pretending to be history. This is evil and this is what the democrats have become. And these are the same people who are working to put Trump in prison.
“If you read the whole project, I don’t think you can come away from it without understanding the project is an argument for reparations,” she told the Chicago Tribune in October.
“I'm not writing to convert Trump supporters. I write to try to get liberal white people to do what they say they believe in,” she said. “I'm making a moral argument. My method is guilt.”
“Disputed NY Times ‘1619 Project’ Already Shaping Schoolkids Minds on Race.”
Actually, there is a practical solution, something I thought of long ago, hiding in there: Whites who want to "pair off" with Blacks in order to pull off their own race-based redistribution of wealth are free to do so.
It was democrats, and ONLY democrats who owned slaves. The Republican party was formed specifically to end slavery. The KKK was formed by democrats. The Jim Crow laws were enacted and enforced by democrats.
I'm fine with reparations. Send the bill to the democratic party.
The Republican oarty was founded not on ending slavery, but keeping it out of the territories to keep them white. There were more than several prominent slave owners in the republicans party and among the higher ranks of the Union Army. The Republican Party was also founded by a good many Marxists straight from the Marxist Revolution. They called themselves the Forty Eighters…at the first Republican convention there were 18 Marxists helping with the planks of the party.
“The charge that we want to have anything to do with (blacks) is utterly untrue. It is a false clamor raised to mislead the public mind. Our policy is to have nothing to do with them...I want to have nothing to do, either with the free (black) or the slave (black) We, the Republican party, are the white man's party. [Great applause.] We are for free white men, and for making white labor respectable and honorable, which it never can be when (black) slave labor is brought into competition with it. [Great applause.] We believe it is better for us that they should not be among us."
Speech of Hon. Lyman Trumbull, United States Senator from Illinois, on the great issues of the day, delivered in Chicago, Saturday, August 7, 1858
The klan was not a democrat sanctioned organization and at its founding wasn’t a racist institution. At its founding it was a policing organization for southerners who had their rights taken away and were victims of crimes simply for existing.
It is ridiculous to compare parties from 170 years ago to what they are today. In 1860 the democrats were constitutionalists and the republicans were radicals. It is because of these republicans who wanted to consolidate power at the federal level that we now have the over bloated, overly powerful federal govt of today.
The country at large was at fault for slavery and the war, not one side or the other. We should all know correct history before we go blaming people from 170 years ago for the troubles of today especially when we understand so little about it.
Robin, you are dead wrong. A few points: first, who are those "prominent slaveholders" in the Republican party that you speak of? Yes, there were slaveowners in the Whig party, but that was why the Republican party was formed, to end slavery, or more precisely, contain its spread so it would eventually whither away. No more compromises with pro-slavery Whigs.
Second: Lincoln's oft stated policy of "non-extension" of slavery was not to keep Blacks out of the territories, it was to keep the territories non-slave. Free Blacks freely emigrated to these territories in substantial numbers. So, fail there.
Finally: the "country at large" was most definitely not "at fault" for slavery. Slavery was under the control of the states, not the federal government. The Northern states had all abolished slavery or had put it on the road to ending it by 1805. Vermont never had slavery. The issue was controversial from 1776 onward, as slavery was an obvious contradiction to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. As early as the Missouri Compromise Debates of 1820, a future collision over slavery was clear--the American body politic spent the next 40 years both confronting that possible collision and trying to avoid its catastrophic consequences. We all know how this controversy was resolved, the rivers of blood that were shed to do so. So you are dead wrong about the notion that all sections and peoples were somehow equally at fault for slavery. They were not.
In the end, the collective energies of the American people from both the North and some from the South ended slavery, making good on the promise of 1776. That it took "four score and seven years" to do so may seem too long for us, but given the long presence of slavery in world history (at least 3,000 years), it actually happened rather quickly. And it happened in spite of the fact that in 1860, the 3.6 million slaves were the single most valuable source of capital in the nation. Yes, a lot of people both in the North and South were profiting from slavery, and they ended it anyway. That's a fact.
Quite a story, really. You and your neo-Marxist buddies would do well to remember it. But as neo-Marxists, we know that you are not committed to historical truth, but rather to perverting history to being just another tool of "the revolution." But you have just been blocked from doing that here.
I could teach you much more, were you interested in learning some real American history, and not the neo-Marxist claptrap foisted upon us by academia. But I'm guessing you are not interested in doing so. And that's sad.
I agree with some of what you say. Yes, the Republican party is responsible for much of the centralized control of the federal government. There is much that the Republican party has done that I am dedicated to undoing. Of course, I say the same of the democrat party.
There were various reasons that Whites wanted slavery ended, and they weren't all entirely altruistic. Some just didn't want to have to compete with the free labor of slavery. But the overwhelming sentiment was abolitionism, the desire to end slavery as a moral imperative. But equality doesn't necessarily to translate to brotherhood. Many wanted to free the slaves, but had no desire to welcome them as part of "White" culture. Rationally, that's justifiable. I want everyone to have equal rights, but that doesn't mean I like everyone, or their beliefs, or want to participate in their lives, or have them participate in mine. That in no way conflicts with my dedication to equal rights.
Keeping slavery out of the territories in no way required the passing by Republicans of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that sought to secure equal rights for black men. It's false to claim that Republicans had their own desire to subjugate blacks. And the KKK most certainly was the enforcement arm of the democratic party in the south. You can tell any fairy tale you want, but the leaders of the KKK were also leaders in the democratic party.
Yes, things change. Parties morph. But I'll stand by what I said: The democratic party is responsible for steadfastly fighting to KEEP slavery in defiance of Republican efforts to end it. The KKK was democrats. Jim Crow laws were enacted and enforced by democrats. And today, the black ghettos are ruled by democrats.
Rad Individualist, one way to think about this is to realize that there were three main threads of anti-slavery/abolitionist sentiment: economic, moral/religious, and ideological. Economically, some poor whites realized that they could not compete against those who could afford slaves, and opposed it for that reason. This was one of the reasons Lincoln opposed slavery, he saw his own father move to Indiana from Kentucky so he did not have to compete against slave labor. "Free soil, free labor, free men," as the slogan went.
Second: many prominent Americans (John Quincy Adams esp comes to mind here) believed that slavery was an enormous affront to America's stated political ideology of freedom and equality to all. Lincoln said this repeatedly, slavery takes away our pretensions to being an positive example to the world. Lincoln, too, felt this strongly. Today, we see slavery as a huge contradiction to American ideals. So did many Americans back then.
Finally: one should never underestimate the power of moral/religious objections at the time. Some claimed the Bible defended slavery; many others were just as convinced that it was a grave sin against God, and acted accordingly. "Am I not a man and a brother?" was the famous tagline for this group, whom we know as "the abolitionists."
These three strands of anti-slavery/abolitionist thinking powered the movement to end slavery. Again, although it took longer than we might wish, it was one of the great triumphs in world history, We would do well to remember that.
Let me address the klan statement first…the enforcement arm of the democrats party did not happen until long after the civil war. The original klan founded after the war was simply a policing organization to protect southerners in the lawlessness that was reconstruction. This klan was disbanded by 1870. The founding members did not include Forrest as so many amateur historians like to bloviate. The klan you refer to became prominent after WWI. So you don’t have your history correct. While what the klan became is abhorrent and yes, used as an arm of the party, it wasn’t used in that manner by the originators of the organization. To assign the original klan with atrocities is to be ignorant of the history of reconstruction. Most fail to understand the Union League and what they did to southerners…the Union Keague and 5ere actions is why the klam was founded in the first place.
Many southerners wanted an end to slavery as well…something which your kind always discounts or has never heard of. Legal slavery forever was offered to southern states no less than 2 times. The first was the passage of the Corwin Amendment by a majority Yankee congress…it mad slavery legal in perpetuity with no chance of repeal. The southern states that had seceded did not come back into the Union when this was passed and it did not keep the res5 of the states from seceding. If the democrats only cause was keeping slavery, they could have had it and stayed in the Union. Let’s not forget that four Yankee states ratified it before the war started and it was discarded.
Southerners were offered legal slavery by Lincoln himself with the EP. The EP freed no slaves in Yankee slave states, Yankee held territory and Lincoln even added a fifth slave state.. WVa in 1863 after he issued the EP. The EP specifically states any state returning to the Union within 100 days can keep slavery…again no southern state returned, yet again indicating that the issue was not keeping slaves, but self govt.
The south offered to emancipate all slaves simply for recognition from Europe early in the war. Later a congressman named Duncan Kenner went to Europe with offers to end slavery. Had the south’s sole objective was to keep slavery, they wouldn’t have offered to end it.
The 13, 14 and 15 amendments were passed after the war was over. I’m not saying the republicans weren’t right about a few things, but historically they were not against slavery for the benefit of the black man, they were against slavery because they wanted the country to be white and thought blacks were inferior.
The democrats didn’t fight to keep slavery…they fought to stop the federalization of the govt. they fought because Lincoln invaded.
Democrats have often been despicable, but so have republicans. What you dint know about our history is about what I expect by the public school educated who never bothered to research the war on their own or by any other perspective but the Lincoln was a saint crowd.
Yiu can hate democrats throughout history all you like but it makes you no better than the democrats of today demonizing republicans and canceling people. The end result of the civil war was the end of slavery. It was never the intent of the war. Lincoln states this on multiple occasions up until, his death. If you knew anything about Lincoln you’d know he was a politician first and foremost and did and said anything to win.
WT Sherman summed up the Republican stance on blacks pretty well… “They were a less-than-human and savage race, uncivilized to White standards, and probably un-civilizable. They were obstacles to the upward sweep of history, progress, wealth, and White destiny.”
He also stated.. “Slavery was the pretext not the cause of the war.” William T. Sherman
Robin, your inaccurate use of the Corwin Amendment is typical of what one deals with in these discussions. It did not offer "legal slavery forever," it merely affirmed that it was an issue for the states ultimately to decide. So long as slavery was not allowed to further expand into West, the expectation was that slavery would whither in the states where it remained and be repealed by the states. A sort of "containment' policy long before the Cold War. Don't forget, slavery in its various forms was ending in the 19th century. Britain had committed to compensated emancipation in 1834, The Russian serfs were freed in 1861, Brazil, the last slave state in the hemisphere ended slavery in 1888. So, "forever" would not have been so long as you seem to think.
Ending slavery was absolutely the deep cause of the war, although the immediate cause was the attack on Fort Sumter that gave Lincoln the excuse he needed to act. And if you knew anything about Lincoln, you would know that his entire political second act was caused by his shock of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 which seemed to open the door to the open-ended expansion of slavery. Had Lincoln only been concerned about "saving the Union," he could have done so by compromising on the principle of non-extension between his election in 1860 and his inauguration the following March,. But he refused to do so. Lincoln was the one guy who refused to cave to the slave owners, and so the war came.
Again, there is much more, but I don't have the time right now to school you.
You know so so so much less than you think you do.
You are cherry-picking. It's not unlike saying that Trump is antisemite, and using the fact that some Trump supporter killed a Jew as proof. And people have done exactly that.
In the big picture, there is indeed more to the civil war than slavery. But it most certainly was the key issue. It's not as if the civil war sprung out of nowhere. Even at the constitutional convention, slavery was an issue. From the very beginnings of this country, eliminating slavery was, if not the biggest issue, very close to it.
And I will not let you get away with saying that the KKK is unrelated to the civil war or to democrats. That is total BS. Only a few years after the end of the civil war, REPUBLICANS formed a congressional commission to study the KKK, and attempt to eliminate it.
I believe he said targeted investment into poorer areas, including Appalachia, as well as lower-income areas that include blacks. But no race-based reparations.
Reparations is a luxury belief, by elite limousine globalist/oligarch/deep state/elected puppet Marxists who get bailed out when inflation rockets. The reparations would be paid with OPDM, other people's devalued money.
Kass is a good one. Used to write a column for the Chicago Tribune but gave it up due to their Wokeness. A good video of Chicago’s new (since May) Mayor Brandon Johnson being asked by a reporter about what he thinks of a poll among Chicago’s blacks, whites and Hispanics that shows most blacks and Hispanics feel that our Sanctuary City status should be rescinded since they feel it’s damaging their communities. He basically tells her he doesn’t care what they think because his goal is to unite black and brown people to fight white racist oppression. But how about the fact that the black and brown people in Chicago do not want these “brown” migrants dumped in their communities and then supported by their tax money while they get nothing?
Facts don’t matter to Brandon. He’s a believer in the Woke faith, a black Woke racist. All things to him are about evil white oppressors keeping black and brown people oppressed. Basically race based rather than class based Marxism but with white people now cast as the devil rather than the rich. Hard to imagine a person more ill suited to be mayor of a city like Chicago than Brandon Johnson but then keep in mind that his Woke mentality on display here is no different than Biden’s, the Democratic Party’s, their media, and of many of our “fellow Americans” in the general public.
“Mayor Johnson Asked Point Blank About Poll Showing Majority Do Not Want Chicago To Be A Sanctuary City.” (3 min)
We can get to that right after we tackle the anti-Black hate mongering people such as yourself and fellow commenters have been engaging in for centuries.
Does America even still exist as a country? Could it be that the reason why America is so rapidly unraveling externally is because it has already ceased to exist as a country internally?
“How Blatant Anti-White Racism Won Acceptance in Elite America.”
What has shocked me more than anything else is how blood-thirsty so many people are. The masks have come off. People who pretended to be "pro-democracy" have been shown to be pro-war, pro-genocide, and pro-murder (on both sides). One would be hard-pressed to identify who the self-proclaimed Christians are in this county looking at the response to the Hamas attack. Mike Pence? Lyndsey Graham? Please. And these same "Christians" (including Baptists I have spoken to) always mention that in the Old Testament, God ordered the Jews to wipe out every man, woman, and child (often including livestock) of a Baal-worshiping neighbor. Of course, he did. Then he sent his Son, who taught us a better way. If you accept Gospel of Jesus Christ, you don't get to revert to the Old Testament (unless you want to give up the Grace and Mercy of Jesus Christ), when you want to murder people. You need to hit your knees, if you are thinking that genocide is going to solve anything.
It is my humble opinion we are witnessing the "birth pangs" immediately before the beginning of the Great Tribulation:
For the Biblically literate, we, (humanity), were forewarned in Biblical prophecy these current events would come to pass centuries before we began seeing them on a daily basis. For those who still believe "we can fix this" through politics, no, we can't; because it's not a temporal battle. It's an on-going spiritual war that began long before any of us existed, coming to its climax in our time. We can only choose a "side" to support and work with in that battle. But there is no "fence sitting" now or “do-overs” later. We must each actively choose the side of light and good, of YHVH God; or we default to the other side of darkness and evil and Satan.
Therefore, if you haven't actively chosen Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God...then you are in default. For each of us, today, there are no other options; I have made my choice and His name is Jesus (Yeshua); I pray each of you who read this Sasha Stone Substack comment will make the correct choice. Eternity is a very long time to regret a wrong choice.”
As a retired Protestant minister, I think it is more accurate to say "for the Biblical LITERALISTS" rather than Biblically literate. I leave you to your interpretations of scripture Cal but I find them dangerous and very wrong. I am fearful that in spite of the best efforts of many theologians to reinterpret accuracly the meaning of stories thousands of years old, all Christians will be thought to be tarnished with yours I am NOT sitting on a moutain waiting for Armegeddan - thousands have done that over the years and they were wrong - you may be as well.
just an example = a man of your persuasion had thousands copies of a book he wrote sent to hundreds of churches in 1988 predicting the world would end in 2000= turns out he was a mathematician and had combed the Bible looking for clues that he was right. Ministers were warned that we had best alert our congregations of the impending doom --we are will here.
“Eternity is a very long time to regret a wrong choice.”
Eternity is beyond space/time and is therefore not “a very long time.”
“When a soul has attained a love filling the whole universe indiscriminately, this love becomes the bird with golden wings that pierces an opening in the egg of the world. After that, such a soul loves the universe, not from within but from without; from the dwelling place of the Wisdom of God, our first-born brother. Such a love does not love beings and things in God, but from the abode of God. Being close to God it views all beings and things from there, and its gaze is merged in the gaze of God.” Simone Weil. French mystic. 1909-1943
I was raised evangelical, but now consider myself an agnostic, perhaps even an atheist. I don't need a 4000 year old religion of bronze age, nomadic sheep herders to tell me that targeting civilians- including women and children- is wrong. All of the great religions can be boiled down to the Golden Rule: treat others the way that you would want to be treated; if we all did that, the world would be a paradise. Jesus isn't coming back, we have to make the future good by ourselves.
Joe Blow: The proof that the Return of Jesus Christ is imminent is when; "in order to buy and sell", the NWO Leviathan requires you to implant a global digital ID in the flesh of your right hand, or an invisible ink bar code on your forehead.
FYI: There are two (2) sins Jesus Christ will not for give: (1) Denial/blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (2) Receiving the Mark of the Beast.
Denial is not a river in Egypt. You will know your eternal soul is in peril when the NWO Leviathan requires you to implant a global digital ID in the flesh of your right hand, or an invisible ink bar code on your forehead.
As I stated above, there are two (2) sins Jesus Christ will not for give: (1) Denial/blasphemy against the Holy Spirit [Matthew 12:31] . (2) Receiving the MARK OF THE BEAST. [Revelation 14:9]
If there is any group of the American people that should be opposed to the military industrial complex and the warfare state, with its suppression of civil liberties, imperial presidency, government propaganda and interventionist foreign policy; it is the American Christians. Especially conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians, who claim to strictly follow the dictates of Holy Scripture and worship the Prince of Peace.
Well said. The neocons who never actually served in the military tend to be the most bold (cuz they send other people’s poor sons to do the killing and getting killed).
Back when he was still at Rolling Stone, he was practically insufferable, in that it was obvious that the Democrats were a problem, particularly on "Russia!" but he could never say that.
1. The deliberate murder of unarmed civilians for political reasons is the definition of terrorism. Hamas committed unforgivable terrorism. Every person who participated in or directed that terrorism must be found and killed. This especially includes their top leadership in Qatar. I suspect it also includes top Israelis who seem to have allowed the attack to happen for political reasons.
2. Israel has been oppressing Palestinians for a long time. This still does not excuse terrorism in the least.
3. Islam is ridiculously violent, far more than any other religion. This is inherent in Islam from its beginning. Islam is incompatible with Western civilization.
4. Judaism is exclusionary, and this has been true from its beginning. The deliberate alienation of all others as a way of increasing group solidarity is a defining characteristic of Judaism. Judaism requires willful blindness to this obvious fact, and so Jews are willfully blind to it.
5. America is over here, and the Palestinians and Israelis are over there. America should have absolutely nothing to do with the Middle East. We have enough of our own oil. AIPAC is all harm for America, and no benefit - unless you are a politician willing to betray America for AIPAC campaign donations.
So, after the Civil War, Sherman should have been executed for terrorism? And after WWII, FDR should have been executed for terrorism? Ever heard of "history"?
It is absurdly unrealistic to regard war as a set of individual crimes. We could have won WWII by sending commandos in to kill the leading Nazis? What planet are you living on?
Sherman was killing unarmed civilians. The Union Army killed 20,000 former slaves by starvation and exposure at the Devils Punchbowl alone. The Union Ar,y is responsible for at the least..50,000 civilians with some estimates as high as 100,000 southern civilians.
"The southern press especially excoriated Sherman for attacking Atlanta, a city he knew to be filled with women and children." If Lincoln approved of this, should he have been executed after the war?
My reference to FDR was about the strategic bombing campaign, which (if we average low-end and high-end estimates) killed almost half a million civvies. So FDR should have been executed after the war?
What about indirect killing of civvies, through "economic warfare"? This happened to Confederates, and to the Germans in WWI. Why would it matter whether killing of civvies was direct or indirect? So now we two reasons that Lincoln should have been executed, and one reason that Wilson (for should have been executed. In both of these cases, economic warfare was essential to victory. (In the Civil War, this conclusion was reached by Lincoln, Halleck, and Grant during 1863.) So it would have been better to let the Confederates win the Civil War and the Germans win WWI? Really?
Adult civvies under the control of a war-waging government will be compelled to contribute, in whatever way that government sees fit, to contribute to the war-effort. And that makes them legitimate targets. Period. The Confederates, the Nazis, Hamas ... they are all the same in this regard.
In a July 31, 1862 letter to his wife (from his “Collected Works”) WT Sherman wrote that his purpose in the war was: “Extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the [Southern] people.” His wife Ellen wrote back that her fondest wish was for a war “of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like the Swine into the sea.”
War crimes of Sherman’s Army are legendary. Just look at what he did to tue Indians…
Dresden was pointless, just a bunch of milling about refugees. But Hamburg, as as I am aware, was not. Nuking Japan might well have been too. But we may not have known that. And Hiroshima was not enough for Japan to surrender, implying that they still had hope.
Sorry, but signing your name to a public letter -- let alone one so utterly vile and monstrous -- then seeing your name actually published is not doxing.
Of course the weasel worded retractions came pouring out, "I had no idea what I was signing!" Really? As Prof. Dershowitz said a couple of weeks ago, would you hire an attorney (especially at $500/hr) who would admit to having signed something without first reading it? The FAIL is almost comical.
Unfortunately, if you believe in the first amendment, then we should be supporting these folks to say what they want. I was in school in the 60s and learned about the First amendment as Nazis were marching in Skokie. These comments/protests are no more (or less) vile than the Nazis, in fact, these folks are the new Nazis. Actually, they're probably more like the KKK. The Klan hated Blacks and Jews, while these Hamas hates Christians and Jews,
It's the Universities that need to be reined in, and the Feds should require universities and colleges to meet certain thresholds on the FIRE freedom of speech ratings in order to be eligible for federal aid, including federal underwriting of student loans.
The Nazis marched in Skokie and their 1st Amendment rights were supported. But no one suggested that they should also get elite jobs after graduating from elite universities. And nobody suggested that their message was anything other than vile.
University students supporting Hamas are not in any way comparable to the Nazi March on Skokie.
I am thinking along those lines Jude... If they (Hamas groupies) were speaking out and people recognized the evil of their bile and there were no consequences caused by it that would be one thing, but that is not where we are at. There has to be a countervailing force to give cover for the cowed populace to start speaking up and breaking their spell. I hope that this process has begun...
I live in suburban Chicago (Skokie is a Chicago suburb), and I’m old enough to remember the situation as it was going on. But I did not remember that the march was cancelled, thanks for the info!
Yes. People should hesitate before jumping on the "now let's punish their speech" bandwagon. That is conceding considerable legitimacy to the woke's previous unrelenting and unforgiving hounding of everyday people for their opinions, their choice or topics or even choice of words.
The best result of this is not that those who justify terrorism now find themselves on the receiving end of 'cancel culture," but that these woke folk should never again be conceded authority to shut down those who they deem "fascists" for supposedly "evolving" five minutes slower than they have.
If going forward the rest of us get to speak our piece, and to discuss issues of national importance without constant fear of public shaming, that would be a far better long-term consequence of this than starting a new round of speech policing, just with the roles reversed. The ultimate goal should be open and honest conversations, hopefully civil, thoughtful and respectful. But ones where what needs to be said to solve problems can actually be said
Sure, these kids deserve to have their lives upended the same way they have upended anyone they disagreed with in the past. The worst part is, they won't learn a thing. Instead, they will delve deeper into their victimhood and whine that they are being oppressed.
Sorry Sasha, I believe this statement “They (HAMAS) (my note in parens) gave Israel no choice but to bomb the living crap out of them.” is disingenuous because HAMAS embeds themselves with innocent and helpless civilians. Israel certainly has other choices besides killing and maiming tens of thousands of innocent children and civilians and every just nation should not kill innocents.
Plus many now want war with Iran which will mean countries like Russia and Turkey will be dragged in which will quickly plunge us into WW3. This is insane.
Hey Sparrow, I think that the IDF and Mossad are two of the most formidable military and special forces units on earth. I think that those two groups can infiltrate deeply into Gaza and root out and kill the vast majority of Hamas. It will take longer and incur more casualties than carpet bombing Gaza. But not carpet bombing is the same reason countries don’t use nukes every time they get attacked; it’s out of all proportion to the incident and ongoing threat. I do think Israel is already infiltrating into Gaza to find Hamas but I also see published reports that Israel is indiscriminately bombing and killing thousands of civilians. I hope they stop the latter and continue the former.
There is no peaceful solution with those who do not want peace. Hamas does not want peace.
Actually, the residents of Gaza elected Hamas. Hamas represents the people of Gaza.
There is no such thing as international law. How is it enforced? Who obeys it? Where is it codified in a body empowered TO enforce it?
I'd say Israel IS assuming the responsibility of which you speak, and it is doing so quite handily. Those terrorist groups and nation-states whose top priority is to wipe the Jews, and the nation of Israel off the face of the Earth are finally going to get what's coming to them – and Israel can do so WITHOUT the help of the duplicitous Biden administration that talks out of both sides of its mouth, pledges to stand with Israel while funding Iran's support of Hezbollah, and Hamas.
The people are the one's who suffer the consequences of governments (if you can actually call Hamas that), that don't truly represent or care anymore about them than our so called government does, and most worldwide corporate governments for that matter.
We are not complicit at all – Israel doesn't need the permission of the US.
Wilhelm is inserting the US where the US doesn't belong.
This is not our fight – Wilhelm, and his handler, the first sodomite president, would like it to be. The Bush Klan would like it to be. The War Party would like it to be.
They haven’t asked for our permission but we’ve given it to them anyway plus our leaders would very much like war with Iran which would make Israel happy although they haven’t asked us to go to war with Iran. This is a really insane situation that is really playing with fire.
I agree 100%. Pretty disappointing to see Sasha say that Gaza deserves to have the shit bombed out of them in retaliation for a terrorist act. Hamas is awful and must be dealt with, but killing innocent Palestinian women and children is not the answer. “An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind”.
I’ve asked him also; “David, I don’t get it. John didn’t write any of the stuff you put in quotes. You putting it in quotes is format for referencing something someone wrote. Am I off track on this also?”
David, I don’t get it. John didn’t write any of the stuff you put in quotes. You putting it in quotes is format for referencing something someone wrote. Am I off track on this also?
Kim says if we’re going to war with Iran for supporting Hamas then why not with Turkey and Qatar which also strongly support Hamas and how can we go to war with Iran when our ruling class is already waging war a proxy war against Putin and Russia externally and against Trump and supporters internally? And does America even still exist as a country? Open borders, surging crime in our cities, the demonization of “Whiteness!” and a war on meritocracy due to its “disparate impact” on blacks which is why it’s considered racist by the left.
“The New War On Terror…Will We Win This Time?” (11 min)
I'm not pro hamas in the least, but do I think there was something more sinister at play behind the scenes? Yes after hearing from so many former Commanders and others who know and understand the Iron Dome and it's inner workings. We can't always believe the MSM narratives being portrayed.
The below article is one good reason, regardless of how you choose to read it.
Two weeks after the Hamas breakout assault on Israel on 7 October, a clearer picture of what happened – who died, and who killed – is now beginning to emerge.
Instead of the wholescale massacre of civilians claimed by Israel, incomplete figures published by the Hebrew newspaper Haaretz show that almost half the Israelis killed that day were in fact combatants – soldiers or police.
In the interim, two weeks of blanket western media reporting that Hamas allegedly killed around 1,400 Israeli civilians during its 7 October military attack has served to inflame emotions and create the climate for Israel’s unconstrained destruction of the Gaza Strip and its civilian population.
[Click below to Access Haaretz article]
As of 23 October, the news outlet has released information on 683 Israelis killed during the Hamas-led offensive, including their names and locations of their deaths on 7 October.
Of these, 331 casualties – or 48.4 percent – have been confirmed to be soldiers and police officers, many of them female. Another 13 are described as rescue service members, and the remaining 339 are ostensibly considered to be civilians.
They say that Truth will set you FREE, and yes sometimes more Free that we'd like. It's nice to see it happening to those who feel they're arbiters of Truth feel the pain, though not nearly what they've caused.
What % of civilians murdered would make this acceptable? Let’s not forget, the civilians murdered included babies and toddlers. And then there are the hostages taken. Are we to assume that they are just prisoners of war? Including the 80-something woman that was released?
I know this was not addressed to me but I view even one murder of an innocent as tragic regardless of which side does the killing. It is unreasonable to expect any country not to respond and it is unreasonable to kill thousands of innocents in retaliation for every innocent your side lost. Things need to be proportionate. Else you get every nuke power nuking each other and anyone else they want.
Easier said than done. The devil is in the details. How do you separate the good from the bad when the majority are a blend? The terrorists are a small number but those who support the terrorists are many. It’d certainly be easier to just kill them all but then that’s genocide which will just increase the hate among those still alive. A terrible dilemma with no solution.
I'm not pro hamas in the least, but do I think there was something more sinister at play behind the scenes? Yes after hearing from so many former Commanders and others who know and understand the Iron Dome and it's inner workings. We can't always believe the MSM narratives being portrayed.
My precursor to the article:
The below article is one good reason, regardless of how you choose to read it.
While I see your point, if you read the actual letter, it blamed the *Israeli government*, not Israel. Just as the American government is not America as a whole (thank God), the Israeli government is not Israel as a whole. And one of the groups that signed that letter was the Harvard Jews for Liberation. And it blamed Israel much the same way the UN Sec-Gen "blamed" Israel: none of this happens out of context.
With you right until “gave us no choice but to bomb the crap out of them.” WTF. Honestly. I hate Hamas. And everything they stand for. Do not become them. Do NOT be worse than them. If you despise Hamas, then take the head off of that snake. The head sits sipping tea in Qatar. Be human.
it seems that too many of use have lost our humanity as we thrill to the punishement of those we disagree with either by loss of jobs or incineration by bombs or being killed by terrorists. You are right, Sasha. there are consequences and being happy as you and others seem to be that young kids are having their lives ruined for protesting what they perceive to be a wrong or Palestiinians being blamed and punished because of the actions of terroristm is leading us to a society that makes me shudder. I remember almost daily the line from the McCarthy hearings - have you in the end, no sense of decency.
Sasha was wrong in this article but she’s an intelligent woman and I’m sure she’s already sorry about cheering for the destruction of Gaza. I saw one article about the Hamas attack which said a Palestinian in Gaza warned friends in a border town that Hamas was planning a major attack across the border. The Israelis contacted the IDF and told them about this warning. The IDF told them it was a false alarm so just ignore it. Where is the punishment though for those in the Israeli government and military for so disastrously failing in their primary job of keeping the people safe? And now they are making things far worse by grinding Gaza into the dirt.
But where is the outrage over the constant anti-white hate mongering against white people that has been flourishing in our pigsty universities for decades? And how about our public schools teaching white children to be ashamed of themselves for being white? Can anyone explain to me why I should feel anything at all positive about a country that commits such crimes against children?
This Real Clear Investigations article below from 2020 is about the “1619 Project” and what the author Nikole Hannah-Jones told the editors of the Chicago Tribune about its purpose which is, she said, to instill guilt in white liberals so they will support reparations for blacks. White liberals are not being targeted though. White children in our public schools are. And our Woke white leftist ruling class loves this and is totally supportive of it. She was even given a Pulitzer Prize for this poison in 2020. This is not “black history” though. This is anti-white hate mongering pretending to be history. This is evil and this is what the democrats have become. And these are the same people who are working to put Trump in prison.
“If you read the whole project, I don’t think you can come away from it without understanding the project is an argument for reparations,” she told the Chicago Tribune in October.
“I'm not writing to convert Trump supporters. I write to try to get liberal white people to do what they say they believe in,” she said. “I'm making a moral argument. My method is guilt.”
“Disputed NY Times ‘1619 Project’ Already Shaping Schoolkids Minds on Race.”
Real Clear Investigations. Jan 31, 2020
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/01/31/disputed_ny_times_1619_project_is_already_shaping_kids_minds_on_race_bias_122192.html
Here's an idea for reparations: Any White person who believes in reparations can be a slave to any Black person that wants one.
Actually, there is a practical solution, something I thought of long ago, hiding in there: Whites who want to "pair off" with Blacks in order to pull off their own race-based redistribution of wealth are free to do so.
It was democrats, and ONLY democrats who owned slaves. The Republican party was formed specifically to end slavery. The KKK was formed by democrats. The Jim Crow laws were enacted and enforced by democrats.
I'm fine with reparations. Send the bill to the democratic party.
The Republican oarty was founded not on ending slavery, but keeping it out of the territories to keep them white. There were more than several prominent slave owners in the republicans party and among the higher ranks of the Union Army. The Republican Party was also founded by a good many Marxists straight from the Marxist Revolution. They called themselves the Forty Eighters…at the first Republican convention there were 18 Marxists helping with the planks of the party.
“The charge that we want to have anything to do with (blacks) is utterly untrue. It is a false clamor raised to mislead the public mind. Our policy is to have nothing to do with them...I want to have nothing to do, either with the free (black) or the slave (black) We, the Republican party, are the white man's party. [Great applause.] We are for free white men, and for making white labor respectable and honorable, which it never can be when (black) slave labor is brought into competition with it. [Great applause.] We believe it is better for us that they should not be among us."
Speech of Hon. Lyman Trumbull, United States Senator from Illinois, on the great issues of the day, delivered in Chicago, Saturday, August 7, 1858
The klan was not a democrat sanctioned organization and at its founding wasn’t a racist institution. At its founding it was a policing organization for southerners who had their rights taken away and were victims of crimes simply for existing.
It is ridiculous to compare parties from 170 years ago to what they are today. In 1860 the democrats were constitutionalists and the republicans were radicals. It is because of these republicans who wanted to consolidate power at the federal level that we now have the over bloated, overly powerful federal govt of today.
The country at large was at fault for slavery and the war, not one side or the other. We should all know correct history before we go blaming people from 170 years ago for the troubles of today especially when we understand so little about it.
Robin, you are dead wrong. A few points: first, who are those "prominent slaveholders" in the Republican party that you speak of? Yes, there were slaveowners in the Whig party, but that was why the Republican party was formed, to end slavery, or more precisely, contain its spread so it would eventually whither away. No more compromises with pro-slavery Whigs.
Second: Lincoln's oft stated policy of "non-extension" of slavery was not to keep Blacks out of the territories, it was to keep the territories non-slave. Free Blacks freely emigrated to these territories in substantial numbers. So, fail there.
Finally: the "country at large" was most definitely not "at fault" for slavery. Slavery was under the control of the states, not the federal government. The Northern states had all abolished slavery or had put it on the road to ending it by 1805. Vermont never had slavery. The issue was controversial from 1776 onward, as slavery was an obvious contradiction to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. As early as the Missouri Compromise Debates of 1820, a future collision over slavery was clear--the American body politic spent the next 40 years both confronting that possible collision and trying to avoid its catastrophic consequences. We all know how this controversy was resolved, the rivers of blood that were shed to do so. So you are dead wrong about the notion that all sections and peoples were somehow equally at fault for slavery. They were not.
In the end, the collective energies of the American people from both the North and some from the South ended slavery, making good on the promise of 1776. That it took "four score and seven years" to do so may seem too long for us, but given the long presence of slavery in world history (at least 3,000 years), it actually happened rather quickly. And it happened in spite of the fact that in 1860, the 3.6 million slaves were the single most valuable source of capital in the nation. Yes, a lot of people both in the North and South were profiting from slavery, and they ended it anyway. That's a fact.
Quite a story, really. You and your neo-Marxist buddies would do well to remember it. But as neo-Marxists, we know that you are not committed to historical truth, but rather to perverting history to being just another tool of "the revolution." But you have just been blocked from doing that here.
I could teach you much more, were you interested in learning some real American history, and not the neo-Marxist claptrap foisted upon us by academia. But I'm guessing you are not interested in doing so. And that's sad.
I agree with some of what you say. Yes, the Republican party is responsible for much of the centralized control of the federal government. There is much that the Republican party has done that I am dedicated to undoing. Of course, I say the same of the democrat party.
There were various reasons that Whites wanted slavery ended, and they weren't all entirely altruistic. Some just didn't want to have to compete with the free labor of slavery. But the overwhelming sentiment was abolitionism, the desire to end slavery as a moral imperative. But equality doesn't necessarily to translate to brotherhood. Many wanted to free the slaves, but had no desire to welcome them as part of "White" culture. Rationally, that's justifiable. I want everyone to have equal rights, but that doesn't mean I like everyone, or their beliefs, or want to participate in their lives, or have them participate in mine. That in no way conflicts with my dedication to equal rights.
Keeping slavery out of the territories in no way required the passing by Republicans of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that sought to secure equal rights for black men. It's false to claim that Republicans had their own desire to subjugate blacks. And the KKK most certainly was the enforcement arm of the democratic party in the south. You can tell any fairy tale you want, but the leaders of the KKK were also leaders in the democratic party.
Yes, things change. Parties morph. But I'll stand by what I said: The democratic party is responsible for steadfastly fighting to KEEP slavery in defiance of Republican efforts to end it. The KKK was democrats. Jim Crow laws were enacted and enforced by democrats. And today, the black ghettos are ruled by democrats.
Rad Individualist, one way to think about this is to realize that there were three main threads of anti-slavery/abolitionist sentiment: economic, moral/religious, and ideological. Economically, some poor whites realized that they could not compete against those who could afford slaves, and opposed it for that reason. This was one of the reasons Lincoln opposed slavery, he saw his own father move to Indiana from Kentucky so he did not have to compete against slave labor. "Free soil, free labor, free men," as the slogan went.
Second: many prominent Americans (John Quincy Adams esp comes to mind here) believed that slavery was an enormous affront to America's stated political ideology of freedom and equality to all. Lincoln said this repeatedly, slavery takes away our pretensions to being an positive example to the world. Lincoln, too, felt this strongly. Today, we see slavery as a huge contradiction to American ideals. So did many Americans back then.
Finally: one should never underestimate the power of moral/religious objections at the time. Some claimed the Bible defended slavery; many others were just as convinced that it was a grave sin against God, and acted accordingly. "Am I not a man and a brother?" was the famous tagline for this group, whom we know as "the abolitionists."
These three strands of anti-slavery/abolitionist thinking powered the movement to end slavery. Again, although it took longer than we might wish, it was one of the great triumphs in world history, We would do well to remember that.
It's possible that you know more about this than Robin and me, combined. I respect your knowledge and comprehension.
Let me address the klan statement first…the enforcement arm of the democrats party did not happen until long after the civil war. The original klan founded after the war was simply a policing organization to protect southerners in the lawlessness that was reconstruction. This klan was disbanded by 1870. The founding members did not include Forrest as so many amateur historians like to bloviate. The klan you refer to became prominent after WWI. So you don’t have your history correct. While what the klan became is abhorrent and yes, used as an arm of the party, it wasn’t used in that manner by the originators of the organization. To assign the original klan with atrocities is to be ignorant of the history of reconstruction. Most fail to understand the Union League and what they did to southerners…the Union Keague and 5ere actions is why the klam was founded in the first place.
Many southerners wanted an end to slavery as well…something which your kind always discounts or has never heard of. Legal slavery forever was offered to southern states no less than 2 times. The first was the passage of the Corwin Amendment by a majority Yankee congress…it mad slavery legal in perpetuity with no chance of repeal. The southern states that had seceded did not come back into the Union when this was passed and it did not keep the res5 of the states from seceding. If the democrats only cause was keeping slavery, they could have had it and stayed in the Union. Let’s not forget that four Yankee states ratified it before the war started and it was discarded.
Southerners were offered legal slavery by Lincoln himself with the EP. The EP freed no slaves in Yankee slave states, Yankee held territory and Lincoln even added a fifth slave state.. WVa in 1863 after he issued the EP. The EP specifically states any state returning to the Union within 100 days can keep slavery…again no southern state returned, yet again indicating that the issue was not keeping slaves, but self govt.
The south offered to emancipate all slaves simply for recognition from Europe early in the war. Later a congressman named Duncan Kenner went to Europe with offers to end slavery. Had the south’s sole objective was to keep slavery, they wouldn’t have offered to end it.
The 13, 14 and 15 amendments were passed after the war was over. I’m not saying the republicans weren’t right about a few things, but historically they were not against slavery for the benefit of the black man, they were against slavery because they wanted the country to be white and thought blacks were inferior.
The democrats didn’t fight to keep slavery…they fought to stop the federalization of the govt. they fought because Lincoln invaded.
Democrats have often been despicable, but so have republicans. What you dint know about our history is about what I expect by the public school educated who never bothered to research the war on their own or by any other perspective but the Lincoln was a saint crowd.
Yiu can hate democrats throughout history all you like but it makes you no better than the democrats of today demonizing republicans and canceling people. The end result of the civil war was the end of slavery. It was never the intent of the war. Lincoln states this on multiple occasions up until, his death. If you knew anything about Lincoln you’d know he was a politician first and foremost and did and said anything to win.
WT Sherman summed up the Republican stance on blacks pretty well… “They were a less-than-human and savage race, uncivilized to White standards, and probably un-civilizable. They were obstacles to the upward sweep of history, progress, wealth, and White destiny.”
He also stated.. “Slavery was the pretext not the cause of the war.” William T. Sherman
Robin, your inaccurate use of the Corwin Amendment is typical of what one deals with in these discussions. It did not offer "legal slavery forever," it merely affirmed that it was an issue for the states ultimately to decide. So long as slavery was not allowed to further expand into West, the expectation was that slavery would whither in the states where it remained and be repealed by the states. A sort of "containment' policy long before the Cold War. Don't forget, slavery in its various forms was ending in the 19th century. Britain had committed to compensated emancipation in 1834, The Russian serfs were freed in 1861, Brazil, the last slave state in the hemisphere ended slavery in 1888. So, "forever" would not have been so long as you seem to think.
Ending slavery was absolutely the deep cause of the war, although the immediate cause was the attack on Fort Sumter that gave Lincoln the excuse he needed to act. And if you knew anything about Lincoln, you would know that his entire political second act was caused by his shock of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 which seemed to open the door to the open-ended expansion of slavery. Had Lincoln only been concerned about "saving the Union," he could have done so by compromising on the principle of non-extension between his election in 1860 and his inauguration the following March,. But he refused to do so. Lincoln was the one guy who refused to cave to the slave owners, and so the war came.
Again, there is much more, but I don't have the time right now to school you.
You know so so so much less than you think you do.
You are cherry-picking. It's not unlike saying that Trump is antisemite, and using the fact that some Trump supporter killed a Jew as proof. And people have done exactly that.
In the big picture, there is indeed more to the civil war than slavery. But it most certainly was the key issue. It's not as if the civil war sprung out of nowhere. Even at the constitutional convention, slavery was an issue. From the very beginnings of this country, eliminating slavery was, if not the biggest issue, very close to it.
And I will not let you get away with saying that the KKK is unrelated to the civil war or to democrats. That is total BS. Only a few years after the end of the civil war, REPUBLICANS formed a congressional commission to study the KKK, and attempt to eliminate it.
“RFK Jr Supports Reparations for Black People.” (5 min)
Michael Knowles. Oct 23, 2023
https://youtu.be/CeQMJtEkkT0?si=7yERctUNsExsjY5g
I bet he'd be a super annoying slave.
Isn’t he what he actually proposed a form of UBI for poor people which would disproportionately affect blacks?
I believe he said targeted investment into poorer areas, including Appalachia, as well as lower-income areas that include blacks. But no race-based reparations.
Clapping my hands
Reparations is a luxury belief, by elite limousine globalist/oligarch/deep state/elected puppet Marxists who get bailed out when inflation rockets. The reparations would be paid with OPDM, other people's devalued money.
This pretty much a win-win, Black people get a slave and White progressives get to work out their White guilt.
Spot on, Seva.
Good article on Chicago immigration disaster here. https://johnkassnews.com/panic-attack-in-political-chicago-as-bidens-migrants-swamp-the-city/
Kass is a good one. Used to write a column for the Chicago Tribune but gave it up due to their Wokeness. A good video of Chicago’s new (since May) Mayor Brandon Johnson being asked by a reporter about what he thinks of a poll among Chicago’s blacks, whites and Hispanics that shows most blacks and Hispanics feel that our Sanctuary City status should be rescinded since they feel it’s damaging their communities. He basically tells her he doesn’t care what they think because his goal is to unite black and brown people to fight white racist oppression. But how about the fact that the black and brown people in Chicago do not want these “brown” migrants dumped in their communities and then supported by their tax money while they get nothing?
Facts don’t matter to Brandon. He’s a believer in the Woke faith, a black Woke racist. All things to him are about evil white oppressors keeping black and brown people oppressed. Basically race based rather than class based Marxism but with white people now cast as the devil rather than the rich. Hard to imagine a person more ill suited to be mayor of a city like Chicago than Brandon Johnson but then keep in mind that his Woke mentality on display here is no different than Biden’s, the Democratic Party’s, their media, and of many of our “fellow Americans” in the general public.
“Mayor Johnson Asked Point Blank About Poll Showing Majority Do Not Want Chicago To Be A Sanctuary City.” (3 min)
Forbes Breaking News. Oct 6, 2023
https://youtu.be/ulqxEME_l5A?si=qgiEhGPgbra0rgzj
We can get to that right after we tackle the anti-Black hate mongering people such as yourself and fellow commenters have been engaging in for centuries.
Does America even still exist as a country? Could it be that the reason why America is so rapidly unraveling externally is because it has already ceased to exist as a country internally?
“How Blatant Anti-White Racism Won Acceptance in Elite America.”
Real Clear Investigations. Sept 7, 2022
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/09/07/how_blatant_anti-white_racism_won_acceptance_in_elite_america_850879.html
“Speak of the Devil: How Demonizing ‘Whiteness’ Spreads White Nationalism.”
By Bret Weinstein. Jun 5, 2019 (6 min)
https://youtu.be/S1sJgjG5AF4
“White people are viewed as the oppressors in college: Tabia Lee” (4 min)
Fox Business. Oct 20, 2023
https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/white-people-are-viewed-as-the-oppressors-in-college-tabia-lee/vi-AA1ix6q8
What has shocked me more than anything else is how blood-thirsty so many people are. The masks have come off. People who pretended to be "pro-democracy" have been shown to be pro-war, pro-genocide, and pro-murder (on both sides). One would be hard-pressed to identify who the self-proclaimed Christians are in this county looking at the response to the Hamas attack. Mike Pence? Lyndsey Graham? Please. And these same "Christians" (including Baptists I have spoken to) always mention that in the Old Testament, God ordered the Jews to wipe out every man, woman, and child (often including livestock) of a Baal-worshiping neighbor. Of course, he did. Then he sent his Son, who taught us a better way. If you accept Gospel of Jesus Christ, you don't get to revert to the Old Testament (unless you want to give up the Grace and Mercy of Jesus Christ), when you want to murder people. You need to hit your knees, if you are thinking that genocide is going to solve anything.
It is my humble opinion we are witnessing the "birth pangs" immediately before the beginning of the Great Tribulation:
For the Biblically literate, we, (humanity), were forewarned in Biblical prophecy these current events would come to pass centuries before we began seeing them on a daily basis. For those who still believe "we can fix this" through politics, no, we can't; because it's not a temporal battle. It's an on-going spiritual war that began long before any of us existed, coming to its climax in our time. We can only choose a "side" to support and work with in that battle. But there is no "fence sitting" now or “do-overs” later. We must each actively choose the side of light and good, of YHVH God; or we default to the other side of darkness and evil and Satan.
Therefore, if you haven't actively chosen Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God...then you are in default. For each of us, today, there are no other options; I have made my choice and His name is Jesus (Yeshua); I pray each of you who read this Sasha Stone Substack comment will make the correct choice. Eternity is a very long time to regret a wrong choice.”
As a retired Protestant minister, I think it is more accurate to say "for the Biblical LITERALISTS" rather than Biblically literate. I leave you to your interpretations of scripture Cal but I find them dangerous and very wrong. I am fearful that in spite of the best efforts of many theologians to reinterpret accuracly the meaning of stories thousands of years old, all Christians will be thought to be tarnished with yours I am NOT sitting on a moutain waiting for Armegeddan - thousands have done that over the years and they were wrong - you may be as well.
just an example = a man of your persuasion had thousands copies of a book he wrote sent to hundreds of churches in 1988 predicting the world would end in 2000= turns out he was a mathematician and had combed the Bible looking for clues that he was right. Ministers were warned that we had best alert our congregations of the impending doom --we are will here.
dorothy slater: What I have written, I have written.
“Eternity is a very long time to regret a wrong choice.”
Eternity is beyond space/time and is therefore not “a very long time.”
“When a soul has attained a love filling the whole universe indiscriminately, this love becomes the bird with golden wings that pierces an opening in the egg of the world. After that, such a soul loves the universe, not from within but from without; from the dwelling place of the Wisdom of God, our first-born brother. Such a love does not love beings and things in God, but from the abode of God. Being close to God it views all beings and things from there, and its gaze is merged in the gaze of God.” Simone Weil. French mystic. 1909-1943
I was raised evangelical, but now consider myself an agnostic, perhaps even an atheist. I don't need a 4000 year old religion of bronze age, nomadic sheep herders to tell me that targeting civilians- including women and children- is wrong. All of the great religions can be boiled down to the Golden Rule: treat others the way that you would want to be treated; if we all did that, the world would be a paradise. Jesus isn't coming back, we have to make the future good by ourselves.
Joe Blow: The proof that the Return of Jesus Christ is imminent is when; "in order to buy and sell", the NWO Leviathan requires you to implant a global digital ID in the flesh of your right hand, or an invisible ink bar code on your forehead.
FYI: There are two (2) sins Jesus Christ will not for give: (1) Denial/blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (2) Receiving the Mark of the Beast.
I can't seem to find a reference to a digital ID, or an invisible bar code in my copy of the NIV, nor in the KJB, perhaps I am missing some pages.
Denial is not a river in Egypt. You will know your eternal soul is in peril when the NWO Leviathan requires you to implant a global digital ID in the flesh of your right hand, or an invisible ink bar code on your forehead.
As I stated above, there are two (2) sins Jesus Christ will not for give: (1) Denial/blasphemy against the Holy Spirit [Matthew 12:31] . (2) Receiving the MARK OF THE BEAST. [Revelation 14:9]
If there is any group of the American people that should be opposed to the military industrial complex and the warfare state, with its suppression of civil liberties, imperial presidency, government propaganda and interventionist foreign policy; it is the American Christians. Especially conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians, who claim to strictly follow the dictates of Holy Scripture and worship the Prince of Peace.
Well said. The neocons who never actually served in the military tend to be the most bold (cuz they send other people’s poor sons to do the killing and getting killed).
The Covidiots calling for the internment of vax dissenters was particularly shocking to me.
In Australia they actually did it.
Matt Taibbi has a good Substack today making the insufferable Amy Klobuchar the public face of Big Censorship, aka, the Borg.
He's finally realized that these people are the enemy. They want to oppress us and we must resist them.
Back when he was still at Rolling Stone, he was practically insufferable, in that it was obvious that the Democrats were a problem, particularly on "Russia!" but he could never say that.
1. The deliberate murder of unarmed civilians for political reasons is the definition of terrorism. Hamas committed unforgivable terrorism. Every person who participated in or directed that terrorism must be found and killed. This especially includes their top leadership in Qatar. I suspect it also includes top Israelis who seem to have allowed the attack to happen for political reasons.
2. Israel has been oppressing Palestinians for a long time. This still does not excuse terrorism in the least.
3. Islam is ridiculously violent, far more than any other religion. This is inherent in Islam from its beginning. Islam is incompatible with Western civilization.
4. Judaism is exclusionary, and this has been true from its beginning. The deliberate alienation of all others as a way of increasing group solidarity is a defining characteristic of Judaism. Judaism requires willful blindness to this obvious fact, and so Jews are willfully blind to it.
5. America is over here, and the Palestinians and Israelis are over there. America should have absolutely nothing to do with the Middle East. We have enough of our own oil. AIPAC is all harm for America, and no benefit - unless you are a politician willing to betray America for AIPAC campaign donations.
Very well written. Agree 100%
So, after the Civil War, Sherman should have been executed for terrorism? And after WWII, FDR should have been executed for terrorism? Ever heard of "history"?
It is absurdly unrealistic to regard war as a set of individual crimes. We could have won WWII by sending commandos in to kill the leading Nazis? What planet are you living on?
If Sherman was deliberately killing unarmed civilians for political reasons, then yes, Sherman should have been executed for terrorism.
For FDR, are you talking about the nuclear bomb? If so, maybe yes, him too.
And yes, the Allies did try sending in commandos to kill leading Nazis. Didn't work, but it was a good try.
Sherman was killing unarmed civilians. The Union Army killed 20,000 former slaves by starvation and exposure at the Devils Punchbowl alone. The Union Ar,y is responsible for at the least..50,000 civilians with some estimates as high as 100,000 southern civilians.
That's terrorism then.
"The southern press especially excoriated Sherman for attacking Atlanta, a city he knew to be filled with women and children." If Lincoln approved of this, should he have been executed after the war?
My reference to FDR was about the strategic bombing campaign, which (if we average low-end and high-end estimates) killed almost half a million civvies. So FDR should have been executed after the war?
What about indirect killing of civvies, through "economic warfare"? This happened to Confederates, and to the Germans in WWI. Why would it matter whether killing of civvies was direct or indirect? So now we two reasons that Lincoln should have been executed, and one reason that Wilson (for should have been executed. In both of these cases, economic warfare was essential to victory. (In the Civil War, this conclusion was reached by Lincoln, Halleck, and Grant during 1863.) So it would have been better to let the Confederates win the Civil War and the Germans win WWI? Really?
Adult civvies under the control of a war-waging government will be compelled to contribute, in whatever way that government sees fit, to contribute to the war-effort. And that makes them legitimate targets. Period. The Confederates, the Nazis, Hamas ... they are all the same in this regard.
Unavoidable civilian casualties are different from the deliberate murder of civilians as the goal in itself.
In a July 31, 1862 letter to his wife (from his “Collected Works”) WT Sherman wrote that his purpose in the war was: “Extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the [Southern] people.” His wife Ellen wrote back that her fondest wish was for a war “of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like the Swine into the sea.”
War crimes of Sherman’s Army are legendary. Just look at what he did to tue Indians…
Hi David, I think there is very compelling arguments that bombing Dresden and nuking Japan were not necessary to win or hasten the end of WWII.
Dresden was pointless, just a bunch of milling about refugees. But Hamburg, as as I am aware, was not. Nuking Japan might well have been too. But we may not have known that. And Hiroshima was not enough for Japan to surrender, implying that they still had hope.
Thx Adolf for your take
He didn’t write anything to warrant that comparison.
My grandfather was actually named Adolph. He was Jewish though.
Sorry, but signing your name to a public letter -- let alone one so utterly vile and monstrous -- then seeing your name actually published is not doxing.
Of course the weasel worded retractions came pouring out, "I had no idea what I was signing!" Really? As Prof. Dershowitz said a couple of weeks ago, would you hire an attorney (especially at $500/hr) who would admit to having signed something without first reading it? The FAIL is almost comical.
Bravo Sasha! Those kids ARE the McCarthyites.
Unfortunately, if you believe in the first amendment, then we should be supporting these folks to say what they want. I was in school in the 60s and learned about the First amendment as Nazis were marching in Skokie. These comments/protests are no more (or less) vile than the Nazis, in fact, these folks are the new Nazis. Actually, they're probably more like the KKK. The Klan hated Blacks and Jews, while these Hamas hates Christians and Jews,
It's the Universities that need to be reined in, and the Feds should require universities and colleges to meet certain thresholds on the FIRE freedom of speech ratings in order to be eligible for federal aid, including federal underwriting of student loans.
The Nazis marched in Skokie and their 1st Amendment rights were supported. But no one suggested that they should also get elite jobs after graduating from elite universities. And nobody suggested that their message was anything other than vile.
University students supporting Hamas are not in any way comparable to the Nazi March on Skokie.
I am thinking along those lines Jude... If they (Hamas groupies) were speaking out and people recognized the evil of their bile and there were no consequences caused by it that would be one thing, but that is not where we are at. There has to be a countervailing force to give cover for the cowed populace to start speaking up and breaking their spell. I hope that this process has begun...
The Skokie March was xancelled by the Nazis when they realized they were likely to get their asses beaten.
I live in suburban Chicago (Skokie is a Chicago suburb), and I’m old enough to remember the situation as it was going on. But I did not remember that the march was cancelled, thanks for the info!
Yes. People should hesitate before jumping on the "now let's punish their speech" bandwagon. That is conceding considerable legitimacy to the woke's previous unrelenting and unforgiving hounding of everyday people for their opinions, their choice or topics or even choice of words.
The best result of this is not that those who justify terrorism now find themselves on the receiving end of 'cancel culture," but that these woke folk should never again be conceded authority to shut down those who they deem "fascists" for supposedly "evolving" five minutes slower than they have.
If going forward the rest of us get to speak our piece, and to discuss issues of national importance without constant fear of public shaming, that would be a far better long-term consequence of this than starting a new round of speech policing, just with the roles reversed. The ultimate goal should be open and honest conversations, hopefully civil, thoughtful and respectful. But ones where what needs to be said to solve problems can actually be said
Sure, they have every right to say what they want and I have every right not to hire them or do business with them.
Absolutely
The Klan hated Blacks, Catholics, and Jews.
Klan 1.0 hated blacks and carpet baggers. Klan 2.0 was as you say and centered in the Midwest. Klan 3.0 was mostly the FBI.
Yes, the schadenfreude tastes delicious.
Sure, these kids deserve to have their lives upended the same way they have upended anyone they disagreed with in the past. The worst part is, they won't learn a thing. Instead, they will delve deeper into their victimhood and whine that they are being oppressed.
Sorry Sasha, I believe this statement “They (HAMAS) (my note in parens) gave Israel no choice but to bomb the living crap out of them.” is disingenuous because HAMAS embeds themselves with innocent and helpless civilians. Israel certainly has other choices besides killing and maiming tens of thousands of innocent children and civilians and every just nation should not kill innocents.
Plus many now want war with Iran which will mean countries like Russia and Turkey will be dragged in which will quickly plunge us into WW3. This is insane.
I’m totally with you on this.
What are these other choices available and why do you think Israel hasn't made them?
Hey Sparrow, I think that the IDF and Mossad are two of the most formidable military and special forces units on earth. I think that those two groups can infiltrate deeply into Gaza and root out and kill the vast majority of Hamas. It will take longer and incur more casualties than carpet bombing Gaza. But not carpet bombing is the same reason countries don’t use nukes every time they get attacked; it’s out of all proportion to the incident and ongoing threat. I do think Israel is already infiltrating into Gaza to find Hamas but I also see published reports that Israel is indiscriminately bombing and killing thousands of civilians. I hope they stop the latter and continue the former.
You say Israel has no choice but to bomb Hamas.
Of course Israel has a choice. It could choose to find a peaceful resolution but it doesn't. That's on Israel.
Two, the residents of Gaza are not Hamas. The two are related but separate.
Three, I believe collective punishment is a violation of international law.
Four, in any dispute, the burden of responsibility lies primarily on the most powerful party to the dispute.
I must say I am disappointed in you. You have confirmed Orwell's statement that political speech is the defense of the indefensible.
There is no peaceful solution with those who do not want peace. Hamas does not want peace.
Actually, the residents of Gaza elected Hamas. Hamas represents the people of Gaza.
There is no such thing as international law. How is it enforced? Who obeys it? Where is it codified in a body empowered TO enforce it?
I'd say Israel IS assuming the responsibility of which you speak, and it is doing so quite handily. Those terrorist groups and nation-states whose top priority is to wipe the Jews, and the nation of Israel off the face of the Earth are finally going to get what's coming to them – and Israel can do so WITHOUT the help of the duplicitous Biden administration that talks out of both sides of its mouth, pledges to stand with Israel while funding Iran's support of Hezbollah, and Hamas.
This isn't a matter of assigning blame.
It's about putting an end to the killing on both sides.
"It's about putting an end to the killing on both sides."
Oh, what a noble sentiment.
Please spare me the bleeding-heart BS.
Turn Gaza into a mirror, and we're halfway there.
Shame on you.
Grow up.
The people are the one's who suffer the consequences of governments (if you can actually call Hamas that), that don't truly represent or care anymore about them than our so called government does, and most worldwide corporate governments for that matter.
Yes.
People are dying.
Some want that to stop. Others want the killing to continue.
“I'd say Israel IS assuming the responsibility of which you speak,”
But if we give Israel a green light to go ahead and destroy Gaza then we are complicit in genocide and will be dragged into WW3. Is it worth it?
We are not complicit at all – Israel doesn't need the permission of the US.
Wilhelm is inserting the US where the US doesn't belong.
This is not our fight – Wilhelm, and his handler, the first sodomite president, would like it to be. The Bush Klan would like it to be. The War Party would like it to be.
“Israel doesn't need the permission of the US.“
They haven’t asked for our permission but we’ve given it to them anyway plus our leaders would very much like war with Iran which would make Israel happy although they haven’t asked us to go to war with Iran. This is a really insane situation that is really playing with fire.
I agree 100%. Pretty disappointing to see Sasha say that Gaza deserves to have the shit bombed out of them in retaliation for a terrorist act. Hamas is awful and must be dealt with, but killing innocent Palestinian women and children is not the answer. “An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind”.
"The residents of Germany were not the Nazi Party"
"Collective punishment of Germany was a violation of international law"
Really?
I didn't say those things.
You just said exact analogues of those things, duh.
No, I didn't.
You said them.
I’ve asked him also; “David, I don’t get it. John didn’t write any of the stuff you put in quotes. You putting it in quotes is format for referencing something someone wrote. Am I off track on this also?”
You give a new depth and richness of meaning to the word "oblivious".
David, I don’t get it. John didn’t write any of the stuff you put in quotes. You putting it in quotes is format for referencing something someone wrote. Am I off track on this also?
Spot on
Kim says if we’re going to war with Iran for supporting Hamas then why not with Turkey and Qatar which also strongly support Hamas and how can we go to war with Iran when our ruling class is already waging war a proxy war against Putin and Russia externally and against Trump and supporters internally? And does America even still exist as a country? Open borders, surging crime in our cities, the demonization of “Whiteness!” and a war on meritocracy due to its “disparate impact” on blacks which is why it’s considered racist by the left.
“The New War On Terror…Will We Win This Time?” (11 min)
Kim Iversen. Oct 25, 2023
https://youtu.be/1Z6zvU2mEpM?si=1ZTDnqFkzlziqC-J
“Police State Trailer. New Dinesh D’Souza Movie.” (3 min)
Dinesh D’Souza. Oct 2, 2023
https://youtu.be/VrbP1rJQ7DE?si=m2wEnsN6euR_VwtW
I'm not pro hamas in the least, but do I think there was something more sinister at play behind the scenes? Yes after hearing from so many former Commanders and others who know and understand the Iron Dome and it's inner workings. We can't always believe the MSM narratives being portrayed.
The below article is one good reason, regardless of how you choose to read it.
Two weeks after the Hamas breakout assault on Israel on 7 October, a clearer picture of what happened – who died, and who killed – is now beginning to emerge.
Instead of the wholescale massacre of civilians claimed by Israel, incomplete figures published by the Hebrew newspaper Haaretz show that almost half the Israelis killed that day were in fact combatants – soldiers or police.
In the interim, two weeks of blanket western media reporting that Hamas allegedly killed around 1,400 Israeli civilians during its 7 October military attack has served to inflame emotions and create the climate for Israel’s unconstrained destruction of the Gaza Strip and its civilian population.
[Click below to Access Haaretz article]
As of 23 October, the news outlet has released information on 683 Israelis killed during the Hamas-led offensive, including their names and locations of their deaths on 7 October.
Of these, 331 casualties – or 48.4 percent – have been confirmed to be soldiers and police officers, many of them female. Another 13 are described as rescue service members, and the remaining 339 are ostensibly considered to be civilians.
Links and charts in story.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/what-really-happened-october-7/5837833
Careful; too much truth can get you cancelled also.
They say that Truth will set you FREE, and yes sometimes more Free that we'd like. It's nice to see it happening to those who feel they're arbiters of Truth feel the pain, though not nearly what they've caused.
What % of civilians murdered would make this acceptable? Let’s not forget, the civilians murdered included babies and toddlers. And then there are the hostages taken. Are we to assume that they are just prisoners of war? Including the 80-something woman that was released?
I know this was not addressed to me but I view even one murder of an innocent as tragic regardless of which side does the killing. It is unreasonable to expect any country not to respond and it is unreasonable to kill thousands of innocents in retaliation for every innocent your side lost. Things need to be proportionate. Else you get every nuke power nuking each other and anyone else they want.
“Things need to be proportionate.”
Easier said than done. The devil is in the details. How do you separate the good from the bad when the majority are a blend? The terrorists are a small number but those who support the terrorists are many. It’d certainly be easier to just kill them all but then that’s genocide which will just increase the hate among those still alive. A terrible dilemma with no solution.
My Statement:
I'm not pro hamas in the least, but do I think there was something more sinister at play behind the scenes? Yes after hearing from so many former Commanders and others who know and understand the Iron Dome and it's inner workings. We can't always believe the MSM narratives being portrayed.
My precursor to the article:
The below article is one good reason, regardless of how you choose to read it.
The Article:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/what-really-happened-october-7/5837833
Your comments correlation to any of it - 0
Did you read any of it?
It appears not as your comment = Assumption
My reply to your comment -- You do know about Assumption....Right?
...and the pendulum swings.
While I see your point, if you read the actual letter, it blamed the *Israeli government*, not Israel. Just as the American government is not America as a whole (thank God), the Israeli government is not Israel as a whole. And one of the groups that signed that letter was the Harvard Jews for Liberation. And it blamed Israel much the same way the UN Sec-Gen "blamed" Israel: none of this happens out of context.
There's a line between war and genocide. And carpet bombing civilians is not war. It's genocide. (https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/middleeast/satellite-images-gaza-destruction/index.html) Now can we have a conversation about that? And about the fact that Israel has declared they won't give visas to *UN officials* because the UN is not whole heartedly behind their plan to obliterate the Gazans? (https://rumble.com/v3ruijs-arrogance-israel-censures-u.n.-chief-following-humanitarian-plea-for-israel.html)
I'm glad the "left" is getting a taste of its own medicine, but this is spiraling out of control and we have bigger issues than schadenfreude.
💯
With you right until “gave us no choice but to bomb the crap out of them.” WTF. Honestly. I hate Hamas. And everything they stand for. Do not become them. Do NOT be worse than them. If you despise Hamas, then take the head off of that snake. The head sits sipping tea in Qatar. Be human.
Yeah, Sasha was WAY off with that comment.
it seems that too many of use have lost our humanity as we thrill to the punishement of those we disagree with either by loss of jobs or incineration by bombs or being killed by terrorists. You are right, Sasha. there are consequences and being happy as you and others seem to be that young kids are having their lives ruined for protesting what they perceive to be a wrong or Palestiinians being blamed and punished because of the actions of terroristm is leading us to a society that makes me shudder. I remember almost daily the line from the McCarthy hearings - have you in the end, no sense of decency.
Sasha was wrong in this article but she’s an intelligent woman and I’m sure she’s already sorry about cheering for the destruction of Gaza. I saw one article about the Hamas attack which said a Palestinian in Gaza warned friends in a border town that Hamas was planning a major attack across the border. The Israelis contacted the IDF and told them about this warning. The IDF told them it was a false alarm so just ignore it. Where is the punishment though for those in the Israeli government and military for so disastrously failing in their primary job of keeping the people safe? And now they are making things far worse by grinding Gaza into the dirt.
For too long, people have not taken at "face value" the stated beliefs/objectives of the left. The hated Ayn Rand was not too far off after all.
Nor for that matter, was B.F. Skinner that far off either.