These are direct quotes reproduced in series. They’re only removed from the op-ed for clarity. People need to see that this is exactly what the regime itself is telling the American public in the Iranian Lego propaganda which lambastes and humiliates the American military while conveying our obvious weaknesses.

First, we urgently need a more affordable, more comprehensive approach to countering the drone threat. [...] We need a truly layered defense, one that begins with disrupting drone supply chains and factories, and then uses electronic warfare to stymie drones from afar, deploys interceptor drones and other solutions to defeat drones at a lower cost and reserves pricey advanced missiles for the threats that truly demand them. We must also change how we design, supply and position our forces, including dispersing them more widely and fortifying our bases and infrastructure — both at home and abroad. [...] We also need wider and deeper stockpiles of munitions and the industrial capacity to rapidly replenish them under pressure. [...] We must think seriously about how to deepen our strategic resilience and keep the global economy functioning when an adversary’s strategy hinges on disrupting it. [...] Making the institutional changes to learn these lessons will be hard — but as the Iran war has already demonstrated, doing so is not optional.

That last line is pretty blunt, and it’s what matters. Austin is saying institutional changes are not optional.” Wake up. That’s how big brass is trained to say “what we’re doing isn’t working and we’re losing.”

Do you know where that money goes? […] 3.8 billion dollars a year. That money goes right back to the US to purchase weapon systems. For example, every round of ammo that the IDF shoots is manufactured just outside of where I live in Little Rock Arkansas. The components, a lot of them, for the Iron Dome and the Arrow 3 missile defense systems are manufactured near Camden Arkansas.

Let’s do some work on that. Who manufactures ammunition near Little Rock Arkansas. That would be SIG Sauer. Looking into this it seems others have reported on contracts for weapons between the IDF and SIG Sauer, but it’s still interesting. All the more so when all sources I can find label SIG Sauer as boycott safe.

The other contractor Huckabee references seems to be L3Harris, but they don’t seem to sell products to consumers anyway.

Defunding PBS isn’t very unpopular as far as Republican priorities go. According to a Pew Poll from March 25, 2025, which polled on PBS and NPR,

• A minority — 43% — want to see PBS funded.1

• A minority — 24% — want to see PBS defunded.

• 33% are unsure.

Defunding PBS only trails funding PBS by 20 points! Compare that to the chasm of a 94% disagreement on the Republican coverup and handling of the Epstein files. Still, for me this is alarming. I have a son. He watches material funded by PBS. I understand the visceral desire to save it and the liberal outrage.

Why then am I relatively indifferent to defunding it? I have two reasons. For this I’ll focus on one element of PBS which is probably the most beloved: Sesame Street. The show I personally grew up on. The last 10 years have been peppered with campaigns which have been built around framing the demise of Sesame Street as apocalyptic: take for example this five year old clip from AJ+, “Why There Will Never Be Another Sesame Street.” In this article, I’ll optimistically challenge that narrative.

The Left’s problem with PBS

With regard to PBS, there are two problems facing it today:

• The content doesn’t stand out.

• The ownership of the material doesn’t stand out.

As for the content not standing out: that’s simple: Ms. Rachel is amazing. I don’t have a strong opinion as to what is better for my son: Ms. Rachel, or Sesame Street. Newer material has come along which, even if not better, is comparable.

The other issue is the focal point of my gripe. It is what I see as a critical failure of PBS: the ownership model of the content they fund.

Content Ownership

Now that I’m older and have a child, I want to download Sesame Street for him. I want that to be the only content on his video player. I have funded this content, one may reason it’s mine. However, it’s not, and I can’t do this — legally anyway.

Sesame Street is not in the public domain, and there is no license that would allow me to make use of the content. Like any Tesla or Apple product you’ll never “own” Sesame Street. This is probably a shock, since you pay five million dollars a year to fund it. However, it is what it is. The characters are privately owned. The show is privately owned. PBS only ever obtains a “license” for it. As does HBO, and Netflix.

• I can’t download the episodes.

• I can’t publicly show them.

• I can’t use them in my own products and services.

This is in my opinion crazy. I’m being asked to fund Sesame Workshop — a private franchise — which I have no control over in exchange for very limited access to the material I funded. That access is defined in their “Terms of Use" where they write,

We require users to respect our copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property rights; we enforce those rights.

Their copyrights? Why am I funding the growth of “their copyrights?” How is this different from funding Disney with tax money? Granted, Disney is corporately owned rather than owned by a non-profit, but does it matter? And, if so, why? I don’t want a nicer owner. I want to own it.

How does this propriety play out? Sesame Workshop sues companies for making “knock-off” products available which is capitalist for “more affordable:” a lack of licensing fees makes the product cheaper with the cost-savings rolled back to the consumer. They attempt to control culture by restricting use of references to Sesame Street. And, they issue DMCA takedowns on YouTube for people who share “their” content. While I can’t find any examples of them suing individuals for personal infringement, they could liquidate their entire catalog and sell it to Disney or Lionsgate at any point in time which certainly would prosecute personal infringement.

I’m not trying to make Sesame Worship out to be malicious. On the contrary, they’re at the very least exceptionally transparent2. According to their filings in 2024,

• Their CEO, Stephen Youngwood, makes in excess of 1 million.

• The president makes in excess of $850,000.

• The next 11 highest earners in the organization average $420,000.

It’s interesting how much money there is to be made managing the copyrights and trademarks on the business side for content that we should own.

If it seems abrasive to attack Sesame Street, there is no nice way for Sesame Street to own that which we already paid for. There is no nice way to direct government funds into driving the further growth of an asset portfolio which currently sits at $560 million USD. There is no nice way to take money from PBS licensing when your yearly revenue is $187 million USD.

The commons, or die

Change the dynamic a bit, and my reception would be totally different. If we owned the characters and the franchise collectively then public educators could use, modify, and adapt the characters as they’d see fit. If I could download the episodes legally, I could host and stream the episodes internally in my house. I could take them on road trips without needing an internet connection. Everything about my assessment would change. Then we’d be justifying an investment rather than a subscription. I would love to see open text books, coloring books, and interactive material made with Sesame Street characters; I have none of that because it’s not ours.

All of these issues raised are remedied with the Creative Commons licenses. If Sesame Street was licensed under CC-SA-BY, you could remix, modify, and share the content that you’re funding. But, as Americans, we can be even more demanding than that. We have a category for things that all Americans own in common, the “public domain.” Things we fund should immediately be placed in it. Not held by a private non-profit holding company.

Conclusion

I want my country to own the children’s shows we fund. For five million dollars a year, we should be working towards that. Not funding a cartel of Elmo via Sesame Workshop, or “The Fred Rogers Company” (the similar non-profit holding firm for Mr. Rogers). We shouldn’t be putting ourselves in a position to perpetually license the content we already funded. It’s unacceptable, and we should demand more.

The last time we lost a beloved resource owned by a private entity which time has shown no one would miss was Britannica. Britannica was an Encyclopedia owned by the University of Chicago. It was one of many that you could purchase in print, and digitally. In the 1990s, every middle school, high school, and library owned both formats. A single copy cost $1,500. A subscription (still sold) runs $199/year. If you feel an Encyclopedia is necessary for education, imagine forcing all educational institutions to license or buy a copy. Worse, imagine a world where public schools were sued for recording and distributing content owned by the publisher of Britannica. This was the state of affairs.

Now we all have Wikipedia. Individuals made the investment to create an Encyclopedia which we all own. You can copy it, edit it, modify it, use it in your educational materials, talk about it in anyway you’d like, reproduce it (fully), download it and host it offline. For all its shortcomings, it’s ours. I wouldn’t go back to Britannica even if they stopped charging. This is the mode of ownership PBS needs to embrace. We need to bid Big Bird farewell. He needs to go the way of Britannica.

Is this really even worth talking about? Probably not. I am being idealistic. Moreover, if my only choice is my dollar in the hands of big-Big Bird, or my dollar in the hands of Israel’s genocide-industrial complex, I’ll go with The Bird.

Scientific Journal of Objective Truths and Proof 2025:7-29.0.0

We got a floor vote on cutting some of the Israel’s gross military aid. Obviously it failed, and that’s where I am picking this up.

Content of the Amendment

This is what was actually voted on “amendment numbered 114”,

114. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Greene of Georgia or 
                 Her Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

Strike section 8067 (page 92, beginning on line 12 through 
page 93, line 13).

It’s one line: “Strike section 8067.” It’s appropriately titled — nothing incendiary. This is Section 8067,

Sec. 8067. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under the headings “Procurement, Defense-Wide” and “Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide”, $500,000,000 shall be for the Israeli Cooperative Programs: Provided, That of this amount, $60,000,000 shall be for the Secretary of Defense to provide to the Government of Israel for the procurement of the Iron Dome defense system to counter short-range rocket threats, subject to the U.S.-Israel Iron Dome Procurement Agreement; $127,000,000 shall be for the Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense (SRBMD) program, including cruise missile defense research and development under the SRBMD program; $40,000,000 shall be for co-production activities of SRBMD systems in the United States and in Israel to meet Israel’s defense requirements consistent with each nation’s laws, regulations, and procedures, subject to the U.S.-Israeli co-production agreement for SRBMD; $100,000,000 shall be for an upper-tier component to the Israeli Missile Defense Architecture, of which $100,000,000 shall be for co-production activities of Arrow 3 Upper Tier systems in the United States and in Israel to meet Israel’s defense requirements consistent with each nation’s laws, regulations, and procedures, subject to the U.S.-Israeli co-production agreement for Arrow 3 Upper Tier; and $173,000,000 shall be for the Arrow System Improvement Program including development of a long range, ground and airborne, detection suite.

The tldr, this is what it looks like

60  Million Iron Dome
127 Million Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense (SRBMD)
40  Million SRBMD production
100 Million for Israel’s Arrow 3 production
173 Million Arrow System Improvement Program
====
500 Million

And she wants to scrap that, saving the USA 500 million.

Reception

And this was the reception,

Seriously, again AOC butchered this?

They’re not all in the Epstein files. But that is how bought the US House of Representatives is. Now let’s give a shout out to those souls with backbone, principles, and a moral compass. It’s short, brace yourself.

The Democrats,

• Al Green (rep for the most Jewish district in Houston)

• Summer Lee

• Rashida Tlaib

• Ilhan Omar

And the Republicans,

• Thomas Massie

What the f*

Can you believe it, 6 people voting for that simple amendment to save us $500 million? Here is a bold ass statement,

Marjorie Taylor Greene on the most important issue — literally World Peace and opposing the military industrial complex — is left of 207 Democrats, and every Republican except Thomas Massie.

And not just that, but to recap this was the headline when, in 2021, when AOC was put to task on funding the Iron Dome. This time she didn’t even cry. We don’t even get crocodile tears.

Let’s compare the two,

• AOC failed us on the vote. This time she didn’t even cry about it, but instead wrote a boring attempt to rationalize it.

• Marjorie Taylor Greene surprised us on the vote

• Marjorie Taylor Greene drove the defund-Israel vanguard in the house by putting forward the amendment

Hats off to you MTG. You get an Evan point for this one. I may even have to retire my Jewish space lasers.

Response from AOC

Probably written by ChatGPT with a prompt of “pretend your pro-Palestinian”

But seriously, give the Israelis money to produce missile interceptors, that'll literally enable them to safely conduct a genocide in a figurative Iron Dome! You can’t make this up.

I know MTG isn’t actually to the left of AOC on everything. And that’s an understatement. Comment below if you enjoy the headline.

Scientific Journal of Objective Truths and Proof 2025:7-18.0.1

Reddit is a network of communities. These communities are called subreddits. This article addresses two of them: r/Texas, and r/politics.

Bad Moderation at r/Texas

Immediately after posting my map

Your post from texas was removed because of: 'No Reposting'

Hi u/EvanCarroll, We have countless maps available, this one is extremely similar. Not to mention you’re soliciting views for your sub stack.

Reposting? It was original content. I appealed, and said

There is no other map available that shows where the cabins are located and what their names are. That's the only map. And I'm comparing it to the New York Times map in the blog entry you removed.

The mod was resistant and replied,

There are half a dozen over the past few days, it’s completely redundant at this point.

It’s important to point out that the rules do substantiate the mod’s opinion against reposting. But it’s not a repost. I literally created and it required auditing brochures and logos in pictures from 1995. There was nothing like it.

We went back and forth a bit. This post is the one the mod said I was duplicating. It’s an areal photo. I’m obviously not copying that.

Their photo doesn’t name any of the cabins. In fact they’re not even visible there — the cabins are hidden behind the treeline. This is the map I produced, click to expand

By any means, when I pointed this is what I was told.

to be frank you shouldn’t be soliciting our sub trying to get views on your sub stack

Reddit and the bias against community work

First, “soliciting?” Can you imagine telling someone doing something for free for the community that they’re soliciting? What am I trying to sell? Influence on the merits of my best-in-class contribution to the open-source OpenStreetMap? And even if that’s your frame, so what? What’s wrong with "trying to get views.” That’s just a slimy way of saying I’m trying to give back my contribution to people who may be interested in it. Reddit is after all first and foremost a link-aggregator.

Moreover, what makes for a better world,

• The Corporate MSM mode of production,

  1. Corporate media hires cartographer to make a crap map

  2. Map is produced

  3. Map is used in an article which is typically paywalled

  4. And then it’s promoted by some nerd in PR using a corporate account because no one subscribes to that garbage. This is currently what’s happening anyway. The MSM is promoting their own posts on their front page from corporates accounts. It’s naked self-promotion,

     • Post by /u/nbcnews

     • Post by /u/ExpressNews - expressnews.com is owned by Hearst

     • Post by u/MySA_dot_com - mysa.com is owned by Hearst

     • Post u/Houston_Chronicle - houstonchronicle.com is owned by Hearst

     • Post by u/peoplesmagazine - owned by Dotdash Meredith

• Or, this mode of production.

  1. Something interests me, and driven by passion I write about.

  2. Everything is released as CC-BY-SA. I contribute to open source projects to produce content, like OpenStreetMap.

  3. I do all the work myself.

  4. I publish all of my work on Substack for free. I have no paid content. Nothing is paywalled.

  5. I share this content in a very targeted fashion with others interested in the topic.

  And the result is superior quality! I mean come on, look at those maps I made. I’m a schmuck running circles around the NYT.

Unfortunately, I get greeted often with hostility on reddit. I’ve similarly had submissions to r/politics removed for no reason other than a proclamation that Substack is a “personal blog site" and in violation of their rule.

And, it’s not just Reddit

As any of my readers know, I vote almost exclusively Green Party. They’ve had my vote in every presidential election since 2012. But even the Green Party Discord has been infected with this kind of “moderation”,

I subsequently gave the moderators a link to this article — updated with the substance above — and I was warned that on the next violation of the “no self-promotion” rule I would be banned. I know when I’m not welcome; and, that was the end of my involvement with the party I previously blockwalked for. If it’s “self-promotion” to seek political engagement from party members on Discord talking about the very topic I am writing on, what is when I blockwalk for them and knock on doors uninvited seeking support for their candidates?

Not to dwell too much but my local Linux Users Group’s Discord has twice as many people (1k+) and is quite possibly more active in the #politics channel. When Houston’s local Linux group is better at building a political community than the Green Party USA, we’ve got problems.

Conclusion

This is how Reddit dies, and online community at large. Does Reddit (et. al) want to piss off the community by excluding the most passionate members who have elevated themselves to contributors on select topics, merely because they have other day jobs?

What Reddit needs to do is prohibit all rules against self-promotion. Not because these rules are wrong in what they’re trying to achieve, but because the implementation of them fosters toxicity, and exclusivity, and leaves too much room for self-interest from traditional media.

This kind of bad community moderation, mixed with a corporate culture of indifference to bad community moderation feels a lot like Stack Exchange. Members of the community and individual contributors should not be put into confrontation with moderators on bizzare grounds like “soliciting” and “promotion.” These elements should be things that the community handles naturally with technical input garnered from upvotes and downvotes.

Scientific Journal of Objective Truths and Proof 2025:7-8.1.1. Updated to add example of Green Party Discord.

In this document you can see the location of Camp Mystic Guadalupe River location at 2689 Highway 39 along with 15 structures that are supposed to removed from the SFHA: Special Flood Hazard Area. The SFHA is colloquially called the “100-year floodplain.” This is the region which has at least a one-in-four chance of flooding during a 30-year mortgage.

These itemized structures at Camp Mystic Guadalupe River are are all in the 100 year flood zone. You can see these structures are flagged in the SFHA in 2019.

14 06 0124a 480419

97.3KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This comes from a document that I have verified is FEMA with Case 14-06-0124A. Below is the FEMA map of the camp. The blue here — the kids Cabins — they were all in or around the 2011 SFHA.

It’s interesting just how little you’d have to move those cabins to make them substantially less flood-prone. That blue band goes right through them.

Camp Mystic Crystal Lake

Camp Mystic Crystal Lake also has structures in the flood zone. These are in case 19-06-4012A. In fact, Crystal Lake opened in 2020 and also has all of its cabins in the 100 year flood zone.

19 06 4012a 480419

31.4KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

You can see the Crystal Lake flood map here,

Scientific Journal of Objective Truths and Proof 2025:7-8.0.0

I am skeptical of electoral reform. All of my articles thus far have been critical of the Democrats. However, I believe Mamdani has given us enough to justify our trust. Obama and AOC were relatively unaccomplished before they entered the limelight. It’s worth pointing out that Mamdani does not fit that bill. You do not have to “wait and see” to the same degree.

Family and upbringing

I don’t believe pedigree determines anything, however Mamdani’s family has clear political lines,

• His father, Mahmood Mamdani, is a Harvard-educated academic serving as a Professor of Anthropology and Herbert Lehman Professor of Government at Columbia University. His topics of interest include colonialism, and racial capitalism. He was interviewed by Mondoweiss in 2014. There are certainly elements of this interview that I would dismiss as fanciful liberalism but there is no mistaking Mahmood’s dedication to anti-Zionism and a single state solution,

  The lesson for Palestine and Israel, is that historic Palestine can be a homeland for Jews but not for Jews only. Jews can have a homeland in historic Palestine. but not a state.

  Like Zohran, his father was also politically active. In April 2007 he reflected on his own experiences as a student activist in the Ugandan Sunday Vision having been arrested in civil rights bussing campaigns while on a student visa. His tenure as a professor is also peppered with support for BDS and Palestine.

• His mother, Mira Nair, is a famed director and a vocal proponent of BDS.

  • In 2013, citing BDS, she turned down an invitation to be guest of honor at the Haifa Film Festival, this was covered in Haaretz too.

  • She signed onto a letter to get the Israeli and loud-Zionist Gal Godet removed as presenter of the Academy Awards.

  • Nair has an exhaustive list of her own accomplishments at Faces of Palestine.

I would caution anyone using pedigree to support an assessment of a candidate. But suffice it to say the Mamdani family has been pretty consistent on the topic of Palestine and anti-colonialism.

College: BDS, and SJP

Before entering electoral politics on the left those with passion and commitment should have a resume of organizing and mobilizing. Mamdani doesn’t stand out in this, but he certainly checks the box. While enrolled at Bowdoin College around 2014, Mamdani founded a chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine. During this time,

• American Studies Association (ASA) endorsed BDS.

• Predictably, Mamdani pushed for Bowdoin College to endorse BDS.

• On December 24, 2013, Bowdoin College President Barry Mills penned a statement distancing itself from ASA and the boycott.

• In response to Mills statement,

  • Memdani penned the response by SJP on January 10, 2014.

  • And, circulated a petition which is still available online. This petition would grow to 50+ students, and 2 professors by January 24.

All that to say, Mamdani was active in college. After college, in 2017, he played a role in the NYC Assemblyman campaign of Khader El-Yateem for District 43, alongside Linda Sarsour. El-Yateem supported BDS in his run.

Mamdani’s history

To contextualize Mamdani’s actions we have to review his tenure as an Assemblyman for New York City’s 34th district. In NYC Assemblyman are elected for two years. Mamdani won three elections in 2020, 2022, and 2024. Elections are held in November; and, Mamdani can be assumed to have been campaigning in October and in November. Mamdani assumed office on January 1, 2021, having announced his candidacy in October 2019, and having won his first election in 2020.

• Fresh into his first term, on May 11, 2021, Mamdani was seen leading BDS chants in front of the Israeli consulate. He is quoted as having said

  We have elected officials paid for trips to Israel […] They are going there paid for by your tax dollars. […] they show up at the Israel Day parade and they say, `We stand in solidarity,' […] We want to let them know that there are three letters that we have as an answer to what is happening in Palestine. It’s BDS.

  Consistent with his values he showed up on the streets and confronted elected officials in front of the Israeli embassy. He called on others to “put pressure on every single elected official.” Showing up with the people to be wind in the sails is not merely talk. It’s action. You can see the video here,

• On June 3, 2021, Mamdani was giving an interview with Muslim Democratic Club of New York (MDC-NY) on BDS. The majority of the linked video is a panel discussion but Mamdani speaks for the first five minutes and recalls a story talking to Jerry of Ben and Jerry about BDS. He says he wanted to see them pull out of the occupied territories and grocery stores operating in Israeli settlements. He spoke not just for his constituents but for himself. He pushes for BDS to be a demand for support by progressive Muslims. If true, using his influence to pressure CEOs at panel discussions is certainly not merely words. The very act of getting a chance to speak to Jerry of Ben & Jerry’s likely required dropping his earned title as NYC Assemblyman.
  

  This interview with MDC-NY is interesting because Mamdani postures himself in the role of the electoral vanguard. The background here is that often Muslims endorse other Muslims that are silent on BDS. He use BDS, and rightfully so, to divide the pool of candidates that should receive support from Muslims by stating that the members should “demand that you must [support BDS], and if not that is not enough.” Speaking of Palestine he says at 4:09, “it can not be considered an optional struggle, it has to be considered one that is make or break for us to […] believe in candidates.”

• In November 2, 2021, Mamdani signed onto a demand letter addressed to Biden condemning Israeli’s crackdown against human rights groups, including Defense for Children International – Palestine, Al Haq, Addameer, Bisan Center for Research and Development, Union of Agricultural Work Committees, and Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees. Only State Senator Jabari Brisport, and Assemblymember Marcela Mitaynes also signed the letter.

• In May 31, 2023, Mamdani tweeted support of Fatima Mousa Mohammad who made remarks at CUNY which were slandered by the Board of Trustees and Chancellor as antisemitic.

• The day after the October 7 attacks, Mamdani tweeted a call for an end to Israeli apartheid and an end to the occupation. Mamdani omitted any mention of Hamas and choose to focus the root causes.

• On October 13, 2023, Mamdani was arrested at a pro-Palestinian protest demanding a ceasefire in Gaza.

• In November of 2023, Mamdani pressured President Biden for a ceasefire, and followed it up with a five day hunger strike.

• On November 30, 2023, Mamdani uses the word “genocide” for the first time to describe the situation in Gaza. AOC wouldn’t utilize the term until late March 2024. His use of the term would increase sharply with Israel’s brutality, and he would go on to using the term on cable news.

• In March of 2024, Mamdani ran in charity event for UNRWA called the Gaza 5k.

Legislative Accomplishments

Mamdani both withdrew support that was previously given to Israel by his predecessor, and used his position to try advance the cause.

• In the 2025-2026, Assemblyman Mamdani sponsored Assembly Bill A6101 named “Not on our dime!: Ending New York funding of Israeli settler violence act.” It was described as,

  prohibit not-for-profit corporations from engaging in unauthorized support of Israeli settlement activity; allows for recovery of a civil penalty by the state attorney general; creates a private right of action for violations.

  Unfortunately, this bill failed in committee. But we can’t fault Mamdani for that. While I would have liked it to have a similar bill introduced in the prior two terms

• Refused to sign a letter “Congratulating State of Israel on the Anniversary of its establishment and reaffirming the bonds of friendship, cooperation, and shared values between the people of the State of New York and Israel.” This bill proclaims Israel has a commitment or strives for peace. He’s refused to sign many times: K00509 in 2025, K02195 in 2024, K00354 in 2023, K00823 in 2022. K00209 in 2021.

The Obama Juxtaposition

• College: In 1979-1981, Obama was reportedly an anti-apartheid activist at Occidental College. It was in this movement, Obama would reportedly give his first speech. I wouldn’t challenge Obama’s bona fides with regard to apartheid. Mamdani has followed a similar parallel with the liberation of Palestine.

• Family: Obama’s father, however radical and based, was only in his life for one month when he was 10 years old, and he died when Obama was 21. It’s clear Mamdani’s immediate family has a history fighting for the recognition of Palestine and Palestinian liberation.

• While elected:

  • Mamdani organized people outside of the NYC Assembly. He joined organizations to lend his support. He worked in his capacity as a local Assemblyman to push a legislative agenda that had international elements that he clearly organized and supported other organizations, like JVP.

  • Obama did nothing except support the most blasé liberal agenda. It’s clear that Obama, once elected, showed little desire to join the working class where it was, and no desire to lead it or support it in struggle.

Conclusion

Even when it comes to words, Mamdani is different. Words come in two flavors: descriptive, and prescriptive. Obama was a master of the descriptive words “every person deserves a right to healthcare.” But with Mamdani, we see prescriptive words. Mamdani is explicitly telling you to withdraw support of candidates that ignore Palestine, and even more ambitiously that refuse to support BDS. Prescriptive words are acts of organization. Descriptive words fall short of that.

With #ForceTheVote the people demanded AOC withdraw support from Pelosi pending a floor vote on Medicare for All. The demand was for Pelosi to simply vote the principles she spoke. Mamdani doesn’t merely have a track record consistent with rhetoric; he similarly demands that people withdraw support from politicians that deviate from the agenda. He answers the demand placed upon him, and reinforces the demand placed upon others. This is two orders of magnitude away from AOC.

You could write an exhaustive analysis like this on any topic, and on any politician. But if your topic is opposing genocide, Mamdani is nothing like AOC, and Obama. This is a conclusion I share with Norm Finkelstein. He’s already proven on this topic. On Palestine, he represents the most progressive positions of any elected official. I’m not sure what more you could ask of a NYC Assemblyman. Until given a reason otherwise, I would trust his record. His actions are a satisfactory justification.

See also

You may find this article interesting, also following Mamdani on the topic of Palestine,

Dialectics of Decline

A Crushing Blow To Zionism

Read more

10 months ago · 86 likes · 20 comments · Scarlet

From 1999 until 2003, I was in Quest High School in Houston, Texas. I saw the Twin Towers fall during those years. I lived the aftermath of it as the world changed.

Almost as if planned, Congress had passed just months prior to 9/11 a sketchy piece of legislation called “No Child Left Behind” or the NCLB. The goal of this legislation was to incentivize and penalize schools based on performance. Rather than investing more into schools that were underperforming, the NCLB would remove funds to penalize the school for underperforming and incentivize performing schools with additional funds: this was sold as a “market approach” to public schooling. The bill carried one noteworthy pernicious rider in Section 9528, an awkward provision that allowed the military to gain access to students

SAME ACCESS TO STUDENTS- Each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide military recruiters the same access to secondary school students as is provided generally to post secondary educational institutions or to prospective employers of those students.

This effectively made it a requirement for schools to permit the military to recruit as a condition for funding. I saw this play out. I remember the recruiters setting up tables in the library. I remember them coming into the cafeteria to talk to students. I remember them joining groups of students anytime we had a conversation they felt could be hijacked, or that they could inject their presence into.

This requirement to grant access to schools stacks with the billions the US military spends every year on advertising. Together these empower the perpetual wars without needing congressional authorization. Wars that utilize volition, advertising, and access don’t require the direct intervention of congress like wars that demand coerced enlistment.

My story

At that time, I was in a group of 15 at the school that was overseen by a teacher Julie Ward. Mrs. Ward clearly didn't approve of the military being in the school — that much was clear. I never knew much of her politics aside from this. She one time told me I could tell the recruiters anything I wanted. It was very clearly a wink and nod to oppose their presence. A lot of kids at that time got the same message in one way or another, and some kids didn’t need to be primed.

One such kid, JP, certainly got the message and knew what was going on. JP was clearly in the punk clique -- something I had no relation too. But unlike many in high school, for him punk wasn't merely about hair, style, or music. It was about challenging authority. I was never a close friend, but when it came to cutting through state propaganda, self-education, and challenging authority JP executed the role masterfully.

I remember quite a few interactions with recruiters and JP. It certainly made for good entertainment. I’ll never forget one time the recruiters were trying to sell patriotic duty and the moral track record of the USA, and JP kept refocusing the conversation on the nuking and firebombing of Japan, and the bombing of Dresden. While the facts of the referenced atrocities speak for themselves it was truly a cluster fuck watching the recruiters get wrecked by a high school kid who wasn’t afraid to say they’re not the good guys, and that signing up was an tacit declaration that you were willing to kill the innocent for country. JP dutifully blunted their propaganda and stymied their progress.

One of the reasons these interactions between the military (accustomed to veneration) and JP were memorable is because only one party wanted the interaction: JP. In the same sense that I am certain the school would have expelled the military if they could and it was the military imposing itself on the school, JP was able to extend that dynamic back to them. I had seen people disagree with authority before, but in such cases the disagreements were cordial and didn’t threaten the goals of authority. But with recruiters and JP, the goal wasn’t resolving the disagreement. It was thwarting their attempts. He knew they couldn’t address the problem. It was about declaring events as indefensible, sidetracking their goal of recruitment, and challenging their claim to a moral authority. He could be counted on to repeat this as necessary.

The here and now

While the NCLB is long gone, the Obama-era replacement the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) had a similar rider in Section 8025,

SAME ACCESS TO STUDENTS.—Each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide military recruiters the same access to secondary school students as is provided to institutions of higher education or to prospective employers of those students.

What I was first in experiencing is now the standard, and we’re now open about the effects, according to Rand

Access to high schools is among the most effective methods available to military recruiters to reach potential recruits.

This goes to show the relationship between military recruitment and high schools hasn’t changed for the better. In fact, if anything new efforts are set to make it worse with a proposed statutory display of propaganda in response to the Army and Air Force struggling and failing to meet recruitment goals.

So here are my takeaways,

• If the USA is serious about a war with Iran, I fully expect military recruiters to once again infest high schools in record numbers. They’ve retained statutory access.

• Teachers that oppose war should work NOW to protect their students by creating a herd immunity to the meat grinder. You know it’s coming. Make the play book clear. Cultivate an environment of skepticism and a willingness to push back on the perceived authority of grunts in uniform.

After the democrats lost power, I was asked the same question. On further examination my old explanation had flaws.

The foundation of the question

Let me start off by saying this, I don’t need to defend the targeting of my criticism to be consistent. My positions are as follows,

• I didn’t vote for Trump, nor Biden.

• I never endorsed Trump, nor Biden

• I am not a Republican, nor a Democrat.

These positions have never for a moment changed. So, if true to these foundations, and I criticize the Democrats more, so what? I don’t owe it to the Democrats to criticize Trump more because they lost. But on the surface it seems reasonable to conclude that I should.

A revised justification

Without doubt you should punch up and criticize those with power. This is fundamental. However, it’s not that simple. The reason, on closer examination, is very apparent. To the extent that either party could be reformed to be acceptable, the only party that I participate in reforming to any degree is the Democrats.

I don’t particularly pride myself having endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2012 (yes, that’s right), 2016, and in 2020; but, I did. Anyone more willing to take the knee after knowingly getting screwed is unlikely to play a substantive role in reforming a political party. However, I found Bernie Sanders acceptable and a sufficient deviation from the Democrats at large to warrant support. I’ve never felt that way about a Republican. Over the years I’ve supported Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, “the squad”, and Al Green. All of them Democrats. I have an estate in the Democrats when they don’t have power. I want to support some of them, but that desire does not rise to the level of accepting the candidates they put forward, like Kamala, HRC, and Trump.

But I do participate. I vote in the Democratic primary, and likely always will.

When I see things the Democrats are doing which are setting up MAGA for a third term like,

• Voiding the election of David Hogg who barely a reformist at all.

• Nominating a chairman who extols the virtues of “good billionaires.”

• Allowing Hakeem Jeffries to continue the Pelosi legacy as House Minority Leader

• Allowing Chuck Schumer to push for an Iran war by trying to scuttle Trump’s “side deal” to negotiate a peace

There is no symmetry to these kinds of criticism for Republicans when they’re functioning as resistance. When the Democrats have power, and the Republicans are in resistance

• I don’t care who Republicans pick as a chairperson. I honestly have no idea who their chairperson was the past decade.

• I don’t care if they ban reformists from their party (as they tried to do when they tried to lock out MAGA in 2016.)

• I don’t care if they advocate war. In fact, I just assume they will generally do that as a party.

Conclusion

I criticise the Democrats more because I am invested in their ability to resist and produce an acceptable candidate. That’s different from being a Democrat or supporting them regardless of who they nominate. You should take from this the opposite of what you sought to conclude: the criticism is not because I want Democrats to lose. It’s because I want them to win. I want them to turn their back on war, austerity, and corporate money.

Scientific Journal of Objective Truths and Proof 2025:6-3.1.0

The Global Trade Deficit was cut in half in one month.
That s**t is crazy.

Clearly, that has become a right-wing narrative. The White House is all in on it too

• TRADE DEFICIT NARROWS: It was the largest monthly decline in the trade deficit on record.

  • CNBC: “We cut it in HALF!? … This really does underscore how the movement of goods and services has really changed due to a variety of tariff-related issues.”

Let’s look at the actual numbers.

For the past 3 years the trade deficit has been growing at 60-90 Billion a month.

The exceptional months are December, January, February, and March. These months represent the post-election fears and the Trump administration. What happened during these months is clear.

• Trump scared people into buying more stuff ahead of the tariffs. You can see that here.

• Retailers engaged in stock piling to get a competitive edge and limit their risk.

So when Routers says, “goods trade gap contracted 46.0% to $87.6 billion last month.” They don’t mean to say Trump did anything good. They mean the hysteria over tariffs is gone. Trump chickened out. Warehouses are full. And levels have returned to something more reasonable.

And that “more reasonable” isn’t something to hang your hat on. You can spin it a different way. Even with the additional Trump tariffs that remain and the removal of the di minimis exemption, the USA trade deficit grew 19% more in April than it did in October of 2024 (up from 73.73 B).

Scientific Journal of Objective Truths and Proof 2025:6-3.0.0

There was a Jewish steakhouse in Meyerland Texas named Genesis Steakhouse which to put it lightly I always found off-putting. It had a page dedicated to the differences between Kosher and Halal where they provide some useful information which, while somewhat interesting, seemed both out of place and bizarre. Genesis reasons you can source gelatin and enzymes from swine and still be kosher — I have no idea whether this is true. They combine pork enzymes and pork gelatin, with kosher wine to create an argument which distinguishes kosher from halal and concludes with,

Muslims in non-Muslim countries should strive to follow the Islamic injunctions in their diet (as well as in every walk of life) and establish their own businesses and institutions to cater to the needs of the Muslim Ummah. By doing so, not only the identity of the Muslims will be preserved, but they will be recognized and respected for their beliefs and practices.

The Jewsplaing Halal bit is at the least very bizarre. But my problems with this go deeper. Telling others — like Muslims — to establish their own businesses to preserve their own identity is apartheid-esque rhetoric that I want nothing to do with. As a Jew, I wouldn’t patronize a Christian shop that for any reason told me to “create my own businesses and institutions.” In the same vein, I don’t expect Muslims to patronize shops that tell them to do that either. I enjoy diversity and integration, and this is not the world I want to perpetuate.1

However, it’s amusing that the substance behind this directive is very explicitly pork gelatin, pork enzymes, and kosher alcohol. It would seem very easy for even the most devout Muslim to get a steak at a steakhouse without those ingredients: “medium-rare ribeye no cheese, please don’t cook it with kosher alcohol.” I’m not chef — but this doesn’t sound like rocket science. It’s also how I like my steaks. Instead, the message was clear Genesis assumed the most hard-line interpretation of Islamic dietary laws, and told Muslims to fuck right off and create their own businesses and institutions.

Fish gate, and Jew squabbles

On Jan 27, 2025 Genesis Steakhouse lost it’s Kosher Certification. The accounts here are pretty scattered. It seems the owner claims it’s about the failure to account for fish stating

HKA Rabbi Nosson Dubin entered the restaurant and asked Goldstein to produce an invoice for a package of fileted fish he found in the restaurant’s freezer. […] Without talking to those employees, he was unable to link an invoice to that specific package of frozen fish filets.

Previously unbeknownst to me, the invoice for fish must act as an affirmative defense that the fish were purchased from a kosher source. It’s apparently a defense you have the be able to make at all times when called upon by the certifying religious authority. However, on Facebook we find the rumor mill giving us something with more meat on the bone. The claim is elevated from procedural and accounting, to having been busted with non-kosher fish and on multiple occasions,

Which seems to be in alignment with JVH Online,

A source with knowledge of the situation told the JHV that there were multiple food violations and the governing boards had no choice but to revoke the license of the restaurant, which is located at 80 Braeswood Square.

But this is explicitly denied by someone who is later revealed to be family, Ultimately the religious sanctioning body called Houston Kashruth Association (HKA) withdrew their approval of Genesis Steakhouse — and they’re staying tight lipped about their reasoning, saying little more than this

After extensive deliberation and consultation, the Vaad Harabanim (rabbinic council) that oversees kosher certification for HKA has made the challenging decision to terminate HKA’s contract with Genesis Steakhouse & Wine Bar and withdraw HKA’s kosher certification

And this from Facebook

As part of HKA’s standard written operating procedures (which each merchant understands and agrees to uphold in electing to become certified), we share alerts of certifications, terminations and food products found in retail stores in as close to real time as possible. We do not publicly disclose specific infractions or why a termination decision was made in order to protect merchants or individuals from lashon harah (evil speech).

One of the comments there summarizes it all pretty well,

A truly disappointing and nebulous response from the HKA that did nothing to explain itself or address what led to its abrupt decision to decertify Genesis Steakhouse […]

Whatever the reason, HKA went dirty ass gangster on the verdict. Check out their website: they dedicated a whole popup to Genesis Steakhouse. You can’t see anything on their page or retrieve any information without closing out of the popup.

According to the the CultureMap article,

Goldstein acknowledges that not being certified has already hurt his business. He claims to have lost $500,000 in private dinners and catering contracts since the HKA announced its decision last week.

Oy vey, $500,000 lost. I guess the gofundme has a lot of work to do. I didn’t realize there was that much moolah in a stamp certifying beef isn’t swine. This left the steakhouse in a tough position.

• Abandon their old clientele, or

• Try to undermine the authority of HKA. Perhaps, I’m wrong, but the way I read this HKA decides what is kosher for the Elite Super-duper Jews in Houston. And, that regional religious authority isn’t easily challenged.

I do have to say after following the comments on the Facebook thread, this one appeals to my sense of dank,

are you serious man [HKA] sounds like gambino family running things

The Revenge of the Sith Steakhouse

I think most businesses would pivot, but Genesis did the awesome and went to fight HKA. They said,

Since inception, our goal has always been to uphold the highest level of kashruth, but we will no longer be bullied with senseless regulatory reform and increased fees.

Further, they sought to undermine HKA with an external certification. This gets them one point for interesting internet drama, from their Facebook post on Feb 9, 2025,

Genesis Steakhouse and Wine Bar is proud to announce that we have successfully upgraded our kosher certification to the more stringent Beit Yosef standard, setting a new benchmark for kosher dining in the state of Texas.

Ouch, poor HKA. Genesis counters with a left. They went super-Jewy with a new certification that takes into account “halachic rulings based on Sephardic tradition.” Also from the above linked post,

Unlike standard glatt kosher which ensures that meat is free of adhesions in the lungs a Beit Yosef certification enforces additional stringencies to meet the highest standards of Jewish law.

Shots fired. Those weak liberal Jews stopping at ensuring meat is “free of adhesions in the lungs.” Hilarious.

Kosher is Rocket Science

In case you’re wondering what “additional stringencies” mean there is a whole page devoted to it which Genesis links. Interestingly, I don’t think Genesis read the page. Saving you 9,000 million words and adding bullet points

• If the lung was found to be free of adhesions after the shochet’s bedikos, the animal is deemed to be Beis Yosef Glatt kosher. Beis Yosef Glatt typically2 means that there were no adhesions to the lungs at all.

• Glatt kosher means that any adhesions found were exceptionally thin (like a sewing thread) and the adhesion peeled off easily, leaving no hole in the lung wall, and the adhesionless lung passed the air/water test.

• Kosher means that the lung had adhesions which were thicker or wider in nature; however, upon removal they did not leave any hole in the lung wall and the lung passed the air/water test.

From my reading of the source material, if they went from Glatt Kosher to Beit Yosef Glatt Kosher, they went from meat with possible adhesions that “peeled off easily” to adhesion-free which would make the Facebook post factually incorrect. This is what the Facebook post said,

Unlike standard glatt kosher which ensures that meat is free of adhesions in the lungs

It seems that “glatt kosher” does not ensure that and only Beit Yosef Glatt Kosher does. But whatever. I’m no authority. Who am I to critique these warring tribes of kosher certification and the restaurant that lost half a mil for failing to appease them? I don’t get the drama here even after trying. But I’m writing about a venue that felt it necessary to elucidate the finer points of Halal and Zabiha in juxtaposition to its prior certification by HKA of Glatt kosher; so I would expect them to do a better job of explaining this.

The Houston War of Kosher

The obvious question was: how would this play out? Would the Houston community accept this? Nope. From their post on April 17, 2025

After 12 incredible years, it is with heavy hearts that we announce the closing of Genesis Steakhouse & Wine Bar. Our final day of service will be April 30th.

More great Facebook drama though. The comments are gold.

While the Houston Jewish food mafia won this battle you will win the War. Keep your head up. We will be there to support you in any of your next endeavors.

“Houston Jewish Food Mafia.” This is great.

The Return of the Sith Steakhouse

So what is Palpatine’s Porkless Proteinbar going to do? Rebrand of course, except now they’re out of the kosher business entirely.

They went from,

Despite the upheaval, Genesis Steakhouse remains committed to providing high-quality kosher food and serving as a trusted space for the Jewish community.

To abandoning all kashrut certifications in three months. But who blames them? I can only imagine the amount of stress this whole situation must cause a restaurateur. If I was Goldstein, I’d be halfway through the shahada and finding a new source of cheese. I’m not sure how far off he is, after all what does he call the new place after Genesis? “Exodus.” The new venue is named “Exodus Bar and Grill.” The CultureMap article goes on to say,

Operating as a non-kosher restaurant comes with some notable advantages compared to operating a kosher establishment. Most importantly, the restaurant will be open on Friday nights and during the day on Saturday, which is strictly forbidden by the HKA. In addition, non-kosher meat is less expensive than kosher meat, which means Exodus’ menu will offer a lower price point than Genesis did. Exodus will be able to serve dishes that mix meat and dairy such as a chicken alfredo pasta, a cheeseburger, or even something as simple as mashed potatoes with butter. Finally, it will also serve non-kosher ingredients like shrimp and other shellfish.

Glorious. Here is the kicker though…

Jewish diners who prefer a kosher steak or kosher chicken will still be able to get it at Exodus for an additional fee. Goldstein says those items will be cooked in separate pans and served on different plates with different utensils than non-kosher dishes. Since some kosher mindful Jewish people already follow those standards at other restaurants, Goldstein thinks they’ll appreciate being able to dine that way at Exodus.

Good on the new Exodus Steakhouse. That’s the right attitude. I mean, I don’t understand why he doesn’t release the HKA correspondence and blow the whistle on the failures that caused the loss of the HKA certification, and their demands. But, I really like the attempt here to continue to accommodate the dietary needs of Jews.

Irony, my love

And this gets me back to my moral problem with Genesis Steakhouse. Why is that you’ll go out of your way as a non-Kosher restaurant to cater to “mindful Jewish people” with “different plates,” “different utensils,” and “kosher meats” but you told all Muslims to “establish their own businesses and institutions” over far less substantive discrepancy (pork gelatin, pork enzymes, and kosher wine)? Isn’t it interesting that you couldn’t similarly offer up a steak at a steakhouse to Muslims under those terms.

The irony of telling Muslims to “establish their own businesses and institutions” while the Jews in Houston — your community — disaffect having determined you were not their “own business and institution.” With more irony: making a lot of drama about enzymes and gelatin to deter Muslim patronage while now trying to retain Jews that hold kosher ignoring that the venue will now be selling shrimp, shellfish, and cheeseburgers. And, on the sabbath.

And that’s the most I’ve ever written about a restaurant I have no desire to go to.

Scientific Journal of Objective Truths and Proof 2025:5-19.0.0

The first dealership you stop at has a bunch of cars but each one has a bad engine and cosmetic defects. The second dealership you stop at similarly has a bunch of cars and each with a bad engine. You ask the second dealership why you should buy one of their cars, and they point out their vehicles have fewer cosmetic defects than the other dealership you visited. That is certainly true. Frustrated you find yourself at yet another dealership. This one actually has working cars. Unfortunately, they don’t accept money. It’s not clear business. You don’t have to spend a dollar, but you can only enter a free sweepstakes for a real car with a working engine.

What do you do?

If your issue is stopping genocide or even any other issue in the myriad of issues that the parties fail to distinguish themselves on, this is the American presidential election. There isn’t an anti-genocide candidate. And that’s the issue without which I can not endorse. A candidate who is genocidal is not a candidate I’m interested in, in the same way a car without an engine is not a car I’m interested in.

That’s why I vote for the Green Party. It’s a sweepstakes, but better. Because unlike a sweepstakes the more people that play, the more likely you are to win.

If you happen to think that being anti-genocide isn’t as fundamental a qualification as an engine is to a car then I leave you with this question to convince me otherwise,

Name one thing that Trump has done that was worse than continuing to enable the same genocide in Gaza that Biden enabled.

Scientific Journal of Objective Truths and Proof 2025:5-8.0.0

• The liberals, perhaps merely because Trump is in office with no plan to reclaim power.

• The conservatives because of the uncontested rise of China.

• The left, because wealth inequality is unmaintainable.

• Economists because domestic economic growth isn’t sustainable.

Etc. Perhaps they’re all wrong, but let’s assume for a second the premise is correct. Why is it that people think, like Rome, the collapse of the American world order and Empire will take 400 years? This is a bizarre conclusion.

One method of coming to this long-sundown is to assume the empire is dead when the GDP (PPP) per capita of its nearest peer competitor exceeds its own. In other words, when the average Chinese person makes more than the average American.

Granted that’s a ceiling because at that point, we’re all getting up and moving to China. But that seems bizarre to me.

Equally bizarre would be to look at the GDP (PPP) where China has already surpassed the United States. The United States is still unquestionably the global hegemon.

So what measure decides when the collapse is complete? And how far away is it? No idea. However, the height of British power was 1890-1910. Somewhere thereabout it controlled 1/4 of the world, and was more powerful than the next couple of nation states combined.

• 20 years later it couldn’t hold its own against Germany.

• 60 years later it was a joke of an old empire known for Monty Python.

For another example of an expedient demise look at the USSR. This could go downhill much faster than people assume.1 From my perspective, if I thought economic conditions provided for a certain retirement, I would at the very least be considering the what-ifs there. Imagine getting caught up in an ex-Soviet country when the economic powers determine you need to undergo Shock Therapy.

Scientific Journal of Objective Truths and Proof 2025:4-20.0.0

Reaction to Brian Thompson’s Death

I went digging and look what I found:

Former U.S. President George W. Bush,

this momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones

Former U.S President Bill Clinton,

profoundly important moment for people all over the world who want to build a common future of peace, freedom, and cooperation for our children

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,

overwhelmed with gratitude and continue[s] to be amazed at what our [Luigi] has achieved

Geraldo Rivera on Fox News,

He’s a schmuck. He’s a bum. He’s a killer. […] We hate him. […] Happy days. Happy days everybody. This is the greatest. This is the greatest night of my career.

Oops, that was Osama bin Laden

Except of course it wasn’t Thompson’s death that these politicians and pundits were rejoicing in. It was Osama bin Laden.

You know what no one took into account? Osama bin Laden’s 20-26 children and his three wives. Why did not a single person bemoan the death of this family man? It’s almost as if nothing about having kids means you’re a good person. For comparison, Thompson had only two kids: that’s less than 10% the amount of kids. But yet, this is supposed to change our narrative? And he had only one wife, that’s two whole wives away from Osama bin Laden.

And it’s not just the public that doesn’t care about the dead’s family life, our judicial system doesn’t care either. Capital punishment is available to prosecutors at the federal level. Luigi Mangione himself is facing the death penalty. That charge would remain even if Luigi had fathered children — it’s not even taken into account.

The Reaction to Thompson’s death

Compare that to this cringe worthy response to Brian Thompson’s death by Sean Hannity where he tries to grill Taylor Lorenz,

What part of this United Healthcare CEO being a father and a husband don’t you understand? And what part of you having a choice of what healthcare provider you choose to deal with or not do you not understand? You don’t have to go with United. You don’t have to go with Blue Cross.

More central, Hannity uses this recurring theme about “feeling joy” as if it’s some kind of gotcha.

Why would any human being with a conscious and soul be joyful over an assassination of any person? Why would anyone be joyful over that?

That’s what I want to look at here.

The Morality of Taking Joy in Brian Thompson’s Death

I don’t care whether or not people refuse to celebrate the death of others. If you don’t, that’s fine; but, I don’t think you’re better than me. Celebrating the death of evil people is pretty core to humanity. Judaism has Purim where Jews eat (Hamantaschen) cookies that are symbolic of the dead King Haman’s ears. In the UK they have Guy Fawkes Night where they burn an effigy to the man they’re responsible for killing. Good Friday is basically celebrating Jesus’s death, lest you confuse that with his rebirth — it’s celebrated a few days later with Easter.

The logic of this is pretty simple too,

• If you can celebrate any task being completed.

• And if death can be the completion of a task.

• You can celebrate death!

All the same rules apply whether in the case of punishment, or as a precursor to reincarnation. People like Sean Hannity understand this. They’re just disingenuous. Here was Hannity’s reaction to al-Baghadi’s death.

“Baghdadi was no scholar. He was a radical Islamic extremist, an evil as S.O.B.," Hannity said. "He got cornered by members of the toughest, greatest military heroes on the face of this Earth and then blew himself up like the coward he is. And Baghdadi is, I'm pretty certain, rotting in hell as we speak."

And good on Hannity. He’s spot on there. Why would anyone want to deny someone the ability to celebrate the death of the leader of ISIS? The same can said for the above quotes about Osama bin Laden.

However, I felt joy in Thompson’s death too. What’s wrong with that? It’s not like any of these guys mentioned faced a criminal trial. They’re all extrajudicial assassinations. As if I can’t sing to the same tune, and simply talk about whether or not someone’s death makes the world a better place, and if so, celebrate it. Don’t fall into this trap of letting conservatives tone police you. Don’t play into it. They’re all triggered and spewing this reactionary Christian virtue signaling nonsense. Humanity is replete with its celebrations of the deaths of evil doers. Double down. Personally, I feel joy when all bad people die. Brian Thompson was a bad person. He was a killer. He had kids. I feel bad for his kids, and the kids of all parents who kill. However, in the boldest way possible,

While for legal reasons I would never encourage vigilantism and don’t even believe Luigi did it, I took the greatest amount of joy legally permitted in Thompson’s death. Good riddance.

Scientific Journal of Objective Truths and Proof 2025:4-18.1.0

I was doing some research on some of the characters involved here, and I had a few questions about the Green Party’s participation in the 2024 General Election in the state of Ohio. Here I’ll try to address these questions

• Why did the Green Party run their candidates as independents?

• Why was Anita Ross ever on the ballet?

• Why didn’t the Green Party’s vote count in the 2024 General Election?

On Jill Stein

Stein is the current power center of the Green Party and until they find a way to dispatch her she’ll seemingly volunteer to lose indefinitely. I love Stein’s politics. She always gets my vote. But of the people that can’t mobilize — she’s one of them. Imagine Elizabeth Warren but functioning outside the DNC, and with policies to the left of Bernie Sanders but equally unwavering through the decades. Sounds like a good starter, but it just doesn’t mesh well enough. Stein is every bit the person you want to eat lunch with, and none of the person you want to grab a beer with.

Stein had accrued enough Green Party delegates to secure the presidential nomination in May 2024. She was the presumptive nominee.

Questions

Why did they run as independents?

It’s remarkably difficult to orchestrate a presidential run. In Ohio the Green Party must get 3% of the vote to remain a recognized party. They failed to maintain that and they lost recognition. Because of this, they have to run their candidates as independents.

Why was Anita Ross ever their vice-president?

Moreover, the Ohio deadline for registration on the presidential ticket was August 12 2024. However, the Green Party convention wasn’t until August 17. The announcement of Butch Ware didn’t come until August 16. In order to work around this, the Greens apparently came up with a scheme to nominate a “placeholder” candidate for the Vice President. For this they chose Anita Rios.

Why did they get excluded from the ballot entirely?

In order to place Butch Ware on the ticket, they seemingly concocted a scheme to have Anita Ross withdraw by proxy of Ohio Green Party Co-Chair Philena Farley. Farley would submit a letter of resignation fully decked out with Ross’s signature. Then they would submit Butch Ware as a replacement and viola! Except that never happened. Ohio accepted the resignation, lied to the Green Party about it being too late, and then disqualified the Green Party on the grounds that you can’t run in the General Election without a VP. Upon learning this Rios claimed she never authorized Farley’s letter, and Farley changed her whole story and agreed with Rios.

Farley blames the whole fiasco on a lack of communication. But ultimately, she sent the letter.

Take away

I put the blame on Stein. Why if she had locked up the delegates in May didn’t she have a VP picked by the end of June? That doesn’t make sense to me. She almost certainly knew she would have the nomination. She should have had a VP picked before the delegates were locked up.

Scientific Journal of Objective Truths and Proof 2025:4-18.0.0

These are the memes shared by liberal losers like KyleKulinski (Twitter post). I’m starting to think we let this slide without laughing because they’re so professionally crafted with AI; but, instead of resharing immediately, watch the video.

• It’s not funny. If it was, or you found it funny — whatever. I’m not here to tone check your shitty humor.

• And, it’s not progressive (ie., it punches down)

Don’t share it!

Stupid reactionary meme

Here is the video,

The above video shows obese people grinding away producing commodities people need. What’s the joke here? Can someone help me out?

That the work isn’t dignified? It is. Unlike accountants, attorneys and business majors, this is honorable work that needs to get done.

That Americans wouldn’t do it? They would. Americans service electronics right now. And, we have textiles even in the United States. It’s happening as you speak.

This kind of shit pushes away the working class and leaves them in the MAGA camp.

My first W-2 Job

I’m a millennial. My first W-2 job was tracing analog petrochemical well logs for a company called A2D Technologies with a digitizing mouse in a warehouse. They came in scrolls of measurements from an instrument as it was pulled up a 5,000 foot borehole. I made $8-$12/hr doing that in 2003. That’s more than some kids get paid now in fast food. It was in an airconditioned room with 20 others. I worked either after-hours or graveyard. The company had both shifts. After-hours had a 10% bonus. Graveyard had 20% bonus. (Numbers are all approximate). Imagine 500 feet of paper rolled up like this, and every curve had to be digitized separately.

The critique with merit

Yes, our working conditions are better on the whole. This doesn’t show at all in these memes. The Chinese work 9-9-6 (9am to 9pm, for six days a week). Most Americans do not work 12 hour shifts, but it’s not beyond us. In some industries, like nursing it’s common. However, this doesn’t show shift duration. And it’s silly because reshoring this work doesn’t mean we have to work 12 hour shifts. It just means for an American company it has to be

• cheaper to have three Americans working eight hour shifts

• than two Chinese people working 12 hour shifts with a 125% tariff on the output.

Is it? No idea. And the economic critique: that the work is likely to go to other countries in southeast Asia is also totally removed from the meme. But why are these serious concerns being vented by shitting on the blue collared workers that are ready, able, and willing to do the work?

Scientific Journal of Objective Truths and Proof 2025:4-13.0.0

I think it’s a useful contribution so I’ve rehomed it here. I believe it was deleted for political reasons. In 2022 Ukraine was trying to establish relations with Israel for entirely selfish reasons. In order do this they tried to flip the narrative that Ukraine has a Nazi problem — a narrative that is certainly true and perpetuated by Russia (which has its own Nazi problem) — with a new narrative that Russia is targeting Holocaust memorials for destruction. This, if true, would certainly be a very Nazi-esque tactic.

The Question

This question is reproduced exactly as it was deleted.

Was Babyn Yar memorial bombed and damaged? Many news outlets are reporting that it was bombed and damaged,

• Babi Yar, Kyiv's Holocaust memorial to victims of Nazis, damaged in Russian bombing attack

• Babyn Yar: Anger as Kyiv's Holocaust memorial is damaged

Though I can only find reports in Hebrew, some are saying though that it wasn't damaged though,

And despite reports, the rocket that damaged the Kyiv TV tower did not in fact harm the Babyn Yar memorial, located in an adjacent area, according to a veteran Israeli journalist, Ron Ben Yishai, who toured the site Wednesday and saw no signs of damage. “Thank God it’s not damaged,” Natan Sharansky, who chairs the memorial site’s advisory board, told the Forward about the synagogue and memorial site at Babyn Yar.

Has the truth emerged through the fog of war? Are there actual pictures of the damage?

Answer

Here is my answer reproduced entirely as deleted,

No, this seems to be war-time propaganda.

This claim is false, there was no damage done to the memorial. And there is no evidence of damage to graves. Martin Dean, a former Scotland Yard investigator who specializes in Nazi war crimes, said in October of 2020, “the whole area of the ravine was literally flattened and turned into a park that is unrecognizable compared to the wartime terrain.” The Ukranians in the late 1960s built a TV Tower in this general area, this construction project alone would have destroyed (or at least severely disturbed) the graves. And there are accounts of many of the claimed graves being moved beforehand,

The Jewish cemetery in Kiev where my father Iosif Geifman was buried in 1926, Kiev, Lukianovka. The cemetery was opened in the late 90s (19th century). The cemetery destruction began during the occupation of Kiev by fascists in 1941 - 1943. The final elimination of the cemetery took place in the early 60s XX century. Some individual graves were removed to the Jewish part on a new cemetery. [...] This Jewish cemetery in the outskirts of the town, called Lukianovka, was opened in late 90s of the 19th century. It functioned until 1941. First destruction of monuments and the cemetery took place during the German occupation (1941-1943). In 1961 the cemetery was officially closed based on the decision of municipal authorities. Jewish families had half a year to rebury their relatives at the Jewish areas of a new cemetery in the city. A new TV Center was built at the spot where the cemetery of Lukianovka was located. There is no separate Jewish cemetery in Kiev nowadays. - The Jewish Cemetery in Kiev

The memorial was not damaged in the offensive. That part of the claim is just false. Less demonstrably false, there was a cemetery called Lukianovka which was moved: families of those buried in the cemetery were given six months to move their deceased family members. The exact location of the mass-graves is unknown. A TV tower was built in the vicinity. This is a pretty serious construction project. This TV tower was destroyed: there is no evidence of damage to graves, or the Holocaust memorial.

---

Picture of the construction of the tower, you can see the pilings already set. Because there is no evidence of graves being destroyed or damaged, the most obvious question is how much more damage to a grave is done by blowing a tower up that was built on top of the grave, than original act of building the tower to begin with.

Conclusion

This was another “Hot Network Question” contributing to the popularity of the entire site.

I can understand people not liking my answer; there is nothing for me to be upset about on the answer. It challenged the Ukrainian propaganda which was certainly popular where the moderator was. That’s what a site about skepticism is supposed to do. However, my perspective was within the rules of the site. If you don’t like the answer, downvoting is available to everyone. There were also other answers challenging my narrative. Truth be told, that’s why I like the site. We all get to submit our takes, solutions, and answers.

However, the question being admin-deleted was a real missed opportunity by the network and it stifled skepticism about an official narrative.

Scientific Journal of Objective Truths and Proof 2025:3-28.0.0

This is a no one to me. Apparently he has a following on Substack though. But it’s amusing. A lot of people interact with Broze and leave thinking he’s a cult leader. For a long time, he would engage with other local groups. His ideology was always naked self-opportunism. He claimed to be an anti-government anarchist for years, and then he ran for Mayor. He dedicated himself to the campaign. He pulled 686 votes coming in 10th for Houston Mayor. It’s hard to build up a movement of anarchists to support your electoral aspirations.

His identities are ever changing, incoherent, and cluttered with trendy buzzwords like agorist, voluntarist, ancap, and other such nonsense. There is seldom a plan to get to his desired utopia.

For years he quoted out of a book called “New Libertarian Manifesto” which is only 10-15 pages. And, I was 100% convinced that he never read it.

Beating Women

This whole post is in response to a polite inquiry on this,

Can do!

And also (not sure if this came before or after),

Racist Statues

Can you imagine opposing the removal of a Jefferson Davis statue? I mean ostensibly he’s for removing the entire public education system, but the racist statue? That he’ll speak out for.

On Private Property

Of course, you’d think when debating Brooze would at least stand on private property. Especially when he’s cited in an article that’s high on it.

They negotiated sovereignty with the government of Honduras, where the laws of Honduras do not apply to Prospera. And so, it’s a private city where they’re providing some of the strongest private property protections in the world. They have some of the strongest economic freedom in the world.

But Broze is more interested in running a cult of Woo Woo than defending any philosophical position,

Scientific Journal of Objective Truths and Proof 2025:3-27.0.0

I will focus on three articles as a body of work and argue that they create a false sensationalist narrative that can only exist in a vacuum devoid of context.

• Trump Is Now at War With Iran: Let's call this what it is (2025-03-17)

• The Iran War Plan: Pentagon gears up for “major” war with Iran (2025-03-19)

• The Nuclear War Plan for Iran: Trump’s threats to Tehran are alarming. Here’s what they mean (2025-03-19)

Klip and The Iran War

What I see in the above three articles is a desire to conflate being at war, undergoing special preparations for war, and the Empire’s routine bellicose statecraft. This gives readers a near existential-threat which widens the window of acceptable non-war responses, and distracts from other material issues.

Now let’s look at the articles in depth.

Article One: Trump Is Now at War With Iran

Right off the get go, it’s hard not get distracted in critiquing this title. This just screams BuzzFeed. We’re “at war” without a single shot fired? Come on. Is a joint training exercise consistent with the statement that you’re at actual war? Absolutely not. The article continues,

Without the American press even noticing, Donald Trump has started a war with Iran.

The rhetoric here is just pure Blue MAGA. But the core assertion of the article is

On February 28, the U.S. military announced that two B-52 heavy bombers flying from an “undisclosed location” in the Middle East (which I can report is the country of Qatar) dropped bombs on another “undisclosed location” (Iraq). The message wasn’t lost on neighboring Iran, whose state media warned that the B-52s are “nuclear-capable bombers” carrying a message whose recipient “was clear as day; The Islamic Republic of Iran.”

The elements are,

• A joint training operation between Israel and the USA occurred

• It involved B-52s

• Iran’s framing of them as “nuclear-capable bombers”

Using the same framework I laid out earlier let’s now ask, “Has this event happened before? If so, what’s different?” Answering this provides historical context and eliminates the illusion of substance.

• Jan 2023: Joint practice with Israel using B-52

• Nov 2022: Joint practices with Israel and Saudi using B-52

• Feb 2021: Joint practice with Israel (virtual)

• May 2019: B-52s dispatched to ME to deter Iran

• March 2018: Joint IDF/USA ballistic missile defense exercised

None of this is to defend American hawkishness. It’s just to leave the reader with an understanding that the Empire’s bellicose actions are par for the course. Not something unique to Trump.

B-52? So what.

How threatening is a B-52, anyway? They were made in 1955. In one operation lasting 11 days in 1972, North Vietnam shot down 15 of them; 34 according to North Vietnam. And then the B-52 was only 17 years old. Now it’s 70 years old.

Yes, the B-52 can carry nukes, but so can the stealth F-35. In fact, the F-35 can carry the B61-12 which has 50 kiloton yield — substantially more than the combined yield of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima (15 kiloton) and Nagasaki (25 kiloton).

Iran’s response

When it comes to Iran’s response and rhetoric, if that’s the story the headline should be less “Trump is at war with Iran” and more “Iran claims they’re at war with Trump.” It would be Iran framing the USA as an existential threat (which it is and always has been). Re: historic context, how often does Iran adopt this rhetoric? A lot.

• Nov 2023: Ohio sub described as “nuclear-powered and capable of carrying nuclear warheads” dispatched to Gaza to “assist in the defense of Israel.”

• Sept 2022: US flies nuclear-capable B-52 bombers over Middle East amid tensions with Iran

I don’t think Iran’s framing is material to Klippenstein’s point. But even the Iranian framing is routine. Iran claims the USA is an existential threat (it is) to unify the nation under common defense and to empower hardliners.

Article Two: The Iran War Plan

Despite coming literally the day after the article that declared we were already at war with Iran, this one walks that back a bit

President Trump’s menu of options for dealing with Tehran now includes one he didn’t have in his first term: full-scale war.

One thing in this article that I do believe is newsworthy is the statement that the US will interpret Houthi attacks as an attack from Iran. That’s strong rhetoric, but fear not! It’s easy to contextualize that: 75% of ships are still going around the coast of Africa and avoiding the Gulf of Aden. Does anyone think Trump is actually holding Iran responsible in kind for this? See through the propaganda! If Iran forced 75% of ships around the Gulf of Aden for just one day using direct attacks from Iranian flagged vessels, we can all agree whatever the United States is doing now, would not be the same reaction. This is Trump’s propaganda targeted towards naive Americans.

Some of this article is just blatantly wrong. For example,

REPORTER: Is the U.S. military considering a military option for Iran?

PARNELL: … all options are on the table at this time.

For the Pentagon, “all options” is a bit of a boilerplate answer (though it is certainly more belligerent than the messaging of the Biden era).

Is it though? Really? Maybe Klippenstein is just less attentive to the Biden administration which has made the same statement,

He cautioned against the potentially catastrophic implications of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, with Iran’s pattern of hostile behavior illuminating a clear imperative to prevent this from occurring. To this end, Blinken echoed President Biden’s firm stance, stating that “all options are on the table to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.” This unequivocal statement highlights the U.S.’s readiness to take any necessary measures to inhibit Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state.

That’s from Blinken too. Parnell is a mere spokesperson. Blinken was the Secretary of State. Removed from context “all options are on the table” is a horrible thing to say regarding war. But we need to properly contextualize it, not just fabricate a context.

Where there was overlap between article two and three, the claims are addressed in Article Three below.

Article Three: The Nuclear War Plan for Iran

In this article Klippenstein basically claims the War Plan for Iran which always existed now includes “new nuclear options.”

He’s been vague about what these consequences might include, but I can now report specifics that are as severe as you can imagine.

“We can't let them have a nuclear weapon,” Trump says. “I would rather have a peace deal than the other option but the other option will solve the problem.”

Yes, Trump said that. And in 2018 he Tweeted this,

To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

Wonder what that was in reference too… And again in 2019,

If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!

But aside from Trump’s consistently insane rhetoric, the evidence provided is the testimony of a “retired senior military officer.” The claim is that we’re “reintroducing nuclear deterrence.” However, for this to have any weight there must be a point in time where nuclear deterrence was off the table. When was that? I’m confused as to what makes this special.

• Single Integrated Operational Plan existed from 1961-2003 included targets in Iran.

• CONPLAN-8022 was a top-secret Donald Rumsfeld plan created during the Bush administration that included a nuclear attack on Iran.

• In 2012 there was a leaked plan for a conventional Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities

The rest of the article vaguely touches on “highly classified nuclear planning effort.” But what are we learning here? The United States, as far as I know, has never not planned to invade Iran. Nor has it ever lacked nuclear threats, or deterrents. Does anyone doubt that the USA has a regime-change plan and counter-attack plan for every threat with both nuclear and non-nuclear options?

And if Wesley Clark, a 4-star general, isn’t reason enough to believe that we’ve always been threatening, planning, and scheming about Iran, here’s a flashback

• “totally obliterate them” - Hillary Clinton

• Singing “bomb bomb bomb Iran” - John McCain

• Blow Iran “to smithereens” - Donald Trump

• Using force “as last resort” - Joe Biden

Conclusion

I’ve provided context to balance one emerging narrative that I think is absurd. The goal here isn’t to defend Trump. It’s to refocus liberals that I feel would otherwise run around pretending like they’re hippie pacifists, all while defending a genocide in Palestine. If you don’t want a War with Iran, and you want an explicit and principled anti-war peace ticket, you need to look at least as far left as the Green Party. Rest assured, the GOP’s rhetoric is always going to be threats and chest pounding. The Democratic rhetoric is always going to trail the GOP by a single hair.

This USA is in bed with Israel and Saudi Arabia both of which view Iran as an existential threat. If The Empire continues to exist in its current form, war will never be off the table and there will always be well maintained plans for a nuclear strike on Iran. A strike which will result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands with an invasion that will easily kill a million. At least until a Mullah figures out how to refine enough Uranium to secure the regime.

If you think Trump is the worst president ever, you’re wrong. George W. Bush ran circles around Trump. I remember George W. Bush. When we’re seriously considering a war with Iran, they’ll bring back Section 9528 of No Child Left Behind (2002) or some similar Obama-era nonsense with a nicer veneer. Then we will again have military recruiters at our high school lunch tables. I remember those days. Iran won’t be a cake walk. If and when we get serious, we’ll give high school kids invitations to the imperial meat grinder.

Scientific Journal of Objective Truths and Proof 2025:3-25.0.0

There are two classes of things that can move a mass of people.

• First and foremost, things that are material to them: “Peace, Land, and Bread”. Or contemporarily, healthcare, public education, vacation time, and a living wage. Both of the electoral parties in the USA have given up on “material struggles.” The country’s history shows material concessions only happen during times of unrest and upheaval anyway.

• And matters of principle. Things that compel the populace on the basis of religious or nationalist values, to act in defense of something they see as being “taken” from them. Like their democracy, freedom, or rights. This category underscores every argument of “lesser evil.”

If electoral politics is to be forever defined in terms of principals that are under attack, we need to demand contextualization. A framing on the defense of principals devoid of context is maximally inert.

Historical Context

The “journal” in “journalism” is about a chronological record. The account you’re providing exists in a historical context. You need to weigh what you’re covering with the events of the past. “This was a good meal” said every day has no descriptive value, and it means something different when coming from someone who just got out of prison than when said by a Michelin Inspector. The utility of the statement demands accounting for who said (frequency) and their history (credibility and past).

To provide historical context you need only ask: “Has this event happened before? If so, what’s different?”

Let’s address both of Trump’s victories in 2016 and 2024: I will make the case that in both elections Democrats were encouraged to cling onto narratives that were inherently immaterial and devoid of historical context. I bring this not only as a foundation to critique journalists and propaganda in the future, but also to show that a narrative lacking context is detrimental — even if targeting a common enemy — and should be challenged if only because it’s likely to fall short of impactful.

Russiagate: the 2016 obsession of linking Trump to Russia

During 2016 we were told that there was a link between Russia and Donald Trump. Here is the thing about Russiagate: it’s true that Russian interests did attempt to interfere with the US election. There was a link. In a vacuum, the core assertion is true — though whether or not it was governmental, or industry remains a question we’ll always be ignorant to. We have a smoking gun that the Ruskis were up to no good,

Facebook announced Wednesday that a Russian propaganda organization used the social media platform to purchase $100,000 of political advertising.

However, the DNC narrative was that a vote for Donald Trump would be a vote for Russia and Putin. It was an attempt to mobilize around the shared principle of democracy. At the core of this assertion was that we must vote for Hillary because if not our government would be run by Putin. This was insanity. Worse those challenging this narrative were attacked even if they weren’t politically aligned with the GOP.

Contextualizing Russiagate

Now let’s bring The Link into historical context.

• Has this event happened before? If so, what’s different?

Let’s try a couple of transformations of this contextualization,

• Event being “foreign entities contributed to a campaign”

  Have foreign entities contributed to a campaign? If so, what’s different?

• Event being “non-citizens contributing to a campaign”

  Have non-citizens contributed to a campaign? If so, what’s different?

• Event being “an election like the 2016 election”

  Has an election like 2016 happened before? If so, what’s different?

And what do we have?

The 2016 election cost 6.5 billion dollars and it follows the trend of all prior elections with each election costing more. The “dirty money” at $100,000 was %0.001538 of the election1. Foreign interests routinely contribute to domestic politicians and campaigns, including Israel and Saudi Arabia. But even aside from foreign interests, the majority of that — 4 billion — is PAC contributions from corporations and oligarchs (even if domestic); and, neither corporations2 nor oligarchs are assumed by the majority to have common interests with the country. Moreover, the United States similarly impacts the elections of other nations by picking winners and losers (or more egregiously outright coups). This argument can’t be principled. It can only ever be naked one-sided exceptionalism.3

Putting that into context, the anti-Trump resistance was dwelling on finding fault with %0.001538 of the funds in Election 2016 that are otherwise — as far as I see — typical of any election.

The Don 2024: Felon Trump and Coup-ster

In 2024, the DNC was pushing the simple framing of Donald Trump as a criminal: they were eager to ride to victory on the frame of “Good Cop vs Criminal." This pursuit was well under way prior to a conviction. In fact, for a long while it seemed as if Trump may skirt a conviction all together. Or, at least skirt any conviction prior to the election. From the get go this was a horrible strategy. But at last, Democrats scored their conviction. Trump was convicted with 34 felony counts of the same charge: falsifying business records. This conviction on 34 felony counts, was compounded with an earlier finding by a civil court that Trump had committed “sexual abuse” (though for pedantic reasons it was not “rape”).

One thing about this “felon Trump” frame is that there was potential for a much more virulent criminal finding: he had a case in Florida about classified documents, and the most significant case was the election interference and fake elector case. I am of the mind that a finding in the fake electors case may have ended the Trump campaign; and, if not for prosecutorial incompetence, it may have gone to trial. However, I guess no one ever told the DNC “not to count their eggs before they hatch” and they proceeded with their talking heads to engage in a concerted attempt to gloss-over the charge he was convicted of, and blur the different unadjudicated cases against him.

Democrats would maintain their “Good Cop vs Criminal” framing which was historically accurate: in a vacuum Donald Trump was uniquely both the Republican nominee and a felon. The principal here was “law and order”. This is probably the worst principle to pull in a disaffected Democratic base, but I’ll save that for another day.

Contextualizing Felon Trump

Like before, let’s bring the 34 felonious criminal convictions into historical context by following our earlier path of inquiry: “Has this event happened before? If so, what’s different?”

• Event being “a presidential campaign that falsified business records”?

  Has any other campaign falsified business records? If so, what’s different?

• Event being “a conviction?

  Have any prior cases resulted in a felony conviction? If so, what’s different?

• Event being “playing dirty with campaign funds?

  Have other campaigns used funds in ways they would want to conceal. If so, what’s different?

And what do we have?

President Trump’s campaign isn’t the only campaign that has misfiled with the intent to conceal: Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016 committed a similar act in their pursuit of Russiagate above. The HRC 2016 campaign misfiled their payment for the Steele Dossier, as “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting” rather than “opposition research”. Worse, Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta would straight up denied funding the dossier — and to Congress at that. The DNC and the Clinton campaign were both subsequently fined for a combined total of $113,000 for this.

• The FEC sought a settlement in the Clinton campaign case, and the New York DA chose not to bring state charges.

• In Trump’s case the FEC was split and closed the inquiry, however the New York DA — under Democrat Alvin Brigg — chose to bring state charges. They got a historically unique felony conviction.

While never tried, I believe the Steele Dossier funded by the Clinton campaign was libelous. As a matter of fact, it was largely false, and scandalously so with an unevidenced claim of a “pee tape” with Russian prostitutes in an FSB-tapped room. The combination of the misfiling and the libelous nature of the “research” would have put the HRC campaign on equal footing.

When it comes to “sexual assault,” the charge was simply not criminal. It wasn’t “beyond a reasonable doubt” it was a “preponderance of the evidence”. This is a different standard of guilt entirely. Whether or not I think this should hold weight aside, I don’t believe it was core to the DNC framing of “law and order.” But even here the Democrats failed to sell it: Trump increased his support with women from 41% in 2016, to 45% in 2024.

Truth be told, I don’t care for the “rule of law” principle. The Democrats were probably not even targeting me with the “34 felony conviction” pitch. But, I can’t see anyone so attached to the itemization of campaign expenses that they were going to change their vote.

Concluding

If we can’t properly contextualize and prioritize the threats we’re facing, we’ll confuse an irate house cat with an irate house tiger. This will make it appear our response is irrational.

The lack of context contributed to both the 2016 and 2024 Democratic defeats.

• In 2016, they thought they could resist Trump on the basis of Russian interference, and that gave Trump the distraction needed to secure a victory. Could Russian interference ever have resulted in a massive movement against Trump? Certainly, but the narrative lacked sufficient justification. The threat wasn’t contextualized: it was only ever — even in vacuum — an iota of truth.

• In 2024, they fared no better. Trump was framed as a career felon. The data didn’t substantiate the narrative. All the more so when you’re being told to weigh felonious campaign filings more than a veritable charge of genocide: something that all but the most tribal democrats must concede is insane.

The Blame

The defeat in 2024 was exceptional. Neither the Electoral College nor the Supreme Court was to blame. For the first time in 20 years, Democrats are a minoritarian party again. Is it the media? Is it the dorks running DNC strategy? Is it the party which propped up a confused geriatric fool? It doesn’t matter. Some combination of all of the above: the blame is on liberals, and Democrats. Not just are they incapable of making a campaign around material change, but their rehashing of the same droll “lesser evil” and voter-shaming is ever more ridiculous and contextually absurd with every subsequent election.

The Solution

It’s our job to perpetually point fingers at Democrats, the liberal media (as in subsequent), and the DNC and provide critique both when they’re in power, and when they’re out of power. We must give them a proportional dose of scorn untampered by Trump. There is no carrot without a stick. Your criticism must communicate a lack of support. Only then can you provide the incentive to move the party and body politic. If we don’t have the prerequisite backbone, they won’t even bother looking at us like carrots. They’ll just assume we’re in the bag. And, let’s be honest, that means we lose. They will literally look to Manchin and Sinema. We either make demands of them, or the center-right will.

Our recipe isn’t complex. Ask yourself is this a reasonable point for Democrats to make, given their history? If it’s not, do your part to center the discussion around things you’re convinced will move people. Or demand a concrete change of course and position from Democrats — maybe even a mea culpa when they venture into Trump’s playbook.

Under Hakeem “Good Billionaires” Jeffries you’re either going to watch Democrats address this from the lens of an affluent NYU lawyer running a marketing department obsessed with the purported exceptional threat Trump plays to democracy and our rights. Or, we can demand the ejection of Jeffries and a real agenda that enshrines rights and values and provides consequences for those that tread on them. Or all together better — address our material conditions.

I’ll be the first to say it. I didn’t vote for Trump, nor will I. But I will never entrust a party to protect my rights that can’t take a unified stance on the Palestinian genocide. If Democrats want to rock with Hakeem Jeffries and another center-right geriatric with more money than I can reasonably amass: have at it. When it comes to electoral politics, I’ll watch the second and third terms of Trump as he helms this ship into the iceberg. And, with maximal indifference. Lest anyone critique me for being a single-issue voter. That’s not enough either. It’s just one precondition.

Dear liberals, you better join me sooner than later. I’m principled enough to watch Trump and Vance sell out your Medicare for a downpayment on the F-47. You got a precondition above. Get on it.

Scientific Journal of Objective Truths and Proof 2025:3-24.0.0