Earning Ourselves a Seat in Hell

Bernie gives a strong speech, to an of-course empty house, thankfully avoiding the term "fascism" and which finally gets around to stating an almost comprehensive economic justice/social democratic platform on the fucking basics.

But as usual, the Pied Piper from Vermont manages to hippify the issue by complaining about "the three billionaires" who own more wealth than 70% of the population. Okee... but what does the other 30% own? How much is owned by the 60% or 40% or 20% ?

F. Braudel, the French economic historian, points out that historically, in all societies, 2% own and control. To this one can add an additional 3-5% who are the enablers, the assitants, the managers of the 2% You can call this the haute bourgeoise or upper middle class. So it is NOT just a matter of the 1% or the 2%. The inequity involves at least the upper 7%.

"According to recent data, to be in the upper 7% of earners, you would typically need an annual income exceeding $150,000;" (Google) Got that? A mere 150K gets you into the club.

It is the genius of America that, in the past 40 years it actually expanded the upper middle class, while shrinking the middle middle and growing the lower. (See Pew "The American Middle Class.")

Now, many variables go into defining and measuring "wealth" and the inclusion of "two income earners" in the past 40 years, screws up the traditional analysis. But the basic point remains: the issue of inequity is not just a matter of Bezos, Musk, and Zuckerberg; it is also a matter of Dimon, Blankfein, Buffet and a thousand billionaries, millionaires, CEO's, passive investors and the like. And it is not just a matter of them but also of anyone who is a "stakeholder" in the system. Got 401(k)?

The Demorats are always whining about "systemic racism" but they never talk about "systemic economic oppression" because it includes the very people they most represent.

I hate to sound like Savanarola, but it's the insescapble truth. Bernie is a faux leftist because he consistently avoids the real class implications of our current "inequity."

I will never forget the video interview the New York Slime did with some metro New York Boomers who were definitely WITH>HER and not voting for Bernie. "Oh said one salt and pepper Westchesterite (neé Woodstocker), "I'm in favor of Medicare for all, BUT I CAN WAIT."

When I look at a news report and see a gathering of RFKjr supporters, or Kamala supporters, or Biden supporters I always see people who can wait. And wait they do, whatever excuse they use for doing so.

The rich man argues, Whom am I wronging so long as I keep what is my own? .... Now after seizing all things in your insatiable greed, and thus shutting out others, do you really think you are wronging no man? ... The man who steals a coat from another is called a thief. Is he who can clothe a naked man and will not, worthy of any other name? The bread, which you keep in the store, is the hungry man's bread. The cloak, which you guard in the chest, belongs to the naked man. The sandals rotting in your house belong to him who goes barefoot. The silver you hide away belongs to the needy. Thus it is that you are wronging as many men as you might help if you chose (St. Basil (330-375).)

Of course it is no longer a question of coats and sandals but of stocks and mortgages. Still, it involves "shutting out others" because no man gains else another looses, no matter how hidden or attenuated the cause. Liberalism is an exercise in cognative dissonance; looking at the homeless, saying "what a shame" and not seeing one's self as cause.

I learned this as a child in Mexico where my parents moved when I was five and by some cosmic glitch I was now "upper class." I recall being truly shocked by poverty I hadn't even imagined before and, in particular, by little boys just myself, only a little darker, running around ragged and barefoot selling Chicle's between rows of cars. I'd look at them through the SAF-T glass of the car and wonder what it felt like to be so vulnerable and shoeless on hot and rough pavement. I am told that I was so distressed that I wanted to give away my Christmans money, but my parents prevented my rashness. Be reasonable, they said, just give away a few pesos. Well... the long and short of it was I learned to be reasonable about it. When I was older, visiting Americans would be shocked at the poverty. "How can you stand," they'd ask, "living next to such poverty?!" (We could never do such a thing in Westchester, right?) "Oh," I'd reply, "one gets used to it."

Yes indeed, one does get used to another's poverty; and attitudes like that will earn us a seat in hell. Make no mistake.

I hate to sound like Lenin, so I'll sound like Lucy Parsons instead "Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth."

So ... as usual Bernie's "ferocious diatribe" will go nowhere.
©

Trump & Bibi snuff out Twitching Corpse of Rule Based International Order

Kicking Biden in the teeth, Bibi gives his most nauseating speech yet while Trump not so subtly hints at a U.S. presence in Palestine to stabilize Gaza so that the most beautiful beachfront property in the world might be developed causing Bibi to all but cream in his pants at the death of a two state solution and at being allied to the country he so effusively thanks and controls.

Genocide of the mind is always the handmaiden of genocide in the flesh. Before or after, the people you exterminate are simply supposed not to exist. "What Palestinians?" Golda Meir infamously said.

The destruction is terrible, said Trump, as if it just, you know, was. We thank you for aid and assistance said Bibi. Lives? What lives?

Not a mention of a two-state solution; not a mention even of Palestinian aspirations. Just Trump's passing allusion to creating many, many jobs, beautiful jobs... as hewers of wood and drawers of water in the construction of hotels and condos for Jewish investors in Las Vegas, Chicago and Tel Aviv.

Not a mention either of the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court. Along the Jerusalem-Washington Axis, these institutions no longer exist. The "law based international order" which we established in 1947, and which Blinken-Biden stabbed in the back last year, no longer exists. International law? What international law?

The mantel of legitimacy had been cast aside sans souçi left for the Russians and Chinese to pick it up. But, at that point, with nothing really shared, the idea of law dissolves, like a receding wave in the sand. What is left is but a mist over Hobbsian raison d'etat. Welcome to the age of Big Dick.

Those pathetic American satraps called "Europe" might raise a feeble protest, but don't count on it. Feeble is too much effort for these nations of a temps perdu. "Europe? What Europe?"

As for the countries of the Middle East, Bibi and Trump know that they too are eager to "eventually" get into line. Make no mistake, money is always stronger than blood. The only thing holding back the despots of these tin pot and gold pot countries is the fury of their own oppressed millions who, having no money, think only of their kindred blood. But as soon as these democratic hindrances are removed the Arab nations will be eager to complete the Abram Accords.

The Palestinians' only hope is China who, having her own "road and beltway" interests in the region, might find it convenient to wave the flag legitimacy under U.N. resolutions. A slim reed indeed.

Slimmer yet is the notion that anyone in the Israeli controlled U.S. Congress or the Zionist dominated academic-infotainment industry will do anything to save international law or, much less, the Palestinians. What really makes Bibi happy -- so happy that he could barely be seen to contain his joy -- is that he daily proves the antisemitic trope of all time.

Don't rely on me. Ask Uri Avneri or Gideon Levy.

Of course Bibi is very careful to always talk about "we" just as we are careful to talk to the Europeans about "us" but no one is fooled. ... No one, except the brainwashed ghouls in Congrease. It is truly an amazing feat and one that will be studied by historians for decades to come, how a hapless people, living on a shoe string and hand-me-downs brought to heel the world's first great super power and, now, walks it about like a trained monkey.

©

False Spirit and False Word

I am a dog and, like a dog, I form near instant likes or dislikes of people. I suppose most of us are dogs if we would only stop trying to have an “open mind.” In any event, my nose did not like Marianne Edgar Budde, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington who delivered a sermon at the Interfaith Prayer Service for President Trump's inaugural. Everything about her manner of walk, talk and gesture bespoke faux dulce, affecting meekness, humility, and caring while delivering an unmistakably and intendedly sharp message. Passive aggression at its finest. Humble people don't bite with teeth of steel.

False Spirit.

Everyone present, in the press and on social media instantly recognized Budde's “prayer” as a direct rebuke of Trumpian policies. But she concealed the dagger beneath a cloak of humility and pious entreaties.

She began by invoking humility in unity acknowledging that “we all have our blind spots.” She continued,

“[P]erhaps we are most dangerous to ourselves and others when we are persuaded that we are absolutely right and someone else is absolutely wrong. Because we are then just a few steps from labelling ourselves as the good people versus the bad people.”

True enough.

“... to be fair we don't always know where the truth lies and there's a lot working against the truth now, but when we do know, when we know what is true, it is incumbent on us to speak the truth...

Was there any doubt but that this time she was absolutely convinced that she was right and that it was incumbent on her to speak against those “working against the truth, now...” ?

She then implored Trump to have “mercy” on illegal immigrants and trans people; in other words, to reverse his policies and do things her way.

“May god grant us the strength and courage to honour the dignity of every human being, to speak the truth to one another in love, to walk humbly with one another and our god, for the good of all people. Amen.”

It is the nature of hypocrisy that it stains its own garment. Let me quote Dietrich Bonhoeffer on the nature of Christian love.

“To the natural man, the very notion of loving his enemies is an intolerable offence and quite beyond his capacity: it cuts right across his idea of good and evil. ...

“The Christian [on the other hand] must treat his enemy as a brother, and requite his hostility with love...

“By our enemies Jesus means those who are quite intractable and utterly unresponsive to our love, who forgive us nothing when we forgive them all... Love asks nothing in return....

“Christian love draws no distinction between one enemy and another, except that the more bitter our enemy's hatred, the greater his need of love. Be his enmity political or religious he has nothing to expect from a follower of Jesus but unqualified love. ... For God allows his sun to shine upon the just and the unjust....”

“This is the quality whereby the 'better righteousness' exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees. ... [T]he fatal mistake of the false Protestant ethic [was that it] diluted Christian love into patriotism, loyalty to friends and industriousness which, in short, perverted the better righteousness into justitia civilis.”

Does this sound like the attitude Budde was adopting from her pulpit? Was she unconditionally and unqualifiedly embracing Trump in love for him despite his wrongs whatever they may be? Or was she perverting Christian righteousness into mere civil justice?

In other chapters Bonhoeffer discusses condemning the sin while loving the sinner; but one doesn't get to condemning the sin until one first loves the sinner, and there was no love in Budde's entreaty. On the contrary, she was reading Trump the riot act. She knew it, he knew, it the press knew and it was there for all the Democrat peanut gallery to cheer on.

“I was trying to counter the narrative that is so divisive and polarizing” she said afterward, offering a divisive narrative of her own.

(A disclaimer. I, for one, am not so sure that I don't believe that justice is doing good to one's friends and harm to one's enemies. I take stands on things all the time. What I do not do is pretend to be meek and mild and loving of my enemies.)

False Word.

No other Western country is as drunk on religion as the US. As a result, everything is looked at through a moral lens and political issues get distilled into personal homiletics. Nevertheless, up until the 1960's, U.S. political discourse remained mostly secular and practical. For example, the great battle between Republicans and FDR over the role of government in the economy, was fought with many references to the Constitution and to political ideologies...but ne’er once a quote from the Bible or by dragging Jesus into it. All that changed with the Civil Rights movement. It was then that the Negro Gospel seeped into politics, with all its now dog-eared refrains and metaphors.

Of course, the battle had to be waged and segregation had to be ended, but the unfortunate by-product was that “the left” got into habit of thinking that “all politics is personal.” Discussion of the public and common good, got sliced and diced into personal goods: women rights, gay rights, disabled rights, immigrant rights, and the whole litany of victimized personal grievances of “cognized groups.” Common unity got pixellated into a thousand complaints and gimmes. Even conceptions of right got bastardized into entitlements. The Bill of Rights being seen as just an incomplete “bunch” of rights which we can alter, abandon or add to au gout, its fundamental nature being lost in a sea of personal wants, identities and aspirations.

This suited the actual leadership of the Democrat party which are as much capitalist pigs as the Republicans. Far better (and certainly cheaper) to be seen to be making “incremental” progress on personal rights than to tackle structural socio-economic issues (which is sorta fancy way of saying “who gets how much of what pie.”) As I've said elsewhere : if it's not about bread and butter, it's bullshit.

And bullshit has been the Democrat playbook since LBJ ... The proof of this is very simple and incontestable. Whatever progress may have been made on personal civil rights, the fact is that the net worth of the working class of the country has declined and flatlined in real dollar terms while that of the upper 10% has soared. More and more people are making less and less. Oh but we got plenny o' rights.... and rights is plenny fo' me....

It is against this background that Budde's Word has to be gauged.

“Millions have put their trust in you... in the name of our God I ask you to have mercy on the people in our country who are scared. There are gay, lesbian, and transgender children ... who fear for their lives.”

She continued:

“The people who pick our crops, and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meat packing plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants, and work the night shifts in hospitals, they might not be citizens or have the proper documentation.  But the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals... I ask you to have mercy on those who fear that their parents will be taken away."

Of course it is impossible to deny that we should “welcome the stranger” and that we should “suffer the little children” and so on. It would be blasphemous to gainsay the moral clichés of Christianity. But that is not what Budde meant. She was using those clichés as code for policies in the Democratic Party lexicon of distractions.

In the name of our God I ask you to have mercy on the people in our country who are scared...” How can one object to reassuring people who are scared? But she did not mean the people who are scared of eviction because they can't afford skyrocketing rents. She did not mean people who are scared because they can't afford a drug without which they will die. She did not mean people who are scared they can't afford to pay the fine for not having the insurance they couldn't afford.... No. Budde meant ... the fear of gay, lesbians and trans people, the latest pet cognized group of the Democrat party.

By welcoming “the stranger” she mean immigrants from LatinxAmerica. She did not mean Palestinians rendered strangers in their own lands by Israel's brutal ethnic cleansing and running “scared” of the next bunker blaster bomb. Why not. ? Because that would buck a major bi-partisan consensus in favour of aiding and abetting genocide and ethnic cleansing... Not a word about that. Not a word about political and economic issues that affect the country as whole over and beyond the Democrat bugaboos of race, gender, sexual identity. In short, Budde was just pushing the justitia civilis” of the Democrat Party.

If Budde really wanted to thump the bible, she might have thumped the social justice of Ezekiel,

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” Ezekiel 16:49-50

Not a word about that. Why not? Because she is just an operative for the Kumbaya Division of the Democrat party. Her own website describes her as “an advocate and organizer in support of justice concerns, including racial equity, gun violence prevention, immigration reform, the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ persons, and the care of creation”. Snore.

The basics are always general in nature whereas particulars are always non-essentials. Thus, Ezekiel's "poor and needy" encompasses all types of poverty and all types of needs whereas Budde's "trans people" encompasses less than one percent of the population and her "migrants" don't include the millions of non-immigrants who are in need of basic education, livable wages, affordable housing, healthcare and secure retirement.

Trump was right when he said “"She brought her church into the World of politics in a very ungracious way," "She was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart. Apart from her inappropriate statements, the service was a very boring and uninspiring one.” My sole disagreement is with Trump's statement that Budde was “not very good at her job.” When it comes to false humility and passive aggression, Budde is sans pareil

She has managed to rouse the entire liberal-progressive-left into a chorus of “Go git 'm” while she herself says “won't apologize” for her sermon. So much for humility in unity.

The role of clerical religion in politics is an interesting topic. There are those who think religion should confine itself to the spiritual and those who thing that religion must be politically active...even Marxist. Throughout most of our history clerics have confined themselves to platitudes phrased in general terms. But increasingly this moderation and restraint is being cast aside. The rabbi's invocation at the inaugural was all but a battle cry for Israeli Lebensraum. And into this fray steps Budde's peddling Democrat social policies wrapped in the tissue of Christian charity. All I can say is that Budde did a better job of humble hypocrisy than the rabbi. One should be fooled by neither.

©2025, WCG

A Prayer for Aaron Bushnell

On Thursday night, I had this notion to pray “for” Aaron Bushnell; that is, to assist him in some way. However, I have never been comfortable with the idea of intercessional prayers. The idea comes laden with all sorts of unprovable assumptions: that Aaron still exists, to be helped; that anything I can do could help or initiate help for him; and last, but not least: if God knoweth all and loveth all what need has he of me tell him what his job should be? So then, who am I really helping here, Aaron or myself and my own disturbed feelings at his distressed feelings which led him to take his life on account of the beneath human putrifaction that rules in Jerusalem, Washington and the decrepit West.

So apart from this jumble of thought and intentions, how should I start my prayer? It seemed to me that I had to envision Aaron going up in flames and hear in my mind's ear his shouting “Free Palestine!” And that is what I did, but no sooner I did it than it seemed too “hot” to get too close too. And “hot” was the least of it... I don't want to say “darkness” but there was a kind a sacra off-limits about what was going on beneath those flames. So then, I thought: am I strong enough for this ... to carry on with this intention? Am I courageous enough to bring the inner essence of his suicide close to my own innermost self?

At this point I just gave up and started to intone silently: have mercy on him, have mercy on him. ... I did not mean have mercy on him for his having done some wrong. I meant “mercy” in the sense of “shower him with your loving kindness.” I had no idea whether what he did was right or wrong. All I knew was that it was an ultimate sacrifice which by nature is beyond ordinary limits and therefore in a place where most of us do not go to.

And then, “have mercy on him” became “have mercy on me.” As for whether any or this helped Aaron... I have no idea. I hope so. I wish him well.

----

On further consideration, I have concluded that Aaron Bushnell did the right and noble thing. I am disgusted to the core at MediaControl's attempt to diminish his sacrifice by calling into question his mental stability. At least Madame Gnu was honest enough to forthrightly display her repulsiveness by calling self-immolating monks, “human babacue.”

I get to my conclusion rather simply and by analogy. During the Great War, young men on both sides of the death-strip went “over the top” for God, King and Country. They did so knowing full well that there was an 87.3625% chance that they wouldn't make it

Eine Kugel kam geflogen
Gilt sie mir oder gilt sie dir?

I would not be the first to say that, over those trenches, Christian Civilization committed suicide. Or as Marine Corp sergeant Daniel Daly put it, rather less poetically, "Come on, you sons-o'-bitches, do you want to live forever?"

Either way, we honour the men who chose not to live forever; and we do so, if we are sensible, regardless of which side they were on because what matters is that they chose to give their all. Soldiers understand this. Unfortunately, civilians “bawling allegiance to the state” do not.

I personally agree with the cause for which Aaron Bushnell immolated himself. It is too early to tell if it was a futile act or if it will let loose a chain of consequences that will alter things. But in either case you cannot ask more of a man than that he give his all; and for having given it, he deserves God's rewarding mercy.

©

Inner Emigration

During the World War a number of German intellectuals, writers, pastors, professors and even army officers practiced what was later described as inner emigration -- an interior withholding of consent to the policies and actions of the regime.

Inner emigration is not the same as underground resistance. The latter is affirmative action against a regime by stealth, surprise or subversion. Inner emigration, by contrast, is simply a private posture, a kind of “I'm here but not here” thing. Resistance presupposes hope; inner emigration, hopelessness.

Inner emigration was not limited to “good Germans.” In the 1960's large portions of American youth emigrated inwardly -- they were known as “Hippies.” Giving the maximum possible credit where credit is due, hippies realized not only that the system was evil and corrupt but, worse yet, impermeable. Confessing their political powerlessness, they tuned in and dropped out.

The occasional justification for this posturing was that by dropping out they were creating an “alternative” culture and society. But this was a mirage. The evil system quickly found ways to commodify and subsume the alternative; so that, in the end, hippies ended up perusing NiftyStuff Catalogues, buying Volvo's and “sensibly” investing in real estate, all the while assuring themselves that, unlike their square parents, they had (somehow) protested the war.

I don't want to come down too hard on the hippies; for, it has to be said in the 1970's a wave of religiosity also swept over the the United States. The two phenomena were related, but the religious one gave up all pretence of being, or forming or leading to an alernative society. It was simply the Big Drop into Self, most perfectly exemplified by the mindless Hare Krishna chanters on Powell and Market or in airports. Be that as it was, from chanting, to Zen, to Pentecostalism, to the New Jesus Movement, to TM and EST and a hundred obscure spiritual sects people gave up on politics and fell to micro managing their inner selves. The war makers, financiers and mass marketters could not have been happier.

“What is that?” my mother asked. “It's a zafu,” I replied. “What's a zaahfoo?” “It's a meditation cushion.” “You don't need a cushion to meditate,” she scathingly replied. But I'm not meditating! I protested; and, in truth I have never been able to meditate for more than 30 seconds. I just wanted to decorate the house a la japonnaise. But no one should doubt the ability of “the system” to merchandize and hence emasculate anything.

Not surprisingly, in the late 1970's various French historians began to wonder if this all had not happened before; and, of course it had, the result being a series of books on the “interiorization” of “political” life, known as the rise of Christianity and the fall of the Ancient world -- one chapter being dedicated in all seriousness, to the “advent” of private toilets in lieu of public ones.

In Europe, the rise of private toilets did actually lead to the evolution of an alternative civitas, known as Visigothic, Ostro- Gallo- or Germano-Roman depending on one's preference of labels. But in the 1970's the American Empire was far from collapsing and, instead, the forces that be found ways to evolve a totally kitsch politics -- an activism based on symptomatic issues (organic food, smoking and smog) and personal entitlements, sub nom “civil rights.” At the same time, the rulers of the country liberalized the market, exempting corporations from all sense of civic responsibility and enacted an all-volunteer military, thereby exempting individuals from the otherwise minimum obligations of citizenship. The result: individuals could pursue their “entitlements;” business could pursue its profits, and the government could pursue its wars without there ever again being any push-back.

At least until this past October. The announced and blatantly executed genocide carried out by the Trio from Hell was so grotesque that it provoked universal condemnation from the ordinary people and lesser states of the world. Unfortunately, the situation has only served to illustrate how actually powerless the people of democratic societies actually are and how completely entrenched the neo-liberal and neo-con rulership is. Over the past 50 years they have so totally atomized the substance of “civic society” and so completely dominated the levers and avenues of political and cultural power that the protests for all their anger and moral force are but a drizzle over the landscape. The impunity with which Western leaders insult the protestors, blatantly lie to the public and, in Israel's case, say things that would make a Nazi blush (oh yes; oh yes) indicate that they are not in the least worried that their nefarious designs will be interrupted. Even the Yellow Vests provoked a more serious response from the state.

So...we are once again faced with the German question: what to do when one is powerless to do anything? It is a moral dilemma to which I do not have an answer.

I trust it will not sound too effete when I say that there can be no doubt that “exposing” one's self to the horrible images of Israel's brutality in Gaza produces a form of PTSD. It is not as acute as the trauma of actually being there, but it is also a trauma that is not compensated for with adrenaline. The result is a kind of masturbatory fetish where one goes back for more thinking that knowing is at least “being responsible” when in fact knowing does nothing but underscore the impossibility of accomplishing anything. On the other hand, “tuning out” and ignoring the inhuman savagery while one goes about one's life unhindered and unimpeded, traipsing through strawberry fields, is form of indifference that is itself inhumane and criminal... all excuses aside.

So ... 1970's redux. I will only say that if anyone thinks private toilets or chanting mantras on street corners will make an “unseen” difference, I can only say that that is an illusion. Whether one is up to it or not, if one is honest, there is no emigrating from this fight.

©

With Burning Regret

"Hezbollah is making mistakes, and the citizens of Lebanon will be the ones to pay the price," Israeli defence minister Galant said. "What we do in Gaza we can do in Beirut."

Well now... what exactly IS Israel doing Gaza? Let us not ask Antonio Guterres. Let us not ask millions of protestors around the world. Let us not even ask Manuel Macron. No. Let us ask the Israeli government.

According to them they are "targeting" Hamas leaders and fighters.

Target v. "to select as an object of attention or attack."

In other words, they are taking their 155mm artillery shells and MK80-JDAM guided 2000lb bombs and "aiming" them at coordinates where a Hamas leader or unit is supposedly located.

WE ARE NOT "AIMING" AT CIVILIANS!!!! WE WOULD NEVER DO SUCH A OUTRAGEOUS, INHUMANE THING.

Certainly the Israeli High Command know that the precisely targeted 2000lb bunker-buster-bombs cause tremendous collateral damage; but that, they argue, is immaterial because they do not "INTEND" to target civilians and, absent intent, there is no crime.

The same is said with respect to the use of white phosphorous which, the Israelis claim, is only intended to light up the battle-scene not to burn anyone to the bone.

They insist hotly, earnestly, adamantly and to the point of outrage and anger they they do not INTEND to cause civilian casualties, although they admit, with deep regret, that collateral civilian casualties are caused.

That's their argument.

 

Okee dokee; so cometh now Gallant and says: "What we DO in Gaza we can DO in Beirut."

Does anyone catch the difference between "what we INTEND" and "what we DO;" between "what we are trying to do" and what we are doing" ?

Gallant knows perfectly well that what Israel DOES in Gaza is (to date) kill 10,000 civilians, and reduce a city to rubble. In so saying he admits to his real intent.

Let us bend over backwards and suppose that when it began the bombing of Gaza Israel had no idea what the collateral damage of its "targeted" missiles and bombs would be. My golly!!! We wish the Amis had warned us how destructive these things were. We had no idea!

Okay... but they know now, and it threatening to DO to Beirut what they did DO to Gaza, Gallant is threatening mass civilian deaths. And he does so without any qualms.

He takes pride in his threat. What I can DO, I will DO!!! It has a godlike ring to it, does it not?

And lest there be any doubt; whereas Gaza is located in Gaza, Beirut is 60 miles from the border with Israel and 60 miles from the Hezbollah units firing on the border.

Out of their own mouths, by the very words they used, they have admitted to DOing war crimes in Gaza.

©

A Letter to the Pope: Deus non vult!

21 October 2023

Your Holiness:

Yourself, Patriarch Bartholomew, Patriarch Kirill, Archbishop Justin Welby, all bishops of the Church and all leaders of Christian Denominations must unanimously and unequivocally condemn the State of Israel's disproportionate and genocidal response to the Hamas act of terror on October 7th.

If you fail to do so, then never again presume to criticise his Holiness Pope Pius XII.

I am an insignificant nobody without the least influence over my corrupt and corrupted leaders or the swill of our mainstream media. But it is intolerable to sit at my computer and watch the mass destruction and slaughter of a ghetto on live-stream. "Never again" Really?

Your condemnations must not be equivocal or hedged with false balance. The Israeli defence minister called the Palestinians "animals." Indeed, a cornered animal will act irrationally. But who did the cornering? A disproportionate response to a criminal act is itself a war crime and when that disproportionality destroys, displaces and degrades an entire population with willfully indiscriminate intent that is genocide.

Those of you who presume to speak in Christ's name, must speak out now. Only your united veto can put a stop to the barbarism of our secular leaders.

Respectfully,

©